Forced Sterilization

[Droid101]

Copying this from the Vagina Institute thread:

Sterilize everyone at birth with a reversible procedure.

At age 25, you can apply to have kids. Drug tests, Emotional IQ tests, and whatever else are taken. If you pass, you get to be un-sterilized.

There, works for everyone!

While yes, obviously this is over the top and would never happen (except maybe in China), it does have a lot going for it. I mean, there would be no abortion except when the pregnancy endangers the woman's health. There'd be less poverty, because there'd be less teen pregenancies and single mothers.

Anyway, I'm rambling and don't really know how it would turn out, but figured everyone has an opinion on it.

[Limper]

In every other case in our lives we require some sort of license or milestone before responsibility I don't see why reproduction should be different.

[Droid101]

In every other case in our lives we require some sort of license or milestone before responsibility I don't see why reproduction should be different.

Considering, in the scheme of things, it takes more skill, determination, dedication, and responsibility to be a parent than driving, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and voting do, combined. :)

[mollygrue]

there is a line in a movie--canoe reeves i believe---"you gotta have a license to get maarried, you gotta get a license to drive a car-hell you gotta get a license to catch a fish--but any but-reaming asshole can be a father"
(exact quote may vary slightly)

[Janos]

Intellectually I'm in favor of it, but it would cause a pretty severe population shortage and tromp all over civil liberties. I was talking with a lawyer friend who specializes in fair treatment of workers and liberties, and just about gave her a heart attack throwing this out as a good suggesting and debating it with her.

[Droid101]

Intellectually I'm in favor of it, but it would cause a pretty severe population shortage and tromp all over civil liberties. I was talking with a lawyer friend who specializes in fair treatment of workers and liberties, and just about gave her a heart attack throwing this out as a good suggesting and debating it with her.

See, I don't get that. Why is it tromping on civil liberties to require license to breed, but it's not to require license to fish/drive/hunt/etc?

[Limper]

Intellectually I'm in favor of it, but it would cause a pretty severe population shortage and tromp all over civil liberties. I was talking with a lawyer friend who specializes in fair treatment of workers and liberties, and just about gave her a heart attack throwing this out as a good suggesting and debating it with her.

Why do we assume its a civil liberty to propagate?

Would a pupulation shortage be that bad? We could stand to have a few less billion people on the planet.

[The Winslow]

I have a more practical idea. Because forced sterilizations ain't going to be practical.

My solution is simpler and more elegant: first, you begin by spreading in the water, in the atmosphere, everywhere, pollutants that affect sperm -- that reduce sperm count, that decrease sperm quality, and if you can pollutants that do both.

Then, you develop fertility clinic that will let couples to have children despite the poor quality of the guy's sperm. The treatments and artificial fertilization will be extra-super-expensive so that only rich people will be able to afford to make kids.

With this system, you suppress breeding in the part of society that, traditionally, breed the most: the lower class.

And the wonderful thing is that it wouldn't even be that hard to do, because honestly, all it requires is going a bit more forward in the way we're already heading into.

[TiQuinn]

Forced sterilization would require surgery, which would inevitably result in a higher number of surgical deaths and mishaps resulting in an undue financial burden on the healthcare, insurance, the government, and eventually the taxpayers. This is not even including the high cost of performing these surgeries in the first place.

[Limper]

One of the biggest problems with this is that parenting is a skill one learns when one gets thrown into it. There are many people who turn out to be good parents who definitely don't have it together when the kid is born. There are also a LOT of parents who pay good lip service to what makes good parenting that just sort of fail at actually raising their children right.

I don't think that any test would measure how a person is going to react when they actually have a child of their own to care for for years on end.

But under forced sterilization there would be plennty of folks wanting a kid so we could give them a shot at someone who sucks one.

Overall the Kibutz isn't all that bad a system.

[Janos]

Why do we assume its a civil liberty to propagate?

Because the Supreme Court has established that it is.

Would a pupulation shortage be that bad? We could stand to have a few less billion people on the planet.

