enforced sterilization

[MrDoobie]

[video=youtube;ASrFufnMNDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASrFufnMNDg[/video]

Can you please provide a source that is not pro-life propaganda?

 

[toska]

Can you please provide a source that is not pro-life propaganda?

[video=youtube;8CAK0Z9sxpA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CAK0Z9sxpA[/video]

 

[Brodskizzle]

I think people just need to discover the magic of the rubber. Once they start using that, everything else will sort itself out.

 

[5r6jhd]

I think people just need to discover the magic of the rubber. Once they start using that, everything else will sort itself out.

Hence my point on, albeit not very seriously stated, about more birth control. I used a condom and now my little girl is 2 1/2. More education on contraceptive options and more affordable birth contrrol would be one way to go.

 

[alice144]

Alice, this is the ultimate form of control. I thought you didn't like authority?

Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean that I can't argue in favor of it.

Your standpoint is ethnocentric. Ever talk to the Amish?

If the Amish bred like rabbits and yet stayed in Amishland which has a specific defined area of XXX sq feet, they would eventually die off because there would not be enough resources to support them all, especially at their current level of technology. Should they decide to adopt electricity, then perhaps they could start having large families again. But, should they continue to hold fast to their cherished values, the Amish population will not grow beyond a certain predefined carrying capacity.

Considering a good chunk of Africa and other third world nations are still agrarian and their farmers can't afford technologies that would lessen the burden of not having a lot of children....

Clearly you have misunderstood my argument.

America is not the entire world.

Next thing I know, you're going to start telling me that Africans aren't real people. The laws of nature apply to everyone, not just some people some of the time.

Seriously though, I'd like to see some evidence that families in developing countries are better off having more children. Last I heard, all those kids in Africa were starving and dying of AIDS.


Here's another image for those of you who were confused: http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/...major-types-population-models-q1531061?frbt=1. The one which goes up forever is the fake one. The one which evens out is the real one. Yes, this is an extremely simplistic and reductive argument, and yes there are many other factors which affect population growth. However, it is a good model, and essentially true.


Sorry about my shitty posts, I really don't care enough about this to take the time and sit down to create better ones. Also, why is it that every time I log on here I have like twelve notifications, half of them angry posters calling me names? I wish that I really were trying troll you, at least then it would all make some sense.

 

[alice144]

Also, has anyone stopped to think of the possibly humorous implications of an enforced sterilization program? Would the Evangelical Right spring forth in protest, claiming that Jesus doesn't want us to not have babies? I wonder about that one.

So what you would really be going up against is patriarchy. I think that those old types of patriarchal systems do need to come down, but I know that they wont change easily.

That's a really good insight and certainly much more socially acceptable than Chris Langan's enforced sterilization policy.

Here's a funny excerpt from one of my favorite sites ever dedoimedo, titled 'if I had a country'.

People would be granted a parenting license, after proving they are capable of raising children. Tests would be based on a few simple factors, including basic intelligence, education, criminal past, profession, and others. Depending on the test outcome, parents would be granted children points. For example, an average middle-class family would be permitted two children. This means they would be provided with all the benefits the country provides, like extensive maternity leaves, children grants and so forth.

Yes? No? Is he righter than Chris Langan at least?

 

[MrDoobie]

Also, has anyone stopped to think of the possibly humorous implications of an enforced sterilization program? Would the Evangelical Right spring forth in protest, claiming that Jesus doesn't want us to not have babies? I wonder about that one.

LOOK AT MY FUNNY HAT EVERYONE LOOK AT MY FUNNY HAT

Clearly you have misunderstood my argument.

Oh no, I think it's clear you have misunderstood your own argument.

 

[toska]

Yes? No? Is he righter than Chris Langan at least?

No. The only people who would want to participate in enforcing such a program are authoritarian, sociopathic control freaks. And then below them would be the petty little nobodies on power trips who would abuse their authority for sure.

 

[MrDoobie]

Also, has anyone stopped to think of the possibly humorous implications of an enforced sterilization program? Would the Evangelical Right spring forth in protest, claiming that Jesus doesn't want us to not have babies? I wonder about that one.

[video=youtube;6Xywqv1cDH8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8[/video]

 

[alice144]

No. The only people who would want to participate in enforcing such a program are authoritarian, sociopathic control freaks.

Probably because they're righter than the rest of us.

But seriously, people need to start having fewer kids. It's getting harder and harder to find places where I can hide from them all (people, that is).

 

[CindyLou]

Lol, Alice. Move out of the city. It feels cramped when you're stuck in traffic but once you get up in the air you'll see how much space there is...and there is plenty for everyone.

 

[MrDoobie]

But seriously, people need to start having fewer kids. It's getting harder and harder to find places where I can hide from them all (people, that is).

I knew it. You ARE a 16 year old who "totes hates kids" because your mom makes you change your baby brothers diapers and he doesn't even have to take the trash out and stuff and it's not fair.

Probably because they're righter than the rest of us.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Yes? No? Is he righter than Chris Langan at least?

