Forced Chemical Castration

This seems a bit primitive.

This is what they did to the guy that came up with Enigma, it was absolute BULLSHIT.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
This is what they did to the guy that came up with Enigma, it was absolute BULLSHIT.

I hate pedophiles but there is some things I would never wish on anyone. This is that.

would you rather die or live as a eunuch?

If it was my choosing? Eunuch but not chemically, do it for real. if it was forced chem castration, death.

is there that much of a difference?

Originally posted by red g jacks
is there that much of a difference?

Well first chemical castration is pumping your body full of chemicals. Even lowering your T to minimal levels they will still be there and will be fighting to produce. Wrecking havoc on your emotional/mental state. Secondly, you could still get testicular cancer. Chopping them off outright gets it over with and eliminates future problems.

sounds like a plan to me

i guess i change my stance on this issue then. no chemical castration. real castration or life in prison. once again assuming that castration somehow makes a pedo not want to abuse children... which is assuming the urge is strictly sexual

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You guys are ****ing nuts, you support every other type of forgivness and want to chemically castrate someone?

Hell, people say sex changes should be on tax payers dime because it causes suicides, yet this does as well and you approve. Morally perverted when it does not suit your liberal agenda.

Put the person in jail for Gods sake

Who supports tax payer-funded sexual reassignment surgery? I certainly do not. If someone elects to cosmetically alter her appearance to improve her psychological well-being, then she can pay for it herself, be she disfigured, narcissistic, or transgender.

Moreover, chemical castration is not an alternative to incarceration. It is a therapeutic drug regimen for people who struggle with criminal sexual impulses, the purpose of which is to help them to not offend or re-offend.

Furthermore, chemical castration is completely reversible, and when dosed properly, allows the patient to have normal sexual functioning. Like any hormone treatment, it has potentially undesirable side-effects, which the patient has to weigh against its benefits.

The only real concern is whether this treatment is effective. It may work for some types of offenders and not for others. A policy that paroles all offenders committed to this treatment without consideration to the type of offender they are is what I described earlier as misguided and dangerous.

I've always thought that this reeked of eugenics, even if it is a lot more defensible than that racist bullshit ever was.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who supports tax payer-funded sexual reassignment surgery? I certainly do not. If someone elects to cosmetically alter her appearance to improve her psychological well-being, then she can pay for it herself, be she disfigured, narcissistic, or transgender.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t614751.html

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t614751.html

The decision to include coverage for cross-hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery for the treatment of gender dysphoria in the state Medicaid policy was made by the Health Evidence Review Commission.

The HERC is composed of 12 doctors and medical professionals appointed by the governor, who review medical evidence in order to prioritize health spending and to promote evidence-based medical practices in the state.

This process is open to the public, and includes input from patients, providers, and taxpayers.

What part of this process represents uniquely liberal support for the decision to cover these specific treatments for this particular condition?

Is it the governor? Is it the doctors and medical professionals appointed to the commission? Is it the review of medical evidence? Is it the input from patients? Is it the input from providers? Is it the input from taxpayers?

It seems to me that this was an evidence-based decision that included input from multiple stakeholders.

I am liberal, and it is not the decision I would have made, so I do not see how it represents uniquely liberal support, unless you think no conservatives were involved in the process from beginning to end.

Originally posted by Knife
You're simply not very bright. 😬

Originally posted by red g jacks
would you rather die or live as a eunuch?

Originally posted by riv6672
Bright enough to realize you've started two threads directly inspired by your childish reaction(s) to our exchange. 👆

Well they're being given a choice about it. No one's forcing castration on them. Yet.

Aww bless.

Aww -pushes the button- ✅

Originally posted by riv6672
Aww -pushes the button- ✅

You're simply not very bright are you.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
*too, and it's a bit too kind for pedophiles IMO.

But is it only for pedofiles? Or sex offenders? BIG difference.

Pedofile: What loli lovers keep telling themselves they're not.

Sex offender: What you become if that girl you brought home has a really good fake id, and her parents find out about it and press charges. Tracy Lords fooled basically everyone, the government who issued her passports included, so it happens...

Edit: I didn't read the first post before I commented.

Yeah, not too likely you'll find a 13 year old who looks 21.