Compulsory Sterilization

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I've yet to hear a single prospective mother say, 'Yeah, I fuck like a rabbit to have kids I have no intention of caring for.'

And yet, that is a routine occurrence.

So what do you do? Sterilize all young people who are broke or fallen on hard times or who come from questionable backgrounds? The earths population would drop off to nothing real quick and the abortion argument everyone wants to make becomes an absolute mute point.
I know MANY decent people who had really shitty parents. The suggestion here, even if nobody wants to admit it is that nobody with lousy parents deserves a shot at life. Raise your hands if your parents were less than perfect. :roll:

[Hydra009]

So what do you do? Sterilize all young people who are broke or fallen on hard times or who come from questionable backgrounds?

Well, I have seriously considered that...

But no.

The suggestion here, even if nobody wants to admit it is that nobody with lousy parents deserves a shot at life.

Is that the suggestion here?  I have read Fidel's post the same as you have, but I imho, that is not his argument.

But I will indulge you.  If lousy parents (I'm talking REALLY lousy, like serious abuse/neglect lousy) do not have kids for whatever reason, who is harmed?  If lousy parents do have kids (and lots of 'em), who is harmed?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

And who decides when a 15-20 year old female has intention or ability Fidel? Your Tory's? My kids mother was by any measure one of these horrible people, but you know what? We had kids and they grew up as responsible adults.
How about ALL young people being sterilized till they reach a certain income level or prove 'intent' to actually care for kids? Would you feel better and are you the sole arbitor of who does or doesn't qualify?
 What a load of horseshit..

Having children is not a right, it's a responsibility. If one cannot display the common [basic] intention/ability to act responsible when having children, then one is bringing themselves into question as to their efficacy of being a parent.

Of course, 'parent' is a loose word, but in no way did I mention the issue to be exclusive to:

1. Age [and/or]:
2. Income brackets.

In fact, both of the above were brought into the discussion before and after my post.

You also seemingly didn't read:

1. my caveat [included within the post]
2. the additional post which was a couple of posts later beyond the initial one outlining the impossibilities of who could decide on such an issue.

I make no claim of being able to arbitrate as to the nuances of what constitutes a 'good' parent except my own biases. And I would say my own biases are uniform to anyone who isn't a complete moron who cares only for themselves. You forget APA that I am one of those 'young people' that you believe I am lambasting. And I have that thing called 'common sense' that dictates to me that I am not fit currently to raise a child, both financially or emotionally.

But to your point:

The suggestion here, even if nobody wants to admit it is that nobody with lousy parents deserves a shot at life.

FALSE. Never once made this claim, never spoke about people from 'questionable backgrounds' or people who had fallen on 'hard times'. Quite the opposite actually. I want kids with lousy parents to be able to succeed and do well. It is the parents who have no empathy or compassion for their kids that are the problem, not the kids themselves. What I am saying is that people who have no desire to look after their kids raise a good case for sterilization, bracketing out all debates as to how one would enforce such a policy. The woman I spoke about in my post, who gave up her youngest daughter (one of four) because her new fuck buddy didn't like her for whatever reason, is quite clearly a child abuser. She is abusing the children she has and seemingly has/had no intention of looking after them in the manner which the vast majority of people would consider to be 'right'.

But I will indulge you.  If lousy parents (I'm talking REALLY lousy, like serious abuse/neglect lousy) do not have kids for whatever reason, who is harmed?  If lousy parents do have kids (and lots of 'em), who is harmed?

Very good question.

Put it another way; we're all advocates of abortion, well, mostly so. We recognise that when a woman feels she can't look after a kid, it should be right that she should be able to have an abortion. So why is it different when people are having kids over and over and have a track record of decidedly not looking after or caring for their kids?

Another example; my fiancé'a auntie and uncle couldn't have kids owing to natural sterility. So they chose to adopt (a decent thing to do) a little boy and girl who were put into care at the ages of 2 and 1. As they were going through the process they were informed that there was another sibling on the way (emphasis on on the way) that the mother had already indicated to social services would be joining it's siblings in care. No attempt at reconciliation, to clean her act. No attempt to get her children back or even to try and do the decent thing and look after the unborn child with the aim of uniting all her children.

