Genetically defective people with a high probably of passing on their serious mental, physical, and genetic defects should be sterilized. Why is this a problem for people? Race should have nothing to do with it. Neither should age. Or if one is married. Defectives produce defectives. Not rocket science...

Our survival as a species is far from guaranteed. The future is uncertain, and any diversity in the gene pool could have an evolutionary advantage, even that which in today's world is considered a defect. Until which time we can control our fate, we should not even consider guiding our evolution.

Eugenics were practised among several societies for a period of time. While the idea has some far distant merit the execution thereof is flawed and cannot ever be possibly done successfully. And yet, I foresee a future where this will be commonplace by necessity. Who decides who may breed and who may not? Sure, individuals who are genetically disadvantaged not only should avoid passing on their genes but they should not be parents period. But then I know plenty of people who shouldn't be parents. I know a number whose progeny should not prevail. And by the same token I am sure there would be people who would feel that I should not have reproduced myself. So, who decides? And upon what criteria?

This article is lacking several facts. This is why it seems skewed or racially biased towards black women. What is missing is the fact that these programs were run by believers that black people were genetically deficient. Notice there were no tests to identify IQ. If you read about how "candidates" were identified, and also note the lack of real evidence and documentation, you get a good understanding why black women were the victims. in the 1950s and 60s, most blacks were not allowed to get the same level of education with many parents coming from a generation where they were not allowed to fully participate in america's educational system. That means many parents did not know how to read or write. Can you imagine learning later what these programs did to your children without knowing what they were upfront? Children growing up to learn that they could not have kids with their spouses like normal Americans. That is what is sick and discusting. What is even more sick and disgusting are posts below that speak to the disportionately poor needing this type of treatment due to some type of abuse of our system. May God have mercy on your souls.

SCCM? I could only wish you had been on the list with YOUR limited IQ. Are you kidding me? Either you are a troll and says things just to stir the pot, or you need help. Did you happen to see they did this to people with epilepsy? Easily controlled and NOT inherited. Also, low IQ is not always inherited either. It was also done to poor people who didn't know any better. Of course now NC is banning all money for planned parenthood because they claim Fed money goes to abortion even though there is now way they get any money from the Fed for this. They perform much more preventative medicine than abortions, but these egg heads from NC think they know what is best for women. These people need to look at their state's history before they pass anymore laws that target women.

GED Teacher,

Before you get so dismissive, you should read this...

http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/

You are correct on the program's original intent... wrong on it's ultimate direction.

ANYONE that pretends to know what's best for others or what's morally correct for others and takes action on that pretense is wrong. There was no IQ test in our Constitution. There was no dictation of religious beliefs in our Constitution. There was never a statement of anyone's right to judge over others in the Constitution.

To answer the original question (first post at 1.0), because presenting this in a balanced way would not be newsworthy. The article itself says that the program was supported by both blacks and whites, but only blacks are apparently seeking compensation. Just race-baiting and pot-stirring by the media.

What I find odd is that the photo accompanying the article purports to show someone's mother who was sterilized. . . sooooo, I'm guessing the person holding the photo wanted more brothers and sisters? Or what?

"Genetically defective people with a high probably of passing on their serious mental, physical, and genetic defects should be sterilized."

90% of the people in this country should be sterilized actually. Especially the people who can't even support themselves, much less kids. And yet they pop out kids every couple of years.

Cynic, where would you like to draw the line for who is sterilized and who is not? Maybe right at your front stoop?

Maybe Cynic is one of those ones who is left over deciding who was to be sterilized and who was not, from that dispicable era!

What exactly is wrong with sterilization?....monitored of course. I do not think that the mentally challenged should be able to have child, nor those who do not have the financial means to take care of a child and will just live off welfare programs. No, I am not saying that it is just women, or black people who should be sterilized. There a definitely a number of men who should not procreate at all. I believe that where to draw the line is pretty obvious.

It is very simple. If you qualify for an appearance on Jerry Springer's show, you qualify for the government's free sterilization program...

What is wrong with sterilization is that what is now considered "defective" could have an evolutionary advantage in some unforeseeable future. Diversity of the gene pool is necessary for the survival of the human race.

