[El Magnifico]

In my history class today we were talking about one of the 'scandals' of enforced sterilization. I'm for this procedure in special circumstances. There are way too many poor income mothers who are having extreme numbers of children (6 + 7) when they clearly can’t look after these kids, and the kids almost more than often turn out to be a similar clone of their parent. Either they turn out to be a pest to society or continue the cycle. Many young girls are having babies at terrible ages and they are put into care and a life of misery, and these girls continue to have babies when they don’t have the maturity or money to look after these kids. Often no idea who the father is or they don’t even care. It is also a good population managing tool. Also could be used to stop serious criminals and evil people reproducing and bringing more bad into the world.

Should problem potential mothers and regular offenders be permanently stopped from having children and making their life a misery? The world would be much better off with this procedure, a much cleaner world.

 

[Lee]

This is the most ignorant post I have seen lately.

 

[Zirconek]

In my history class today we were talking about one of the 'scandals' of enforced sterilization. I'm for this procedure in special circumstances. There are way too many poor income mothers who are having extreme numbers of children (6 + 7) when they clearly can’t look after these kids, and the kids almost more than often turn out to be a similar clone of their parent. Either they turn out to be a pest to society or continue the cycle. Many young girls are having babies at terrible ages and they are put into care and a life of misery, and these girls continue to have babies when they don’t have the maturity or money to look after these kids. Often no idea who the father is or they don’t even care. It is also a good population managing tool. Also could be used to stop serious criminals and evil people reproducing and bringing more bad into the world.

Should problem potential mothers and regular offenders be permanently stopped from having children and making their life a misery? The world would be much better off with this procedure, a much cleaner world.

you are begging for someone to post about your mother's fertility skills, aren't you?

 

[GlennMirnyi]

The whole post takes it too far, but reproductive control must exist. Not forced, but the goverment (especially in countries like Brazil) should encourage it.

 

[Jelena]

In my history class today we were talking about one of the 'scandals' of enforced sterilization. I'm for this procedure in special circumstances. There are way too many poor income mothers who are having extreme numbers of children (6 + 7) when they clearly can’t look after these kids, and the kids almost more than often turn out to be a similar clone of their parent. Either they turn out to be a pest to society or continue the cycle. Many young girls are having babies at terrible ages and they are put into care and a life of misery, and these girls continue to have babies when they don’t have the maturity or money to look after these kids. Often no idea who the father is or they don’t even care. It is also a good population managing tool. Also could be used to stop serious criminals and evil people reproducing and bringing more bad into the world.

Should problem potential mothers and regular offenders be permanently stopped from having children and making their life a misery? The world would be much better off with this procedure, a much cleaner world.

I don't even want to read that post. But I have an opinion about that topic though. My mother just read a biography of a Chinese woman, who was a victim of enforced abortion in her own case, and who forced women to abort (until the birth). Those women, who she forced to abort their children, were after that sterilizated though they didn't want it. The woman, who wrote her biography, still has psychical problems because of that. So, NOOOO! Not at all!

 

[Kristen]

n.b. I have pretty big issues with overpopulation, the environment, and carrying capacity. To the point where I don't think I want kids to avoid adding to the problem [although they would be damn well educated on the issue!].

I often think there should be some sort of permit before you are allowed to have children, because there are so many people out who really should not reproduce. My mothers friend has a daughter around my age who has 7 children to 7 fathers. I wish I was joking. What are those lyrics "I hate stupid people. They just eat, sleep, and multiply."

I see your point, and aside from the word 'enforced' I mostly agree with you. I just think it would be extremely difficult to find a erm 'happy' medium, to suggest this without offending. I think the only way governments could do this nicely would be to educate. But there's only so much Sex Ed we can all be given.

EDIT: My post refers to developed nations. I don't mean anything to do with 3rd world, or infanticide etc.

 

[MisterQ]

Sounds like a plan to create a class of sterile poor people. :scared:

Just as poverty is not a permanent condition, neither is wealth. Let's hope those who would support such a situation don't get laid off...

