I don't understand why John LaBruzzo is evil

John LaBruzzo proposed paying poor women to be sterilized. This sounds like a smart idea to me.

Liberals consider this plan evil and immoral. I don't understand why it's evil and immoral.

The women would be voluntarily undergoing the procedure. No one would be sterilized at gunpoint. In fact, it seems a lot more humane to me than military conscription.

The bottom line is that poor people are disproportionately non-Asian minorities, and under the liberal view of morality, passing any laws when you know that the result of the law is that there will be fewer non-Asian minority babies is the most horrible and evil thing in the world. Why is this evil? It's voluntary. I don't get it.

Comments

[Sterilize Them All!]

Hitler! Nazi! Hitler! Nazi! Racist! That is why he is a bad man!
Roschelle and Jewish Atheist, I'm doing all the work here! Where the hell are you two?

[kurt9]

The wall street bailout deal has been concluded in a manner that guarantees another financial crisis 10 years later.

The next crisis will occur at a time when large numbers of baby boomers will be drawing on social security. Perhaps we will be involved in another expensive war as well. The combination of these two disasters (three if you include the war) will force the liberal-left boomers a stark choice: Do they finance their retirements? Or do they continue to molly-coddle the non-asian minorities in the belief of multi-culti Kumbaya?

I think its a foregone conclusion which choice they will pick, regardless of their flowery rhetoric.

Expect proposals like LaBruzzo's to become increasingly popular and implimented in the next 15 years.

[Peter]

One concern is that some women might take up the offer out of extreme financial need and later come to regret their decisions. There probably are some ways around this, for example requiring waiting periods, and I suppose the amount of money in Labruzzo's plan isn't high enough to draw in many reluctant participants.

[Turambar]

"Liberals consider this plan evil and immoral. I don't understand why it's evil and immoral."

You probably do- its all about the 'frames' with liberals. Here the frames are eugenics in terms of Nazi-ism, forced sterilization of the retarded and Tuskegee Experiment.

Interestingly, if you look into things like Tuskegee a lot of what we think we know about it is wrong.

I still dont like the sterilization plan though.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"Or do they continue to molly-coddle the non-asian minorities in the belief of multi-culti Kumbaya?

I think its a foregone conclusion which choice they will pick, regardless of their flowery rhetoric."

Yes, the boomers will vote to get a handle on the NAM situation. Spain is paying immigrants to leave, and Spain is ruled by a Socialist government.

The baby boom retirement makes ideas, like paying minorities to leave or to sterilize themselves, inevitable.

The Great White Goose is not laying enough golden eggs to keep both retiring boomers and incoming NAMs happy.

Something is going to have to give way.

[Sterilize Them All!]

"...the amount of money in Labruzzo's plan isn't high enough to draw in many reluctant participants."

Make it $10,000 or even $25,000. Still a bargain in the long run. Less NAMS, less crime, less low class whites...Everyone wins. But it won't happen though.
And Turambar, everything liberals don't like is "framed" with Naziism, everything. Of course when the SHTF, they'll be screaming with terror for the "Nazis" to come save their effete selves. It will sound like Wagner to me, but better. I can't wait!

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"Why is this evil? It's voluntary. I don't get it."

I think it goes back to what you were saying about Gaia worship; there is a profound need, even among atheists to "believe" in something/somebody/some ideology.

Liberals have simply replaced Jesus with minorities. Excuse making for minorities is substitute Christianity.

Think about it, slavery is the white man's original fall from the multiracial Eden. Now, along comes this Great Mulatto Father, this African witch doctor, who is being offered to us in order to cleanse our souls of this great original sin.

When the left calls Obama a "lightworker" they truly mean it. To the left Obama is more Messiah than Jesus is because whites are uniquely guilty of all the races.

Obama promises salvation to them.

[Amandla]

"To the left Obama is more Messiah than Jesus is because whites are uniquely guilty of all the races."

And let's not forget Jesus was a Jewish guy. And you know how the Jews treat the poor, misunderstood Palestinians. Double guilt!

