[Archived] I'm a Dad, don't get it

[SouthAussieRover]

Financial inducements for a start.

Plea bargaining for more lenient prison sentences for certain crimes for a second.

Whatever I suggest will be ridiculed by the likes of you but to accept a problem and do nothing simply because it offends one's sensibilities is an abdication of responsibility and the handing down of future bigger problems to our descendents. People like you need to face up to problems and not ignore them. Prevention is always better than cure.

So now that I've started the ball rolling it's your turn Colin. Off you go. btw Anything involving a bucket of sand and one's head is not acceptable.

Is a bucket of animal feed and ones head acceptable?

Why do you keep straying into the realms of eugenics?

[thenodrog]

I know a young woman who fits this description, highly educated at the state's expense (that's you and me), very motivated and driven in the unpaid voluntary work she does, the state pays her expenses to go conferences etc (you and me again). Since leaving university her only paid employment has been part-time in an organic fruit shop. Will probably never earn sufficient to pay taxes to repay her education.

A case for sterilisation or would intelligence preclude her?

You are being a bit silly there Paul and you know it. There aren't many laws passed for individuals are there?

Now I'd suggest that as your cup of human kindness overfloweth you can damned well adopt her, or possibly even come to some 'arrangement' . I guess until er indoors will allow that then we will all have to grin and bear her crass ineptitude. Personally I'd never sanction her to breed until she or her partner can pay their way. With millions of kids with no jobs and little hope for the future living on a tiny island with just about the biggest concentration of population/area in the world, few natural recources and no prospect of much change as the world moves ever forward and the balance of power tips away the last thing we want is to increase numbers. And before anyone mentions it the old argument that we need ever increasing young to support the elderly has imo become largely defunct as most cases I see nowadays are the elderly supporting the young or even worse the middle aged using up their retirement savings for such.

Moving on....

There have been lots of lifetime drop outs since that ancient hippy Timothy Leary in the late 60's encouraged us all to "Turn on. tune in and drop out" with the heavy but unspoken implication to leave somebody else to pick up your tab. (Colin strikes me as being more than a little sympathetic to that mantra but it's only a guess.) Pity old Leary didn't say "and refuse all state benefits / health care / pensions etc etc" in his advice eh? But then he bloody well wouldn't have would he?

Is a bucket of animal feed and ones head acceptable?

Why do you keep straying into the realms of eugenics?

My turn again is it? Whats up? Is Abbey not biting anymore?

[Paul]

You are being a bit silly there Paul and you know it.

Yup I know but we can all have a bit of fun.

[SouthAussieRover]

You are being a bit silly there Paul and you know it. There aren't many laws passed for individuals are there?

Now I'd suggest that as your cup of human kindness overfloweth you can damned well adopt her, or possibly even come to some 'arrangement' . I guess until er indoors will allow that then we will all have to grin and bear her crass ineptitude. Personally I'd never sanction her to breed until she or her partner can pay their way. With millions of kids with no jobs and little hope for the future living on a tiny island with just about the biggest concentration of population/area in the world, few natural recources and no prospect of much change as the world moves ever forward and the balance of power tips away the last thing we want is to increase numbers. And before anyone mentions it the old argument that we need ever increasing young to support the elderly has imo become largely defunct as most cases I see nowadays are the elderly supporting the young or even worse the middle aged using up their retirement savings for such.

Moving on....

There have been lots of lifetime drop outs since that ancient hippy Timothy Leary in the late 60's encouraged us all to "Turn on. tune in and drop out" with the heavy but unspoken implication to leave somebody else to pick up your tab. (Colin strikes me as being more than a little sympathetic to that mantra but it's only a guess.) Pity old Leary didn't say "and refuse all state benefits / health care / pensions etc etc" in his advice eh? But then he bloody well wouldn't have would he?

My turn again is it? Whats up? Is Abbey not biting anymore?

Yup it's your turn again Gordon .

Amazing what info is out there about animal feed firms.

[ABBEY]

My turn again is it? Whats up? Is Abbey not biting anymore?

pmsl

[SouthAussieRover]

You're easily amused Abbey.

[ABBEY]

thought you was ignoring me...check your sig good lad.

[Amo]

You could cut the sexual tension with a knife.

[SouthAussieRover]

thought you was ignoring me...check your sig good lad.

Cheers...I've edited it.

[colin]

Financial inducements for a start.

Plea bargaining for more lenient prison sentences for certain crimes for a second.

Whatever I suggest will be ridiculed by the likes of you but to accept a problem and do nothing simply because it offends one's sensibilities is an abdication of responsibility and the handing down of future bigger problems to our descendents. People like you need to face up to problems and not ignore them. Prevention is always better than cure.

