22BUK

From yesterday's Charlotte Observer newspaper:

"Between 1929 and 1974, the state - through the N.C. Eugenics Board - authorized the sterilizations of some 7,600 North Carolinians who were classified as mentally ill, epileptic or "feebleminded."
Now, key state officials are leading an effort to compensate people who were sterilized, under the idea that many of the operations were medically unnecessary and morally wrong. But after more than a year of searching, the state has matched just 41 survivors to its records."

With the world's population reaching 7 billion, why did they stop in 1974?

Luan Pra bang

Frankly I think the whole population of both Carolinas should be sterilised.

CREWJ

We could just invent a Darwin law

Coffin Dodger

Could use that argument to slow down the rise of the under-classes in this country. I know it's everyone's right to procreate if they wish but things would be so much easier if you were temporarily sterilised at birth and were only allowed to have the clamps removed if you attend parenting lessons, pass a test at the end of it, and prove that you have the means available to support a child

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

I think Scunthorpe's population would be approx. 5% of what it is currently

Infact the UK's population would be about 2 million IMAGINE THE BACKROADS

CREWJ

I think we've just made a huge leap forward for Britain!

Let's put it to the HoC!

Leslie

That statement is redolent of the ****'s adoption of the term "Untermensch" from the American author's book as an excuse to do away with people who suffer from the above ailments.

It is a disgraceful attitude to take of course, no one has the moral right to alter a person's bodily functions in such a manner because of their mental or physical abilities and who cannot speak up for themselves. Only a short step to killing them off as in fact the ***** did of course.

It is becomiong a serious worry about the steps some people are prepared to take these days having achieved such a level of personal power.

Les

JDM_Stig

iTrader: (3)

Not even for repeat offenders of paedophilia or rapists maybe ?

Tidgy

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Trouble is, in this country there is a kind of reverse Eugenics going on, if people pay their own way, buy a house and contribute to society they generally need two salaries to do so, for a lot of couples one of them giving up work causes financial hardship so they get stuck, unable to commit to having kids for years where the "underclass" just breed with inpunity, safe in the knowledge they will get state handouts, a house and everything they need.

Not saying this is the case for everyone and that anyone in council housing is not a valid member of socirty but just go down to any shopping centre and see some of the young mothers pushing prams, barely adults themselves, I was 24 when the first child arrived and I was ill prepared despite being married, employed and educated, god knows how a 15 year old school dropout who isnt very bright manages.

Leslie

Yes of course.

There are other penalties which can be at least as unpleasant and can be considered morally acceptable.

Les

CREWJ

Alas, this is the world we live in

22BUK

+1

Mississippi is voting today on whether to define a "person" as beginning at the moment of conception which would ban abortions completely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...it?INTCMP=SRCH

I despair of this country sometimes.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I think my reply was a bit simplistic, I dotn actually think only the middle clases should breed and anyone, regardless of background may turn out to be a genius but it does seem sewed in favour of those with no aspirations beyond a state funded existence, you tend to pass your expectations on to your kids so its easy to see how generation after generation aspire to instant gratification, idleness and getting something for nothing.

Leslie

I think Mississipee is quite right with their definition.

As soon as the ovum is fertilised and the cells start to subdivide, that has to be the beginning of the life of that being.

All that business of it being when the baby takes its first breath is wrong and is used purely for convenience.

Les

22BUK

Quite sensibly, Mississippi has rejected the proposal.
58% said "No".

Mississippi has eight times as many Baptists as Catholics

http://www.clarionledger.com/misc/el...ctioninit.html

Leslie

Well I have no knowledge of the finer points of the Baptist religion so cannot comment on the significance of your figures.

I am however entitled to think for my own personal reasons that killing an unborn child is not only unfair but wrong. Religion does not enter into my opinion.

Les

Coffin Dodger

Hmmm, I think a cut off point may be required though... Days and even weeks into fertilisation it is just a bunch of cells, however after a certain amount of months into the gestation a baby will react to external stimulation (e.g. music, voices, etc.) while in the womb.

When the missus had the scans for ours if any severe anomalies were detected (e.g. Downs Syndrome) then my immediate reaction would have been to get an abortion and then try again. The missus was initially adamant that she would have the baby no matter what but if confronted with the facts I'm not so sure she would stick with that. Luckily our boy was normal(ish) I do however think that it is all part of the natural survival and strengthening of the species the fact that medical science can now tell us if there is a problem and we can make that choice. In the wild a deformed infant would probably die within a few weeks or months anyway.

Leslie

All down to personal feelings of course. I am glad I was given my chance anyway.

Les