What exactly is wrong with sterilization?....monitored of course. I do not think that the mentally challenged should be able to have child, nor those who do not have the financial means to take care of a child and will just live off welfare programs. No, I am not saying that it is just women, or black people who should be sterilized. There a definitely a number of men who should not procreate at all. I believe that where to draw the line is pretty obvious.

So you're saying that people who can't afford to have a kid right now, can't have a kid in 5 yrs when they find a better (or a) job? That isn't a pretty obvious line to permanently sterilize someone.

The family down the street had their daughters tubes tied ( sterilized when she was young). She is probably about 50 years old now. Her mother and father raised all their children well and educated them all but late in life they had a daughter that was mentally retarded ( that is the term used in the 60's when she was born)

This woman did attend a main stream school with LD ( learning disabilities classes-- a term no loner used) She became enamored by certain boys and would sneak around with them, however she could never learn to read or write. She cant take care of herself and now lives in a group home. Her parents had her tubes tied when she was about 13---I really think they did the right thing. I sometimes still see her, she works at a local cafe as part of a group home situation--she always gives hugs out freely it brightens everyone's day. She loves her job, she loves her friends, she loves her roommates.....but seriously good idea she never had a baby.

I've had this conversation on this board before. I would actually support sterilization as an OPTIONAL punishment (chosen by the offender) in leui of jail time or monetary fines. I specifically think of deadbeat dads who go around and have 10 kids to eight different women and then get arrested for being deadbeats.

I would have no problem saying, "Look, we all know you're not going to help support these kids. Rather than fine you for money we won't get or send you to jail to live off the taxpayers' dime, if you get sterilized (which we'll even pay for) so you can no longer add to the problem, you can go on your merry way and we can all just forget you even exist."

I'd also be okay with this offered to folks convicted of child abuse or neglect that have already lost custody of their kids, and provided they didn't kill any of their children: a reduced sentence in exchange for sterlization and no adoption rights. It would be completely optional to the convicted parties and it would stop them from producing anymore peopel on whom they could inflict financial, emotional or physical harm.

I gave you a vot Peggy because I like your comment. I am tired of both men and women using welfare/whatever services because they are too lazy to accomplish anything on their own, just using their children as a free pass card.

Sure Piggy, the NAZIS thought the SAME WAY! By the way, Steve what the hell is a "vot"? Sounds like they missed one in the program!

Sadly, grouchee, you're right. Those who think eugenics was a good idea -- as peggy and steven obviously do -- are the Nazis of our time.

I obviously meant vote, as if pointing out a spelling error and spewing insults makes your point valid. Do either of you have any idea what a drain irresponsible people put on social programs meant to help those truly in need? I am not saying to exterminate people. I am saying that is better to prevent those who cannot provide or care for children the chance not to. Throwing around the word Nazi is not going to make you right.

Steve & Philly RN: Good point. From my perspective, the whole Nazi angle on this story is sort of contrived. The Nazis were engaged primarily in wholesale slaughter of people who were already born. Very tenuous connection between their pograms and the U.S. programs.

There's more than one way to erradicate a population than just a concentration camp. The good folks who are so concerned about the "people on welfare spewing" out kids who are arguing for the forced sterilization of same, should look at the demographics. At any given time (and you can look this up if you don't believe me), 60% of the people on welfare are white, and often multigenerational. Once the conservatives take over, and there are multitudes repatriated to Mexico and wherever, what ever are we going to do for cheap labor (sacasm intended)?

It's a disgusting premise all the way around. The only way to bring our population up to snuff is education, education, education. Eugenics is a flawed philosophy, and as a program is prone to abuse.

Well Peggy that has to be the least researched, most uninformed, statement on this post.

The Nazis were emulated during the colonization of this country in a manner of speaking. King James of England ordered the killing of all Native Americans who would not abandon the lands along the James River so the colonists could grow tobacco. Native Americans were run off other lands and murdered by the colonists. This behavior was no different than the Nazis. The document signed by King James is in the Virginia historical archives. Barbaric behavior continues in many forms.

Okay, no sterilization. NO WELFARE either. No Medicaid, food stamps, WIC or any other non-contributory program. Let the churches and social groups help the people and if they can't then let the people die. I'm very tired of my tax dollars buying third generation welfare scum (that's right SCUM) the food and medical care with MY TAX DOLLARS that I can not afford because of paying those taxes. And when there are more people then the country can feed and riots come, then what?

