S.C. official: Sterilize bad parents - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Cheese · 10-01-2006, 05:35 PM

"We pick up stray animals and spay them," Larry Shirley said in a story published Saturday by The Post and Courier of Charleston. "These mothers need to be spayed if they can't take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it's running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."

Spay those mothers!

So CP what say thee? Should bad parents be sterilzed?

photon · 10-01-2006, 05:38 PM

Haven't recent studies shown that parents have a far smaller influence on a child than previously thought, and that other influences (friends, teachers, other people) have a greater impact? At least that what I recall reading recently.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-01-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Haven't recent studies shown that parents have a far smaller influence on a child than previously thought, and that other influences (friends, teachers, other people) have a greater impact? At least that what I recall reading recently.

Your probably right...but...I have also seen a lot of studies showing that the more involved the parent is with the child (in a positive way) the less chances are for that child to end up in the criminal justice system.

There is less likely hood of a child getting in trouble if they are supervised and have structured activities. If you just let your kids go where they want, when they want and with whomever they want...I think they will find trouble.

RougeUnderoos · 10-01-2006, 05:43 PM

This moron probably thinks he's being original, but Hitler already tried this kind of thing.

Jake · 10-01-2006, 05:52 PM

By sterilizing them you are preventing them from having children for the rest of their life, even if they turn their life around.

This guy is an idiot. The cost would be enormous, why don't we use that money on free contraceptives, rehab and giving their children an education.

jolinar of malkshor · 10-01-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake

By sterilizing them you are preventing them from having children for the rest of their life, even if they turn their life around.

This guy is an idiot. The cost would be enormous, why don't we use that money on free contraceptives, rehab and giving their children an education.

The idea is a non-starter from the get go. Like someone else pointed out...we live in the 21st century...what the hell is he thinking.

As for the other comments..Rehab for what? Don't they already have free primary and secondary education? Also...if the parents right now don't give a **** about what their children do, what makes you think they are going to care about contraceptives?

A lot of these parents pump the kids out to get the social services check or child support.

White Doors · 10-01-2006, 07:19 PM

The state should never have that kind of power. I hear mistales all the time made by family services. This kind of 'mistake' is irreversible no matter what short term benefits one might see in it.

Same reason I am against the death penalty and the same reason why I feal good defence lawyers are an integral part of a free society, no matter how disgusting their self-serving actions may seem to be at the time.

RedMan12 · 10-01-2006, 07:28 PM

shoot I would not be alive if people were to sterilize bad parents. Just because the parent is bad does not mean the child will turn out the same.

Displaced Flames fan · 10-01-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Haven't recent studies shown that parents have a far smaller influence on a child than previously thought, and that other influences (friends, teachers, other people) have a greater impact? At least that what I recall reading recently.

I doubt that seriously.

The study may have a point if it is only measuring inspiration or encouragement.

A kid is a product of his environment and more often than not bad parents provide a bad environment.

I say sterilize them...but you can't do that.

Displaced Flames fan · 10-01-2006, 07:33 PM

wrong thread!

Mean Mr. Mustard · 10-01-2006, 07:59 PM

Well I can't help but think there are cases where a woman (or a man I suspose) should be sterilized. There was that woman in Winnipeg (I think) a couple of years back who had already been around the system, had numerous children who were developmentally damaged and would have a severly reduced quality of life for the rest of their life due to this woman using drugs and drinking during pregnancy. She was put into a prison during her pregnancy I believe - and I believe that child also turned out to have numerous problems. Would it be pretty to sterilize someone, no - but is it possible that it would be for the greater good.

Because someone spanks lil Jordon or doesn't spank lil Jordon doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to have children any more;

Displaced Flames fan · 10-01-2006, 08:02 PM

We had a woman arrested here in town last week for giving her 9 & 10 year old hits off the crack pipe.

