3 ms·

Forgive me, but I don't understand why this is "despicable". How would this be any different than government incentivized vasectomies? What if they were only su

Forgive me, but I don't understand why this is "despicable". How would this be any different than government incentivized vasectomies? What if they were only subsidized vasectomies. Incentivized birth control? Subsidized birth control? As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing. How is that different? The fact that prisoners are significantly more likely to have mental illnesses (many of which are largely genetically linked) has been extensively researched. It doesn't sound like they're being forced to undergo sterilization. I understand why people might feel uncomfortable about this topic. Genuinely curious why you find this so despicable though.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> How would this be any different than government incentivized vasectomies? Incentivized via jail time is functionally equivalent to criminalizing non-compliance, even when it's characterized as a sentence reduction (it's equivalent to an across the board sentence reduction, with new imprisonment for those who do not cooperate.) It is, in that sense, coercive. > As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing Doing so in threat of imprisonment is also despicable. > As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing Even were sterilization coerced by imprisonment for non-cooperation to acceptable when the person subjected to it had a diagnosed with a genetic disease (which, I should emphasize again, it is not), doing so because of the presence of a traits that has a loose correlation with a broad class of conditions, some of which have a genetic component, would still be significantly less justifiable.
- accountno2 9y ago
  >Doing so in threat of imprisonment is also despicable. I think there's a difference between saying "If you don't undergo sterilization we'll imprison you." and saying "You're already being sent to prison, but if you undergo sterilization you don't have to go for as long." The latter is reasonably comparable to saying "Hi, I'll give you $X if you get a vasectomy." >a loose correlation with a broad class of conditions Anything but. >some of which have a genetic component Most of which.
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  Not that I agree with being given this "choice" and I use the term quite generously here, 1). This is not the same as criminalizing non-compliance because these people are not in jail for refusing a vasectomy. I do not agree with the Judge giving them the opportunity to get out early by surrendering their reproductive rights or my forgoing those rights temporarily in the case of women, these people are in jail for breaking the law not for refusing birth control. 2). I know that there are genetic conditions that cause serious birth defects and a life of unrelenting pain and suffering. I know that sterilization is offered by some in the medical community but I am unaware of anything like that being criminalizes. If it is that is in fact disgusting. 3). At one time people in institutions and those with mental retardation or mental illness have been sterilized without their consent. Times have changed and that is no longer acceptable in the US, thankfully, but even back when this was considered acceptable and widely practiced, it was not criminal for a family to refuse.
mindcrime 9y ago
It doesn't sound like they're being forced to undergo sterilization. Only from a very pedantic viewpoint. Practically speaking, that's what's going on. And the government doesn't need to be in the "sterilization" business at all. It's just not an appropriate role for government. And never mind how de-humanizing this is: to be told, essentially, "you're such a horrible person that we want to make sure you never reproduce". Imagine somebody telling you that and think how it would feel. Now try having some empathy for these prisoners. Genuinely curious why you find this so despicable though. We're talking about the State coercing people into sacrificing their reproductive ability. If you can't see the problem with that, then our worldviews are so different that I can't imagine anything else I can say that would make any difference.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> How would this be any different than government incentivized vasectomies? Incentivized via jail time is functionally equivalent to criminalizing non-compliance, even when it's characterized as a sentence reduction (it's equivalent to an across the board sentence reduction, with new imprisonment for those who do not cooperate.) It is, in that sense, coercive. > As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing Doing so in threat of imprisonment is also despicable. > As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing Even were sterilization coerced by imprisonment for non-cooperation to acceptable when the person subjected to it had a diagnosed with a genetic disease (which, I should emphasize again, it is not), doing so because of the presence of a traits that has a loose correlation with a broad class of conditions, some of which have a genetic component, would still be significantly less justifiable.

accountno2 9y ago
>Doing so in threat of imprisonment is also despicable. I think there's a difference between saying "If you don't undergo sterilization we'll imprison you." and saying "You're already being sent to prison, but if you undergo sterilization you don't have to go for as long." The latter is reasonably comparable to saying "Hi, I'll give you $X if you get a vasectomy." >a loose correlation with a broad class of conditions Anything but. >some of which have a genetic component Most of which.
Powerofmene 9y ago
Not that I agree with being given this "choice" and I use the term quite generously here, 1). This is not the same as criminalizing non-compliance because these people are not in jail for refusing a vasectomy. I do not agree with the Judge giving them the opportunity to get out early by surrendering their reproductive rights or my forgoing those rights temporarily in the case of women, these people are in jail for breaking the law not for refusing birth control. 2). I know that there are genetic conditions that cause serious birth defects and a life of unrelenting pain and suffering. I know that sterilization is offered by some in the medical community but I am unaware of anything like that being criminalizes. If it is that is in fact disgusting. 3). At one time people in institutions and those with mental retardation or mental illness have been sterilized without their consent. Times have changed and that is no longer acceptable in the US, thankfully, but even back when this was considered acceptable and widely practiced, it was not criminal for a family to refuse.

mindcrime 9y ago

It doesn't sound like they're being forced to undergo sterilization. Only from a very pedantic viewpoint. Practically speaking, that's what's going on. And the government doesn't need to be in the "sterilization" business at all. It's just not an appropriate role for government. And never mind how de-humanizing this is: to be told, essentially, "you're such a horrible person that we want to make sure you never reproduce". Imagine somebody telling you that and think how it would feel. Now try having some empathy for these prisoners. Genuinely curious why you find this so despicable though. We're talking about the State coercing people into sacrificing their reproductive ability. If you can't see the problem with that, then our worldviews are so different that I can't imagine anything else I can say that would make any difference.