[Republican Bunny]

I think anyone who is of sound mind should be prosecuted for having sex with someone unable to consent.

I do not think the person unable to consent should be forced to be sterilized or otherwise punished. If they want to spend all day in their room playing with their junk, that doesn't hurt anybody either.

I would not force a retarded person to terminate her pregnancy but I would try her partner for rape.

 

[Republican Bunny]

I don't understand the point of ordering the disabled guy about. Shouldn't the concern be that he was raped?

 

[Republican Bunny]

Being sterilized does not prevent one from having sex, it simply removes the possibility of sperm being involved with anything. (i'm trying to tread lightly with my wording)

I understand that, but I do not find mandatory sterilization ethical. Whether for physical or mental defect.

If you wanted to offer people with physical disabilities a tax-break or other incentive to forgo biological reproduction I could support that but not forcible sterlization.

 

[Republican Bunny]

What will matter more in 100 years?
The fact that an unintelligent person didn't get their feeling hurt?
Or the fact that said unintelligent person was unable to create more unintelligent people?

That Patton beat Rommel.

 

[Republican Bunny]

There's also the fact that a great deal of functional intelligence is nothing more than environmental, not genetic, factors.

 

[Republican Bunny]

No, he went about it all wrong.
He killed the living... bad idea, that makes everyone angry.


Yes, what I am talking about is technically eugenics.
Bite me.

You know they also sterilized people, right? To do exactly what you're suggesting?

We also had involuntary sterilization in the US... it was used mostly on poor people without adequate legal defense, a lot of minorities in the pre-Civil Rights era and "wayward girls" who's only real "disability" was having children the middle-class did not approve of.

Have you studied Buck v. Bell or are you just running with an idea that seemed good at the time?

 

[Republican Bunny]

You obviously didn't read everything.
Implied consent is a legal concept that actually happens to work quite well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

If someone is so mentally incapacitated as to be unable to consent and make adult choices, they cannot give implied consent to anything, certainly not just by the act of being retarded.

Moreover, they are not undertaking an action that implies consent, as in driving for drunk driving tests. They are existing. You do not have a right to do something forcible to them for existing any more than I have a right to come up to you and put your eye out, for existing.

 

[Republican Bunny]

The other side is, IQ as a test is flawed, and culturally biased, and over a hundred years old. That is why it brought us such neat features as being able to sort out levels of racial intelligence and why guys like James Watson (one of the guys who got the Nobel prize for discovering DNA) still rattling on about how black people are less intelligent than white people.

Not a good system for forcible sterilization, is all I can emphasize here. We'd need a standard of intelligence test much less swayed by culture, and by environment. In the discoveries of "feral children" we discover low IQs... but we have no way of knowing what they could have been had they NOT been locked in a cage in an attic to stare at nothing.