Having problem children neutered?

Post Reply New Topic

My reasoning is simple: what works with animals could help calm children who have similar problems. Although this would damage their ability to reproduce later in life, I think that it would constitute an overall improvement in the quality of life for individuals who may otherwise have led troubled, difficult lives. Furthermore, adoption is a perfectly viable option if they ever wished to rear families. We defend having our pets neutered based on similar premises, after all, and I agree with them. I also think that it is a service to society as a whole to reproductively incapacitate individuals who are often difficult to get along with and, quite frankly, potentially dangerous. Although I wouldn't expect the solution to be immediately popular, I would expect it to start gaining ground quickly if it were proven effective. I think, at the very least, we should be open to the idea.

Where to start?

1. Pets are property. Children (either yours or someone else's children) are not property.

2. Difficult to get along with is a subjective evaluation as opposed to someone being objectively harmful (for example a violent person or a person who goes about destroying other people's property wantonly). You propose neutering based on you subjective crochets? Who are you?

3. We are ALL potentially dangerous, every last one of us. Do you propose to neuter the entire human race?

4. Did you bother to think this position through? Apparently not.

ruveyn

Yet we still argue that neutering is often in their best interests. This could also apply to humans, couldn't it? Could this actually be the more decent thing to do in some cases?

Some young people do this, and they can get into the habit of violently attacking their playmates. Far too often, this leaves their victims emotionally traumatized, which is a tragedy at such a sensitive age. In some cases, it can result in injury, maiming, or death.

No. This sort of menace was never a problem for me during my upbringing. In fact, most of my problems were of my own making.

Someone who thinks perhaps too objectively for comfort, apparently.

I have been thinking it through for several years. The idea is very radical, but it could have merit. I think it deserves to be examined intelligently.

Then again, the idea could have no merit whatsoever. I simply don't consider your personal hang-ups a valid premise for thinking so. Furthermore, because of the nature of the idea, I certainly would not advocate rushing it into use; it would be a sociological reinvention of Hiroshima if we didn't first spend several decades discussing the idea. Level-headedly. In fact, I would be surprised if such a thing were to come about during my lifetime. Finally, even if it were perfectly effective, it would also be far more interesting to explore more sophisticated alternatives.

What is the chip on your shoulder OP?

This stuff you're saying sound like it is being parroted out of psychological textbooks from the 1960/70's.

I disagree with your reasoning... it sounds like something Hitler and his henchmen parroted throughout the third reich, with their eugenics, aryan race and breed out all of the undesirables...

you're reasoning leads back to that sort of thing....

It is impossible to predict generally the individual reaction to this treatment inflicted when a child was helpless and with no legal recourse at an early age but the violent anger that probably would be permanently instilled in an individual for the rest of his/her life would probably present a danger to society far outweighing any possible benefit.

DNFT, for this is clearly a troll post designed to annoy and anger the community. OP, just cuz you got your nuts whacked off, doesn't mean we all should.

Wow... Just wow.

Possible troll?

In any case, I doubt this idea would get popular.

1) I doubt it is a troll at all. The OP seems reasonable despite having a strange idea:
"I have been thinking it through for several years. The idea is very radical, but it could have merit. I think it deserves to be examined intelligently. "

"Although I wouldn't expect the solution to be immediately popular, I would expect it to start gaining ground quickly if it were proven effective. I think, at the very least, we should be open to the idea."

Also, no CAPS MADNESS or insults to individuals or groups. The idea is just one that shocks people's sensibilities, but that isn't inherently wrong. I'll get back to address the idea later.

This is a fairly radical idea. So it needs a point to begin from. That point is eugenics through positive enforcement, it moves onto sterilisation of the genetically mentally and physically disabled, then the inferior of the gene pool.

The line to be drawn either stays put, or moves on until reset.

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...
Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Buck v. Bell

The issue is calculating whether or not this should be an option taken. I think that most people reject the cold utilitarian calculus that would be necessary.


Honestly, I doubt people see adoption as the same thing as being able to naturally do this. Not only that, but you are engaging in a large behavioral modification, that itself is already questionable, even if there was no biological alteration.


Pets aren't considered the same as people. We also have our pets sleep outside and don't mind if they lick themselves in public.


Well.... even if it is a service to society that does not mean that it isn't a disservice to the individual or that it may be *more* wrong to do this to a particular individual. I mean, what you are talking about does quickly move to a justification for totalitarian eugenics, a position most people find utter unacceptable.

There were a surprising number of prominent and respected Americans and others at the beginning of the twentieth century who looked kindly on eugenic treatment of helpless people and this led to all sorts of crimes against humanity in the treatment of native American and other indigenous people throughout the world. Those who considered themselves superior felt privileged to destroy lives wantonly on what could only be evaluated as stupid and unwarranted prejudices. It was the inspiration for Hitler's Nazi ideals and culminated in the Holocaust. I find even the vague thought disgusting and despicable and it is an indication of an inherent vicious egotistical stupidity to even contemplate the action.

Is that your position on all other disagreements with your personal stances?

To put it aggressively bluntly I find your comments one of the most prime examples of highly intricate idiocy I have ever encountered.

There is no such thing as an "undesirable." Don't be ridiculous.

That's how most people would respond to your proposal- if you want to tell other people to keep an open mind and not dismiss your ideas out of hand, you can not turn around and be so dismissive of a counter-claim.