Are You Obese?
Ya wanna be sterile?
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Link
Alright, so here's the thing: Obesity isn't good. I think that's a fairly straightforward statement that nearly everyone would agree with. Bad for the heart, bad for the body, bad for a person in general. High blood pressure, clogged arteries, trouble breathing, etc. Fine. But:
In California, there is a program in place where obese men can have state-funded vasectomies to ensure that their inferior genetic material will not live on in the next generation. Again I say fine, albeit less enthusiastically, because I really don't like the thought of legislation picking and choosing genetic defects to eliminate; Albinos are also the victims of a genetic defect, as are dwarfs, as are people with sickle cell anemia, Tay-sachs, etc. While I am aware that there is no sterility measure necessary for sickle cell and tay-sachs since those diseases usually kill the victims early in life, and that albinism and dwarfism do not pose the potential health risks of obesity, it is also true that obese people have the ability to live normal lives, not to mention lose weight and have healthy children. There is no doubt that if one is genetically inclined towards obesity, it is up to that person to know about it and handle the situation in a way that they see fit, but I equate this with the child of an alcoholic being more likely to become addicted. It is not something that has to be eliminated, just controlled, and not by a government, but by an individual.
As I mentioned earlier, though, I am still okay with the state offering free vasectomies to obese men. As the article I link to mentions, the procedure is voluntary. The men enter into it of their own free will. However, I find something truly disturbing about the last sentence in the fifth paragraph:
"If we are to make this procedure mandatory, we must clearly draw the lines where physician judgment is concerned."
If??? Why is this even being considered? If we decide to forceably sterilize obese people? As long as the physician attests that it is for the benefit of future generations? According to recent polls, more than half of the NFL is obese. Using the same criteria, Shaquille O'neal was identified as obese.
There is, I believe, an alarming misconception that people who tip the scales cannot be active, or athletic, or happy. I'm not trying to refute the overwhelming medical evidence, because I agree that obesity poses a health risk. However, when we start talking about the possibility of forcible sterilization to control a defective gene, which, by the way, can be controlled, be it with an exercise plan, surgery, etc., we are taking the concept of "protecting society from itself" way, way, WAY too far.
Personal responsibility is still alive somewhere, probably cold, hungry, and injured. Hopefully, we can find it before it's too late.
Alright, so here's the thing: Obesity isn't good. I think that's a fairly straightforward statement that nearly everyone would agree with. Bad for the heart, bad for the body, bad for a person in general. High blood pressure, clogged arteries, trouble breathing, etc. Fine. But:
In California, there is a program in place where obese men can have state-funded vasectomies to ensure that their inferior genetic material will not live on in the next generation. Again I say fine, albeit less enthusiastically, because I really don't like the thought of legislation picking and choosing genetic defects to eliminate; Albinos are also the victims of a genetic defect, as are dwarfs, as are people with sickle cell anemia, Tay-sachs, etc. While I am aware that there is no sterility measure necessary for sickle cell and tay-sachs since those diseases usually kill the victims early in life, and that albinism and dwarfism do not pose the potential health risks of obesity, it is also true that obese people have the ability to live normal lives, not to mention lose weight and have healthy children. There is no doubt that if one is genetically inclined towards obesity, it is up to that person to know about it and handle the situation in a way that they see fit, but I equate this with the child of an alcoholic being more likely to become addicted. It is not something that has to be eliminated, just controlled, and not by a government, but by an individual.
As I mentioned earlier, though, I am still okay with the state offering free vasectomies to obese men. As the article I link to mentions, the procedure is voluntary. The men enter into it of their own free will. However, I find something truly disturbing about the last sentence in the fifth paragraph:
"If we are to make this procedure mandatory, we must clearly draw the lines where physician judgment is concerned."
If??? Why is this even being considered? If we decide to forceably sterilize obese people? As long as the physician attests that it is for the benefit of future generations? According to recent polls, more than half of the NFL is obese. Using the same criteria, Shaquille O'neal was identified as obese.
There is, I believe, an alarming misconception that people who tip the scales cannot be active, or athletic, or happy. I'm not trying to refute the overwhelming medical evidence, because I agree that obesity poses a health risk. However, when we start talking about the possibility of forcible sterilization to control a defective gene, which, by the way, can be controlled, be it with an exercise plan, surgery, etc., we are taking the concept of "protecting society from itself" way, way, WAY too far.
Personal responsibility is still alive somewhere, probably cold, hungry, and injured. Hopefully, we can find it before it's too late.