Because that means there are a few million less Americans, not a few billion less of the nation that is grossly overpopulating. I don't particularly look forward to a war where we're outnumbered 10 to 1 right now, and that's before taking into account something like a huge population reduction.

[Droid101]

Forced sterilization would require surgery, which would inevitably result in a higher number of surgical deaths and mishaps resulting in an undue financial burden on the healthcare, insurance, the government, and eventually the taxpayers. This is not even including the high cost of performing these surgeries in the first place.

I would think of a chemical injection, which can then be reversed with another chemical injection later on.

I just come up with the ideas, it's my team's job to carry them out! :)

[Limper]

Because the Supreme Court has established that it is.


Those guys could fuck up a free lunch.

[TiQuinn]

I would think of a chemical injection, which can then be reversed with another chemical injection later on.

I just come up with the ideas, it's my team's job to carry them out! :)


What chemical?

I mean, I want a chemical that gives me six pack abs and lets me shit gold bricks at will, but I don't think science is going to heed my call. :D

[Droid101]

What chemical?

I mean, I want a chemical that gives me six pack abs and lets me shit gold bricks at will, but I don't think science is going to heed my call. :D

I'll get my team working on that one, too.

[Janos]

Those guys could fuck up a free lunch.

Yes, yes they could. That said, popular support has always backlashed against historic sterilization policies and they've never been all that effective.

[Limper]

Yes, yes they could. That said, popular support has always backlashed against historic sterilization policies and they've never been all that effective.

To bad more folks aren't educated and affluent.

[TiQuinn]

I'll get my team working on that one, too.

Okay, let's assume that this chemical exists. Even a chemical procedure is going to carry dangers that will test the healthcare and legal system.

[Janos]

To bad more folks aren't educated and affluent.

Have you seen Idiocracy? It's a bad movie, but it makes a very good point.

[mollygrue]

not in favor of only the rich being allowed breeding priveledges--look how paris hilton and her crew turned out.

it is very difficult to predict who will be a good parent--children who grow up with abuse are statistically more likely to commit abuse---but many dont.
many decide to break the cycle and are truly wonderful parents.

intelligence doesnt seem to do it either.
i know some truly stooooopid people who are kind and gentle and wise when it comes to children, and some very brite people who parent very poorly.

i think that perhaps the "forced sterilization" should be a consequence-rather than a preventative measure.

be a crack ho--beat your babies--loose your priveldges.

[Droid101]

I'd actually like to see the statistics on crime rates/drug abuse for people born unwanted to under 25 year old mothers, compared to planned pregnancy in over 25 year old mothers.

[Limper]

Have you seen Idiocracy? It's a bad movie, but it makes a very good point.


I'll have to check it out.

[Droid101]

Have you seen Idiocracy? It's a bad movie, but it makes a very good point.

While I disagree (I thought it was really funny), it does make a really good point. In fact, you only really need to watch the first five mintues to get that point.

As a matter of fact, it's only three minutes, and here's the YouTube link. Funny, sad, and true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAYnc_-ddlw

[Limper]

While I disagree (I thought it was really funny), it does make a really good point. In fact, you only really need to watch the first five mintues to get that point.

As a matter of fact, it's only three minutes, and here's the YouTube link. Funny, sad, and true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAYnc_-ddlw

If its all that good I need to buy it.

[Janos]

If its all that good I need to buy it.

For me that was the high point of the movie. But it isn't the worst I've seen.

[Varaj]

i think that perhaps the "forced sterilization" should be a consequence-rather than a preventative measure.

be a crack ho--beat your babies--loose your priveldges.

I agree. Though I would add alcohol to the mix. Alcohol is several orders of times more damaging to fetuses than cocaine.

[The Winslow]

not in favor of only the rich being allowed breeding priveledges--look how paris hilton and her crew turned out.

It would correct itself automatically. One shouldn't expect Paris Hilton to stay rich on her own...

