Ethics of Forced Sterilization

@coolcubed,

If government has the power to do that, that what is to stop it from doing that to you or anyone innocent?

What if later they found a offender to be not guilty of the crime?

I don't think it's a good idea.

0 Replies

@coolcubed,

That's one of the most frightening propositions that I can think of -- that the government -- any government -- could have the right to forcibly sterilize a person for whatever reason. It starts out by saying, "This is a convicted sex offender; he should not be allowed to procreate." It eventually develops into "This is person who doesn't meet the minimum standards of parenthood that we have established; we can't allow tis person to procreate." And it goes on. "We have too many red-headed people in our population now; let's sterilize all red-heads." And so on.

An abominable idea.

1 Reply

@coolcubed,

ethics is all to truth rights as the exclusive reason for existence to b real

criminals are clearly objectively identified, but u cant speculate of crimes bc of truth superiority that we cant know while existence is to truth rights

still there is our freedom rights from existence as long as we are relatively existing through existence rights realities
so we can speculate for relative freedom rights and that is the base justification of self defense

and that is why governments powers in pointin a general execution of negative decision, sound extremely vulgar fake of being certainly absolutely nothing to existence

when a kind of one superior power exist as able to realize a present add on a whole ground, how is that add could b negative, contrary to the definition of add to b exclusively plus
disgusting and frightening at the same time
**** u

0 Replies

@coolcubed,

coolcubed wrote:

I don't see what's wrong with it....

Don't you? Off the top of my head, I can think of these:

1. Wrong practically: it doesn't "purify the human race" in the way that its proponents allege, and even if it did, there remains the fundamental question of who gets to decide how the race needs improving.

2. Wrong morally: subjecting people to unnecessary and unwanted surgery is a bad thing.

3. Wrong legally: subjecting people to surgery or other treatment that they have not consented to is against the law in most if not all jurisdictions.

4. Wrong professionally: Codes of conduct for medical practitioners in most if not all countries forbid treatment as in (3).

Seeing, or not seeing "what is wrong" with a proposed act or policy is on one level a moral judgement. I cannot imagine the combination of ignorance and perverted morality that could lead you to see "nothing wrong" in forced sterilization. Thus I conclude that your remark quoted above is merely intended to be provocative.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

That's one of the most frightening propositions that I can think of -- that the government -- any government -- could have the right to forcibly sterilize a person for whatever reason. It starts out by saying, "This is a convicted sex offender; he should not be allowed to procreate." It eventually develops into "This is person who doesn't meet the minimum standards of parenthood that we have established; we can't allow tis person to procreate." And it goes on. "We have too many red-headed people in our population now; let's sterilize all red-heads." And so on.

An abominable idea.

Perhaps my question was too vague.

I get your slippery slope argument, but I was more asking "Is there anything ethically wrong with a government sterilizing violent offenders in itself?"

I was not suggesting that such a course of action would be wise or practical, I was merely pondering the moral implications of forced sterilization on a hypothetical level.

1 Reply

@coolcubed,

contrex has already alluded to the moral/ethical objections to involuntary sterilization. I would add that, IMO, any decision about personal choices that a government is allowed to make regarding any individual is, ipso facto immoral, unethical and -- to use an emotionally charged term -- yes, evil.

0 Replies

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

1. Wrong practically: it doesn't "purify the human race" in the way that its proponents allege, and even if it did, there remains the fundamental question of who gets to decide how the race needs improving.

1. You can't deny that the child of a criminal will be more likely to lead a criminal life, an idea which is the reason why sterilization works. Also, a democratic government which is representative of its people should be able to decide how sterilization should be used. After all, we already trust our governments with far more important things.

contrex wrote:

2. Wrong morally: subjecting people to unnecessary and unwanted surgery is a bad thing.

2. However, it could be argued that holding someone against their will in a confined space is immoral, and yet we have prisons. It is a generally held view that criminals have violated the social contract and are therefore not deserving of all the same rights as ordinary citizens (i.e. Liberty). So why not the right to procreate?

I feel that the fact that it takes a surgery to sterilize a person is somewhat irrelevant. If the government could wave their hands and sterilize a person, that would make the act itself no more or less moral.

contrex wrote:

3. Wrong legally: subjecting people to surgery or other treatment that they have not consented to is against the law in most if not all jurisdictions.