So now that I've started the ball rolling it's your turn Colin. Off you go. btw Anything involving a bucket of sand and one's head is not acceptable.

Thank for your reply,

I'll just mention that I, like most posters on here, are intelligent people. Please let me know if I'm wrong. Perhaps you need to list the posters who are not intelligent enough to engage you in discussion then we can bow to your "Sheldon Cooper-like personality" and opt out of engaging with you on this messageboard. I for one don't appreciate being told that have my head "in a bucket of sand." Do try to keep the insults out of this old bean. We'll all get on along a lot better.

What kind of "financial inducements" are you thinking about? I'm considering that you mean that unemployed people should be given (say £100 to be sterilised.) Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The "Plea bargaining for more lenient prison sentences for certain crimes." Again I'm at a bit of a loss. Again I'm merely guessing that you would like accused people to forfeit a digit or a limb or perhaps an organ for a more lenient sentence. Maybe they should have to forfeit a small child and be made to let Madonna adopt it.

As "plea bargaining" generally comes before a trial are you suggesting that otherwise innocent people should offer up a (say) kidney to receive a lesser punishment should they be possibly proved guilty? That's before a court has said they are proved guilty.

As Paul said, It's fun talking to you.

Cheers

Colin

[Steve Moss]

Well OK I'll try.

By this to you mean that you are playing devil's advocate or do you really mean the below?

There will be a difficulty in this discussion though, I share anyone's disgust at these individuals' actions, interesting you include murderers

I include murderers as I was attempting to draw a distinction between malum per se and malum prohibitum crimes. People who commit and are convicted self-evidently evil acts should be sterilized via a reversible process. Malum prohibitum (illegal because we say so, not because it is self-evidently evil) should not be.

. . . but where I differ is in relation to basic human rights. From the tone of your post, and the usual argument put forward to support sterilisation, you probably consider such people forfeit basic human rights. I understand but don't agree with the view.

People who are convicted of malum prohibitum per se crimes do, in my view, forfeit non-basic human rights. I grant you that they should receive food, clothing and shelter while the "guest" of the state. I consider these the "basics". I do not agree that breeding is a basic human right which should be confirmed to even the worse of our convicted felons.

First, male sterilisation is not easily reversible, I don't know how women are steriised though I can guess or if it is reversible.

Reversible sterilization is a viable procedure in both male and females, so much so it is becoming a viable form of birth control. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/705361

The same effect would be achieved by enforced long term birth control: http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/long-term-birth-control-new-implants-patches.

Therefore the arguement against is similar to capital punishment, the punishment is final and any error cannot be corrected.

I believe this premise is in error.

Possibly you support both and my counter would be to understand your argument regarding a miscarriage of justice. Are you prepared to live in a society which punishes, irreversibly but by accident, an innocent person? I'm not.

Any human system will result in errors. This is true in both the USA and the UK. It is impossible to protect EVERY single person in the judicial system to an absolute certainty. We can, however, impose protections which minimize the prospects for error. But if you want metaphysical certainty, I suggest you look to heaven.

Sterilisation will involve an individual's body being restrained and invaded against their will - exactly the actions the offender carried out.

1. Any system of incarceration results in the same consequence. Are you advocating the abolishment of prison for pedophiles, child abusers, rapists and murderers?

2. I believe the judicial system should focus more on the victim (an eye for an eye), and less on the offender, if we want a civilized judiciary to survive. Ignore the victim and the system will be undermined over time.

At what point do we stop the eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth punishment? Our current legal system provides clarity and stops on this,where does your view? At what point do make the distinction? At what point does the punisher rise above the offender?

At the point the victim has been compensated, feels that whatever harm that has been inflicted upon him or her has been placed upon the offender, and that the personal consequence of crime is far and above the evil that has been perpetuated upon the innocent.

I'm unsure where medical staff stand on this but based on the need to give written consent for any operation I guess there is a an issue for them. We would be asking surgeons and associated medics to entirely reverse their duties. If a surgeon, for example, was prepared to undertake the sterilisation would you be inclined to trust him/her in relation to more routine stuff?

The "duty" imposed upon a surgeon is placed upon him or her by law. Change the law and you change the duty.

Then we turn to basic human rights. Always difficult because the counter arguement is these offenders forfeit their basic rights. Accepting this takes us down a tricky path; perhaps a terror suspect deserves torture as the information gained justifies the action. Possibly we should return to more Victorian style prisons because criminals deserve real punishment and it's probably a lot cheaper. Again where do we stop if torturing a terrorist is justifiable who else deserves this and who does not? Do we want to lock people away for relatively minor offences? An arguement will always arise as to why it is deserved from your side of the fence.

