Should people be sterilized against their will?

Essentially, your logic is similar to the logic used by people who supported segregation and slavery the United States and elsewhere. In other words, even though those people were/are prejudiced, it was justifed because of what it dealt with (in their eyes).

No, I'm not racist, sechsist, or homophobic. I am however, not a big fan of the stupid gene being passed on, and I don't adhere to what society deems politically correct... and yes I realize I'm setting myself.

not a big fan of the stupid gene

Who are you to deem what is and what is not stupid?

Also, I only meant that you were using similar logic, nothing more.

i dunno maybe you are justified to think less of people just for being born with the curse of being mentally retarted

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why I wouldn't feel justified about this. Yet the tone was sarcastic in nature.

Who are you to deem what is and what is not stupid?

Checkmate. I don't have that power nor do I want it.

Also, I only meant that you were using similar logic, nothing more.

I understand that, KnightWriter. Just about all your posts are smart and well thought out, so I there is rarely any confusion.

I used to live next to some drug addicts who had three children and one more underway.
Now those childeren had their granparents to look after them, but there are lots who don't.

Now I think those people should be sterilized. They don't think about the concequences. The last child was born an addict.

There are also people around carrying the HIV and AIDS virus and still have sex. They don't tell the other person that they are infected. Those people should be sterilized

Maybe it's cruel, but they mess with other people's lives. That they don't care about their own is one thing, but don't let them mess with others.

Other than that it should be free will. People who live in trailer parks can be just as carering as rich people. It doesn't all have to be about money, cause that's what you were suggesting. people who don't have money to take care of their children should be sterilized.

people who don't have money to take care of their children should be sterilized.

What if they acquire the money to take care of children at some point later in life? If they're sterilized, they're stuck.

I suggest letting evolution/nature do its own work.

Ha ha, it never fails. Someone posts a sensitive topic. Another person who doesn't agree with the topic starts his post off with that old classic.

"UMM NO".

ahem....

UMMM YES!

There are 2 things that can be done to salvage any kind of future for this planet.

1) We, as a species, get our heads out of our collective rear ends and put a stop to nationalism, greed, self-righteousness, hate, and unify into one group of enlightened people...who put the welfare of all ahead of personal gain.


hahahahahahahaha!!!! That AIN'T gonna happen.!!!!!!!

2) Selectively sterilize a portion of people on this planet. I know...this could be like shooting yourself in the foot. We could be sterilizing the mother or father of the person who cures cancer....but....this planet will be overcrowded one day. Then what? Start executing people for misdemeanors like in Judge Dredd comics?

You can scream "Fascist! Fascist! All you want. What seems like less trouble? Making so that crack addicted woman can't have any more kids to get more welfare?

or

Having to get a license and permit to have a child sometime in the future?


Ummm.....

who really does have the money to take care of kids? my mother didnt but that didnt mean she shouldnt have had me or my sisters my grandparents lived just next door and were loving enough to take care of us while my mother worked very hard for what we had.

when are we gonna stop attacking each other in here and just attack the issue?

dang it i really dont like those double posts sorry for that one thought id edit it

Overpopulation of the planet is a myth.

Have you seen some areas of the United States? Completely empty.

Some areas are overpopulated, but there is plenty of room if people were more spread out.

i know what you mean.

Then there are like couples who want to have kids but cant for medical reasons or something so basically they are sterilized then there are those that seem to have kids but dont want to take care of them but its not our decision on whether they have kids or not. Everything happens for a reason is all i can say

Everyone in the world can comfortably fit into Texas with comfortable (but same sized) living units. Of course, that woukd be a bit weird.

Since no one has answered my question so far, I guess I need to repost it.

From the genetic standpoint, sterilizing someone is equivalent to killing them (both remove you from the gene pool). For those of you who support sterilizing various people, do you also support the death penalty? In the long run, they both have the same overall effect.

Kimball Kinnison

Well, from an animal point of view, our only reason to exist is to survive and procreate. So for an animal not to be able to reproduce, it might as well die and be food for other organisms.

To answer your question, I support the death penalty, and sterilizing a small select few criminals. Sex offenders, rapists, that sort of thing. I think for humans, sterilizing, and death, are very different. As you said, sterilizing someone removes them from the gene pool, but I don't think most people care about that as much as they value their own life.

I don't really care either way if some murderer has kids or not. It most likely won't have some drastic effect on society, so I don't really care. I don't think there will be forced sterilization in the U.S. any time soon though, no matter how limited it might be.

Over population is a problem. It's not about not having enough room to move, it is about not having enough food or fresh clean drinking water for everyone. Sure you might have large areas of the world that arent' lived in (look at the majority of Australia for instance), but that is normally for a reason.

I'll use Australia as my example. Australia is a huge country, but it has a population of only 19 million. Analyists say that I can't get over about 25 million before really bad things start happening...why? Because most of Australia is desert. We can't farm it, it doesn't have much water (excluding water from artesian bores which normally have to be processed before it can be drunk ), has large amounts of salt on the surface because of deforestation and is therefore unviable. Sure it has room, but it isn't viable or even sensible to stick a large amount of people on it.