Genetically defective people with a high probably of passing on their serious mental, physical, and genetic defects should be sterilized. Why is this a problem for people? People with defective genes produce defective children. This is not rocket science. It is so easy to prevent.

oooo...better watch out, or people who do not understand will start to call you Nazi's just to make their opinions seem to have value.

Gloria,

This country was no better than the Corrupt Government of China and their despicable one child policy.

It's only "was" because of political pressure to end it. Many of the people that believed in it never stopped believing in it. And some are still openly supportive of it (check out the posts, above).

Another lesson of what we should never let happen again. Every time society decides to pass judgement on others to take some profound action or to place severe restrictions on them, another potential atrocity is created. We need to be VERY careful in ALL these cases... some examples?

- sterilization (per the article)

- organ transplants (medical/administrative boards decide people's fate)

- abortion (forcing beliefs with absolute unforgiving rules on women)

- marriage (who can and cannot get married)

- any and all profiling (taking action based on skin color, religion, or national origin)

These are all slippery slopes no matter how justified we may feel.

@LMarcT:

WHOAAAA! Hold on there, cowboy. Abortion? Forcing beliefs with absolute unforgiving rules on women?

I'll agree that abortion definitely has a place in this discussion. But, if you're going to argue that nobody should force someone to be sterilized, it's awfully hard to turn around and argue that someone should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy as an elective procedure.

Right on Gloria.

If there is any silver lining...at least this barbaric practice was halted, along with other atrocities, like the Tuskegee Experiment and lobotomies. And I have this to say to those who thought sterilization was "good". Yeah, it may have seemed like the best ideal since bread came sliced, but history is the ultimate judge. The people who deemed the recipients "worthy" of the procedure essentially singled out the poor, minorities, the defenseless. Freedom of choice was essentially thrown out the window. Say what you will about abortion or drug use (which I don't necessarily support, by the way)...the people involved had an active choice. When the state usurps that choice, even with the best of intentions, bad things usually happen.

Genetically defective people with a high probably of passing on their serious mental, physical, and genetic defects should be sterilized. Why is this a problem for people? People with defective genes produce defective children. This is not rocket science. It is so easy to prevent.

Who decides which genes are defective? Everyone has biases, and giving anybody the power to decide which genes are defective will end up expressing those biases in horrible ways.

Yeah, I actually have friends who are carriers for a rare genetic disorder. They, themselves, do not suffer from it. Their first child, however, was born with it. Their second child was not. In fact, he's not even a carrier. If ya do the Punnett Square with their genes, you'd see there was a 25% chance each birth would have the disease, a 50% chance the kid would be a carrier and a 25% the kid would be completely free of those faulty genetics. So is it fair to say that my friends should have been sterilized? They had a kid that's 100% healthy. Can't buy the argument of genetic defect as rationale for forced sterilization.

Also, some genetic defects need 2 carriers to be an issue. So, someone with that gene cant have any kids, even though the chance of them having a kid with someone with the defective gene also is fairly slim, cant have kids?

Exactly Warhammer. One of the reasons that eugenics was abandoned, besides the horrible moral issues it raises, was that it simply doesn't work. Back in the early 20th century people just assumed that there were genes that predisposed people towards criminality or homelessness, but it turns out that genetics is, surprise surprise, much more complicated that.

I'm surprised how many people completely ignore the moral implications of eugenics and only focus on the cost saving implications of it. To those with this mindset; do you have any idea how much it would cost to force every person to undergo genetic testing, and to forcibly sterilize them? If economics is the only issue at play here, why don't you just support killing off people you consider to be "genetically inferior"? Eugenics is a dangerous game.

They all desere just compensation.What was done to them was unjust.A blatnat violation of their human rights.Put yourself in their place.Let's see what kind of a song you'd sing then.

Yes it's right!

Compensation???.....why not just give all native american their ancestral lands back and everyone else in the country go back to their ancestral countries??...oh yeah, because this is 2011 and no one should have to pay what their ancestors have done......I did not drive the native americans out of their homelands, I do not have nor ever had any slaves, so why should I have to give reparation?.... I want compensation because I never consented to all of the vaccines I received as a child. I am tired of everyone always wanting something for nothing. It is good that people were sterilized, I would support it today.

