Inmates offered reduced sentences for birth control procedure
bbc.com
bbc.com
Race and income are the highest predictors of whether a person would end up in prison.
Both of these speak loudly about us as a society and about our true values.
Do you find their low recidivism rates similarly appalling?
You said "In fact, I find the lax sentencing in Scandanavian countries appalling." I'm asking if you're appalled by the low recidivism rates their apparently-appalling justice system produces.
"Socialism works so well there! We should do it here."
"They have such low recidivism there! We should use their sentencing as a standard!"
I think violent offenses are more than something that requires reform for the perpetrator. It requires justice for the victim. Rape and murder? Fuck you, you're going away FOREVER.
This diagram shows how cholesterol is turned into the steroids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid#/media/File:Steroidoge...
As best I can figure, my friend had her first psychotic break after 9 months of chemical castration with time released medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo Provera). This drug is a very good mimic of Progesterone USP (what the body makes for itself), but the body cannot transform it into the steroids downstream from Progesterone USP.
Most of the other endocrine disruptors used as birth control aren't nearly as bad as Provera, but all have potential for adverse reactions.
edit: wording
chemical castration
The 'chemical castration' comment was about Depo Provera specifically. The injection is NOT removable: you're basically stuck with the effects for 3+ months, unless you know to use the antidote (which is not covered in doctors' curriculum for using this class of drugs on their patients).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration#United_Sta...
All the "chemical castration" and "severe adverse reaction" seems to do here is introduce unwarranted FUD. As far as I'm able to find, the number of complications due to the implant are insignificant. It's like those disclaimers in drugs commercials where they mention a headache relief medicine might give you a heart attack. Sure it's possible, no it's not something many people need to worry about.
> is absolutely not comparable to chemical castration.
Yes, the article is about Nexplanon, and DMPA (Depo Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) is what's used to chemically castrate men, and to render women temporarily infertile. But nexplanon's active ingredient suppresses the HPG axis [1] too.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamic%E2%80%93pituitary...
My friend is that one-in-10000 who was especially vulnerable to pseudo-hormones. Her doctor didn't appreciate the significance of the main negative symptom she complained about (bleeding continuously for months), and injected her twice more anyways. She would be an inmate at the state's psychiatric hospital, or dead, if I hadn't taken an interest in her struggles.
> As far as I'm able to find, the number of complications due to the implant are insignificant.
Except to the people who have them. Here's a report from a random redditor:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/4mofxf/the...
> Some people defend the current contraceptive status-quo by reasoning "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
Yes. This is how modern medicine works. Nearly every medication will cause an adverse reaction to a small number of people and there's really not much we can do about it. They produce a net good though so we use them.
Also, I'm certainly not a doctor but doesn't Nexplanon release the same hormones in "the pill", used by millions of women around the world?
I think the real problem is in this part:
> Her doctor didn't appreciate the significance of the main negative symptom she complained about (bleeding continuously for months), and injected her twice more anyways.
The problem here isn't hormonal birth control, it's an incompetent doctor.
> Except to the people who have them. Here's a report from a random redditor
She also seems to be a victim of an incompetent doctor.
> Yes. This is how modern medicine works. Nearly every medication will cause an adverse reaction to a small number of people and there's really not much we can do about it. They produce a net good though so we use them.
Feminists were making some progress with figuring out how to help women take better control their own fertility in the 1950's and 1960's... I have some of their books. Then the pill came out, and women were like, "why bother figuring out how our bodies work, and how to make them work better, when we can just take a little pill every day!" Or something like that.
It's trivially-easy for men to render themselves temporarily infertile (edit: without resorting to condoms/surgery/pills). But there's no recurring business to the medical industry, so that body of knowledge is ignored.
> [...] incompetent doctor. [...] incompetent doctor.
Both of these doctors are just implementing their training, which is based on pharmacology rather than physiology.
> Also, I'm certainly not a doctor but doesn't Nexplanon release the same hormones in "the pill", used by millions of women around the world?
The various birth control pill formulas use different 'progestins', the class of chemicals that are sort-of similar to the natural Progestogens [1].
But yes, the vasectomy offered to the men is far more permanent than "birth control".
The thing to watch is whether knowing they have become, at least temporarily, infertile, will lead them to unsafe sex practices resulting in more venereal disease.
[2]: http://contraline.com/news/2016/05/13/contraline-is-accepted...
Edit: http://www.ohjoysextoy.com/implant/ -0.05% failure rate on implants, 0.5% on sterilisation. Impressive.
