California's Prison Sterilizations

[RavynousHunter]

Lexi, you have caused the creation of an abomination unto nature.

[Cataclysm]

First of all, you really think an invasive, permanent, unreversable surgery is equivalent to being in prison?  Your sense of perspective isn't just buggered, it's non-existent.  The two are in no way equivalent.

Sterilization in no way affects someone's life significantly (or at least it shouldn't), so if anything it's not as bad as prison time. Forcing someone to go to jail is just as invasive, and the time spent there can never get back, making it just as irreversible.

Second of all, prisoners do have rights.  In fact, they should have rights.  Dehumanizing any group of people for any reason is a sign of many terrible things about the person or people doing the dehumanizing.

Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.

Thirdly, yes, criminals can be good parents.  Does it surprise you?  It shouldn't.  All kinds of people end up criminals for one reason or another.

They can be good parents, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids until they finished probation.

And finally, the biggest problem with the load of horse shit you just spewed into this thread is that the primary purpose of prison is to reform.  Keeping harmful elements out of society is a close secondary purpose.

The secondary purpose is still a purpose.

Let me ask you this - would you support prisons cutting off fingers and toes of the criminals, just because they are criminals?  Would you support them pulling kidneys out of people, leaving them with just one?  How about cutting out eyes, or breaking their eardrums, or any other such thing?

If you said "no" to any of the above, then you are a hypocrite for condoning them doing this, which is just as bad.

People need their eyes and limbs to sense things and get mobility, so it's not comparable to sterilization.

Y'know, it's time I stepped in here.

I'm a criminal.  Got the conviction and everything, back when I was 13.  I've done terrible things in my life.  Tell me, Cata, should I be/have been sterilized against my will?

You were a minor, so no. It also would depend on the severity of the crime. I don't think people who stole a candy bar should be sterilized.

How about the guy that murdered my uncle when I was 7? How about the drunk driver that killed my first girlfriend when I was 12? They deserve to not have kids?

They're violent offenders, so yes.

Who in the name of the darkness do you fucking think you are, shitstain? who are you to say that they deserve to never have kids?

You're the shitstain for saying criminals should be trusted in having children immediately after release.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that there is NO chance for rehabilitation?

Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.

You? You seem determined to advocate everything from murder to genocide, because they committed a crime.

Lol wut?

[syaoranvee]

Yeah...
I probably say that forced chemical castration would make an impact if done to those who have committed aggressive sexual crimes (rape, molestation, etc)

But I don't see a reason to do it otherwise.

[Witchyjoshy]

Sterilization in no way affects someone's life significantly (or at least it shouldn't), so if anything it's not as bad as prison time. Forcing someone to go to jail is just as invasive, and the time spent there can never get back, making it just as irreversible.

Uh... no, forced sterilization DOES impact someone's life significantly, and IT'S ABOUT AS INVASIVE AS YOU CAN FUCKING GET.  You are taking away a function of someone's body without their consent.  In fact, I would compare it to rape.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "invasive"?

Also, having a bodily function STOLEN from you would have a fucking impact.  It's one thing to give it up voluntarily, BUT BEING FORCED TO UNDERGO AN INVASIVE NON-LIFE-SAVING SURGERY IS FUCKING BAD OKAY.

Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.

This is so wrong that there isn't even any argument to be made against it other than "You are factually wrong, sit there and bask in your wrongness."

They can be good parents, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids until they finished probation.

You do realize that there are good parents that are currently in prison?

Or has it not hit your brain that someone can be a parent before being put in prison?

The secondary purpose is still a purpose.

And it should not interfere with the primary purpose.

Forced sterilization intereferes with the primary purpose.

How is it that you are completely unable to understand this?

People need their eyes and limbs to sense things and get mobility, so it's not comparable to sterilization.

You only need one eye, you don't need all your fingers and toes, and you only need one kidney to survive.

The thing is, you are going into somebody and destroying it for no good reason.  It's not just comparable, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

You're the shitstain for saying criminals should be trusted in having children immediately after release.

...Your reading comprehension is as bad as your ethics.  He didn't say they should have children immediately after release.  But you know what?  I would rather let a criminal have children than you.  Because you've shown a clear lack of regard for the sanctity of other human beings.

Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.

How neoconservative of you.

[rageaholic]

Quote
Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.
This is so wrong that there isn't even any argument to be made against it other than "You are factually wrong, sit there and bask in your wrongness."

I'll bite.

Just because prison can be dehumanizing doesn't mean we should encourage more dehumanizing punishments.  To make a poor analogy, shots can hurt, but they're necessary for kids.  That doesn't however, justify parents poking their kids with needles as some kind of punishment. 

