 |
 |
Larger Than Life |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Apteryx
|
Post subject: Voluntary Sterilisation of criminals. Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:44 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:00 am Posts: 541
|
http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/eugenics ... 1273/40744Self identified extreme Left wing reporters article about matter. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news ... d=10630149(Easily objectively identified) Right wing reporters article about the matter. An extreme ( for New Zealand anyway ) right wing member of Parliament suggested on his blog that, We need to consider the case of women who are convicted of child abuse more closely, because primarily our obligation is to protect children from abuse, consistant with the adults rights. The main thrust of his comment is Quote: The example quoted in the Herald today epitomising the failure of the present system is Lisa Kuka, the mother of Nia Glassie. Kuka had had a child removed from her care in the past, but because there was no tracking of Kuka, she was able to give birth to and neglect Nia without the authorities being aware of Nia’s existence or what was happening in her short tragic life.
This will now change, thereby as a side effect removing the need for officials to literally stand by the bed as Chris Kahui’s new partner gave birth to another child fathered by him. The sad reality is that the mother of the dead twins – still in her thirties – has the ability to have perhaps eight more children. I believe she has already had six, two of whom are dead and the others removed into care.
No doubt some fools will say that this should not mean her “rights” to have more children should be constrained. I say that one abused child should move the onus onto the parents of that child to show that they are fit to have the care of more children, and allow the authorities to determine whether they can.
This is an easy statement to make, but the implementation of what lies behind it opens a Pandora’s Box of difficult questions. It has become a well worn cliche that one needs a licence to own a dog, but not to have children. Should this be the case? If one needs a licence to have children, who should decide whether one is granted? Should it be possible to reach a point where a person – male or female – is made physically unable to reproduce further? If that is ever the case, who would decide?
Those are hugely difficult questions, but in my view that should not prevent us having a discussion about them. The raw reality is that the present system of “interventions” – to use the present jargon – is not working, and children are being abused and killed every day.
It is probably fanciful to look to a return to families and communities of yesteryear when abuse and killing of children was much less frequent. If those families and communities are lost forever, we need to look at other ways of protecting our most vulnerable – no matter how difficult and distasteful they may be. the two cases he refers to were brutal killings of babies, in the case of the twins, the entire family were life long criminals, and refused to co-operate with the police/courts, and no conviction was possible because of a lack of evidence. EXACTLY the sorts of people we clearly need to protect babies from. In the course of his comments ( edit to clarify something I misunderstood myself) on another websites comments page http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/the_s ... ebate.html he said he was suggesting sterilisation as an "option". Quote: "To take Kahui-King as examples, how much is it costing the state now to care for the children Maxyna (sic) King has had removed from her? How much will it cost to care for the 6 or 8 more she may have before menopause?
"How much is it costing for CYF to monitor the well-being of Chris Kahui's latest offspring? $5000 to each of them is ludicrously cheap by comparison," . Oh dear. :mob with burning torches: As can be expected, the left wingers have screamed "HITLER !" ( notice the link words in the left wing report there, adolf hitler is the third link ) and accused the ACT party of conspiring to bring in eugenics policies. Ignoring the fact that he is talking about considering the matter only, and only for volunteers , is it always wrong to forcibly sterilise people in the interests of the state?.
_________________ I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy
Me said it.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
dutchie
|
Post subject: Re: Voluntary Sterilisation of criminals. Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:37 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:00 am Posts: 5326 Location: the wetlands of Yurop
|
|
I find it rather chilling that the suggestion of forced sterilisation should come up, triggered by a female sex offender. Why does this member of parliament does not present his argument with respect to pedophiles, priests*) and rapists? With male offenders the problem seems to be rather more urgent...
*) Irish priests, Belgian priests, Dutch priests, Italian priests, etcetera ad nauseam.. They all don't seem to be able to keep their hands off children (boys) who are in their care (schools and orphanages).
_________________ My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.. (F. Zappa) "How ironic... You eat vegetarian and speak baloney" -- Bucky Catt Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is? Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Apteryx
|
Post subject: Re: Voluntary Sterilisation of criminals. Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:10 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:00 am Posts: 541
|
|
But no one even said forced sterilisation dutchie. The MP suggested we THINK about VOLUNTARY sterilisation.
It was the silly left wing wackjob who claimed otherwise.
And actually we have got a law offering VOLUNTARY chemical castration to male pedophiles and rapists. If they agree to undergoing it, it is considered in their parole applications.