What are these HUMAN RIGHTS that I keep hearing about? Are they in the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? Some other document? Do they extend to Muslims in the middle east? Sex slaves in the east (the old communist east) or even Russians? North Koreans? Who enforces them and why aren't they doing a better job? Or "human rights" a fancy term for some utopian goals that will never be reached?

"The state didn't "force" a hysterectomy on people"

The state forcibly sterilized some 60,000 people - often without even telling them ( while they were in hospital for other reasons ). It was only after seeing Nazi Germany take eugenics to it's logical conclusion that the American public lost it's taste for it.

Well, Native Americans are at least getting the 6 Billion settlement...it's a lowball offer considering, but at least it's a good start.

And as to Human Rights...yes, they are encoded in our Constitution. Is it perfect? No. Are we humans perfect? No. But it is a start. It is a first step. Would you rather have the Divine Right of Kings? An omnipotent Church?

This is why we have written laws...they either prevent abuses, or give redress to those abuses. We could argue and bicker about who killed who, or we could make a lasting solution to prevent a similar scenario.

Freedom is a precious and fragile thing...it is up to everyone everywhere to be vigilant. In this day and age, nothing should be taken for granted, otherwise sorry episodes like this will happen again and again.

Drive down West Washington St. in Indy with the windows down and just breathe in the irony. . .

Birth congtro in a place like that and being sterlized the way many of these people were sterilized are two different animals.One's permanent and the other isn't.It's not rocket science. Yes they are very different.

Not different at all, actually. No woman should have birth control forced upon her, and no woman should have to be afraid of unwanted sexual advances and attacks, particularly when she is in an institution from which she cannot "escape" because of physical frailty.

Actually birth control is given because especially in institutions female (and some male) residents are sexually abused and have no voice. They can't press charges or in many cases report the abuse. This protects the institution for unwanted children of rape. Often the only way institutionalized rape is discovered is if the victim gets a STD or pregnant.

There is also the difficulty in that residents may have consensual sex with other residents. If they are over 21 then the state can't stop it but at least birth control can stop a pregnancy. Once again the institution is protected.

Did I miss something? I didn't see any churches named as supporters of this program. I did see where it was supported by both blacks and whites at the time, however.

Yea really, what the hell are you talking about?

What did this have to do with Christians? Also, even if it were Christians that wanted this, it doesn't mean it is all Christians.

HEEEEEEEEEEEELLO WAKE UP , They're all EVIL.They obliterate the very meaning of HUMAN RIGHTS.

That is WRONG!

Misguided? Evil is evil, no matter how you slice it. Mass sterilization was a bad idea. Ditto for the Japanese Internment. Same for the radiation experiments on unknowing participants. When we sacrifice our humanity for good intentions, we are worse than animals.

Heaven help us if we ever sign our freedoms away "for the good of the country". Me, I'll pass thanks. Better to die on one's feet than beg on one's knees.

Exactly Wm. Sanders

Better hope someone doesn't decide to measure your contributions to society, bob. You might be found wanting, and then...

SNIP, SNIP....

bob5ford don't have kids.Because if you do I feel sorry for them.Your dumb ass attitude just pisses me off.

Just playing devil's advocate here, Bob, but the reality is that every living person creates social costs. We're all members of society, and we all need a government, schools to attend, roads to travel on, police forces and fire companies, and so on.

The difference is, most of us contribute BACK to society. Bob probably has a job and is tired of seeing his tax money spent on folks who won't work and expect a free handout.

The problem is that we have no idea what kind of situation could arise, or what would be necessary to survive it. What we consider "defective" is simply a variation of the human genome, and diversity is key to the survival of the human race. The nuclear accident in japan, for example, is going to create an advantage to those whose genetics make them more tolerant to radiation. Famine will create an evolutionary advantage for people with slow metabolism. Pollution of all sorts is giving a small segment of the population, those with natural tolerance, an evolutionary advantage. This is beneficial to the human race, as a whole.

Have you ever heard of Human Rights?Or are you a left over from Hitler's Gestapo?