3 children all in care, even preempting the one that wasn't born yet! Is there a legitimate point when we say enough is enough? Or do we carry on letting her pop kids out into the care system? Do we carry on letting her be a child abuser, which is exactly what she is? I say there must be a line, and the debate should be where we draw and it and how.

[Mermaid]

Having children is not a right, it's a responsibility.

I think I am going to have to disagree with you on this. It is a very very basic fact of biology. Laws should not intervene at all. Reproductive freedom is, IMO, a right. Very much so. Yes, it is a huge responsibility, but no person has any right to control the reproductive choices of another.

[Plu]

The problem is that we still feel responsible for the children these irresponsible people poop out. It's kinda problematic that someone can use their 'reproductive right' to send babies straight from their vagina to the adoptive system and there's nothing anyone can do about it, except to pay the bills for the shitty life these kids are going to have anyway.

It sounds cool in theory that reproduction is a right, but until we make "taking care of your reproduction" a requirement, it's not really going to work all that well.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Having children is not a right, it's a responsibility.

I think I am going to have to disagree with you on this. It is a very very basic fact of biology. Laws should not intervene at all. Reproductive freedom is, IMO, a right. Very much so. Yes, it is a huge responsibility, but no person has any right to control the reproductive choices of another.

Just a thought; what about when we incarcerate criminals?

[Aletheia]

Having children is not a right, it's a responsibility.

I think I am going to have to disagree with you on this. It is a very very basic fact of biology. Laws should not intervene at all. Reproductive freedom is, IMO, a right. Very much so. Yes, it is a huge responsibility, but no person has any right to control the reproductive choices of another.

The ability to eat is a right, not a responsibility, yet we have to pay for our own food one way or another. It is a biological imperative that we eat, yet nobody will directly contribute to our ability to gain food - unless you take advantage of a random charity or the state forces your parents (while you are young) to feed you.

Just because you biologically can and/or must do something doesn't mean society gives a rat's ass about such "rights." Plenty of other animal societies suppress the reproduction of other members based on status, food availability, and various other reasons - so even from nature's point of view, the reproductive choices of others can and often are, interfered with. It should come as no surprise that such traits would be found in human society, which isn't too far removed from our ape brethren.

Spouting off how your ability to reproduce is a "right" has little meaning if your reproductive choices interfere with the stability of society (such as introducing new inheritable diseases, contributing to mass starvation through overpopulation, overtaxing the welfare system... etc). I, personally, am in favor of parents losing welfare benefits if they have more than X number of children while on welfare, and must undergo sterilization to reclaim benefits. A history of neglect or child abuse coupled with having excessive number of children would be another candidate for sterilization. What good is such a person who would abuse their reproductive "right" and add burden to society? No, your ability to reproduce has to be directly proportional to the care provided to and the usefulness of the children you produce. Society in general has a very wide tolerance, but at some point, a line needs to be drawn for those who abuse their reproductive "rights."

[GurrenLagann]

Having children is not a right, it's a responsibility.

I think I am going to have to disagree with you on this. It is a very very basic fact of biology. Laws should not intervene at all. Reproductive freedom is, IMO, a right. Very much so. Yes, it is a huge responsibility, but no person has any right to control the reproductive choices of another.

Woah woah woah. You're violating Hume's is-ought gap. Reproduction being a biological fact says nothing at all about how it ought to be a right to be defended. It's likewise a biologically fact that I might kill someone because I got enraged with them, but we don't base our laws purely off of that.

And surely you think there are a plethora of good cases to limit reproduction? What about a high libido man or woman with a severe genetic defect of some sort who keeps producing kids? Or careless parents who just abandon their kids?

[the_antithesis]

Having children is not a right, it's a responsibility.

Rights are just responsibilities in a fancy hat.

[stromboli]

Forced sterilization implies a society with sufficient control to invade your reproductive rights as with eugenics and forced breeding procedures. This is no different than the Nazis rounding up all the hotties and allowing the heroic men to mate with them, to produce "better" offspring. I do not agree with forced sterilization.