I'm not suggesting that "suspects" be sterilized. I'm suggesting that persons convicted of self-evidently evil crimes be subject to reversible sterilization.

It is a short step from sterilising criminals to the same action against those deemed of little use to society. Perhaps we could only give state benefits to those prepared to be sterilised - a couple of generations and we'd have a society full of hard working, educated people, utopia?. Of course there are even quicker ways to achieve that aim.

1. Every action of government is a "short" step.

2. I'm not opposed to requiring sterilization (reversible) for those who receive benefits. If you can't support yourself, and must rely upon the support of the state, what public policy would support the dependent rolls being increased?

3. We are a human society and will never achieve utopia. If that is your goal, you are doomed to disappointment. Out of curiosity, what are the quicker ways of achieving utopia?

The moral quandary you wanted explained is simple; where does it stop? Where is the line in the sand? Is it right to accept the execution or sterilisation of an innocent person as the price we pay to provide the deterrent. If you had a son convicted of rape, sterilised and then found innocent you would accept this without any objection? You would have no issue if an innocent relative was found guilty of murder and executed? Mistakes happen but this is what your arguement asks for and accepts.

That is the moral quandary.

Your logic would bring the wheels of government to a screeching halt. No action might be taken for fear of an innocent be harmed.

[thenodrog]

Thank for your reply,

I'll just mention that I, like most posters on here, are intelligent people. Please let me know if I'm wrong. Perhaps you need to list the posters who are not intelligent enough to engage you in discussion then we can bow to your "Sheldon Cooper-like personality" and opt out of engaging with you on this messageboard. I for one don't appreciate being told that have my head "in a bucket of sand." Do try to keep the insults out of this old bean. We'll all get on along a lot better.

What kind of "financial inducements" are you thinking about? I'm considering that you mean that unemployed people should be given (say £100 to be sterilised.) Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The "Plea bargaining for more lenient prison sentences for certain crimes." Again I'm at a bit of a loss. Again I'm merely guessing that you would like accused people to forfeit a digit or a limb or perhaps an organ for a more lenient sentence. Maybe they should have to forfeit a small child and be made to let Madonna adopt it.

As "plea bargaining" generally comes before a trial are you suggesting that otherwise innocent people should offer up a (say) kidney to receive a lesser punishment should they be possibly proved guilty? That's before a court has said they are proved guilty.

As Paul said, It's fun talking to you.

Cheers

Colin

If that response is an example of intelligence then I'm happy to be thick!

Colin you posted...."I'm interested in your solution Gordon. I do sort of appreciate your concern, but what actually would you want to do about the problem you address. Some kind of forced sterilisation programme perhaps?

You've let us know know your problems, have you got any proposed solutions?

Over to you old chap........"

I answered as requested and then I asked you...."So now that I've started the ball rolling it's your turn Colin. Off you go. btw Anything involving a bucket of sand and one's head is not acceptable."

So whats the very first thing you do? Ignore my request and stick your head in the sand!

You have proven again that reasoned constructive thought is beyond you. I asked you for a contribution yet again all you manage is the usual mocking criticism without offering any alternatives whether viable or otherwise. I replied to your request so you really should reply to mine. Unfortunately all you can offer are your terribly fey 'Dear Boy' Noel Coward style whimsical retorts containing no trace of original thought or valid option whatsoever. This appears to be a constant in just about all the topics you choose to debate reply to. I suggest that you may as well not bother if you cannot offer anything more than your usual cop out.

[thenodrog]

1. Every action of government democratic government is a "short" step.

Corrected for you Steve.

[Paul]

By this to you mean that you are playing devil's advocate or do you really mean the below?

No far from it. I believe the views expressed are dangerous, not always thought through to a logical conclusion (which is not a dig at you personally) and should be challenged. To be clear I fully understand the financial time bomb we face in relation to all forms of social funding - for example, unusually, I support my government's principle on pension reform, but lets not go there in this topic.

We need to be clear regarding sterilisation - this is a process which intentionally leaves a person unable to reproduce. This is not contraception which is, I feel, the suspension of the ability to reproduce through choice.

I include murderers as I was attempting to draw a distinction between malum per se and malum prohibitum crimes. People who commit and are convicted self-evidently evil acts should be sterilized via a reversible process. Malum prohibitum (illegal because we say so, not because it is self-evidently evil) should not be.

People who are convicted of malum prohibitum crimes do, in my view, forfeit non-basic human rights. I grant you that they should receive food, clothing and shelter while the "guest" of the state. I consider these the "basics". I do not agree that breeding is a basic human right which should be confirmed to even the worse of our convicted felons.