At any rate, I view reproductive rights as fundamental. As for overpopulation, let's confront contributing causes instead, particularly in developing nations: poverty, lack of contraception and education, cultural barriers to family planning, son preference, and lack of status and rights for women. Add to this a couple of factors which provide the incentive to have many children: high child death rates and economies in which children are needed to perform labor and contribute to income. In nations with a high standard of living it is usually economically disadvantageous to have many children, and indeed such nations have the lowest birth rates in the world today.

 

[Merton]

The thought of any goverment having the authority to make such decisions scares the crap out of me. Population growth slows down historically when countries develop.

Having said that, actually I think that rumors that Malthus was wrong may have been greatly exaggerated. The great story of the 21st century might very well be the return of the Malthusian trap in economic development.

 

[Lillith]

This post sounds like it could have been written by a modern day Hitler Youth Eugenics supporter.

Certain demographics have more children than others because of a lack of education, no or little access to contraception because of religious influence and control, and a male dominated culture in which the "worth" of the female is judged only by how many children she can produce. Studies consistently demonstrate that educated, emancipated and independent women have fewer children voluntarily, but they also typically live in societies in which contraception and abortion are legal and at least somewhat accepted. Improve the plight of women in this world, and you will also reduce the number of children being born.

As was said by another poster, for environmental reasons, voluntary zero population growth would be the best thing we humans could do at this point in time. But it MUST be voluntary.

 

[Lillith]

Sounds like a plan to create a class of sterile poor people. :scared:

Just as poverty is not a permanent condition, neither is wealth. Let's hope those who would support such a situation don't get laid off...

At any rate, I view reproductive rights as fundamental. As for overpopulation, let's confront contributing causes instead, particularly in developing nations: poverty, lack of contraception and education, cultural barriers to family planning, son preference, and lack of status and rights for women. Add to this a couple of factors which provide the incentive to have many children: high child death rates and economies in which children are needed to perform labor and contribute to income. In nations with a high standard of living it is usually economically disadvantageous to have many children, and indeed such nations have the lowest birth rates in the world today.

"You must spread some reputation around..."

Great post, Mr. Q.

 

[Sparko1030]

That anyone would seriously consider forced sterilization is more than a little scary. The phrase "much cleaner world" is particulary disturbing. This kind of thinking would lead to eradicating any group or person deemed detrimental. This kind of thinking did have its "day" during the reign of facisim in the last centruy. Lets be sure to learn from the past not repeat it, OK?

:devil: Besides, why is it just the poor who are accused of being promisicuos, poor parents and generally being detrimental to society? I mean, could there be a more useless human than Paris Hilton? And Britany has proven to be such a great mom and now her 16 year old sis is following in her footsteps. Cm'on,admit it, if we're going to save the world, we'll have to sterilize the very wealthy too :rolls:

 

[buddyholly]

Besides, why is it just the poor who are accused of being promisicuos, poor parents and generally being detrimental to society? I mean, could there be a more useless human than Paris Hilton?

Paris has kids? Not a good example of how the rich have too many kids.

And why call her useless? Is Roger Federer useless? Paris makes millions from movies, DVD's, TV shows, perfume, etc. You can't blame Paris if people buy it. In reality she is a great example of fulfilling the American dream.

 

[buddyholly]

I don't think enforced sterilization is an option. But I think the cure for global warming is very simple. All we need is a population level low enough that it permits everybody to do what they want. We tax everything, why not children? But there are too many religious taboos.
Unfortunately, in a world of so many diverse nations, global programmes are just not going to happen. There will be no controls on birth, just as there will be no meaningful controls on CO2 emissions, no matter how much Al Gore tries to scare us.

 

[Sparko1030]

Paris has kids? Not a good example of how the rich have too many kids.

And why call her useless? Is Roger Federer useless? Paris makes millions from movies, DVD's, TV shows, perfume, etc. You can't blame Paris if people buy it. In reality she is a great example of fulfilling the American dream.

More like she fulfills your dreams :lol: Her mother should have been sterilized-and Paris should be to put an end to this line of useless rich kids (according to this line of thinking) As far as her fulfilling the American dream, well, that was her grandfather or great grandfather who did that. She would not be where she is had she not been born into that life. She's capitalzied on it for sure but she'd be just be another ignorant poor woman, not a ignorant rich one had she not been born to great wealth Really, the list of wealthy people who should not or should not have reproduced is quite long.