I do agree with an informed society that allows the termination of unwanted life prior to birth, if that birth represents a diseased or corrupted baby. You start with education and a better economic and social situation and create a society that does not produce defective people. Sterilization comes at the point of a gun, something I would never agree with.

[Mermaid]

Having children is not a right, it's a responsibility.

I think I am going to have to disagree with you on this. It is a very very basic fact of biology. Laws should not intervene at all. Reproductive freedom is, IMO, a right. Very much so. Yes, it is a huge responsibility, but no person has any right to control the reproductive choices of another.

Woah woah woah. You're violating Hume's is-ought gap. Reproduction being a biological fact says nothing at all about how it ought to be a right to be defended. It's likewise a biologically fact that I might kill someone because I got enraged with them, but we don't base our laws purely off of that.

And surely you think there are a plethora of good cases to limit reproduction? What about a high libido man or woman with a severe genetic defect of some sort who keeps producing kids? Or careless parents who just abandon their kids?

What about them? As far as I am concerned, the ONLY person who has any say in their reproductive decision making is the owner of the genitalia in question. If you have genetic defects, yeah, that sucks, but it's not up to me to tell you whether or not to breed. That'd smack of eugenics.

Prison is an interesting question, though. When you are incarcerated, you are stripped of most of your rights by design.

[GurrenLagann]

Woah woah woah. You're violating Hume's is-ought gap. Reproduction being a biological fact says nothing at all about how it ought to be a right to be defended. It's likewise a biologically fact that I might kill someone because I got enraged with them, but we don't base our laws purely off of that.

And surely you think there are a plethora of good cases to limit reproduction? What about a high libido man or woman with a severe genetic defect of some sort who keeps producing kids? Or careless parents who just abandon their kids?

What about them? As far as I am concerned, the ONLY person who has any say in their reproductive decision making is the owner of the genitalia in question. If you have genetic defects, yeah, that sucks, but it's not up to me to tell you whether or not to breed. That'd smack of eugenics.

Oh come on. I hate to come off rude, but cut the crap. You're going to tell me that the right of the parent with a severe genetic defect (say, I dunno, Downs syndrome or sickle-cell) trumps that of their offspring, allowing them to inflict greater suffering uncontrollably because they want to? Sounds legit....

Prison is an interesting question, though. When you are incarcerated, you are stripped of most of your rights by design.

Which goes to show that you either don't think there should be prisons, or you think there are lines that can be crossed, upon which you surrender your rights. If inflicting severe disorders upon innocent children because you consciously decide to be irresponsible with your semen (this is something that would obviously be far more easily done by men) isn't crossing that line, I can't much fathom what else you think does.

[Maelstrom]

I am not a humanist.  Many atheist are, but not me.  I have just as much an abhorrence for humanity as I do for religion.

Yes, some people simply should not breed.  How many stories have we heard from the news where supposedly normal people kill their children for no reason?  These psychos are allowed to breed, but homosexual couples are not allowed to legally adopt?  What kind of bullshit is that?

If heterosexual people are allowed to breed and utterly fuck up the lives of their children, then homosexual couples deserve the same right.

Of course, I realize I have turned this into a gay rights fiasco.

It does not, however, eliminate the fact that some people are simply horrible parents.   Do not ask me to come up with a plan on how one would scan for good parenting genes, because at this point in our evolution we have not even reached the point where the theists have stopped finding things to protest against.  

What I can offer is merely an opinion.  An opinion that may not be worth much to some, but may make sense to others.

Yes, some people simply should be sterilized so that they cannot breed.

[BlackL1ght]

Who decides who gets sterilized? The courts? That sounds like a horrible idea to me.

If we could figure out 100% who had what genes and whether they were good/bad enough to artificially select for, then that might be an option. However, the human rights issues outweigh the needs in my opinion. I think we'll be genetically engineering before then anyway (selecting against genes for disease and, hopefully, stupidity). Either way, I probably won't live to see it. But, who knows?

[Johan]

Yes, some people simply should not breed.  How many stories have we heard from the news where supposedly normal people kill their children for no reason?  These psychos are allowed to breed, but homosexual couples are not allowed to legally adopt?  What kind of bullshit is that?

Homosexual couples are not allowed to legally adopt?