Reversible sterilization is a viable procedure in both male and females, so much so it is becoming a viable form of birth control. http://www.ncbi.nlm....v/pubmed/705361

The same effect would be achieved by enforced long term birth control: http://www.webmd.com...plants-patches.

Had to Google those terms but I think I'm with you here. I don't want to be accused of pedantry but you refered to sterilisation but now include contraception. For me the two are different, have differing outcomes and therefore implications. I cant argue with your first link but it doesn't provide much data and I prefer to go with direct information from the NHS http://www.nhs.uk/Co...roduction2.aspx Clearly vasectomy, which is the only form of male sterilization I'm aware of, all others are contraception and therefore not what you originally argued for, is not reversible. Men who wish to have the operation receive extensive counselling - I know! Male sterilization is a relatively simple procedure though obviously invasive.

As regards female sterilization, this is major surgery, I can get an NHS link if you wish and is equally irreversible.

Are you advocating sterilisation or contraception? If you advocate sterilisation I feel my arguement stands and wonder what the point is? Presumably you view sterilisation as a punishment either in addition to or in place of imprisonment? It can only be punishment because sterilisation will not prevent a repeat of the sexual crimes and certainly not murder. Do you advocating sterilisation to reduce or prevent reoccurrence of the crime? If so it won't work as sterilisation does not reduce sex drive. Should you be discussing methods to remove the sex drive from those individuals? This would be of more value than punishing them as it protects society. Sterilising or desexualising (if that's a word) a murderer has no effect anyway so is pure punishment, presumably to help stop breeding murderers.

I believe this premise is in error.

Sterilisation is virtually irreversible and execution certainly is but you feel the premise is in error? How can that be? Dead is dead, having the vas deferens severed or fallopian tubes tied is pretty permanent. Using other methods of long-term contraception requires the offender's cooperation offender unless we are discussing some form of implant, your link gives examples which are standard contraception. How is one to gain cooperation from and control of the individuals to ensure your examples are maintained?

Any human system will result in errors. This is true in both the USA and the UK. It is impossible to protect EVERY single person in the judicial system to an absolute certainty. We can, however, impose protections which minimize the prospects for error. But if you want metaphysical certainty, I suggest you look to heaven.

Obviously I'm not looking to heaven. We live in different countries, something I hadn't noticed initially, which despite our supposed similarities, relationship etc. have very different values and societies. One key difference is the USA doesn't put in place every possible check and balance against a miscarriage of justice. Your system does not accept the possibility for error as once the individual has been executed the punishment cannot be reversed. Through execution there is a presumption of no possibility of error. In the UK we accept the potential for this error which is partly why we do not have capital punishment.

1. Any system of incarceration results in the same consequence. Are you advocating the abolishment of prison for pedophiles, child abusers, rapists and murderers?

2. I believe the judicial system should focus more on the victim (an eye for an eye), and less on the offender, if we want a civilized judiciary to survive. Ignore the victim and the system will be undermined over time.

At the point the victim has been compensated, feels that whatever harm that has been inflicted upon him or her has been placed upon the offender, and that the personal consequence of crime is far and above the evil that has been perpetuated upon the innocent.

1. Clearly not, in no way did I say this. I simply pointed out sterilisation, in the way you seemed to use the word then, is an equaly invasive procedure as rape, for example.

2. I agree the justice system should focus more on the victim. You arguement appears to be the victim can chose the punishment? So if I want my offender locked up I feel compensated, perhaps another person would prefer a public flogging? This is the interpretation I would put on your words because the level of compensation any individual will see as appropriate varies. The arguement is also one of revenge not punishment, there is a significant difference. Surely US law is based on punishment rather than revenge?

The "duty" imposed upon a surgeon is placed upon him or her by law. Change the law and you change the duty.

OK but there is also the point medical professionals may have some sort of "calling" to their profession rather than a simple leagl duty. The laws we place on them are for our protection.

I'm not suggesting that "suspects" be sterilized. I'm suggesting that persons convicted of self-evidently evil crimes be subject to reversible sterilization.

I know that, I was extending the discussion and following the potential developments, not suggesting we sterilise suspects. My point is where does your view lead and where does it stop. You are happy with what has to be enforced sterilisation; once we accept this action, what next? Which is why I used terror suspects as an example where torture could be argued as acceptable

1. Every action of government is a "short" step.

2. I'm not opposed to requiring sterilization (reversible) for those who receive benefits. If you can't support yourself, and must rely upon the support of the state, what public policy would support the dependent rolls being increased?

