Vegans' baby dies of starvation

[Bigity]

What? Euthanasia or a child already born with mental disorders? Doesn't happen legally.

EDIT: Ah, you seemed to switch countries on me there. So your government sanctions the murder of children with certain disorders?

[Bigity]

Hm, not really what you were saying earlier. Those people were housed in institutions against their will because they were dangerous, or otherwise unable to function in society. Such folks would find it almost impossible to conceive anyway, as they couldn't just screw around in the hallways. There was never a federal statute that allowed for sterilization.

Some criminals were sterilized against their will, but the vast majority were mental patients stuck into mental hospitals and clinics.

[adciv]

I also see nothing about the country doing it, a few states, yes, but not the country. Kind of like blaming all of BDR for something Bayern does.

[Bigity]

You seemed to be implying that the government was forcing sterilization or preventing adults at liberty and consenting to do so, from having children. Most folks who had that forced on them had surrendered most of their rights or had them taken away in any case, hell, some people did it because they thought it could make you live longer.

Eugenic sterilization dealt with hereditary diseases, aka, mental patients. That some people used it inappropriately according the law is a matter of said person, not the country.

It would be like saying Germany is responsible for all the people killed during WWII. Sounds nice and rabble-rousing, but inaccurate.

As for your link..heh, Sweden? Wow.

[Remco05]

[quote="Bigity";p="738416"]What? Euthanasia or a child already born with mental disorders? Doesn't happen legally.

EDIT: Ah, you seemed to switch countries on me there. So your government sanctions the murder of children with certain disorders?[/quote]

Like I said in extremely rare cases. If the child has such an extreme disfunction that it can't possibly live a 'normal' life. With this I don't mean stuff like being born without an arm, but when it's born really fucked up (it does happen, like twice every 5 years, it doesn't happen on a daily basis, they will obviously always look for an other solution in which the newborn can live some sort of 'normal' or at least acceptable life, which may be taken in the biggest meaning of the word).

A few years back the Netherlands were all over on the news in the USA. They accused us of being extremely lenient towards euthanasia. There is an euthanasia clinic in Groningen and an American reporter went there for an interview. He took everything extremely out of context and accused the Netherlands that we could make use of euthanasia at will if the slightest thing was wrong with out newborns. Eventhough our government praises to be pretty open minded and tolerant this will obviously never happen (especially since the biggest party in dutch politics still is a Christian party, they are shrinking every 4 years, but they still are the biggest).

[quote="Lucksi";p="738421"]
The US abolished forced sterilisation in 1978, although the practise had changed from the eugenic background to criminal background. Just found that the governours of Virginia and Oregon apologized to the victims in 2002.

Germany got rid of the eugenic background in 1945 (well, duh), but the laws/practises weren´t abolished until 1974.

Denmark, Sweden and Finland got rid of it somewhen in the 60´s or 70´s, Switzerland had the laws until 1985 and Japan until 1996.

If you were a victim of sterilization, you can get compensation from germany, but I have no clue about all the other countries.

And if you think, I´m making that up, google it.

Edit: The Netherlands did that too and still do? Whoa.[/quote]

Didn't know that forced sterilization was still legal

It sure clears up some questions though. As I stated before mentally challenged people aren't allowed to have any children. If you can stop the ability to produce children by sterilization it does sound like a better solution than for instance sending the children to an orphanage or euthanasia.

[adciv]

<-For forced sterilization of Rapists (Read: Castration with an extremely dull spoon or a vice).

All else, against.

[minsx]

I was looking for more information, and found the following related story (5 years old):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,51494,00.html

At least this baby was found and resuced before she completely starved to death. But seriously. . . WOW.

[Blaze]

Remco05:

See, the problem here is, I can't think of any reason where it's ever okay to put an infant to death, unless, MAYBE, it's going to live in extreme pain for a week and then die anyway. Seems to me that no matter HOW rare it is, it's still shoving the problem under the rug. The truly problematic should be cared for, not discarded. It's not THEIR fault, and how is anyone to know if they are capable of feeling hapiness?

Around here, we do not necessarily keep those ALIVE that are in such conditions, but we don't actively kill them.

Please note, I'm not condemning a culture here, or accusing anything. Just commenting.

[spikegirl7]

huh. See I knew that courts could chemically castrate sex offenders, but I didn't know they used to do it to other people too. Plus to my knowledge chemical castration can be reversed, although I know that's not the same thing as sterilization.

[Deacon]

[quote="Blaze";p="738554"]The truly problematic should be cared for, not discarded. It's not THEIR fault[/quote]
That's right. It's yours.

[StruckingFuggle]

Deacon, what's it like to be so utterly devoid of things like compassion and charity?

[Deacon]

How would I know?

And this, this from a dude who claims to prize his alleged rationality, reason, and pragmatism above all else.

[Blaze]

Well fuck, I didn't say they should be a charity case, Deacon. Give 'em to social services. Somebody's getting paid for it then. It's a job.

And before you say ANYTHING, we need a dept of social services anyway, so it's not something that's an extra drain on the taxpayers.

[Deacon]

I don't understand at all. Forced charity through becoming a taxpayer burden for no discernible reason isn't a charity case? We need a debt of social services? You're confusing me.

[Arres]

Department not debt Deac.

No further comment.