PDA

View Full Version : Sterilization -coerced or forced- =?



revelarts
04-19-2010, 10:45 AM
was feed to 2 stories today.
one about a U.S. Charity that offers drug addicted women $300 to have themselves temporarily or permanently sterilized.

the other is about the population conscious China, that has coraled 10,000 of it's citizens and lined them up for forced sterilizations because they have already broken the 1 child policy.

I hate to see drug addicts with children, it's happened in my family, but it's a real slippery slop from a charity luring addicts (women) with dollars to the gov't mandate these days especially with obama care helping us all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7099417.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164

China tries to sterilise 10,000 parents over one-child rule

Doctors in southern China are working around the clock to fulfil a government goal to sterilise — by force if necessary — almost 10,000 men and women who have violated birth control policies. Family planning authorities are so determined to stop couples from producing more children than the regulations allow that they are detaining the relatives of those who resist.

About 1,300 people are being held in cramped conditions in towns across Puning county, in Guangdong Province, as officials try to put pressure on couples who have illegal children to come forward for sterilisation.

The 20-day campaign, which was launched on April 7, aims to complete 9,559 sterilisations in Puning, which, with a population of 2.24 million, is the most populous county in the province.

A doctor in Daba village said that his team was working flat out, beginning sterilisations every day at 8am and working straight through until 4am the following day.

Zhang Lizhao, 38, the father of two sons, aged 6 and 4, said that he rushed home late last night from buying loquats for his wholesale fruit business to undergo sterilisation after his elder brother was detained. His wife had already returned so that the brother would be freed.

Mr Zhang said: “This morning my wife called me and said they were forcing her to be sterilised today. She pleaded with the clinic to wait because she has her period. But they would not wait a single day. I called and begged them but they said no. So I have rushed back. I am satisfied because I have two sons.”

Thousands of others have refused to submit and officials are continuing to detain relatives, including elderly parents, to force them to submit to surgery. Those in detention are required to listen to lectures on the rules limiting the size of families. ....


http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1981916,00.html

Why Drug Addicts Are Getting Sterilized for Cash
By William Lee Adams Saturday, Apr. 17, 2010
...As with other addicts, the road to recovery for Chavarria began with counseling and a drug rehabilitation program. Less orthodox, however, was her decision to undergo a tubal ligation. "Addicts in my situation need to get their tubes tied," she says. "When you stop having kids it makes you think about what else you can do in life." (See the best and worst moms of all time.)

Chavarria had the procedure done after meeting with Project Prevention, a North Carolina-based charity that gives drug addicts $300 if they go on long-term birth control or undergo sterilization. The aim of Barbara Harris, 57, the organization's controversial founder, is to prevent addicts from having children they can't care for and reduce the number of babies born exposed to drugs. "Even if their babies are fortunate enough not to have mental or physical disabilities, they're placed in the foster care system and moved from home to home," she says. "What makes a woman's right to procreate more important than the right of a child to have a normal life?" It's an issue near and dear to Harris: she has adopted four children born to the same crack-addicted woman in Los Angeles.

Established in 1997, Project Prevention has so far worked with 3,371 addicts in the U.S. Of those, 1,253 have opted for tubal ligations or vasectomies. After getting in touch with the organization by calling its toll free hotline (888-30-CRACK), prospective participants must mail in arrest records or official letters from social workers to confirm they have drug problems. Those opting for IUDs or surgical implants receive $100 when the device is inserted and $100 more six months and a year later if the device is still in use. Harris depends on donations to keep the operation going, and word-of-mouth among addicts to find clients. But she also advertises her program by driving around the U.S. in a 30-foot motor home plastered with photos of a dead infant, a razor blade, a line of crack and a pacifier, along with the message: "Some things just don't belong together." (See "The Year in Health 2009.")

Harris now has her eyes on British addicts. On April 7, she flew to London to establish the U.K. wing of her charity and to meet with 12 volunteers. She says she was inspired to branch out after she received 400 supportive e-mails from Brits following an appearance on a BBC Radio 4 program in February. "People said, 'You need to come to the U.K. We need this here,'" she says. "Then shortly after that I received a donation for $20,000 from a man in London. I took it as a sign we had to go." The donor, who has chosen to remain anonymous to avoid potential harassment, told Harris he gave the money to the charity because of his own difficult experiences as an adopted child. (Comment on this story.)

Despite this grassroots support, the group faces widespread criticism from health professionals who work with addicts and women's advocacy groups. ...

pete311
04-19-2010, 11:07 AM
There are A LOT of people out there who should not be passing their genes to the next generation. Over population will become a problem. I say go for it.

darin
04-19-2010, 12:07 PM
There are A LOT of people out there who should not be passing their genes to the next generation. Over population will become a problem. I say go for it.

Eventually politicians will decide. Do you want the leader of the Party or Movement you abhor making reproductive decisions for you? Fascist Much?

Monkeybone
04-19-2010, 12:15 PM
There are A LOT of people out there who should not be passing their genes to the next generation. Over population will become a problem. I say go for it.
in my facist thoughts, i don't see it so much as an overpopulation problem, but if you are on welfare you don't get a kid. or do it like a mortage, you have to have a finicial check. but that would only be if i was dictator.

pete311
04-19-2010, 12:15 PM
How about we sterilize anyone that goes to a federal prison. People will be angels in no time!

revelarts
04-19-2010, 04:15 PM
How about if gov't let people live without getting into all their business. What right does any gov't have to tell anyone how many kids they have?

Maybe the federal gov't is the baby we need to abort, it's "of the people" supposedly.