3. We are a human society and will never achieve utopia. If that is your goal, you are doomed to disappointment. Out of curiosity, what are the quicker ways of achieving utopia?

Your logic would bring the wheels of government to a screeching halt. No action might be taken for fear of an innocent be harmed.

1. Not sure of the relevance of the reply. I said its a short step from sterilising criminals to possibly accepting we should sterilise those who can't / don't contribute to society, that is the worry.

2. Sterilisation again, surely what you mean is contraception? Sterilisation is not reversible or at the very least very expensive and not 100% succesful. You support some form of birth control for women receiving state benefits. Fine I can understand this but it's flawed. The woman becomes pregnant, how would you deal with this - enforced abortion? How is the entirely innocent child, in every sense, to be supported? A system which insists on birth control as part of the funding package cannot be seen to reward the pregnancy by supporting the offspring in the parental family. To take the child away and place him / her in long term care is hugely expensive aside from the very significant impact on the child's welfare and future.

3. I'm not asking for utopia. It was a tongue in cheek dig at the consequence of the view "breeders" should be sterilised. There are some who view "breeders" as undesirable in society arguing hard-working, educated individuals are more acceptable members of society. If we sterilise the "breeders" in couple of generations we can have a society full of very desirable people. I then asked if this is utopia. I think you've missed the sense of my words.

My logic won't bring the wheels of government I'm asking where we draw the line. That is the quandry. Ultimately your society accepts state execution, mine does not both have drawn a line in the sand, just in different places.

Earlier you said this:

Not physically equal? Yes, you are correct. In many ways men are physically inferior to women.

Then again, you are not physically equal to any number of criminal types. Perhaps you should put on a veil and follow them around at a respectful distance?

Sarcasm aside, equality under the law is entirely different issue than equal as a matter of physical characteristics. A woman should have every civic right that a man should have and vice-versa. Any system that says otherwise is corrupt, evil and should be cast down.

Do you only relate this to civic rights or are you saying men and women are entirely equal? If the latter how do you square preventing poor people from having children - surely we all have an equal right to a fundamental of our existence - procreation.

[thenodrog]

Clearly vasectomy, which is the only form of male sterilization I'm aware of, all others are contraception and therefore not what you originally argued for, is not reversible.

No disrespect but I find that statement a little odd.

Paul, male vasectomy is NOT sterilisation. It does not affect fertility, desire or pleasure but simply prevents pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. It is also reversable although the process is a little more complicated. Alternatively castration (chemical or physical) not only completely prevents fertility but also nullifies desire and sex drive.

This might help you Paul.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9139845/Paedophiles-chemically-castrated-in-British-jail.html

If I've understood this article correctly it is horrific to discover that 40% of convicted paedophiles re offend! How do you square with that figure? The chemical option appears to reduce this to 5%. Now whether it's a one off medication or a continual process I don't know but for that 5% the next step would surely have to be physical castration.

Note that my wish would be castration for violent sex offenders, paedophiles serious sex crimes etc as a condition of release.

Vasectomy / female sterilisation should be voluntary, available to all and compensated by a significant 'attractive' payment of somewhere along the lines of £5000-£10,000 for anybody who elects to go under the knife between the ages of 18 and 45.

[thenodrog]

........ how do you square preventing poor people from having children - surely we all have an equal right to a fundamental of our existence - procreation.

Nope. Thats a silliness with it's base in primitive religions centuries before the inception of modern medicine and the Welfare State and certainly not based on practicality, common sense or modern population requirements.

Procreation whilst in 'absolute' poverty is exactly why we keep seeing these newsreels of pot bellied, pitifully thin starving children from Africa.

As for procreating whilst in a state of 'relative' poverty? I don't believe anyone has the right to procreate willy nilly unless they can support their offspring, and certainly not to produce in excess of two children. There is no justification whatsoever in allowing Family Allowance to continue past two children. It's just placing unecessary burden on the rest of society.

[jim mk2]

The eugenics movement and why it has been discredited and now confined to a few crackpots on a football messageboard.

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled

[Steve Moss]

We need to be clear regarding sterilisation - this is a process which intentionally leaves a person unable to reproduce. This is not contraception which is, I feel, the suspension of the ability to reproduce through choice.

In my original post I was not clearly distinguishing between reversible sterilization and enforced long term birth control. Assuming for sake of argument that some sterilization techniques are reversible, I fail to see the practical difference between the two. On the other hand, if reversible sterilization is not medically possible, I agree with you in that sterilization should be avoided and we should instead rely on enforced long term birth control.