[Zylonet]

People do not like the idea of sterilizations because a lot of blacks and Hispanics believe they are going to run the world. Any threat to their population growth is seen as an attack on their manifest destiny.

Two years ago, my wife and I lived in Miami. The city is an armpit: a complete 3rd world hell. One day, in typical Miami, fashion some kid attempts to cut into our turn lane. I do not stand for this type of savage behavior, so I launched into attack mode. I rolled down my window and told that prick to go back to Columbia. Of course he was from Venezuala so my comment really got to him and he freaked out. So across the lanes we get into a shouting match that concludes with his razor, "give us 20 years and the country will be ours." I had a quick reply, but his words spoke the evident: so many of these people hate Anglo Americans and they believe they will reticfy the nation and steer it towards greener shores.

If you have ever lived in Miami, you will know that we are completely f*cked as a nation. Miami has the most educated Hispanic immigrants and the place is beyond dysfunctional (my wife was constantly assualted with exposed tongues and even genitalia). The only positives I have from Miami are those shouting matches. The old school Cubans are cool (ages 45) but most everyone else in Miami is trash.

[Richard H]

All you need to do is prove two things to make eugenics a moral imperative.

A) Genes matter
B) The people with worse genes breed more than people with better genes.

This continues, eventually civilization ends. Beauty and intelligence wiped off the face of the earth.

And this is considered the moral position? Liberals are either idiots or too cowardly to face truth or both and this point needs to be stressed.

[Sterilize Them All!]

Zylonet,
Miami is coming to a town near you, me and every liberal who thinks they know better(and they deserve it, to be sure. I'm hoping a beating, rape or mugging or 2 will help them out, but judging from what I've seen, nothing will). From Sailer's place:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/09/non-specific-immune-response-due-to.html

This movie does end badly.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"give us 20 years and the country will be ours." I had a quick reply, but his words spoke the evident: so many of these people hate Anglo Americans and they believe they will reticfy the nation and steer it towards greener shores."

I'm not impressed with Latino ethnic machismo.

These are after all, the descendents of people who were conquered by a mere 600 drunken Spaniards.

And even in countries like Mexico where whites are 15% of the population, the mestizos still let the whites treat Mexico's lower class like dirt.

The mestizos turn tale whenever whites show they have had enough.

[as]

One way to minimize the "regret" that Peter talks about is to offer payment for sterilization to young women who have at least one child.

For instance, concentrate on women who are 25 (or even women who are 20) and have children. This way, you get more bang for your buck as such women have several years of fertility left.

[as]

The other important cause of regret which you won't be able to do that much about is this: it seems that women on welfare who don't get married but instead have a 2 or 3 boyfriends over the course of their reproductive life will tend to have more children than a woman who just gets married and stays married. This is because the unwed mother type will want a child or two with each boyfriend, and this adds up. So instead of 2 kids with your husband you have 2 kids with each of your long term boyfriends plus a kid with guy with whom who had a short fling. So, if you get sterilized after having kids with one man, what happens when the second man comes along and you want to cement your relationship with him by having a baby with him?

On the other hand, women who are unwed mothers are probably used to the idea of their boyfriends not being their children's father.

[Tech 9]

"So, if you get sterilized after having kids with one man, what happens when the second man comes along and you want to cement your relationship with him by having a baby with him?"

I could care less what issues these low life parasites have. Fuck 'em.

[Bruno from Paris]

Perhaps it's because he is a medical equipment representative. He's searching more business in those hard times :-)

[Gannon]

I still believe it is a mistake to believe that whites will be the most affected by the latinization of the US. The population which will suffer most are blacks: hispanics don't feel guilt over blacks, instead they despise them. On the other hand, hispanics want to be like whites, so some loser white guys might end up with a nice mamacita.

[Membrillo de carne]

"On the other hand, hispanics want to be like whites, so some loser white guys might end up with a nice mamacita."

Gannon, most latinas in the US do not resemble Eva Mendes, Christina Aguilera or Carmen Electra.

[Joyce]

I suppose they hate the idea of losing the opportunity to murder unborn babies. They'd rather women get pregnant and have abortions than have women get sterilized.