Before we start decideing that the other guy needs to be sterilized how would you feel if it where you or your daughter being forced becuase someone else decided your family wasn't fit to bred?
Seems to me if freedom means anything that you should be able to decide if your going to have a kid or not. If we're concerned about the community paying for them then that's a different question isn't it? Find a way to keep the money not shackle our neighbors. At the the 1st Virginia settlement there was a way Cap't John Smith handled dead beats, "no work, no eat." simple fair strait forward.

But I do'nt believe the population hype either. I think it may be as big of a scam as Global warming. Many studies show that people are not haveing children even at replacement rates. Land, water and energy issues are over hyped as well it seems.

revelarts
04-20-2010, 10:52 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uqzn0XvhxjY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uqzn0XvhxjY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Trigg
04-22-2010, 06:52 PM
There are A LOT of people out there who should not be passing their genes to the next generation. Over population will become a problem. I say go for it.

Over population is a myth. Look up the fertility rates, out of 195 countries over 70 are below 2.1 which is needed to simply keep the population stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e

Most of the countries that still have out of control fertility are in Africa.

cat slave
04-24-2010, 10:45 PM
Well, I think anyone who is repeatedly producing off spring that they dont
or wont care for, then expect the taxpayer to do it should not be repeatedly
rewarded with continued support.

We could surely use a few smaller gene pools with more trees that have actually
forked!!!!

actsnoblemartin
04-25-2010, 09:59 PM
how did they come up with 2.1?


Over population is a myth. Look up the fertility rates, out of 195 countries over 70 are below 2.1 which is needed to simply keep the population stable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e

Most of the countries that still have out of control fertility are in Africa.

Trigg
04-26-2010, 11:44 AM
how did they come up with 2.1?

from wikipedia


If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44 or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0 (actually slightly higher because of the excess of boy over girl births in human populations). However, the replacement level is also affected by mortality, especially childhood mortality. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[3] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would trend towards zero.

bullypulpit
05-15-2010, 06:25 AM
was feed to 2 stories today.
one about a U.S. Charity that offers drug addicted women $300 to have themselves temporarily or permanently sterilized.

the other is about the population conscious China, that has coraled 10,000 of it's citizens and lined them up for forced sterilizations because they have already broken the 1 child policy.

I hate to see drug addicts with children, it's happened in my family, but it's a real slippery slop from a charity luring addicts (women) with dollars to the gov't mandate these days especially with obama care helping us all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7099417.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164



http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1981916,00.html

You start by assuming that the health care plan signed into law by President Obama is some form of socialized medicine...it's not. It resembles socialism about as much as a fresh steaming pile of dog-crap resembles the fresh, crisp, sweet gala apples I have sitting on the counter. A common, fault of those on the right arguing against health-care reform...They really don't know what socialism or communism is. They just know they scared the crap outta people back during the Cold Ware era with those words, and if it worked then, it should work now. News flash folks...The "Red Menace" is NOT coming to eat your babies.

Secondly, this program of paying women drug abusers to be temporarily, or permanently, sterilized misses the mark. To get at the root of the problem, a treatment component for the drug abuse needs to be in place. Those who successfully complete a drug rehab program and stay clean can have their sterilization reversed. Those who don't, or can't, well tie the tubes.

But this latter course requires something more than a band-aid approach as the case with simply sterilize the women in question. Oh, and men should be offered the same option...complete drug rehab and stay clean or its the "snip-snip" of surgical scissors as the doctor severs the vas deferens, thus rendering them permanently sterile.

revelarts
05-15-2010, 09:15 AM
You start by assuming that the health care plan signed into law by President Obama is some form of socialized medicine...it's not. It resembles socialism about as much as a fresh steaming pile of dog-crap resembles the fresh, crisp, sweet gala apples I have sitting on the counter. A common, fault of those on the right arguing against health-care reform...They really don't know what socialism or communism is. They just know they scared the crap outta people back during the Cold Ware era with those words, and if it worked then, it should work now. News flash folks...The "Red Menace" is NOT coming to eat your babies.


Bully the left and right caricature each others others positions pretty harshly . typically chooses the the worst real life example of the others position and waving that around as the position or thinking of ALL of them. Yes there are blocks of unthinking right wing kool-aid drinkers, almost as many as on the left Bully.

As far as Socialism is concerned , it's been used to describe a lot of shades of Gov't arrangements by all sides. I won't argue with you over how you define it. But I'll just ask you what you call a Health care system defined by elites, politicians and health care companies. that people and small companies are FORCE under penalty of law to participate in and pay for. There are a few items in the law that make sense but over all it stifles medical choice in favor of more gov't planned control and regs. What word do you want to use, democracy? Constitutional republic?
More Gov't control over Health care = a _____________ kind of political system.



Secondly, this program of paying women drug abusers to be temporarily, or permanently, sterilized misses the mark. To get at the root of the problem, a treatment component for the drug abuse needs to be in place. Those who successfully complete a drug rehab program and stay clean can have their sterilization reversed. Those who don't, or can't, well tie the tubes.

But this latter course requires something more than a band-aid approach as the case with simply sterilize the women in question. Oh, and men should be offered the same option...complete drug rehab and stay clean or its the "snip-snip" of surgical scissors as the doctor severs the vas deferens, thus rendering them permanently sterile.

I think treatment is an option, sadly very few treatment programs work. But you still seem to agree that addicts ought to get treatment ... or else "snip snip" . You've brought the men in to make it "fair". Fair gov't control of reproductive freedom is ok with you then Bully? So if you become and addict you give up your reproductive rights to the the state? Sounds kinda Commie don't it Bully?