Nobody has the right to implement their agenda on any Human Being because they feel they are passing on bad genes, or they're not perfect and blah blah blah blah blah.It's Bull Sh it!

It's Ignorant, Archaic,Evil, and Barbaric as Hell.Which end doesn't your pee brain comprehend?

I'm talking to you genius,SCCMSTL get a friggen clue, for god sakes.

@SCCMSTL: I agree in principle, but the problem arises when you start letting the government make that decision - effectively turning government into God. The better approach would be to incentivize voluntary sterilization by providing the procedure free of charge in addition to some sort of up-front compensation.

@gloria f: It's "pea" brain. Not "pee" brain. And we all have someone's agenda implemented on us every day. This was just a program that was attempted - with support from both blacks and whites, by the way - in a majority of states to include what are now "Blue" ones. Not really much different than legalizing abortion except that sterilization is proactive rather than reactive.

I have a major problem with it. Freedom of choice, for starters. Who should give anyone the right to play God? And the fact is, sterilization had a sinister purpose...to weed out "undesirables".

Well guess what? Some of those "undesirables" turned out to be productive members of society. Medal of Honor winners. And yet, a self-centered few decided on their own whim to choose who should procreate, on flawed and faulty 'science'.

It's one thing if parents made that choice...it's a helluva lot different if someone else, especially if they wear the governments clothes, make that choice.

Miker can't you read between the lines?geesus!

@gloria: "Reading between the lines" as you seem to be doing is what leads people to also believe that the railcar repair facility in Beech Grove, IN is actually a secret government crematorium and that The Government is controlling the weather with radio waves.

Well Mikey, I guess since it's our government, it couldn't possibly, POSSIBLY do anything to its own citizens.

Our government isn't always an angel...that was why the Founding Fathers wrote in the Bill of Rights to keep it in check. While Gloria might be a little overboard with some of her statements, a lot of times, they are spot on.

I couldn't begin to write down all the stuff our own government has done to 'preserve the American Way of Life'...not enough time and space to print it. But the fact is that We the People are responsible for making it accountable. That is why there are no more mass sterilizations and internments...if government makes a mess, they should clean it up.

You don't have to like what Gloria has to say, but she has as much right as you and me.

Well, Billy, if you can show me where I've asserted that gloria does not have the right to her somewhat over-the-top opinions or the right to express them, I'll concede the point. Meanwhile, I'll continue to exercise my right to believe that this program was not - as she asserts - some sort of conspiracy designed to wipe out minorities or handicapped people. And I'll continue to express my belief publicly in this forum, thank you very much.

(That's MikeR, with an R. Not a Y.)

Testy, aren't we?

And the proof is in the pudding...Not too many WASPs participated in this experiment. You have to wonder why...no government ever had clean hands, and this one we have is no exception. No need to take it personally.

Why Thank You WM.Saunders, well said.

So, where's your pudding? Are you relying on this bit of yellow journalism from the article?

In 1968, Elaine Riddick was like many others who were sterilized: poor, black and female.

Nice bit of race-baiting by the writer but doesn't really support your wacky friend's conclusion.

And I guess denial is just a river in Egypt, as they say Miker...but the cases have been documented. IMHO you're like a Holocaust Denier...you continue to deny the truth, even when the facts are in your face.

The thing is, the US wasn't the only country that did this, and those countries are also coming to grips with those ghosts. Scandals always get a second life...the "sins of the father" visited on the sons. That is why abortion is such a prickly topic...it is about the right to choose.

And as for race baiting...this is the 21st century, not the 20th, or the 19th. Lynch mobs, burning crosses, and white sheets are pathetic ghosts now. The world I prefer to live in, I would like to have a little tolerance, even of people like yourself.

There were also a ridiculous amount of Native Americans specifically targeted and sterilized against their will up to the 1970's.

I feel for you. Perhaps you could finagle (sp?) some sort of arrangement where you temporarily take up residence in another state?

It's also ironic that we as a society have such heartburn over sterilization yet we won't allow rational people to choose death with dignity over lingering, painful illness.

You are all for this WELL THEN WHY DON'T YOU VOLUNTEER!

You blabbed that once already!

Still Babbling eh?