[Half Sigma]

"They'd rather women get pregnant and have abortions"

No, that's incorrect. Liberals support abortion because (1) it pisses off Christians; and (2) it allows sexual equality with men--women can have sex, and not worry about getting pregnant, just like men.

Reasons why I support abortion: (1) government shouldn't tell you what you can do; (2) eugenic effect.

[Bruno Brazil]

If the proposal becomes law, I can see that US will have fertility very far far far below replacement.

Today, the only people who have babies are the poor because children are far more affordable for a poor person. If you live in the ghetto, you are not expected to go to Harvard so your mom doesn´t have to save US$ 150,000 neither you have to pay for books.

Imagine if even the poor stopped having children.

[Bruno Brazil]

If he becomes law, we are going to have far far far below replacement birth rate.

Today, only the poor have children because they are far more affordable than children from other classes. The mother of the ghetto doesn´t have to save 150,000 to send their children to harvard, as you americans need in order to make sure that your children will stay in the same social class of you. A high school is enough.

[Andrew]

I oppose it, as I stated, because I don't think it would remain voluntary for long and because I don't like the idea of having government involved in this area at all.

Finally, you admit racial intent and you wonder why anyone would oppose you???

[c.o. jones]

"These are after all, the descendents of people who were conquered by a mere 600 drunken Spaniards."

And each one of those guys procreated with several women, I'll bet, so that would make Mexico one of the most inbred countries in world, would it not?

[JewishAtheist]

It's wrong because you're taking advantage of desperate women. Offering free sterilizations is one thing; paying people to have them is exploiting their position of weakness. It's kind of like (low-class) prostitution, I guess.

[JewishAtheist]

Sterilize Them All:

Maybe you should read my comments instead of strawmanning me.

[Half Sigma]

Jewish Atheist: "Offering free sterilizations is one thing; paying people to have them is exploiting their position of weakness."

How is it more exploitative than paying people to do disgusting jobs like clean toilets?

And they benefit from the sterilization by not being saddled with children they cannot afford to raise.

[Andrew]

I don't know why my above comment appeared three times; I am sure I only sent it once.

Reply to HS:

1. Cleaning toilets in necessary, sterilisation is not.

2. How noble of you to decide that the poor benefit by not having children!

[mnjohn]

I agree with HS. A lot of you say its exploiting them but then you adamantly argue against raising our pathetically low minimum wage. Somehow these incredibly low wages, which aren't even close enough to live off of, isn't exploiting them though. The bottom rungs of capitalism are not a fun place to be.

[Andrew]

I am in favor of raising the minimum wage (given our current economic system), as is HS.

Once again, 'explotation' is really not the issue here.

[Underachiever]

Sterilizing these women would help them and society. If they are so poor that they would accept $1000 to be sterilized, then they are too poor to raise their own kids.

It is okay if the population of this country decreases as long as the proportion of the poor, criminal, and stupid does not increase.

Also, I agree that sterilizing men going to jail in exchange for reduced sentences makes a lot more sense. It would be cheap and would reduce the crime rate in the long run considering that criminality is partially genetic.

I think men might be more receptive to getting snipped - they can still have their irresponsible, low class sex with their fellow ghetto & trailer park residents, but not have to worry about paternity issues or paying child support. Women, no matter how debased, place more value on their reproductive potential.

I'd add that they should sterilize guys who are in prison with the incentive that it will help them get paroled sooner.

[Asher]

"If the proposal becomes law, I can see that US will have fertility very far far far below replacement."

Not quite. I've seen research that indicates that higher poor birthrates depress middle and upper class birthrates. If you sterilize the poor you make it more affordable for the non-poor to have and raise children. So-called "white flight" (really just the middle class trying to keep their kids out of the same environment as the underclass) made the cost of the middle class having and raising children much more expensive.

Sterilize the poor and you should see an increase in the middleclass birthrate.

[Captain Beefheart]

HS, you have to understand that political correctness is a religion that has one holy of holies. It's a system of "trumps."

The left has traditionally supported the working class. But when faced with stopping illegal immigration that hurts the working class, they choose illegal immigration. Nothing must stand in the way of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism trumps the working class.