Quit picking on the poor-who else is going to work in the sweatshops to make our cheap clothing, who else is going to do all those nasty but necessary jobs we more educated and wealthy don't want to do? Thanks goodness they do keep on having kids, otherwise who would we have to feel superior to? There must always be a a lower, more pathetic class for us to despise so we don't start turning on eachother. :haha: (this is sarcasm btw )

 

[<Blue>]

I'm against enforced sterelization, it's not right to decide for others against their will, they're humans no matter what they do. When we broke that line for the persons we may agree "they better don't have children", humans become equal anymore, then any stupid goverment/society/group with power can sterilize another ones, and then maybe you and me, not to mention it can make some people to remove other human rights we took so long to get.

Back to the ages where the prisioners of a battle were castrated (to become slaves) and if the village was conquered the "winners" killed their children and took their women to distant lands to serve as uterus of the victorious. Or the castratti singers, so popular in their days. See how stupid we are?


In the other hand, with all goverments preventing overpopulation and wars through education, promoting common weatlh for all people and accepting differences in the long run should reduce criminals, poverty and "external enemies" just because we're all on the same side.
Just a thought.

 

[MuzzaWuzza]

Paris has kids? Not a good example of how the rich have too many kids.

And why call her useless? Is Roger Federer useless? Paris makes millions from movies, DVD's, TV shows, perfume, etc. You can't blame Paris if people buy it. In reality she is a great example of fulfilling the American dream.

:haha:

On topic: Besides the fact it goes against everything I believe in (self-determination, free will, and what not), it will never ever work. Not in this day and age. Exactly because of the fact people are accustomed to doing whatever the hell they want.

 

[Julio1974]

I don't think enforced sterilization is an option. But I think the cure for global warming is very simple. All we need is a population level low enough that it permits everybody to do what they want. We tax everything, why not children? But there are too many religious taboos.
Unfortunately, in a world of so many diverse nations, global programmes are just not going to happen. There will be no controls on birth, just as there will be no meaningful controls on CO2 emissions, no matter how much Al Gore tries to scare us.

That could not work in some developped countries. On the contrary, they are giving incentives to have more children because the population is too old and the pension and retirement system might collapse.

 

[buddyholly]

More like she fulfills your dreams :lol: Her mother should have been sterilized-and Paris should be to put an end to this line of useless rich kids (according to this line of thinking) As far as her fulfilling the American dream, well, that was her grandfather or great grandfather who did that.

So you do not think that people who fulfil their dreams (her grandfather) have the right to control the wealth they have created and spend it how they like. I think you just resent people who make it big, and are jealous of Paris.
You did not comment on Federer. Both he and Paris have found a way to make big bucks in the entertainment business. What's the difference?

 

[Sparko1030]

So you do not think that people who fulfil their dreams (her grandfather) have the right to control the wealth they have created and spend it how they like. I think you just resent people who make it big, and are jealous of Paris.
You did not comment on Federer. Both he and Paris have found a way to make big bucks in the entertainment business. What's the difference?

I'm not arguing that they don't have a right to use the money to make more-that's not my argument at all. I'm saying, had she not been born to wealth, she would not be in that position. I am arguing that had she not been born to great wealth, she would not have earned it on her own. A poor girl who exposes her herself like Paris does is called a prostitute(or a more derogitory term). The term used may change with the wealth of the subject, but the bahvior is the same :shrug:

Now, my assertation is that Paris has not made meaningful contributions to society and its very doubtful (your defense of her is quite galant, but quite misguided ), based on her behavior, that she would make a good mother. She has obvioulsy slept around and could concivabley have several children with a differnt father for each one. According to the criteria mentioned on this thread, if she were poor-she would be a canidate for steriliztion.

Now, why do you pick on poor Roger? I ignored your jab at him becuase its obvious you just threw his name in there to muddle things up. Besides, gifted as he is, he should pass on his genetic material. Should he be deemed unsuitable father material, the child could be raised by good, Hilter fearing Nazis. HEIL HITLER!!!! :devil:

 

[GlennMirnyi]

Point is: because of religious fairy tales, we have to face overpopulation, increased poverty and lack of family planning.