Forced Sterilization

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

The problem with male versions of the pill is that men don't want to bother putting up with the side effects.  They aren't the ones getting pregnant so they have less motivation.  (Do anyone believe that the guy in the article up top is going regularly take something that gives him bad side effects?)quote>

There is also the fact that the side effects for at least one of the proposed male pills can range from nothing at all to death of the man, the woman, or both.  There isn't much that pharmacology knows to do to mitigate that, and you can't exactly market a drug with those side effects (assuming it ever made it past trials).

Probably not too many.  Which brings up the question of what happens when he goes out and gets an STD.   Is he going to suddenly start wearing a condom?   That is the same thing as admitting he was having sex elsewhere.quote>

The question that rarely gets ask is what about her?  At least one study has shown that 1/2 wives admit to cheating on her husband, and 37% admit to doing it after the first kid.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I guess personal resposibilty dont work no more.

every one wants a medical wonder to help thier sellfish lifestyles.

[Shingure 56]

If people are having "too many children" (ambiguous meaning), and there is not enough resources to feed them, it will correct itself in something like a Malthusian catastrophe, in which the excess population dies off. Not pretty, but it is better than a totalitarian regime.

Given the already disrupted process of natural selection in humans if someone has 20 kids and 10 die off will not likely happen in this day in age . The reason being is because over the past 300 years the number of lives births have increased. Then the level of infant mortality decreased. Then childhood and adolescent mortality decreased. This is because of the general advance of medicine. To break it down more specifically the number of live births increased due to prenatal care , then the level of infant mortality decreased with pediatric care and improved birthing techniques. The latter two were also impacted by the founding of pediatric medicine. So end in the end the advances in technology and medicine combined has caused the disruption in the process of natural selection to take place. If medicine never advanced past the point it did 300 years ago there would be , instead of 6.6 billion the earth, about 3 billion to 4 billion. Mainly because of the fact that human intervention has disrupted a natural cycle.

I think that instead of Sterilzing people we should limit the number of childer being born in places with poor economic conditions and where this is a lack of education and resources. Because mainly in these areas is where the largest population growth is taking place in the world. India for instance should have this in place until it's economic situation improves. The same with many other developing nations whose's populations whave grown so much over the past 30 years. That up to 60 percent of people in some places are under the age of 25. However we must also look into the future here.

In a country like India as it becomes more developed it's growth rate will slow down and perhaps get to a point that the number of people being born at the time will not be enough to keep up with natural replacement levels. Japan for instance is by far the best example of this. During it's rapid industrialization and development during the late 1800's and into the early and mid 1900's Japan grew very fast in population size. But then after years of being developed the birthrate began to drop. As years go by the number of deaths due to old age , despite sizeable increases in life expectancy in Japan , will continue to increase. As a result by 2100 Japan would probably be about 50 to 60 million short of it's population currently. India will begin to see the same effects of this at around 2050 to 2075 and their population will also signifigantly decrease. The life expectancy may also rise, but the age of the population on average will increase very quickly and as a result India will cease to have a billion people come 2100 to 2125. It's all how the world develops basically. Meaning in short. Sterilization will be a short term fix the long term solution will require some patience.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Oh my, dont know why i didnt see the comeing

Octomom reality show

Idiocracy in motion.

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Oh my, dont know why i didnt see the comeing

Octomom reality show

Idiocracy in motion.

quote>

Oh yay! She finally gets what she really wanted from all those kids!

Okay, if people are going to do idiotic things like make the annoying neighbors with too many kids stars, then it's only going to inspire more people to pull this male bovie excirment.

Stop giving people the hope for money and fame from having tons of kids and this should go down.

/rant

I am genuinly surprised someone gave this lady a show however. Ever since she had her fifteen minutes of fame it seems like the thought that she only did this for money has been going around. I didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to give her a show.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Out of interest, how many people still use a condom when their partner (assuming neither of you have any STD's etc.) is already on the pill?quote>

Probably not too many.  Which brings up the question of what happens when he goes out and gets an STD.   Is he going to suddenly start wearing a condom?   That is the same thing as admitting he was having sex elsewhere.

quote>

Ah, that wasn't my point. You see, if the pill is 99.9% effective, then its 0.1% uneffective. That's probably going to be 1000's of unwatned pregnancies in the US alone. I'd say you have more to worry about than one guy who has 21 kids (as stupid as he is in doing that)

[Patricius Maximus 236]

If people are having "too many children" (ambiguous meaning), and there is not enough resources to feed them, it will correct itself in something like a Malthusian catastrophe, in which the excess population dies off. Not pretty, but it is better than a totalitarian regime.quote>

