A VALID argument for forced sterilization ....Yea I Said It!!!

[bigDeeOT]

^^^^^ to a certain point I side with that statement but you gotta understand this is why I support the government subsidizing & providing free condoms & basic birth control pills for anyone who wants them. In fact, if you're receiving certain government benefits it should be a requirement.....In my opinion, I think incentivized sterilization would be better. Just a standing offer of £/$ 1000 paid to anyone who submits to voluntary sterilization. The kind of people who would do that are the ones we probably want out of the gene pool anyway But then again on the other side of the coin problem with such a scheme would be that inevitably the poor would be overrepresented. Then that dominoes in to minority groups that are overrepresented amongst the poor & you guessed it the familiar sounds of racism soon make headlines...sigh.. I guess there's no winning breh!

Perfect bro. I've been arguing this exact same thing for a minute now.

 

[NZA]

sterilization has the same problem as execution, it is too permanent for a justice system that is terribly broken.

and incentivized sterilization is a form of eugenics, terrible policy to pursue, brehs

 

[Wild self]

Its tough because some people clearly should not be having kids, but at the same time this is a system that can quickly spiral out of control.

China's demographic problems (and future undoing) are the result of such programs. The goofy 1 child rule as well as the wiping out of millions of female kids due to preference has pretty much doomed them to a fate similar to Japan.

And of course there is the whole issue of human rights.

I think there is a healthy medium though. Like they could limit welfare to people who only have 2 or less kids for example. Or no child support if you have more than 2 baby daddys. shyt like that would definitely curb a lot of the fukkery going on without violating anyones rights.

Not to mention that will save a lot of money to stimulate the economy.

 

[mbewane]

Verty touchy/sensitive issue. Logically, there are a LOT of reasons as to why certain persons should NOT be having babies, and I'll go as far as having babies is not, in my view, a "right" (in the sense that some think that EVERY SINGLE PERSON should have babies), because once one has a baby, one has "duties" towrds that baby AND society, and some people just can't cope with those.

BUT, that's all an "intellectual" reasonning, based on economics too. But human rights say the exact opposite, that everyone should be allowed to have kids and that society should provide for ALL its children. Even drawing lines such as limiting welfare to people with a certain amount of children is discriminatiry, because what you're saying is that poor people should not be having kids: are you implying that because one is poor, one is "less" of a good parent? that's extremely insensitive, and false too. So it's a very hard line to draw.

 

[Type Username Here]

Not a single person on this earth has any right nor claim over anothers' body, mind or ability to live as chosen.

So you don't believe in parenting or the argument that a parent has a right over a child?

 

[Slang]

Sterilized? Not really, that i don't think anyone should be forced to do. BUT, if you're going to be getting aid then birth control should be manditory. you don't have to take the aid.

^All kinds of stupid.

 

[bigDeeOT]

are you implying that because one is poor, one is "less" of a good parent? that's extremely insensitive, and false too. So it's a very hard line to draw.

Facts are sometime cold and insensitive. To say that very poor people are less good of a parent is a generalization that certainly does not apply to ALL poor people. However it IS a very good generalization. All across the world you see children of poor people doing worst off than children of rich people.

I think if someone is on welfare because they have a child, they should not have another child until they get off of welfare. To have another child when you are on welfare is in my mind a form of child abuse, because you are forcing someone to live in a world in which you cannot provide for them. It ought to be policy that in order to recieve welfare, you have to be on longterm birthcontrol.

 

[kp404]

deleted

 

[DEAD7]

Not a single person on this earth has any right nor claim over anothers' body, mind or ability to live as chosen.

Unless liberals are in power and its for the public good

 

[mbewane]

Facts are sometime cold and insensitive. To say that very poor people are less good of a parent is a generalization that certainly does not apply to ALL poor people. However it IS a very good generalization. All across the world you see children of poor people doing worst off than children of rich people.

I think if someone is on welfare because they have a child, they should not have another child until they get off of welfare. To have another child when you are on welfare is in my mind a form of child abuse, because you are forcing someone to live in a world in which you cannot provide for them. It ought to be policy that in order to recieve welfare, you have to be on longterm birthcontrol.

No way I can agree with that. With that logic, the overwhelming majority of africans should not be having kids because they are poorer than europeans. Are we speaking about absolute poverty, or relative? Who chooses, let me guess: rich people right? (and if you're on a computer, you're richer than probably 80 % of the world population).

Waaaaaay too easy to use these "facts" as basis for eugenism.

 

[bigDeeOT]

No way I can agree with that. With that logic, the overwhelming majority of africans should not be having kids because they are poorer than europeans. Are we speaking about absolute poverty, or relative?

You're trying to make this way too complicated. Its as simple as this dude. If you cannot provide for your kids, you should not have kids. Now I understand it may not be clear where exactly to draw the line, but that doesn't change the fact that in general you should not be having kids if you cant provide for them. I'm not sure how you can dispute that.

If it turns out that this policy will affect many africans, then so be it. How can you argue otherwise? If some africans are living a life of poverty, incapable of providing for their family, then why should they continue to have kids?
Perhaps this is why you see so many countries in africa fighting in civil wars. All these people fighting were perhaps kids that grew up in poverty and/or single parent homes so they grow up to be very dysfunctional morally barren individuals.

 

[mbewane]

You're trying to make this way too complicated. Its as simple as this dude. If you cannot provide for your kids, you should not have kids. Now I understand it may not be clear where exactly to draw the line, but that doesn't change the fact that in general you should not be having kids if you cant provide for them. I'm not sure how you can dispute that.

If it turns out that this policy will affect many africans, then so be it. How can you argue otherwise? If some africans are living a life of poverty, incapable of providing for their family, then why should they continue to have kids?
Perhaps this is why you see so many countries in africa fighting in civil wars. All these people fighting were perhaps kids that grew up in poverty and/or single parent homes so they grow up to be very dysfunctional morally barren individuals.

I understand what you're saying breh, the whole being able to provide for your kids. It's totally logical, and I don't dispute that. Problem is, it's just as logical to say you're a criminal, so you can't have kids. you're handicapped and can't move around, same. You have a low iq, ditto. You're unemployed, more of the same. Etc. Once you go that route, you end up with only wealthy people being allowed to have kids, and you end up with eugenism. As one said, "l'Enfer est pavé de bonnes intentions" (Hell is made of good intentions, roughly translated).

With your logic, my grandfather can't have my father, and I can't be here.

 

[bigDeeOT]

Lets break this apart piece by piece.

you're a criminal

When you are a criminal in jail, you can't have kids. When you get out of jail you are no longer a criminal so its ok to have kids.

you're handicapped and can't move around, same.

If you're handicapped you can have kids because your spouse can take care of the kids. If you are handicapped and you don't have a spouse then it may still be ok if the kids are old enough to physically bathe themselves for instance. If you are handicapped, without a spouse, and you have a newborn baby, then you should not be allowed to have kids if your handicap prevents you from taking care of them.

You have a low iq, ditto.

You don't need a high IQ to properly take care of kids.

You're unemployed

If you are unemployed and have no money to take care of kids then you should not be having kids.

Once you go that route, you end up with only wealthy people being allowed to have kids,

Only people who can take care of a child should be allowed to have kids

and you end up with eugenism.,

One thing you'll learn about me is you can't scare me with labels so you can call it what you want lol

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

I think we should forcibly sterilize people who are in favor of forced sterilization

 

[bigDeeOT]

I'm not in favor of forced sterilization