[Northcott]

My solution is simpler and more elegant: first, you begin by spreading in the water, in the atmosphere, everywhere, pollutants that affect sperm -- that reduce sperm count, that decrease sperm quality, and if you can pollutants that do both.

That's already happening. Unfortunately it's neither planned nor reversible.

[PWD]

That's already happening. Unfortunately it's neither planned nor reversible.

A winner is us!

[Xavier Lang]

Copying this from the Vagina Institute thread:



While yes, obviously this is over the top and would never happen (except maybe in China), it does have a lot going for it. I mean, there would be no abortion except when the pregnancy endangers the woman's health. There'd be less poverty, because there'd be less teen pregenancies and single mothers.

Anyway, I'm rambling and don't really know how it would turn out, but figured everyone has an opinion on it.

Many wanted, loved, well cared for children are born before the parents are 25.
If Mom is 25 is that enough?
How about if just Dad is?
What if your religion is opposed to birth control?
What do you do when the bureaucracy fails for 5-15% of the people that want kids?
How are you planning on handling the massive population loss you will be dealing with? (The U.S.A. and most of Western Europe are already at a population loss without immigration.)
Who sets the standards for the right to parenthood?
Is there any group you trust to allow everyone in the world a fair shake at having kids?

[mollygrue]

1. my daughter & her children being good examples
2&3--would perhaps depend on who is to be primarycaretaker
4 separation of church and state issues
5 adopt
6 rejoice
7 me
8 NO NO NO

seriously tho--i think forced sterilzation would be a consequence--not a preventative. if we "assume" the right to procreate, and the potential for being a decent parent within any given individual unless proven otherwise,there would be no need for preemptive sterilization

our judicial system is based on the idea of innocent until proven guilty right?
so--decent until proven unfit---and yes alcohol abuse during pregnancy should definately be considedered a factor--the "crak ho" remark was just a sweeping generalization of the type --and yes--those who struggle with addiction and are working their programs and following their steps are not included in this, of course....im strictly considering the out of control, danger to themselves and others, creators of chaos who are in no condition to care for themselves let alone a helpless and dependent infant.

[Droid101]

Yes.

[Dawnstar]

I think it would be a good thing to sterilize some people. You know like rapists, and crack addicts that continue to get pregnant and have babies, and prostitutes. That would not hurt society that may actually help society.

[mollygrue]

have you checked out the thread abput the sex offender-?-we were just discussing similar. i like the way you think

[shabois]

Freakenomics makes a facinating argument that the rise in abortions has reduced the crime rate in this country. Not to get into an abortion debate, but the point is that crime was reduced because the children who would have been born would generally have been poor at risk kids more prone to crime. Sterilization cpild have the same effect by reducing teenage births in at risk situations, especially involving drugs.

[Morbidity]

I think it would be a good thing to sterilize some people. You know like rapists, and crack addicts that continue to get pregnant and have babies, and prostitutes. That would not hurt society that may actually help society.

Rapists? Why should rapists in particular not be allowed to procreate? Why are prostitutes being put in the same category? Once you step on this path it becomes very difficult to know where to draw the line.

In one category you’ve got people who would make an unhealthy baby: Alcoholics, drug addicts etc.

In another category you’ve got people who presumably you’re saying are not eligible to pass their gene pool on: Prostitutes, rapists …. So who decides this? Should people with disabilities be allowed? Downs Syndrome folk etc? There are many who argue this.

Legislation like this is dangerous because once introduced it’s very easy to just widen it slightly and before you know it you’re trying to practice eugenics.

[Morbidity]

Forced sterilization would require surgery, which would inevitably result in a higher number of surgical deaths and mishaps resulting in an undue financial burden on the healthcare, insurance, the government, and eventually the taxpayers. This is not even including the high cost of performing these surgeries in the first place.

Possibly yes, possibly no. You have to weigh up the total cost. Perhaps it would be an immediate expense that would be offset by savings elsewhere. For example is it cheaper for a one-off sterilisation procedure than the cost of abortions and contraception?