Say you did fill it with people. Now there isn't any room to farm, which means there isn't really any food. There isn't enough clean water (or if there is, how long will it last?) and because all the trees had to be cut down to make way for houses there is now huge errosion problems, surface salt, bushes dying and wait for it...no habitats for native animals let alone the whole CO2 to oxygen thing that trees do.

Having kids is about thinking responsibley and thinking about how many kids you should bring into the world without hurting it.

*

Back on track, sorry. I don't think that people should be sterilized against there will. What if you sterilized a convicted murderer only to find out later that he was innocent? How are you going to help him? What about the drug addict who gets clean and wants to live a normal life? How are you supposed to explain to them that you sterilized them against there will because you wanted to take them out of the gene pool because you didn't think that they added anything to the community? Well, they are adding stuff back now, how can you give them their rights back?

Frankly, I think it is disgusting that it could even be contemplated.

Kit

i think we will always have a problem with over population but then as i said earlier i dont agree with sterilization


its good to see things have calmed down a bit in here

In reference to a post fairly early on...that someone with a genetic disease can have kids and pass it on? That got me thinking that we are the only species to which "survival of the fittest" does not apply. We have fantastic medical technology to keep alive those who are not strong enough to go on by themselves. I'm not having a go at this great knowledge and ability of ours, just that human emotions keep the gene pool with an even mix of good and bad.

If you have a child (as I have, my wife did most of the work), you want the best treatment available to keep that little person alive, regardless of what may be inherently wrong inside.

This relates to the topic because if those with small genetic problems are sterilised (and I bet they wouldn't want to be) then they are being robbed of a fantastic feeling that is experienced by being around for the birth of your child. I could go into sterilisation of third world countries, but that's just too ugly a topic for me.

I Have to agree with what JediStocky just said. Sterilizing someone just because of a birth defect is wrong i think. Sterilizing anyone seems wrong to me, but then thats just my opinion.

No. Absolutely not. Performing medical procedures without consent amounts to assault and physical abuse.

I would say no except in very very extream situations. Maybe a really messed up rapist who wont stop unless he is sterilized, or other extream situations like that. Despite what Kimble says, it may be more humain in some peoples eyes to do that than put them to death, or others may say that it is harsher punishment. Either way, in some very extream cases, it may be a good option.

In terms of birth defects and what not, no. It is no big deal. Given that there are 6 billion + people on the planet, the effect of a handful of people (relitavilly) wont be that much. Not to mention that as medical science advances birth defects will become more and more rare as more of the world gets developed.

Maybe a really messed up rapist who wont stop unless he is sterilized, or other extream situations like that.

Would you mind explaining how sterilization would stop a rapist? There would be no chance of pregnancy, but I don't see how the violence itself would be stopped.

It boils down to whether people rape others for sexual satisfaction (gaahhh! I said it! Don't bane me!!!1) or because they're psycho.

If it's the former, castrating them would remove a large portion of the impetus involved.
If it's the latter, sterilization will arguably achieve nothing. I'g guess that most rapists are a mixture of the former and the latter, though.

Maybe a really messed up rapist who wont stop unless he is sterilized, or other extream situations like that.

---

/>

In terms of birth defects and what not, no. It is no big deal. Given that there are 6 billion + people on the planet, the effect of a handful of people (relitavilly) wont be that much. Not to mention that as medical science advances birth defects will become more and more rare as more of the world gets developed.

---

/>

Sterilisation: cutting of the tubes between the testes and the penis, so that sperm cannot pass through.

Castration: removal of the testicles.

We're discussing sterilisation, not castration./>/>/>/>

We as a species seem to have completely gotten rid of natural selection. There's cures for everything. There's no more "survival of the fittest". In the days of the caveman the "trailer trash" of today would have gotten eaten by a sabertooth tiger faster than they could sit around complaining about who the father of their baby was. When a species destroys natural selection, they become overpopulated (and those who believe overpopulation is not a problem have obviously never been to India) and nature does everything it can to try to get rid of us. Look at all the cancer that people get now. It wasn't so 100 years ago. Look at AIDS. Mother Nature is trying her hardest to get us to relax with the procreation. And no one is listening.
In my opinion, procreation should not just be a right that everyone has. Have you seen the requirements for adopting a child? They're insane. I don't understand why the requirements for having children naturally are so miniscule (good aim and a willing partner) and the requirements for adopting a child are so vast (several tours of the home to make sure it's fit for children, no criminal record, approval by the state, preliminary court hearings). I think that at the very least convicted murderers should be sterilized. They've already taken away someone else's civil rights (by, you know, killing them). And as DarksiderGeorge said a while back, vasectomies are 99% reversible. If a person is later proven to be innocent, they will most likely still be able to produce children. And to answer your question, Kimball Kinnison, yes I am a supporter of the death penalty.

gwaernardel , you are soooo correct!! People should have to prove to society that they are worthy of the privilege to be a parent. Just beacuse you CAN(the supposed "GOD" given right) procreate doesnt mean you SHOULD(the privilege) .


For those people who believe that there is no "overpopulation" problem. I would have to dissagree with you. While there is plenty of space to fit all the humans, do we really need OCCUPY every inch of the earth just to accomodate a bunch of people who dont have any business procreating in the first place. Besides if we dont curb our population now, while we have a semi-stable government sructure. Humanity will riot under the strain of starvation and and government complacency!!