Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Shouldn't social welfare take care of those kids?

[scrdest]

Shouldn't social welfare take care of those kids?

Should =/= will. And even then:
a) this is a moral question, it doesn't need to refer specifically to the sociopolitical context of the US - in a situation like this, moral or immoral?
b) even if they DO, the kids will be traumatized - more or less, but still.

[Nadaka]

No. Procreation is a basic human right. Ethically I can't see any justification for its permanent infringement by forced sterilization.

OK - let's say we have an alcoholic woman who, despite being unable to support them, keeps giving births to children - whether due to ignorance or indifference - which are later forced to live on the streets, and that's if they survive. Justified or not, and why?

No. Not justified. That constitutes child abuse and negligence which would result in the children being removed from the household along with criminal charges and either jail time and/or probationary treatment of the root causes of her problems, addiction/etc. For the most extreme of cases, birth control as a requirement of probation provides a non-permanent solution.

[scriver]

Of all countries Sweden - you know, the very model of a socialdemocratic European state - had had a nationwide eugenics/forcible sterilization program until 1975.

For some reason, the Swedish elite was very much in love with the racial-biologist idea of an Aryan Master Race.

Swedish governments is still sterilizing transsexual people who wants to change gender as a direct consequence of those old programmes. We had the opportunity to change it one or two years ago, but despite 6/8s of the Riksdag parties supporting such a change it fell through because the main government (the Moderates) party wanted to indulge the Christian Democrat party and made their coalition vote against it. The Christian Democrats, the smallest party in the coalition, were also the only one's in it to oppose the change (the other opposer were the far-right Nazi party). I guess the Moderates thought they wouldn't loose too much opinion by letting the CDs have their way with this one thing. So they went against what they themselves believed was right and pushed the question up another 20 or so years, iirc.

The CDs have since changed their official opinion on the matter (The party leader changed the policy after he had won an internal power struggle against an extremist challenger) - just a few months after the old vote. So now all the people who will have to be sterilized in order to get a gender change in the coming 20 years will be happy to now a 95% majority of the Riksdag supports a change and still won't actually do anything about it!

[Frumple]

No. Procreation is a basic human right. Ethically I can't see any justification for its permanent infringement by forced sterilization.

Mm. It occasionally comes up that a life saving medical procedure that would result in sterility needs to be performed on a patient that can't give consent. I'd probably say the doctors that performing those operations are ethically justified in doing so. It's still still sterilization without consent (which is pretty much the definition of forced, yes?), but it's fairly well justified.

'Course, the more interesting ethical scenario is when the patient can give consent, but chooses not to -- preferring death to sterility. Since that'd more or less be suicide, there's a number of cultures that would deny the patient the right to choose to die. S'also somewhat questionable if a doctor can let someone die in a situation like that, perhaps.

[Vector]

Honestly... ?  I think we have the right to choose our own deaths.  It seems absurd to disallow it.

[scriver]

In cases of "choose death or treatment you don't want", then yes, I agree (here the true conflict is between people's right to a dignified death versus the medical folks right to not have to kill who they want to "save"/treat). In other cases, not so much, but I don't think you'd were making such broad generalisations? I ask to keep things from derailing into a general euthanasia debate.

[Vector]

Actually... no.  I believe in euthanasia as well.

But in that instance, I was chiefly speaking to a "DNR" sort of situation.

[Frumple]

Honestly... ?  I think we have the right to choose our own deaths.  It seems absurd to disallow it.

I'd agree, but there's a pretty large amount of folks that wouldn't. There's also certainly laws on the books disallowing it in many cases, re: suicide prevention, ferex. But yeah, discussion of that would derail into a different debate. I'd definitely be cool with dropping it.

[Dutchling]

Huehuehue. This reminds me of Santorum claiming half the Dutch people die of involuntary euthanasia and the we all kill our elderly family members for their monnies or something. I'm still sad that dude's not your president, as it would have been incredibly hilarious.

[Moghjubar]

Amazing... Pentagon is going to be letting gay soldiers ~10 days off to go to states that allow gay marriage to marry.

http://www.newser.com/article/da81k8no0/pentagon-plan-would-grant-benefits-to-same-sex-spouses-but-deny-them-to-unmarried-gay-couples.html

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Huehuehue. This reminds me of Santorum claiming half the Dutch people die of involuntary euthanasia and the we all kill our elderly family members for their monnies or something. I'm still sad that dude's not your president, as it would have been incredibly hilarious.

Well, prepare to be disappointed forever, then. He would have lost even more spectacularly than Romney did. Last I heard of him he was ranting about how acknowledging the existence of the class divide is Marxist rhetoric.

[Nadaka]

Amazing... Pentagon is going to be letting gay soldiers ~10 days off to go to states that allow gay marriage to marry.

http://www.newser.com/article/da81k8no0/pentagon-plan-would-grant-benefits-to-same-sex-spouses-but-deny-them-to-unmarried-gay-couples.html

Not that amazing, the only thing holding them back was DOMA.

[Loud Whispers]

Honestly... ?  I think we have the right to choose our own deaths.  It seems absurd to disallow it.

I'd disagree, many times it is the moral option for doctors to disallow patients the option to let themselves die, and they save their lives anyways because the patient is not thinking with a clear head when they are sick and in pain. Then of course the alternative is to allow perfectly healthy people to kill themselves.
I can't get over that, I don't think this should be legalized.

[Sheb]

Or patients with depression for example.