Back on topic: what gets me about this is that this is the same state that let Lawrence Bittaker, an all around Complete Monster in every sense of the word, live like a celebrity in prison for 30 years (he has his fans *shudder*).  If they're going to be humane to that piece of garbage, than they should be humane to everyone.  (Not that I support inhumane practices such as that, but at least be consistent.)   

[I am lizard]

Welp, I think it's official, FQA has officially jumped the shark.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Cataclysm, if I were you, I'd try and get my moral compass fixed.

[Witchyjoshy]

Welp, I think it's official, FQA has officially jumped the shark.

Are you kidding?  FQA's local pastime is jumping the shark.

[Igor]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLDER6GP30c" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLDER6GP30c</a>

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Do you SERIOUSLY think that there is NO chance for rehabilitation?

Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.

The precaution being something that permanently mutilates and changes them regardless.

That's not a precaution, that's tossing reasonable doubt out the window of an aeroplane and into the maw of a raging volcano!

[Cataclysm]

Uh... no, forced sterilization DOES impact someone's life significantly, and IT'S ABOUT AS INVASIVE AS YOU CAN FUCKING GET.  You are taking away a function of someone's body without their consent.  In fact, I would compare it to rape.

A bodily function that they don't ever use for any practical purpose.

Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.

This is so wrong that there isn't even any argument to be made against it other than "You are factually wrong, sit there and bask in your wrongness."

Translation: I know I'm wrong and have no arguments to support my position, so I'll just say this instead"

They can be good parents, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids until they finished probation.

You do realize that there are good parents that are currently in prison?
[/quote]

Yes. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to have more children until they proven otherwise.

The secondary purpose is still a purpose.

And it should not interfere with the primary purpose.
[/quote]

It doesn't. How does sterilizing prisoners interfere with rehabilitating them into society? It keeps them from having children, which they shouldn't if they are trying to get back into society, and are prone to committing crimes.

You only need one eye, you don't need all your fingers and toes, and you only need one kidney to survive.

The thing is, you are going into somebody and destroying it for no good reason.  It's not just comparable, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

Sterilization is done for a good reason, it prevents them from having children.

...Your reading comprehension is as bad as your ethics.  He didn't say they should have children immediately after release.

Then he'd support forced sterilization  .

But you know what?  I would rather let a criminal have children than you.  Because you've shown a clear lack of regard for the sanctity of other human beings.

You don't show regard for the sanctity of other human beings if you think people who committed crimes should have children.

I'll bite.

Just because prison can be dehumanizing doesn't mean we should encourage more dehumanizing punishments.  To make a poor analogy, shots can hurt, but they're necessary for kids.  That doesn't however, justify parents poking their kids with needles as some kind of punishment. 

It does justify however, shots for different reasons like blood tests.

[Witchyjoshy]

A bodily function that they don't ever use for any practical purpose.

Except having children should they choose to.  A choice that gets taken away from them.

Translation: I know I'm wrong and have no arguments to support my position, so I'll just say this instead"

No, it's literally too stupid to address.  Thankfully, rageaholic managed to destroy your position.  Therefore, it was unnecessary.

Yes. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to have more children until they proven otherwise.

That's a violation of human rights.

It doesn't. How does sterilizing prisoners interfere with rehabilitating them into society? It keeps them from having children, which they shouldn't if they are trying to get back into society, and are prone to committing crimes.

Gee, I dunno, let me make a life-changing and permanent decision for you, without your consent, and without your say, and let me see how well you adjust to life.

Sterilization is done for a good reason, it prevents them from having children.

Which serves no practical purpose other than to punish someone after their time has served.

You are literally advocating eugenics.

Then he'd support forced sterilization  .

False Equivalency Fallacy.

You don't show regard for the sanctity of other human beings if you think people who committed crimes should have children.

Actually, by definition of the latter half of your statement, I AM showing regard for the sanctity of other human beings.  You're just spouting nonsense now.

It does justify however, shots for different reasons like blood tests.

Which benefit the child, and therefore are not comparable to an invasive procedure that removes a person's bodily function without their consent at no benefit to them.

[Damen]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

[Witchyjoshy]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

I'm about there myself.

I mean seriously, our "resident official sociopath" (sorry for my offense, niam) shows more respect for fellow human beings than this.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Cataclysm's pontifications boil down to a justification of extralegal action against other human beings based on what might happen and what might happen is some women in prison might have babies at some point in their lives, which would be awful.