One of the interesting things about cancer patients is that they actually aren’t really a burden on the health care system as it’s actually cheaper for someone to die relatively young of cancer typically towards the end of their income earning years but prior to retirement than for the health care system to support them through old age.

[Droid101]

Should people with disabilities be allowed?


In my opinion? No.

[BOZ]

there is a line in a movie--canoe reeves i believe---"you gotta have a license to get maarried, you gotta get a license to drive a car-hell you gotta get a license to catch a fish--but any but-reaming asshole can be a father"
(exact quote may vary slightly)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthood

[Bagpuss]

In my opinion? No.

What are we saying here? That someone who is missing a limb can't have kids? Or are you just saying genetically inheritable conditions? Or people that aren't able to raise the kids themselves? Because where do you draw the line?

This lady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Lapper) seems to be doing a reasonable job of raising her son despite being born with phocomelia (no arms and shortened legs).

[Droid101]

Or are you just saying genetically inheritable conditions?

Yes.

[Bagpuss]

Like ginger hair?

[Droid101]

Like ginger hair?

That shit's nasty!

[TiQuinn]

Possibly yes, possibly no. You have to weigh up the total cost. Perhaps it would be an immediate expense that would be offset by savings elsewhere. For example is it cheaper for a one-off sterilisation procedure than the cost of abortions and contraception?


I'm not sure how to run the numbers, but the cost of a forced sterilization that everyone has to have versus an operation that some people opt to have seems pretty unbalanced. Not to mention that it's surgery, which comes with its own risks. The number of people dying from a surgical complications will increase, and because it was a forced procedure, the legal fallout would be huge too.

[strawberry]

This is just one of those lines in the sand that I've never been willing to consider crossing as a society.

[Atropine Mama]

This is just one of those lines in the sand that I've never been willing to consider crossing as a society.

Yup. According to Droid I would never been allowed my family. Fuck that.

:mad:

[Droid101]

Yup. According to Droid I would never been allowed my family. Fuck that.

:mad:

Why not? You'd just have had to wait a few more years to start the family. Nobody is denying you your family. :p

[TiQuinn]

Why not? You'd just have had to wait a few more years to start the family. Nobody is denying you your family. :p


Originally Posted by Morbidity :
Should people with disabilities be allowed?

In my opinion? No.

Originally Posted by Bagpuss
Or are you just saying genetically inheritable conditions?

Yes.

I guess I lost track of what you're saying. Are you saying everyone should have reversible sterilization or just those with genetically inheritable conditions?

[doc]

In every other case in our lives we require some sort of license or milestone before responsibility I don't see why reproduction should be different.

Who decides that someone can have a child ? What if ~dons tinfoil hat~ the powers that be decide that there's to many of a given race or background and refuse to reverse the sterlization. To many whites in St. Louis, 10 year freeze !

[Droid101]

Originally Posted by Morbidity :
Should people with disabilities be allowed?



Originally Posted by Bagpuss
Or are you just saying genetically inheritable conditions?



I guess I lost track of what you're saying. Are you saying everyone should have reversible sterilization or just those with genetically inheritable conditions?
My real opinion on the subject: everyone should be sterilized in a safe reversible way that doesn't exist yet. Once you reach a certain age (I'd set it at 25, but I can be pursuaded to move it up or down :D ), you have the process reversed.


My gut feeling on the subject: if I knew I had a genetic condition that was life-threatening, I think it'd be ethically wrong to have a child knowing it will get the same life-threatening condition.

I didn't say anything about a condition that makes you unable to care for a child. As was shown, even with no legs (or whatever) that mother did a fine job.

[Atropine Mama]

See, Droid, the thing is that nobody can tell before hand who makes a good or bad parent. Cheshire Cat nailed it way back in post #9. Anecdotally I could provide examples that would prove you both wrong and right. It's situational, and you cannot legislate situational.

