• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NC Eugenics Program

AnonymousDeac

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
20,003
Reaction score
699
Location
San Francisco
Illegal Sterilization of Women by WFU

I know that the illegal sterilization of women happened in North Carolina up until 1974, and that Wake Forest was investigating its own role in this eugenics movement after being called out by a WSJ article.

Anyone know what the outcome was or have information about it?
 
I don't have anything to add, but I like your tags and I like where your head is at.
 
It was primarily African Americans and most times it was done against their will or without them knowing or consenting. IMO it's a very dark time in NC's history. The state has made some reparations, but it's not nearly enough for what they were out through.
 
I know nonny was asking about this a while ago. It was a sad time in the state of NC. There are countless other stories out there about this. I'm just glad we seem to be on the road towards attempting to make amends for such an incredibly wrong act.


http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2011/jun/06/wsmet01-victims-of-eugenics-to-tell-stories-ar-1095098/


Here is a 5 part special report from the Journal to give some background info for those who havent heard about this before:
http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/
 
KnightAtWake said:
Last year I turned down a Guardian Ad Litem appointment because it was the 12th crack baby of a junkie here in Winston.

I just can't get behind supporting that kind of behavior in any way. I know it is an extreme example, but damn, she's got 12 kids that are addicted to crack before they've left the womb, almost certainly with a life crippling condition or virus. She'll never see any of them...they just come out and she goes on with her drug-riddled life.

Truly messed up, dude.

So you punished the kid because of his mothers mistakes? You'll be a great attorney.
 
KnightAtWake said:
I didn't punish him. I didn't take his case.

Exception to general freedom to reject- should take cases of the defenseless and oppressed.
 
KnightAtWake said:
And I did that with the next case. All GAL cases are for the defenseless and oppressed. Its not like one story is less heartbreaking than the other. The case I picked up in place of the 12th crack baby was to represent a family of five children who have gone through a true horror show of sexual abuses and extreme neglect.

There are so many GAL cases available, and so few GAL volunteers that my selectiveness does not really prejudice the group.

Yeah I get that. It was the rationale that I thought was bad.
 
I'm mostly left of center but I've spent enough time in J&DR Court here that I would overturn Skinner. I had a similar GAL experience 1 time to Knight's, though I didn't do much GAL work. While I agree there were a ton of abuses with eugenics across the country, and Hitler did what he could to give eugenics a bad name (about the same time that Skinner came out, as I recall), I think you could put enough safeguards in a forced sterilization program. Give it a heightened standard of proof (like clear & convincing or beyond reasonable doubt), and set narrowly defined limits on the cases where you're gonna do this. I believe people have the right to have consensual sex, but not the right to procreate after you've repeatedly had kids removed.
 
I'm mostly left of center but I've spent enough time in J&DR Court here that I would overturn Skinner. I had a similar GAL experience 1 time to Knight's, though I didn't do much GAL work. While I agree there were a ton of abuses with eugenics across the country, and Hitler did what he could to give eugenics a bad name (about the same time that Skinner came out, as I recall), I think you could put enough safeguards in a forced sterilization program. Give it a heightened standard of proof (like clear & convincing or beyond reasonable doubt), and set narrowly defined limits on the cases where you're gonna do this. I believe people have the right to have consensual sex, but not the right to procreate after you've repeatedly had kids removed.

I'm super liberal and honestly I also think sterilization can be appropriate in certain situations. I interned at the Office of the Child Advocate in law school. When you are lighting your 10 kids on fire on the front lawn in front of your neighbors- you should not be allowed to continue to have children and abuse them. Furthermore, the process to take them away from you is outrageously expensive and I would rather use that money to support other children who need it.
 
There are people out there that shouldn't be having kids. I've seen too much of it after working for a judge, legal aid, and no dealing with disability cases. You're putting kids in situations where they have no chance but to fail and failing means jail, dead, or having their own crack addicted babies.

I'm not sure the solution.
 
By the way, I'm running for NC Eugenics Board. Please get out and vote tomorrow.
 
Back
Top