Are you advocating sterilisation or contraception? If you advocate sterilisation I feel my arguement stands and wonder what the point is? Presumably you view sterilisation as a punishment either in addition to or in place of imprisonment? It can only be punishment because sterilisation will not prevent a repeat of the sexual crimes and certainly not murder. Do you advocating sterilisation to reduce or prevent reoccurrence of the crime? If so it won't work as sterilisation does not reduce sex drive. Should you be discussing methods to remove the sex drive from those individuals? This would be of more value than punishing them as it protects society. Sterilising or desexualising (if that's a word) a murderer has no effect anyway so is pure punishment, presumably to help stop breeding murderers.

I did not take the view that sterilization/contraception is a punishment, though as a practical matter it is. My motive in suggesting it is to reduce the dependency rolls while at the same time interrupting the cycle of abuse and learned behaviors so many of our children are subjected to. If you prevent these offenders from breeding (I hesitate to use the more civil "parenting" as what they do in that regard can hardly be called adequate), then I believe we will have far fewer traumatized children and, in the medium term, far fewer adult criminals re-enacting what was perpetuated upon them.

So my primary focus was the health and safety of our society, not necessarily punishment of the offender.

Obviously I'm not looking to heaven. We live in different countries, something I hadn't noticed initially, which despite our supposed similarities, relationship etc. have very different values and societies. One key difference is the USA doesn't put in place every possible check and balance against a miscarriage of justice. Your system does not accept the possibility for error as once the individual has been executed the punishment cannot be reversed. Through execution there is a presumption of no possibility of error. In the UK we accept the potential for this error which is partly why we do not have capital punishment.

Persons convicted of capital offenses usually spend over a decade on "death row" before execution, with many spending two decades. That is because within the USA we do try to use every practical mechanism to ensure guilt before pulling the trigger.

I grant you, however, that there is (or was) a prospect of innocent people being executed and I would prefer the system be improved to weed out any realistic possibility of a mistake being made.

2. I agree the justice system should focus more on the victim. You arguement appears to be the victim can chose the punishment? So if I want my offender locked up I feel compensated, perhaps another person would prefer a public flogging? This is the interpretation I would put on your words because the level of compensation any individual will see as appropriate varies. The arguement is also one of revenge not punishment, there is a significant difference. Surely US law is based on punishment rather than revenge?

1. Within the range of the law, I believe the victim should set the punishment. For example, if the crime is one for which a sentence can be imposed of between 5-10 years, give the victim the satisfaction, and perhaps a sense of empowerment that was stripped from them, and allow them to determine the length of the sentence.

2. I have no problem with public flogging or a day in the stocks in lieu of actual incarceration. It would save a boatload of money, if nothing else.

3. I think any justice system must include the three Rs; retribution, rehabilitation and restitution. So yes, I believe "revenge" has a role to play in sentencing.

2. Sterilisation again, surely what you mean is contraception?

Yes, if sterilization is irreversible.

You support some form of birth control for women receiving state benefits. Fine I can understand this but it's flawed. The woman becomes pregnant, how would you deal with this - enforced abortion? How is the entirely innocent child, in every sense, to be supported? A system which insists on birth control as part of the funding package cannot be seen to reward the pregnancy by supporting the offspring in the parental family. To take the child away and place him / her in long term care is hugely expensive aside from the very significant impact on the child's welfare and future.

I believe what a proposed was enforced contraception/sterilization. I am not proposing handing the dependent family a packet of pills/condoms and hoping they use them.

Assuming that there was long term enforced contraception which was applied, and it failed to take resulting in the conception of a child, I do not favor abortion. This would only traumatize an innocent family who was trying to behave responsibly. The family should be allowed to raise their child (assuming no record of abuse or neglect) or, failing that, adoption.

I'm not asking for utopia. It was a tongue in cheek dig at the consequence of the view "breeders" should be sterilised. There are some who view "breeders" as undesirable in society arguing hard-working, educated individuals are more acceptable members of society. If we sterilise the "breeders" in couple of generations we can have a society full of very desirable people. I then asked if this is utopia. I think you've missed the sense of my words.

Sorry about that. I sometimes miss the sarcasm/humor intended in posts.

I have no problem with working poor having children. In fact, I would encourage it as they are probably the backbone of any civilized society. My mother was poor and raised 7 children. 5 of whom now have advanced degrees.

I do have a problem with persons who commit inherently evil acts becoming parents. I do have a problem with dependent adults (i.e. benefit recipients) having more children while receiving benefits (though once they became non-dependent they should have as many as they like).

Earlier you said this:

Do you only relate this to civic rights or are you saying men and women are entirely equal? If the latter how do you square preventing poor people from having children - surely we all have an equal right to a fundamental of our existence - procreation.