White County General Sessions Court Judge Sam Benningfield of Sparta filed the order on Wednesday, a day before two state lawmakers asked Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery to render a legal opinion on the controversial program's constitutionality."
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2017/j...
Source: http://wkrn.com/2017/07/27/white-county-judge-stops-trading-...
I'm not arguing for one or none of the above. Simply curious.
I can't find a single definition of coercion that requires "a free person" to be the one being threatened.
Genesplicing can be highly targeted, whereas this isn't necessarily even targeting the source of the traits. For example, the (theoretical) inability of gay men to breed doesn't decrease the gene prevalence if also passed through their sisters. We could (hypothetically) see something similar here, where propensity for criminality is passed on by relatives and no amount of sterilizing criminals removes it because there's eg, a benefit to mothers having highly aggressive sons/brothers.
Genesplicing only impacts the children, while sterilization has a large impact on the sterilized individual's hormones.
Finally, genesplicing in/out traits and competing for fitness is bottom-up selection, rather than top-down (as trying to supress traits via mass sterilization would be), and thus more stable/likely to work, better respects personal freedoms, etc.
For example: "We'll give you time off your sentence if you let us edit out genes in your gametes linked to aggressive and addictive traits." That trade is similarly coercive, and doesn't provide a clear benefit to the future children.
> edit out genes in your gametes linked to aggressive and addictive traits
sounds like a pretty clear benefit to me! I'd do that even if I was trying to conceive naturally. Why would I want my children to have a genetic predisposition towards undesirable behaviour?
So, I'd guess it's desirable for martial purposes. But given we're on the path to robotic (foot) soldiers --maybe it won't be of much benefit for long.
(Plus, they're not permanent.)
The inmates have a choice to accept, and do not get jail time for refusing.
"We'll reduce your jail time if you do X" is functionally the same thing as "We'll increase your jail time if you don't do X".
It very, very much isn't
As this article says, he may be going about it the wrong way, but he probably is trying to do something good. The Deep South (where I was born and raised) seems to generally be even worse than the rest of America about certain things. I can see him being willing to take the blame so some young woman can stop being a baby factory and blame it on him, thereby getting relatives and church members off her back.
It seems there is a more serious situation that the relatives and church members would be on their back about.
There are social settings where "good girls":
A) Do not use birth control, especially if they are unmarried.
B) Serve the sexual needs of their man.
C) Do not get abortions because it is baby murder.
Etc. Ad nauseum.
It is a recipe for disaster for the girl and there is no socially acceptable escape from it -- unless some " asshole" male authority figure kindly gives you an out where you can say "Look, ma, I took the deal to come home to my kid 30 days early. I am trying to be a good parent here. Not my fault the judge is an asshole."
Good authority figures accept that doing the right thing means taking the blame for it when people don't like it. It is part of the job.
(Edit: some stats may be out of date because I am an old woman. The general principle still applies.)
Or, viewed from another angle, this is the future of health care in America.
(For those who are unaware, note that other aspects of health care in U.S. incarceration are often poor or outright unavailable. As a simple exercise, just say to yourself "private prison" -- which many jurisdictions have increasingly moved to -- and imagine the corresponding pressure for cost savings (i.e. profit).
But, "spay and neuter" them? [Yes, an intentionally harsh and polemic phrasing on my part.] Sure, we can pay for that.)
I do have sympathy for the view that paying people to be sterilized preys upon the weak. Many people can think of things that they would have done for $2,000 at one point, but not at another point.
I don't really know anything bad about NZ.
I've often wondered if I had been castrated as a teenager maybe I would have spent less time in police lockup for stupid behavioural issues.
Castration, as well as the elimination of hormonally-driven behavior associated with a stallion, allows a male horse to be calmer and better-behaved, making the animal quieter, gentler and potentially more suitable as an everyday working animal.[1]
Decreased Aggression: One of the most important behavioral advantages of castration is that as adults, these dogs will tend to be less aggressive both toward other male dogs and also people. The androgen (male) hormones, of which testosterone is the most important, are responsible for the development of many behavioral patterns. When young puppies are sexually mounting their 7 and 8-week old litter mates this is because of androgen surges in their bodies. The same is true with aggressive behavior.[2]
Forced castration is something I don't think anyone should admit to supporting.
I wonder if there is scope for repeat violent offenders be offered the procedure in exchange for early release or more lenient sentencing. Can, meet worms.
I like to imagine that scenario ends up being a footgun when, in the future, we've bred violence out of the human race, the aliens invade and we're too passive to do anything about it.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelding
2. https://www.petcoach.co/article/benefits-of-neutering-castra...