Given the already disrupted process of natural selection in humans if someone has 20 kids and 10 die off will not likely happen in this day in age . The reason being is because over the past 300 years the number of lives births have increased. Then the level of infant mortality decreased. Then childhood and adolescent mortality decreased. This is because of the general advance of medicine. To break it down more specifically the number of live births increased due to prenatal care , then the level of infant mortality decreased with pediatric care and improved birthing techniques. The latter two were also impacted by the founding of pediatric medicine. So end in the end the advances in technology and medicine combined has caused the disruption in the process of natural selection to take place. If medicine never advanced past the point it did 300 years ago there would be , instead of 6.6 billion the earth, about 3 billion to 4 billion. Mainly because of the fact that human intervention has disrupted a natural cycle. quote>

You could say that natural selection has been disrupted, but throughout history (e.g. advent of agriculture) it has been "disrupted", because the traits that are favorable to the environment we live in change, and often change rapidly. We are still evolving, just in a slightly different way, because genetic and acquired traits once considered unfavorable are now neutral, or even favorable.

I think that instead of Sterilzing people we should limit the number of childer being born in places with poor economic conditions and where this is a lack of education and resources. Because mainly in these areas is where the largest population growth is taking place in the world. India for instance should have this in place until it's economic situation improves. The same with many other developing nations whose's populations whave grown so much over the past 30 years. That up to 60 percent of people in some places are under the age of 25. However we must also look into the future here. quote>

That would be problematic, because the state can rampantly abuse its power to decide what conditions are unfavorable for purposes of genocide or promoting a certain group to propagate. Also consider that this would enable the state to force a person to get an abortion, or force a person to give a child for adoption. Both, in my opinion, are unethical.

Oh my, dont know why i didnt see the comeing

Octomom reality show

Idiocracy in motion.quote>

Good. Perhaps she can obtain more money for all those children.

I thought that at least the two of us had pretty much concluded that forced sterilisation for this guy is not an option and largely for the same reason, that it was a violation of basic human rights.

Although the first part of the OP was in reference to human rights, the second part in conjunction with the article linked to, at least to my reading of it, seemed to relate to the fact that there were no laws to recoup the amount that taxpayers have had to pay because the state can't take more than half of his wage. quote>

It appears that we have some minor disagreements on another subject, but since they are another subject, I will not go into it furthur.

The law is explicit about rules of the road. There are right and wrong ways to drive. It's easy to determine if someone's driving the wrong way and do something about it.

Parenting, however, is far more subjective. There are many and varied opinions on what constitutes good or bad parenting. And ultimately, it's the right of the parents to raise their kids as they see fit, so long as they aren't doing anything that's in blatant violation of external laws, such as being grossly abusive or negligent. Though, even then, it's not clear cut at what point something becomes abusive or negligent. There's a lot of gray area in there.

Point being, traffic class is merely reaffirming that there are the rules which must be followed.

But parenting class, when not taken willingly, is the state enforcing a given opinion on what constitutes good parenting on people who will likely disagree with some aspects of it - and have every right to. quote>

You can respond to things well, Duke. Well done.

More often than not, when rights come into conflict, one of the rights in question is not an actual human right, or turns out to be a civil right, or is not a right at all.quote>

Can you provide some examples of this?quote>

Can you provide some examples of when two people's rights come into conflict? That was missing in the text I responded to. Once we have some examples to work with, then we can have a real and revealing debate.

sorry to clarify i meant that by sexually assaulting someone and infringing on their rights in that way, you lose your rights in any relevant case. if the state were to then castrate you, it would not be a crime or infact an infringement on your rights as you have no rights in that respect, you forfeited them by commiting the crime... once the sentence is completely served the rights are restored... however this does not mean it would be open season in prisons as that is not general circulation, within the prison walls all rights are temporarily restored.

a qualifying example....

man A attacks man B with the intention to assault him and cause bodily harm, man B happens to be a well trained martial artist. man B causes minor injuries man A in the process of neutralising the attack, but himself remains unharmed. currently man A would have a case in court for assault against man B. with the forfeit of similar rights policy i propose, man B would be immune from conviction of a crime of similar nature in this instance. it would also absolve the guilt of the victim in any kill or be killed situation...quote>

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Your view is not as radical as I thought, but I still disagree with your example that you use to promote the view.

Your scenario was that two men (A & B) are near each other. A approaches B with the clear intention to assault him. B prevents him from doing so, with minor injuries to A. A then charges B with assault.

In my opinion, A wouldn't have much of a case against B, because he approached him with a clear intention to assault him, and B defended himself against it. I would say that is the right to defend oneself against aggression, rather than forefeit of certain rights, that invalidates A's accusation. Using this view, self-defense cannot be used to justify retributive sterilization, unless it was an accidental result of defense against the rapist himself, which does not occur often.