Men and women are not entirely equal as a practical matter. I, as a male, cannot bear a child. So from a matter of simple biology our differences result in some inequality. To argue otherwise is to deny reality.

As a matter of civics, of law, there should be complete equality.

Equal rights is only the starting point, however. If a person commit crimes, that persons gives up rights upon conviction and will be incarcerated. Further, dependent on the crime, they may be prevented from procreating for a period of time (possibly forever).

There is nothing inherently unequal in that societal scheme. Men and women are subject to the exact same consequence under the law.

[thenodrog]

The eugenics movement and why it has been discredited and now confined to a few crackpots on a football messageboard.

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled

You maybe right in a way, maybe a football mboard is not the place to dsicuss it. It is indeed a very distaseful subject which no one likes to discuss BUT which will have to be discussed in the future. Whether disability, social status, life expectency etc is a huge and complex subject of it's own. Certainly from that article it's clear that some very powerful intellects from all political spheres and numerous nations supported the notion. The language and terminology employed a century or so ago may offend our sensibilities but they weren't all insensitive, they weren't all 'crackpots' and they certainly weren't all evil.

Disability has not really been mentioned but you must know many parents of disabled children biggest fears is what will happen to their children after their own deaths.

So difficult to generalise. If I may I'd like to recount a desperately sad experience of mine Jim.

No names for obvious reasons but many years ago a very good friend's wife was informed that she had developed a terrible hereditary condition which had been diagnosed and which they had been told she would almost certainly die young from. Their decision was not to have any children and therefore stop the passing down of the rogue gene responsible. Sadly the medical opinion proved completely valid, accurate and inevitable and she died a slow, painful and cruelly protracted death at a very early age which was awful to witness.

Is that eugenics or not? Was their decision valid or not? Do you condemn them out of hand for their decision?

Moving on. More FOOD for thought. You eat food that is the product of many years of selective breeding. Poultry have been bred to grow so fast that they live and die within 6 weeks of hatching. Cattle grow similarly quickly and are salughtered from 12 months of age. Hens now lay an egg a day every day and dairy cows now produce enough milk to feed 8-10 calves. Whether animals or plants (and recently fish) matters little but without that selective breeding having occurred and a population on this tinyn island of 60m and rising you could quite easily be starving in this country now.

How does that square with your sensibilities?

[Paul]

No disrespect but I find that statement a little odd.

Paul, male vasectomy is NOT sterilisation. It does not affect fertility, desire or pleasure but simply prevents pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse. It is also reversable although the process is a little more complicated. Alternatively castration (chemical or physical) not only completely prevents fertility but also nullifies desire and sex drive.

Yes you're right a vasectomy doesn't actually sterilise males but in practical terms it does by rendering them incapable of fathering children through sexual intercourse. The NHS does consider it sterilisation and I feel could be considered authoritative

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraception/Pages/Malesterilisation.aspx

True it is reversible but this is expensive, difficult and carries no guarantee of success. To describe it as reversible makes the process sound simple when we both know it isn't.

I did state quite clearly sterilisation does not reduce sex drive and other treatments were necessary to achieve this.

[quite]This might help you Paul.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9139845/Paedophiles-chemically-castrated-in-British-jail.html

If I've understood this article correctly it is horrific to discover that 40% of convicted paedophiles re offend! How do you square with that figure? The chemical option appears to reduce this to 5%. Now whether it's a one off medication or a continual process I don't know but for that 5% the next step would surely have to be physical castration.

Note that my wish would be castration for violent sex offenders, paedophiles serious sex crimes etc as a condition of release.[\quote]

I haven't attempted to "square" anything as you well know. Steve and I have been discussing the moral question surrounding sterilising offenders. Neither of us have commented on the actual crimes, the nature if these we agree over its the punishment which is being discussed. You'll note I described the crimes as despicable. At no point have I in anyway tried to justify anything to do with such offences.

There is a question around enforced sterilisation which I'm unsure about. Im not sure one can have a punishment which forces the offender to submit to sterilisation or castration. That's a moral question not support for the crime or criminal. I have no problem with paedophiles being offered castration to minimise repeat offending. Given the horrific nature of the offence it seems a very good choice for the offender to make.

Vasectomy / female sterilisation should be voluntary, available to all and compensated by a significant 'attractive' payment of somewhere along the lines of £5000-£10,000 for anybody who elects to go under the knife between the ages of 18 and 45.

Now that doesn't work. I had a vasectomy after our third child and through your proposal I'd have received £10000. Why should I be rewarded for this? Our family was complete and it was a decision based on what was the most convenient method of ongoing contraception but you would give me 10k as a reward. This makes no sense.

