Douchebags.... *OF THE FUTURE*

In spirit, yes.

All plea deals are coercive. That's the very point of a plea deal. A plea deal always has to be attractive enough such that the individual could reasonably choose it. Otherwise people are just talking to talk, pumping hot air out of their mouths.

This does not fall under the definition of eugenics, the purpose of which is to prevent a person's supposedly-inferior genes from continuing in subsequent generations. This is the equivalent of removing children from a parent who is endangering them, minus the part where the child then has to grow up in a foster home…

Ideally, we have a functioning foster system to support the children if the mothers are as unfit as the father. Either that, or we have some supports for the mothers to improve their own lives via education or vocational training and early childhood education for the kids so that they have something more in life to…

Except they were doing it before the people had 3.5 times the national average of children that they couldn't afford. I would comfortably put the number at 2 kids before the government can intervene on your reproductive abilities (assuming the kids are also being fed, clothed, and paid for by the government). If the…

It's a slippery slope. But letting a malignantly irresponsible person continue to breed and then neglect, harm, or corrupt his children is also a slippery slope. If snipping one set of man-pipes prevents the certain future neglect of future children, I think it's worth the risk.

Nothing adds to a discussion like hyperbole.

We license drivers wielding 2 ton road missiles. We (should) license owners of firearms able to kill at will. But... you want to be wholly responsible for bringing another life into this world and caring for it into adulthood? Sure, doesn't matter if you think it's property, livestock, or whatever, go ahead! But…

No, Eugenics is the idea of stopping genetic traits (like race, physical disability, etc) from continuing. In this case they are saying that he, personally, is not fit to be a father. Just like CPS takin away children and advising you that future children will be taken at birth.

May want to read the comments again, hun...

He agreed to the plea bargain. His council is a moron and I don't think it should part of plea deal except in child sexual abuse cases. I do agree with chemical castration there. The rates of recidivism are too high and the risk to the public too great.

It does stop him from having future neglected children.

Have you not read the comments? Most people agree that it is wrong to force people to do things like this, male or female.

I support it. More people need to be having fewer children and this man does not seem to particularly care about the children he brings into this world.

I don't know that I agree with eugenics. It is something I have wanted to see for serial child abusers. I don't think it is preventing his genes from passing on so much as telling him that having children is a privilege, one that they don't deserve. Not sure what it has to do with this case though.

not really eugenics if the guy already has 8 kids but still kinda feels right and wrong at the same time

Please. If it can be shown you are not fit to parent (ie a lifetime criminal with multiple felonies on your record, and a history of child endangerment), sterilization should be on the table.

I think I don't have a problem with this. I am in general all for reproductive rights, but he doesn't have to take the deal and it is reversible after probation.

He didn't have to accept the deal.