Something isn't wrong simply because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong. However, Forced sterilization of repeat offenders was common practice in the U.S. up until the 1920s, and the court case responsible for the addition of the right to procreate into the constitution(Skinner v.s. Oklahoma, 1927) was won not because forced sterilization was seen as immoral, but because the judge felt the law was unfair, since it did not mandate the sterilization of "white-collar" criminals.

contrex wrote:

4. Wrong professionally: Codes of conduct for medical practitioners in most if not all countries forbid treatment as in (3).

4. See points 2 and 3.

contrex wrote:

Seeing, or not seeing "what is wrong" with a proposed act or policy is on one level a moral judgement. I cannot imagine the combination of ignorance and perverted morality that could lead you to see "nothing wrong" in forced sterilization. Thus I conclude that your remark quoted above is merely intended to be provocative.

I am not ignorant, nor am I attempting to be provocative. I myself am not a supporter of compulsory sterilization or eugenics, but I think that it is important to play the devil's advocate sometimes in order to be as objective as possible. You should know that I respect your ideas and your arguments.

2 Replies

@coolcubed,

Quote:

I myself am not a supporter of compulsory sterilization

i am.....those with severe genetic defects with a high likelihood of being transmitted to a new generation should face the choice of either agreeing to be responsible with monitoring or else they should be forcibly sterilized. we can argue the degree of defect and the likelihood of transmission before this law is triggered, but the principle is morally righteous.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

the principle being that one generation does not have carte blanche to abuse the next generation simply because they are not yet here able to defend themselves.

0 Replies

coolcubed, stop being a wanker.

0 Replies

@coolcubed,

If you're just playing devil's advocate here, there's not much point to the whole discussion, is there?

1 Reply

The next generation is not relative... It does not exist, other than in linear ideology. Which is profoundy subjective and utterly useless.

Eugenics is only acceptable to a system that accepts it. And if you, as a subject of said system, disagree with said system..... Remove yourself therefrom or comply.

Or protest, have a revolution and further the cause for the elitist agenda:)

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

I suppose that depends on whether your idea of a "point" is to mutually further our understanding of ethics through intelligent discussion, or to argue in a futile attempt to convert the other side to your own point of view.
(Then again, if you do want to argue, I'm sure Hawkeye10 will be most happy to accommodate you)

2 Replies

@coolcubed,

Your Ad Hominems won't get you anywhere.

Early eugenicists were largely opponents of birth control. Later on, the eugenic banner was seized by feminists who argued that control over fertility, along with emancipation generally, permitted women to improve the race through sexual selection.
Today few people other than historians of science, appreciate the range of political viewpoints and causes that were once proudly associated with eugenic doctrine. Historical memory of the movement is colored, maybe permanently, by the appropriation of eugenics by the Nazi Party.

So good luck trying to get this off as something ethcial.

0 Replies

@coolcubed,

Unless of course you think human betterment must be done through causing "better" people to be born, rather than directly bettering the people alive today.

Hmmmmm, that sounds familiar, who had that kind of philosophy again?

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Quote:

The next generation is not relative... It does not exist, other than in linear ideology. Which is profoundy subjective and utterly useless.

unless you are convinced that the next generation is not going to exist you have an ethical obligation to look after their best interests, just as your ancestors looked after yours.

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

aspvenom wrote:

Unless of course you think human betterment must be done through causing "better" people to be born, rather than directly bettering the people alive today.

Hmmmmm, that sounds familiar, who had that kind of philosophy again?

What was that about ad hominems again? They won't get you anywhere?
*Cough* Godwin's Law *Cough*

To clarify my personal stance on sterilization, I understand it's potentially beneficial effects on society, but only if it is used in the right way, and it's power is all to likely to be abused.

1 Reply

@coolcubed,

*Cough* Godwin's Law *Cough* *Cough*My ass *Cough* *Cough* Historically *Cough**Cough* connected *Cough**Cough* with *Cough* *Cough* Nazis *Cough*

Any sort of government encouragement of eugenics is objectionable. As for someone personally looking for a partner based upon genetics, fair enough, it's what we do unconsciously anyway.

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

Quote:

Any sort of government encouragement of eugenics is objectionable. As for someone personally looking for a partner based upon genetics, fair enough, it's what we do unconsciously anyway.

individuals dont morally have the right to purposefully make severely genetically defective offspring. The collective has the right to prevent it, especially when the collective picks up the bills for medical care and the lifetime carrying costs for useless individuals.

0 Replies

Ethics of Forced Sterilization

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know