Buck v. Bell

[Hagbard Celine]

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), was the United States Supreme Court ruling that upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded "for the protection and health of the state." It was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

I was thoroughly surprised to find out about this. It seems to me that re-instituting this practice might be a good thing.

I love the famous quote by the Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. : "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

[Nukeman]

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), was the United States Supreme Court ruling that upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded "for the protection and health of the state." It was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

I was thoroughly surprised to find out about this. It seems to me that re-instituting this practice might be a good thing.

I love the famous quote by the Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. : "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Most mentaly challenged people dont procreate so this really isn't an issue. Now if your willing to say the al those DImocrats should get sterlized than hey step on up.... just kidding

I dont believe in the forced sterliaztion of anyone unless they are convicted of killing thier own children, than it should be mandatory

Also I would comment on the fact that this was a very ignorant time inthe world and the US. We have come a long way since this type of thought was common place....

[Hagbard Celine]

I knew one of you would turn this into a Libs/Cons beat-off fest, I just didn't think it would be on the very first post. Congrats on lowering the bar once again.

You don't think three-striker criminals, poverty-stricken baby factories living on welfare and the like should be sterilized?

[Nukeman]

I knew one of you would turn this into a Libs/Cons beat-off fest, I just didn't think it would be on the very first post. Congrats on lowering the bar once again.

You don't think three-striker criminals, poverty-stricken baby factories living on welfare and the like should be sterilized?

Obviously you missed the "just kidding" there didn't yaa sparky. To quote Sargent Hulka from Stripes "Lighten Up there Frances"

You know I dont believe they should be "sterlized" however there are other types of control. for one any woman or man for that matter on any type of assistance should not be allowed to claim any more children than they start with. One thing that could be done for the woman is that in order to recieve state funds they must recieve a depro prevara shot. This is one of the best types of birthcontrol.

The three strikers I dont think should be sterlized either. You do know that some of those "three strikers" are in for minor drugs and other stupid stuff. Hey this is just my oppinion

[Hagbard Celine]

Obviously you missed the "just kidding" there didn't yaa sparky. To quote Sargent Hulka from Stripes "Lighten Up there Frances"

You know I dont believe they should be "sterlized" however there are other types of control. for one any woman or man for that matter on any type of assistance should not be allowed to claim any more children than they start with. One thing that could be done for the woman is that in order to recieve state funds they must recieve a depro prevara shot. This is one of the best types of birthcontrol.

The three strikers I dont think should be sterlized either. You do know that some of those "three strikers" are in for minor drugs and other stupid stuff. Hey this is just my oppinion

I'm glad that you don't demonize guys in on drug charges. I get what ur sayin', but what about violent criminals or rapists (is there a difference?). Wouldn't it be fitting to keep them from procreating?

[glockmail]

I knew one of you would turn this into a Libs/Cons beat-off fest, I just didn't think it would be on the very first post. Congrats on lowering the bar once again.

You don't think three-striker criminals, poverty-stricken baby factories living on welfare and the like should be sterilized?

I think we should kill all violent murderers, so sterilization would not be necessary. Regards to felons and baby factories, only in extreme cases.

BTW with regards to the dimocrats remark, we don't have to sterilize them as they are aborting themselves out of existance. Hail Roe V. Wade.

[nevadamedic]

I think we should kill all violent murderers, so sterilization would not be necessary. Regards to felons and baby factories, only in extreme cases.

BTW with regards to the dimocrats remark, we don't have to sterilize them as they are aborting themselves out of existance. Hail Roe V. Wade.

You left out rapists, they all should get the death penalty as well. When they rape or molest someone they are killing a part of them.

As far as sterilization I don't think the Government has the right to do that anmore.

[Psychoblues]

You children!!!!!! I love all you children!!!!!!!!!

[Nukeman]

You children!!!!!! I love all you children!!!!!!!!!

and why prey tell are we "children" in your opinion...

You are such a drunk ass!!!!!!!!!!!

[KarlMarx]

The Nazis did much the same thing, except they permanently sterilized the retarded by killing them in mass quantities.

[Hagbard Celine]

The Nazis did much the same thing, except they permanently sterilized the retarded by killing them in mass quantities.

They practiced eugenics in order to make their "race" stronger. But as Buck v. Bell demonstrates, so did we until about the time we started fighting Naziism.

[manu1959]

You left out rapists, they all should get the death penalty as well. When they rape or molest someone they are killing a part of them.

As far as sterilization I don't think the Government has the right to do that anmore.

some sex offenders accept sterilization as a condition of release

[manu1959]

They practiced eugenics in order to make their "race" stronger. But as Buck v. Bell demonstrates, so did we until about the time we started fighting Naziism.

a competitive capitalistic society would do the same thing.....except we have welfare, food stamps and thousands of social programs that prevent the gene pool from strengthen.....because we actually reward the inept

[diuretic]

I used to love the looks on my student's faces when I gave them the material on eugenics and included this case and Oliver Wendell Holmes' statement. They had no idea of the extent of eugenics in the US at that time. But to be fair it was big in the UK as well at that time. The medical profession in Germany under the Nazi regime was extremely enthusiastic about it and that was even before the Holocaust/Shoah.

[glockmail]

a competitive capitalistic society would do the same thing.....except we have welfare, food stamps and thousands of social programs that prevent the gene pool from strengthen.....because we actually reward the inept

Absolutely. Socialism reverses the evolution and progress of man. But we've had this conversation before, as I recall.