Friday, October 30, 2009

Lucia Sterilisation an answer to Immorality

Michael Laws has put forward the suggestion that if NZ gave $10,000 to "certain people" in order for that person to consent to voluntary sterilisation, then there would "be less dead children and less social problems."

This is a typical liberal response to what comes down to a problem NZ has with immorality, which this insane sanctification of short term relationships by calling the individuals "partners". Not only "certain people" live like this, it's just that "certain people" cause more problems for society than other people.

Marriage as an institution was created to protect women and children. As marriage unravels, as it is doing in NZ, then there will be increasing problems with single women raising children and having short-term relationships with undesirable men, and having children to those undesirable men.

It's far easier to call for sterilisation of "certain people" than to ask everyone in society to lift their game.

Related Link: Sterilise underclass to stop child abuse - Michael Laws ~ Dominion Post

18 comment(s):

I.M Fletcher said...

There was a story a couple of days ago saying that by the 2020s, NZ will have over 1 million people aged over 65. Ideas like Laws' combined with abortion is only going to make it worse. We're killing our young and sterilizing them with contraceptives already.

I.M Fletcher said...

ps, just thinking about it - what Laws is talking about is eugenics, isn't he? He wants to stop "certain people" having children. That sounds like one of the ideas put forward by Hitler, and also by Margaret Sanger who started Planned parenthood -

"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them." - Margaret Sanger

"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace", Birth Control Review.

Lindsay said...

'It's far easier to call for sterilisation of "certain people" than to ask everyone in society to lift their game.'

It is also more realistic. You are not going to change the character of people Lucyna so best work with what's there. If offering cash for a tubal ligation or to use contraceptives (especially if prospective recipients have drug and alcohol addictions) prevents the birth of more unwanted and damaged children then it should be done.

Lucia Maria said...

Fletch,

Yes, it is eugenics. It's just far more blatant than anything happening right now. Abortion is not so blatant, it's hidden under the guise of "caring for women".

Lucia Maria said...

Lindsay,

It may be realistic, but, when you treat human beings in a utilitarian way (only those that are useful and non-problematic are valued) and you don't believe an individual can be redeemed (so a permanent solution of sterilisation is acceptable), then we are well on the way to becoming a totalitarian state.

Solving the problem of evil with more evil does not result in good outcomes, it just creates more and more evil.

MrTips said...

Lindsay
that thinking is totally flawed and comes from a naivety about the clinical reality of sterilisation.

If you sterilise a woman, you increase the chances of them having ObGyn problems later in life (menstrual difficulties, hormone fluctuations, prem. menopuase, incr. risk of endometriosis) and I could go on.

If you sterilise a male, you increase their risk of prostate, bowel, testicular, and bladder cancer). You also increase their risk of depression.

All of these things will need future treatment. Now you only need it to happen in 1-2% of recipients before the future health bill blows out in later years for these people. It is NOT a useful nor wise expenditure and smacks of a selfish attitude that says "Am I my brother's keeper?".
You said it yourself: you simply want the easy way out. Is caring for seagulls or pet dogs really the only acceptable form of compassion?

You can bet your bottom dollar, any claim for recompense towards the govt. of the day that enacted this, including Messrs. Laws, Mitchell, ACT or anyone who promotes it will be met with "We didn't know, nor do we care".

It is simply eugenics and Margaret Sanger is 6-foot under doing a high rpm from laughter right now at how many people think it is acceptable.

Oswald Bastable said...

Having met and worked with these 'certain people'- I say bring on the eugenics!

Lindsay said...

No. It is not eugenics. Certainly incentivising contraceptive use isn't. It is offering people who don't actually want children, an alternative.

What is your answer then to the problem of neglected and abused children? Volunteered for any mentoring programmes lately? Put your hand up to go and work in the homes of dysfunctional families?

MrTips said...

Lyndsey
FLI, St Vincent de Paul, prison visiting, giving money to charities that help the people you talk about and writing on a blog highlighting the silliness and unworkability of sterilisation. Because I AM my brothers keeper, if you must know. There is no point in me being Catholic if I don't walk the walk.