[Paul]

You maybe right in a way, maybe a football mboard is not the place to dsicuss it. It is indeed a very distaseful subject which no one likes to discuss BUT which will have to be discussed in the future. Whether disability, social status, life expectency etc is a huge and complex subject of it's own. Certainly from that article it's clear that some very powerful intellects from all political spheres and numerous nations supported the notion. The language and terminology employed a century or so ago may offend our sensibilities but they weren't all insensitive, they weren't all 'crackpots' and they certainly weren't all evil.

Disability has not really been mentioned but you must know many parents of disabled children biggest fears is what will happen to their children after their own deaths.

If I read this last sentence correctly you are supporting some form of termination / eugenics to alleviate fears parents may have for the child's future?

Perhaps a caring society allied with appropriate financial support for the disabled is an alternative solution?

So difficult to generalise. If I may I'd like to recount a desperately sad experience of mine Jim.

No names for obvious reasons but many years ago a very good friend's wife was informed that she had developed a terrible hereditary condition which had been diagnosed and which they had been told she would almost certainly die young from. Their decision was not to have any children and therefore stop the passing down of the rogue gene responsible. Sadly the medical opinion proved completely valid, accurate and inevitable and she died a slow, painful and cruelly protracted death at a very early age which was awful to witness.

Is that eugenics or not? Was their decision valid or not? Do you condemn them out of hand for their decision?

This is not eugenics, this is a decision taken by a loving couple in relation to their as then unborn children. It's a very difficult choice though it does only impact the couple and immediate family and friends. It has no implication for, say, an unborn foetus. I would fully support such a decision.

Moving on. More FOOD for thought. You eat food that is the product of many years of selective breeding. Poultry have been bred to grow so fast that they live and die within 6 weeks of hatching. Cattle grow similarly quickly and are salughtered from 12 months of age. Hens now lay an egg a day every day and dairy cows now produce enough milk to feed 8-10 calves. Whether animals or plants (and recently fish) matters little but without that selective breeding having occurred and a population on this tinyn island of 60m and rising you could quite easily be starving in this country now.

How does that square with your sensibilities?

Different argument, not necessarily right but a different discussion altogether.

[Pedro]

Hold on a minute. I don't usually have too much of a problem with some of your views in relation to explaining religion etc. BUT you may just have exposed your true views rather than those you post.

ALL of my female friends would frankly have your balls for that statement. Say it to anyone of them and they would tear your view apart and place it somewhere. Two or three ladies I know from this MB would have the same view.

Men and women are entirely equal and to suggest anything else exposes all of an individual's views on the subject to doubt.

My wife is always horrified by young ethnic women who chose clothing as a statement or badge when their liberty is so important. Of topic sorry.

But through nature we aren't equal or the same Paul - we are very different in many ways and each of those differences are brilliant. The world without difference would be naff and the fact that certain people can't deal with differences and compromise is where the issues start.

I think if the arguement was "Do/should men and women have equal worth?" - then of course they bloody should do

[thenodrog]

Now that doesn't work. I had a vasectomy after our third child and through your proposal I'd have received £10000. Why should I be rewarded for this? Our family was complete and it was a decision based on what was the most convenient method of ongoing contraception but you would give me 10k as a reward. This makes no sense.

It's no big deal. Approx 12.5k paid over 18 years on current figures for 4th child benefit (in your case) is a start plus a massive reduction in health and education costs. I'd imagine benefits for single parent and families on benefits would make that figure infintessimal. As for you you could shove it all in an ISA and effectively hand it back.

Just think of the scroats that would queue up for the snip though. Keep em in 'wraps' and away from cold turkey for quite some time.

[Paul]

I suspect if tens of thousands of comfortable middle class families got paid £10k for the snip after completing their families some people would find it a problem.

[jim mk2]

You maybe right in a way, maybe a football mboard is not the place to dsicuss it. It is indeed a very distaseful subject which no one likes to discuss BUT which will have to be discussed in the future. Whether disability, social status, life expectency etc is a huge and complex subject of it's own. Certainly from that article it's clear that some very powerful intellects from all political spheres and numerous nations supported the notion. The language and terminology employed a century or so ago may offend our sensibilities but they weren't all insensitive, they weren't all 'crackpots' and they certainly weren't all evil.

Here's another good article which points out GK Chesterton narrowly saved Britain from eugenics laws in the last century. It says eugenics theories were taken up most enthusistically by one group - the Nazis of course. If they're not crackpots I don't know who are. .

http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/sparkes.htm