The left has traditionally supported victimized women. In the Netherlands, they've seen a huge increase in rapes against Dutch women by Muslim men. One Dutch feminist said that "Dutch women must accept part of the blame for wearing sexy clothing." Basically, this feminist was blaming the woman. The reason she blamed the woman was becuase blaming the Muslims might cause people to question multiculturalism. Multiculturalism trumps the defense of women.

The left claims to support the environment. But if people say mass immigration will deplete resources and lead to habitat destruction, the left will go nuts. Multiculturalism trumps the environment.

The left supports something called "family planning." Many times I've heard the left viciously ridicule white Christian women for being "baby machines." But if someone mentions an idea that would lead to non-whites reducing their birthrates, this would be "Nazism." Multiculturalism trumps family planning.

In the religion of Political Correctness, Multiculturalism trumps everything.

Multiculturalism uber allis.

[Lawful Neutral]

I don't see why the government's blessing is necessary for this, especially since you're never going to get it. If this is such a good idea (and I think it is), shouldn't it be possible to form a foundation or something and pass the hat for donations?

[Richard H]

"The left has traditionally supported the working class. But when faced with stopping illegal immigration that hurts the working class, they choose illegal immigration. Nothing must stand in the way of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism trumps the working class.

The left has traditionally supported victimized women. In the Netherlands, they've seen a huge increase in rapes against Dutch women by Muslim men. One Dutch feminist said that "Dutch women must accept part of the blame for wearing sexy clothing." Basically, this feminist was blaming the woman. The reason she blamed the woman was becuase blaming the Muslims might cause people to question multiculturalism. Multiculturalism trumps the defense of women.

The left claims to support the environment. But if people say mass immigration will deplete resources and lead to habitat destruction, the left will go nuts. Multiculturalism trumps the environment.

The left supports something called "family planning." Many times I've heard the left viciously ridicule white Christian women for being "baby machines." But if someone mentions an idea that would lead to non-whites reducing their birthrates, this would be "Nazism." Multiculturalism trumps family planning.

In the religion of Political Correctness, Multiculturalism trumps everything.

Multiculturalism uber allis."

That's one way to look at it. But since no one except white countries are trying the multiculturalism experiment, why not call it what it is? Being anti-white trumps everything.

[SB]

Why only poor women? Why not have a program to offer compensation to poor men? I like LawfulNeutral's suggestion. Anybody care to setup a 501C?

[c23]

Lawful Neutral and SB, private pay-for-sterilization programs have been done:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE3DD143EF935A35752C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

I don't know how effective it was or how it worked out.

[JewishAtheist]

HS:

How is it more exploitative than paying people to do disgusting jobs like clean toilets?

It's a good question that gets to the root of the issue. I think that the idea of sterilizing women sort of against their will just feels more abhorrent than getting them to clean bathrooms sort of against their will. The right to have children is much more basic than the right to not clean bathrooms for a living.

I also support a higher minimum wage.

[Spungen]

Whatever happened to paying poor women a stipend to take Norplant? That was floating around a few years ago.

A better way to promote Labruzzo's idea is to focus on how it helps equalize poor people's access to birth control. I don't have any hard data, but my perception is that it's very difficult for poor women to get elective procedures such as abortion and sterilization, and for poor men to get vasectomies.

Not only should these procedures be free and easily obtained, but poor people should be compensated for their time and effort in obtaining them. The payment would help compensate for recovery time and other inconveniences associated with such procedures.

"I think that the idea of sterilizing women sort of against their will just feels more abhorrent than getting them to clean bathrooms sort of against their will. The right to have children is much more basic than the right to not clean bathrooms for a living."

Uh, can you point out to me where in the article that the sterilizations would be against someone's will? If they were to be coerced, I didn't read it. But here is the quote:

"He said his program would be voluntary. It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men."

"Voluntary." You know what that means, right? You really need to read more carefully before making comments.

[Spungen]

And how come no one's upset about the inhumanity of using small monthly stipends to lure poor women into the trauma of childbirth and impoverished motherhood?

[Spungen]

Hey, how about an incentive program where we pay women in certain economic groups *not* to have children?