So, I take it that you can see the point that future medical costs render Michael Laws argument meaningless and stupid.

Lindsay said...

Good for you. I apologise. I just tire of being described as lacking in compassion when I also try to 'walk the walk' as you put it. But the point of intervention is often too late because babies are already damaged. Granted, not necessarily irrevocably, but with an uphill battle ahead. How do we avoid that? As for the medical downsides of sterilisation, no, I don't think they render the proposal meaningless. I got sterilised after the birth of my last child and wasn't warned of any downsides. But even if I had been I would have gone ahead. People make those sorts of choices all the time. It is simple enough to grant informed consent.

Canterbury Atheists said...

Hey L.M which type of marriage are you endorsing?

In your favourire book we have a few kinds that God endorses:

- Polygynous Marriage (Moses, David etc)
- Levirate Marriage
- Where a female slave or concubine is knocked-up by husband and she is 'engaged to him'
- Defacto marriage where a male soldier took a female prisoner of war
- A male rapist and his victim i.e. female victims are forced to marry the attacker
- A male/female slave can marry each other without formalities
- Monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

I'm guessing just the later get's your 'tick of approval'?

I'm against polygamy by the way - one wife is plenty!

A slave I'm all for.

Paul.

Lucia Maria said...

Paul,

When Jesus was asked about divorce, he replied that Moses allowed it because of men's hardness of heart. But, he said that in the beginning it was not so. Implicit in that discourse is the understanding that without Christ, men are slaves to their passion and therefore certain accommodations need to be made that women and any resulting children are cared for by the male.

However, with Our Lord's help, the original design for marriage is now possible and therefore all Catholics are called to marry only once - for what God has joined no man can break apart.

Does that answer your question?

MrTips said...

Lyndsey
No apology needed :-) You asked a perfectly valid and appropriate question.

At the end of the day, I think there is general agreement on the problem: people who deserve better either let themselves down, or worse, let someone else down (especially children) and the state or the taxpayer ends up paying for it.

As for compassion, 5 minutes reading your blog shows you to be very compassionate.

I don't think we can stop bad things happening to children: a sterilised person of the underclass as Michael Laws put it, can still harm someones elses child. IMO, we agree on the solution: society has to change. HOW that change is effected is another story. But I think there is much room for multiple answers that are valid, ethical and effective. And I must, personally, I don't think unrestricted welfare is one of them. It needs to be tied to something that can improve the self-worth and retain the dignity of the individual concerned. Work for the dole? Temporary DPB? Training tied into both? Just some ideas, but it needs changing NOW, I agree with that.

ZenTiger said...

The suggestion was $10K to take sterilisation.

Lindsay adds: It is offering people who don't actually want children, an alternative.

Firstly, there are already many options and alternatives, and those are apparently not working.

Secondly, when people really need the money they'll take this option because they may well not value, at that stage of their life, the gift of creating children. Expect to see serious fallout from that.

Thirdly, many of the "undesirables" on their fourth child and 10th relationship may not bother anyway, so next will follow forced sterilisation. Expect to see serious fallout from that.

Except from what I've seen of society the way it is going, serious fallout gets brushed under the carpet and most people just get on with life and living with "the way that it is".

Our standards are falling day by day, and with it, our humanity.

ZenTiger said...

Just to change the topic slightly, here's a link to the quest for immortality: only 20 years away.

Immortality? Gee, I wonder if I'll live to see that?

Sean said...

Well said Lucyna and Zen. Laws can't seem to want the limelight to move away at the moment. I'm not sure what is bigger - his ego or his wild imagination.

Glenn said...

Lindsay says, "It is offering people who don't actually want children, an alternative."

I admit that I could have been mishering things, but I don't think Laws is talking about people who don't want children. He's talking about people that society would prefer not to have children. That's where the "eugenics" concern comes from.

Mark said...

Calling Michael Laws a liberal. That would have to be a first. Isn't he the poster boy for conservatives.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.