Incogneto · 10-01-2006, 08:04 PM

I am not saying I agree totally with the article, but I think I would be ok with it when talking about the worst of the worst....the ones that have kid after kid, the ones that abuse them, physically, sexually and mentally. The ones that neglect the childern right from the get-go. The ones that have no regard for contraception, whatsoever.

Think Ozarks here....12 kids in a one house bedroom, where mom is out at the bar, loaded whilre prego, and getting F'd by random men.

Thats who this is Targetting.....You realize that the childern that come from this kind of family end up having that kind of family. The daugters end up pumping out 10 kids, and so on. These parents end up on welfare, and are a burden on society...

This article is out of South Carolina, so I am sure it is a little more prevelant than we see in Calgary.

I also understand this is a very slippery slope, and would never happen, but with the WORST OF THE WORST, it would be a good thing for society.

Incogneto · 10-01-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake

By sterilizing them you are preventing them from having children for the rest of their life, even if they turn their life around.

This guy is an idiot. The cost would be enormous, why don't we use that money on free contraceptives, rehab and giving their children an education.

oh my are you so wrong...it would SAVE MILLIONS! Think of the Welfare and child support that would be dished out just for one woman.

If she has 4 children, they have 4 childern, and they each have 4 kids, thats 64 people that (most likely) will end up with the same social assistance.

These things are very cyclical...

jolinar of malkshor · 10-01-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

I am not saying I agree totally with the article, but I think I would be ok with it when talking about the worst of the worst....the ones that have kid after kid, the ones that abuse them, physically, sexually and mentally. The ones that neglect the childern right from the get-go. The ones that have no regard for contraception, whatsoever.

Think Ozarks here....12 kids in a one house bedroom, where mom is out at the bar, loaded whilre prego, and getting F'd by random men.

Thats who this is Targetting.....You realize that the childern that come from this kind of family end up having that kind of family. The daugters end up pumping out 10 kids, and so on. These parents end up on welfare, and are a burden on society...

This article is out of South Carolina, so I am sure it is a little more prevelant than we see in Calgary.

I also understand this is a very slippery slope, and would never happen, but with the WORST OF THE WORST, it would be a good thing for society.

I don't agree with the idea at all because it is a slippery slope and that is a lot of power to give the government. Having said that..I guess they could sterilize them but keep some eggs and sperm. If they clean up their act and prove that they can handle being parents...then they can be AI'd

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-01-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Doors

The state should never have that kind of power. I hear mistales all the time made by family services. This kind of 'mistake' is irreversible no matter what short term benefits one might see in it.

Same reason I am against the death penalty and the same reason why I feal good defence lawyers are an integral part of a free society, no matter how disgusting their self-serving actions may seem to be at the time.

Once again, you and I agree, WD. This is getting a bit spooky....

Phaneuf3 · 10-01-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake

By sterilizing them you are preventing them from having children for the rest of their life, even if they turn their life around.

This guy is an idiot. The cost would be enormous, why don't we use that money on free contraceptives, rehab and giving their children an education.

you're right. too costly. how much does a bullet cost? like $0.15? now that's more in our price range!

Red Mile Style · 10-02-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Once again, you and I agree, WD. This is getting a bit spooky....

Yeah, me too...

Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming. This is the second time in about a month I've agreed with his post too. Somebody has abducted White Doors and is pretending to be him!

Whoever you are, take your time bringing him back

Incogneto · 10-02-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I don't agree with the idea at all because it is a slippery slope and that is a lot of power to give the government. Having said that..I guess they could sterilize them but keep some eggs and sperm. If they clean up their act and prove that they can handle being parents...then they can be AI'd

When these parents are on social assistance, are they basically not 'employed' by the govt? can't your 'employer' somewhat dictate what you can and cannot do?

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-02-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

When these parents are on social assistance, are they basically not 'employed' by the govt? can't your 'employer' somewhat dictate what you can and cannot do?

When employers start sterilizing people, you might have a point. It's the kind of thing that just isn't done in the developed world. It's like free speech--some people shouldn't have it, but we have to let them have their say if we want the freedom to have ours.