No. It's a pretty stupid idea.

You really like stupid ideas, don't you?

 

[alice144]

Lol, Alice. Move out of the city. It feels cramped when you're stuck in traffic but once you get up in the air you'll see how much space there is...and there is plenty for everyone.

I did! And there are still too many of them!

 

[Matt3737]

I did! And there are still too many of them!

Quit browsing the internet.

 

[Faye]

That's a really good insight and certainly much more socially acceptable than Chris Langan's enforced sterilization policy.

Is he righter than Chris Langan at least?

Thanks.

No I don't think he is more correct than Chris Langan. Chris Langan at least gets off because he is vague about the criteria for forced population control, or I don't remember what he said when I watched the video of him. This guy lists factors all linked to socio-economic status: education, criminal past, profession, and basic intelligence. All of those are linked to socioeconomic status, and although intelligence isn't directly linked to socio-economic status, any test (like an IQ test) that we can produce to measure it will be biased in favor of higher class people. This has been a persisted problem in the implementation of IQ tests.

The U.S. once had a policy of forced sterilization for persons who did poorly on an IQ test (or that it classified as retarded), and the supreme court backed it in one of their worst decisions ever, right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson. The Nazis copied the U.S. when they instituted their similar practices.

Even if a person does score that low on an IQ test (below a 70 in the case of the US to be classified as mentally disabled I think), I don't think there are any good reasons why such a person should not be allowed to live a normal life and have children if they so choose. Intelligence alone isn't a good reason to have authority over others. So basically, this guy is just echoing the sentiment of the Holocaust (although basing it on things like profession and education isn't explicitly racist, it would be racist in practice- it might also be sexist since more women are going to college than men now).

 

[alice144]

Well-argued, I agree 100%.

Let's look at the issue another way: is it selfish for parents to have children just because they want children and having children will make them feel good, if they are neither emotionally nor financially prepared to raise a kid? It might not be ethical to prevent the parents from reproducing, but is it ethical for a kid to be born to those parents?

 

[CindyLou]

[video=youtube;3kpBwxqbs1I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpBwxqbs1I&list=FLl5ps-NpTUb0_yhgKhleV3A&index=1&feature=plpp_video[/video]

 

[Faye]

Well-argued, I agree 100%.

Let's look at the issue another way: is it selfish for parents to have children just because they want children and having children will make them feel good, if they are neither emotionally nor financially prepared to raise a kid? It might not be ethical to prevent the parents from reproducing, but is it ethical for a kid to be born to those parents?

Well, I'm not sure how we would judge emotional readiness. Maybe the 13 year old girls at my middle school wouldn't qualify? But they might someday qualify, or they might have extended family who helps raise the child.

As for financial stability, we could solve that problem by creating a better social safety net. At least, creating an implementing a policy of forced sterilization would cost so much money to taxpayers that we could instead spend that money to make up for the parents shortcomings in providing for education, food, and healthcare. It also would be a contentious issue because we can't really say how rich a person should be in order to have a good life. Like, where would we put the cutoff, and why? $20,000, $30,000, and also this would likely unfairly discriminate against recent immigrants to the country who, although they are only working as a farmhand or whatever, are still much better off than a slum in Mexico. Basically, I don't see how we can justify forcing materialism upon others.

Also, it would be dumb to do in this country because our fertility rate is declining. The reason the U.S. population is growing is because of immigration. The places that are making lots of children tend to be poor 3rd world countries. And a single person in the U.S. wastes much more resources than one person in the third world.

Basically, I think any program to limit population growth aside from education of women would be impractical and/or unethical. Some people want eugenics, but that would also be impractical because it would just become a political issue again, and the poorer and politically weaker people would be the ones who get hit by it. It would also probably make us worse off as a species because we are good precisely because we have variation in the gene pool.

 

[alice144]

Well, I'm not sure how we would judge emotional readiness.

I think that he was trolling, at least a little bit. But it sure is fun to think about.

although they are only working as a farmhand or whatever, are still much better off than a slum in Mexico.

From what I've heard, immigrants don't do that well in this country either, not until the second or third generation, anyhow.

Also, it would be dumb to do in this country because our fertility rate is declining.

Well, that's people thinking ahead for you. But we really don't need to be importing labor anyhow; my impression is that people like to hire immigrants so that they can treat them badly and not have to feel guilty about it. It's a race thing. I should know; I made a pretty determined effort to get some rich people to hire me to clean their house back when I was living in Houston. Now that I live in the white people capital of America, I've had no trouble picking up a housekeeping gig. Not that they don't still try to hire immigrants.

It would also probably make us worse off as a species because we are good precisely because we have variation in the gene pool.

Yeah, but some variations, like peanut allergies and lactose intolerance really suck. Oh, and cystic fibrosis, I don't like that one either. But yeah, I agree, it would be arrogant for us to believe that we know which traits are absolutely best. No one's that smart.

Now, a voluntary sterilization program, that's not such a bad idea. And it would pay for itself considering all the children we wouldn't be putting through public school.