Netherlands considering forced contraception for "unfit" mothers

Would never fly in the US. I can't believe they're considering it in the Netherlands, but then the article doesn't give a good sense of what the chances of passage are. And, they're a little kooky.

 

There is no chance that this bill will pass. It is a cry for attention of a politician. Most normal dutch media do not even pay attention to this Bill.

 

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

 

There was a Republican politician in Louisiana who was floating an idea of paying poor women to be steralized and offering tax breaks to higher income earners who have children.

 

Puts on asbestos underwear...

I see nothing wrong with this. I support it.

 

Thanks for the reality check. I was about to launch into a rant.

 

This was practiced in the US for years on the mentally r****ded, minorities, and the poor.

Google "eugenics in the USA."

 

This would seem to be an issue that both pro-choice and pro-life folks would agree is wrong.

 

The potential for eugenics is there, of course. But I think the idea is meritous. There are too many people already (I mean this seriously, not in a bitter old fart kind of way). Why not start reducing overpopulation, while simultaneously reducing child abuse? What's wrong with holding people to objective standards? We do it all the time - but the second you apply it to parenting and child-rearing suddenly it's unacceptable to judge someone based on sensible criteria?

 

what happened to, "govt can't mess with my body!!" and should stay out of reproductive issues??

 

Puts on asbestos overalls...



1) A fair point, but no longer necessary if the program is extended in such a way that all parents must seek approval before conception. Obviously, this is even more outrageous than the previously extolled option - but it does eliminate your argument entirely. It's the logical extreme.

2) Of course, the above is highly dependent upon how you view something like abortion. If you view it strictly as a choice of the parents involved, rationally any plans for "limitations" on conception is similarly unacceptable. If abortion is more a means to prevent unwanted or unprovided for children, the original argument could be re-organized into "mandated abortions" - an ugly idea no matter how you look at it - but one that (from a strictly rational POV) is understandable if the avoided outcome is neglect, abuse, or environmental disaster. NOTE that the idea has nothing to do with abortion at all, this is about contraceptives/sterilization. I am merely relating to your post above.


3) I don't get hung up over the abortion-rights business. I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion. My opinions regarding consensual adult activity are more similar to your above quote than in regards to abortion - for example, I think abortion limitations should be put in place, IMO (partial birth, time limits, etc).

I don't think it unfair to tell someone you are unfit to be a parent. It happens all the time already, but only after something (usually horrid) has occurred. Why not eliminate that step?


Pardon the somewhat jumbled thoughts.

 

rhad -

1. i think it's a bit of a death sentence. it assumes you are what you are and can never be different. that if you were bad mother before, you couldn't be different later.

2. in practice it would happen through the courts...so a jury or a judge would be making this determination. yikes. turns out they get it wrong sometimes.

3. not sure i want the government in the life-creation or life-termination business... beyond seeking to protect life, generally.

 

If the US had a policy like that 30 yrs ago,(edit- for accuracy) we'd lose most our church.

 

Before I say anything else - a disclaimer:

I am not an advocate of these ideas. I have been thinking about it alot recently, though, primarily because of my research/reading as an environmental scientist. I don't have a firm idea or process (if you will) for how they could be enacted - thus the somewhat convoluded arguments. If I come across uninformed, unsympathetic, or ridiculous - you're probably right. I had thought of bringing this discussion up before in here, but wussed out due to a lack of rigor in my own opinions. I stepped into this one, and I don't regret it - but understand the words I use are not convictions of mine in any sense.

Why would you risk that? I don't feel terribly compassionate here - maybe I should, but I suppose I can rationalize that away via the overpopulation argument. If anything should have a "one strike, your out" policy - I'd say it's in regards to how you treat children. As a relatively new father, I'm probably more vehement about that now more than ever.

True. I never once argued such a plan would be easy to implement or administer. Eugenics, as I mentioned, is a real possibility. Unfortunate.

You contradict yourself, if the offenders are those who have already hurt/destroyed life. Regardless, I think it rational to take a step back and look at the HUGE picture. If you know that the planet cannot support more than X amount of people without collapsing - isn't it in the interest of "protecting life" to limit it?

 

interesting ideas, as always, and i'll have to think about it more.

 

Why do we think the planet will "collapse" due to overpopulation? It doesn't happen in other populations? Right now, west Texas suffers from a major deer overpopulation problem, because they have adapted to living near humans much better than their natural predators have. But there are no signs of the population collapsing. More deer starve, and more deer are underdeveloped because of less food than they need, but that doesn't cause population collapse.

I don't think population collapse is a real scenario. We may get to the point where starvation is the method that keeps the population at equilibrium, but that's a lot different scenario. That would just keep the population relatively constant.

 

I was not referring to the population collapsing. I was referring to the environment. The population will collapse after it's own size pushes the environment too far. Your starvation analogy is good, and plausible, although not terribly appealing. It also omits humanity's singular ability to poison it's environment beyond easy (or quick) recovery.

 

Ummm... Noted, but I was making a forward-looking statement (and one that only looks a little ways into the future; I can't say the US wouldn't revisit eugenics 200 years from now).

 

I know, but I saw it as a good opportunity to raise awareness of a little-known part of our country's past.