_________________ I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy
Me said it.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Bigsky770
|
Post subject: Re: Voluntary Sterilisation of criminals. Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:27 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:00 am Posts: 8074 Location: - Looking for that “Upper-Decker View” for TEOTWAWKI. . .
|
Primer on Chemical Castration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castrationInteresting reading, check it out. Anti-androgen drugs are administered @ 3 month intervals / though there are side effects, it is claimed (*sic) 'the effects are reversible". Sounds more humane than surgical castration. Joe (Bigsky770)
_________________ “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.”
- - Groucho Marx
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
dutchie
|
Post subject: Re: Voluntary Sterilisation of criminals. Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:39 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:00 am Posts: 5326 Location: the wetlands of Yurop
|
Apteryx wrote: But no one even said forced sterilisation dutchie. The MP suggested we THINK about VOLUNTARY sterilisation.
It was the silly left wing wackjob who claimed otherwise.
And actually we have got a law offering VOLUNTARY chemical castration to male pedophiles and rapists. If they agree to undergoing it, it is considered in their parole applications. But YOUR question was: is it always wrong to apply forced sterilisation in the interest of the state? I consider myself to be a left-winger. And I don't scream HITLER. Maybe it's because I'm the father of two daughters, I don't know, but recidivist sex offenders are of a different breed altogether, IMO. First of all, the recidivist part. Studies have shown that over 80% of all sex offenders will do it again, no matter how long you'll lock them up. These people are sick in their heads and they WILL go out and hunt for another prey, not because they want to, but - in most cases - because they MUST. These people can not be monitored by the government at all times and at all cost. It's just no viable solution. Most governments also agree upon the impossibility of life enprisonment, especially when there was no homicide involved. Studies of groups of offenders that underwent voluntary chemical castration or sterilisation have shown that the number of recidivists is reduced to less than 10%. With surgical castration or sterilisation, the number goes down to less than 5%. And now for the victims. Sexual abuse does not always come out, so there are many victims walking around we do not know about. In cases when we DO know, the victims almost always prove to be traumatised for life. The trauma has several ways of coming to the surface; in some cases the victims themselves become sex offenders. In most cases however the trauma shows itself in the impossibility of starting a "normal" family life, or even in having a normal relationship with people in the direct surroundings, let alone finding a partner. Suicide rates are high among victims. They are often tormented by guilt (for having "betrayed" a family member) and often retreat into their own private shells. The victims are mostly young and innocent children who have no way whatsoever to defend themselves against the abuse. When you weigh the severity of chemical or surgical castration against the benefits to society, I have no objection. But that is just my opinion, of course...
_________________ My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.. (F. Zappa) "How ironic... You eat vegetarian and speak baloney" -- Bucky Catt Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is? Baldrick: Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Apteryx
|
Post subject: Re: Voluntary Sterilisation of criminals. Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:03 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:00 am Posts: 541
|
Opps. Freudian slip perhaps?. hahahaha. You got me dead to rights there. I read your post and said to myself "I will be using the *rolleyes* smiley in THIS answer, oh yes I will , my Precious, yes". But. no. ( quick note. Today I worked like a navvy in the RED HOT SUN from sun-up to 4.30, without a break. And coming home, dehydrated, NEEDED ! ! ! and drank, two beers. So now my head swims, like a swimming thing that has had swimming lessons. ) ( Point of quick note, post may contain content, but no sense!. ) Edit at this point to point out, I missed out the POINT of the above. I was saying, yus, I did make the mistake in the OP, dutchie, I meant to say "Voluntary" and said, something otherwise. Ah. But then I read the rest of your post. Words can be sobering. Yes. They WILL go out and do it again and again. Broken creatures in human guise, and though they are fully guilty, not fully to blame in some horrible fashion. Sometimes they have been made that way by being exposed, when themselves innocent little ones, to the very evil they do themselves. Sometimes their brain lacks an empathy path. The entire question is bitter and has no happy resolution, but that isn't the reason to turn away and refuse to make the decisions , as you say, we have to do our duty to the innocents. Three members of my extended family have suffered sexual abuse as children. Only one has really gone on to be a fully successful person. I don't see anything wrong at all, in the cases where children have been harmed by adults sexual depredation, with judicial sterilisation. It if was effective in only 50% of the cases, isn't it our duty?. Re. the MPs questions, I don't see anything wrong at all either, with offering people who have been found to fail one child, the support to undertake voluntary sterilisation. Two very different topics of course. I would hesitate to say it ought to be offered to mentally deficient people though, if their "fault" is mental deficiency, how could they actually choose?. That said, I don't think severely handicapped people ought to be allowed to raise kids.
_________________ I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy
Me said it.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
 |