For example: If you're a girl from a family below a certain income level, you get $1,000 a year for every year you don't reproduce. It would probably be simplest to put in place for minors whose parents are on public assistance. But, the program could also follow women up to a certain age -- maybe 30? There could be other strings on the money, such as school attendance or employment.

It would be cheaper than welfare and obstetrics.

[as]

Spungen: Planned Parenthood.

You're charged on a sliding scale which depends on your income. Sterilization can be free if your income is low enough.

[Spungen]

AS, thanks for the info. But there aren't Planned Parenthood clinics everywhere.

There's a difference between a procedure being covered (by MediCaid, for instance), and there being available, convenient doctors who will perform it for you. And a further difference between being available, and easily available. If a person needs to make an appointment months in advance, or call around to dozens of different doctors to find one who takes MediCal, or take the bus for three hours to get to the doctor, that's going to discourage many people.

The payment would provide an incentive to deal with those inconveniences.

[David Alexander]

"I think men might be more receptive to getting snipped - they can still have their irresponsible, low class sex with their fellow ghetto & trailer park residents"

The problem is that for a lot of lower class men, their ability to impregnate women is a sign of virility and manhood. These men are the least likely to agree to sterilization.

[me not me]

This is a great idea, but to succeed it'd have to be implemented systematically, in combination with other HappyEugenics(TM) policies such as voluntary sterilization of prisoners in exchange for time off (h/t anon 11:08), and paying girls not to breed (h/t Spungen).

Lawful Neutral: "I don't see why the government's blessing is necessary for this, especially since you're never going to get it. If this is such a good idea (and I think it is), shouldn't it be possible to form a foundation or something and pass the hat for donations?"

Good idea. And it should be implemented as a reverse auction, tiered by age and sex: offer 18-22 year old women $N to get sterilized, then if not enough sign up, increase the bounty to $N+1 until you have enough takers in that age bracket. Repeat for males. Then move on to the next age bracket.

Snip, baby, snip!

[Svigor]

I guess there's a 1% chance I'm the first to make this observation (thread unseen):

Liberals think this evil because it deprives wymmin of the opportunity to murder their unborn children.

[Svigor]

Gannon, most latinas in the US do not resemble Eva Mendes, Christina Aguilera or Carmen Electra

Lol, Carmen Electra doesn't resemble Carmen Electra - her real name's Tera Patrick.

[JewishAtheist]

No name:

My point was that this program would be preying on desperate women who DIDN'T WANT TO BE STERILIZED but really needed the money.

[Half Sigma]

"desperate women who DIDN'T WANT TO BE STERILIZED but really needed the money"

Sounds like exactly the kind of women who wouldn't be capable of supporting a child without taxpayer assistance.

[JewishAtheist]

I'm not arguing with that, and I would support free contraception and free sterilization for people who can't afford it -- I just don't think we should be paying people to do it.

[Randall Parker]

Jewish Atheist,

Natural selection is preying on poor people by causing them to want to have sex and to want to have babies. Natural selection is ruthlessly forcing them to do its bidding.

Natural selection is also causing you to feel that something is abhorrent and to make you put your feelings above rational analysis. You are natural selection's puppet.

[Spungen]

O Jewish Atheist, ye voice of reason amid the din of hostility:

Do you completely disagree with my argument that the payment would *compensate* poor people for the inconveniences and difficulties of undergoing this procedure (or for other forms of birth control, such as abortion or Norplant, for which I also think it would be a good idea)? Thus, it would be not so much an incentive as a mitigation of obstacles.

[The Monster from Polaris]

"preying on desperate women who DIDN'T WANT TO BE STERILIZED but really needed the money."

So how would they be better off by being denied the opportunity to choose the money?

Also, Jewish Atheist, you advocated higher minimum wages. That would help some poor people, but others would lose their jobs when their employers decided that what they produced (whether goods or services) was not worth the higher wage. The best way of helping people in low-wage jobs is to decrease the supply of low-qualified labor, which would probably be one effect of LaBruzzo's proposal. So you should support this proposal instead of raising the minimum wage.