My NZness has gone!!

Of course sterilization wouldn't wipe out violence completely, it would certainly help with domestic violence though.  It would do far more than is being done.  And obviously the state can commit crimes, but I hardly consider the state infringing on the rights of a few dirt-bags to be a crime and if it is then it's a state-crime I'm cool with.

I mean, the state can commit crimes against people who aren't necessarily dirtbags, in trying to create a perfect crimeless society, because the state is just made up of fallible people - the same kind of people that stare and cheer a person getting beaten up.

I don't know how you can be cool with state crime, and not individual crime - it's the same thing.


Cosimo2009-10-31 14:10:33

I was saying that if you considered the other state-crime then I'm cool with it.  Personally I don't think it's state-crime by any means.

And yes, one of my biggest worries about it would be that it would be extremely open to abuse, but everything is open to abuse and the most we can do is put in the most stringent measures possible to try to limit that as much as we can.

I guess I find sterilsation a form of abuse - and you don't, so that's cool.

Trying to create a perfect world won't work. Saw a fictional TV show about it once.

Sterilising dirtbags will not eliminate the problem. Neither will a bullet.

The ONLY thing I would see as positive about it is that it would save any kids   from a life of dirtbag-ness. But it won't stop druggies, rapists, abusers, murderers etc from doing what they do.

How would you like your eugenics? White or black? No saccharine obviously/

That's exactly what it is.  That is the whole point of the whole proposition.

Nobody's saying it'll stop all violence immediately and rape, murder, assault and everything else will become extinct.  It isn't aimed at stopping those things.  Other initiatives will be needed to try and curb rape and murder, but this is just to see less kids bashed.

Nearly swayed me with that fictional TV show argument Torne.

I can see his logic also. Im sorry but i do. He just said it poorly...

So who is going to set the criteria for intervention? And how will it be enforced. If a druggie has an epiphany and rehabilitates his/herself can you reverse the sterilisation?

Sounds like a bit too much playing god for me.

In my dotage I find myself becoming more red-neck and Tory but this view makes my ultra-conservatism seem positively trendy lefty by comparison.

LoyalG I realise you are trying to make a philosophical distinction between this "social good" intervention and other similar approaches in the past. I don't actually see much difference because the premise is the "we/the state" knows best how to or who should raise a family.

If you look at the stolen generation thing in Oz it had a similar intent. It basically f$ck&d up a whole lot of people for no good outcome.

Junior822009-11-02 02:20:41

Some forms of sterilisation can be reversed so that would be good.  Laws only said his idea in a few sentences so he could hardly encompass everything required but done right it could be good.

People say it's playing God, but it's only doing so about as much as normal contraception in my books and I'm no Catholic so have no problem with it.

I understand your views and I'm not of any faith either.  Happy to agree to disagree on this.

in theory,it works. In practicality it doesnt. Thats where you're disagreeing

We had similar issues here in the Oz media with Rebecca Wilson (Sydney) and Mike Sheanan (Melbourne).

Either fight them to the death or ignore them...