Judge Orders Deadbeat Dad Of Nine (With Six Women) To Stop Procreating: Should Government Order Castrations?
Fef
2012/12/05 01:42:04
|
|
|||||
|
32 votes
|
|
43% | |||
|
42 votes
|
|
57% | |||
Deadbeat dads and criminals who create children dependent on the state/government cause a burden for all of society. Several judges have ordered deadbeat dads to stop procreating -- but have not done anything to physically prevent the men from having more kids.
One can argue that society benefits from castrating men who repeatedly commit rape or pedophilia. It would prevent victims of sex crimes from getting pregnant.
Wikipedia describes castration:
Should government have the power to castrate criminals to prevent welfare recipients or pregnancy from rape? What type of crimes deserve castration?
THESMOKINGGUN.COM reports:
One can argue that society benefits from castrating men who repeatedly commit rape or pedophilia. It would prevent victims of sex crimes from getting pregnant.
Wikipedia describes castration:
Castration (also referred to as yelding, spaying, neutering, fixing, orchiectomy, oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testicles or a female loses the functions of the ovaries.
Should government have the power to castrate criminals to prevent welfare recipients or pregnancy from rape? What type of crimes deserve castration?
THESMOKINGGUN.COM reports:
Public Documents, Mug Shots
Read More: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/wisconsin/judi...
Top Opinion
-
Heffeweizen 2012/12/05 01:51:50Castrate
+11Actually I'm not sure, it's getting into a moral gray area. My immediate thought, is that if you can't keep it in your pants and behave like an animal, then you should be treated as an animal.
![[VIDEO] Flying Drone With Handgun: Protected by Second Amendment?](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003754845/Drone-Gun-Video-111595454537_large.png "[VIDEO] Flying Drone With Handgun: Protected by Second Amendment?")
I think we all need to remember the embarrassment of Buck v. Bell when we talk about something like this:
Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool.
The Supreme Court has never expressly overruled Buck v. Bell. However, in the last 50 years, both federal and state courts have severely criticized and questioned the legal reasoning underlying the decision. See cases collected in Jeffrey F. Ghent, "Validity of statutes authorizing asexualization or sterilization of criminals or mental defectives," 53 A.L.R.3d 960.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When a subject like this comes up, people seem to overlook the fact that it is the WOMAN who is responsible for becoming pregnant. She should bear the most responsibility since a man CANNOT GET PREGNANT! Let's call it like it is...
The history of eugenics is not a happy one. In America it was used against blacks in the South and, in Nazi Germany, against the Jews and the Gypsies.
I have yet to see a decent pro-eugenics argument put forward.
last refuge of the brainless - play the Hitler card.