As for me, yeah, I'd be out of a family. Had daughter at 19, she'd not exist. Had sons at 27 and 29 but they're gone too, because despite the age thing I'm mentally ill, have sleep apnea and hypoglycemia. Daughter's bio-dad is diabetic, and Varaj is schizophrenic.

No family for me. Despite the fact that our kids are fucking awesome, and they're smart and happy. Funny how that works.

[Droid101]

See, Droid, the thing is that nobody can tell before hand who makes a good or bad parent. Cheshire Cat nailed it way back in post #9. Anecdotally I could provide examples that would prove you both wrong and right. It's situational, and you cannot legislate situational.Considering this is all hypothetical, you'd be on the "against" side. Okay!

As for me, yeah, I'd be out of a family. Had daughter at 19, she'd not exist. Had sons at 27 and 29 but they're gone too, because despite the age thing I'm mentally ill, have sleep apnea and hypoglycemia. Daughter's bio-dad is diabetic, and Varaj is schizophrenic. I don't think they'd go back and retroactively kill all children borne to parents who were too young, once this hypothetical law took place, so no, you wouldn't be out of a family.

[Atropine Mama]

:rollingeyes: You're not normally this fucking obtuse. Are you bored? :jaded:

[Droid101]

:rollingeyes: You're not normally this fucking obtuse. What's obtuse about speculating about things that may (or may not) improve society? Are you bored? :jaded:Very, how can you tell? :)

[Limper]

:rollingeyes: You're not normally this fucking obtuse. Are you bored? :jaded:


You're just paying to much attention today.

[Atropine Mama]

You're just paying to much attention today.

That must be it.

Oh, and Droid, about my brother-in-law and his wife having eight kids:

No, it's not normal anymore. So what? Is normal the only thing you're aiming for here? Really, when someone's doing a great job, why are you bitching? Why is a number that important?

[Droid101]

why are you bitching?

Because that diaper bill must be atrocious!

[Atropine Mama]

Because that diaper bill must be atrocious!

:eyebrow: They didn't have octuplets, stupid.



:D

[Droid101]

octuplets

That gives the phrase "Grand Canyon Poon" a whole new meaning. :eek:

[Atropine Mama]

Nobody, but generally that phrase is used when, say, a dog has too many pups. You get it fixed.

Was his post offensive to you?

Because calling my brother-in-law a dog is totally not offensive. :expressionless:

Now you're really be a fucking dumbass.

It's one thing to propose hypotheticals in the forced sterilization thread.

It's another to chase the owner of the board around and give her shit on the same subject.

It's ok, man, I appreciate the upsettedness about the chasing, but anyone can argue with me, all they like. Arguing with General Kay isn't advisable, but I'm fair game.

As for Droid chasing me around like I've got hot wings tied to my back, well, that might be because I'm all kinds of baby-crazy right now and so I'm posting lots about kids. Seems to get his hackles right up! :D

I just like seeing Bella get worked up, it makes me hot.

OH BABY BAIT ME MORE YEAH THAT'S IT BAIT BAIT BAIT

[Janos]

That gives the phrase "Grand Canyon Poon" a whole new meaning. :eek:

Whole new meaning? What was the first meaning?

[TiQuinn]

Whole new meaning? What was the first meaning?

Tie a 2X4 to your ass so you don't fall in?

Like waving your arm in a warm room?

[Space Cadet B^3]

My advice to those who don't want to reproduce? SMOKE MORE SEEDS! ;)

[The Winslow]

My advice to those who don't want to reproduce? SMOKE MORE SEEDS! ;)

You smoke 'em? Freak. I thought those who don't want to reproduce were supposed to spill them.

'Sides, it can't be easy setting them alight.

[strawberry]

See, Droid, the thing is that nobody can tell before hand who makes a good or bad parent.

This is really, really true.

Another thing is... what exactly are you trying to accomplish? To make sure people are more mature when they have kids? That they are more financially secure? That they will be better parents at that age? To reduce child abuse? Reduce drug abuse? Reduce the crime rate? What? (EDIT: I guess my point is, "improving society" is a pretty vague piece of vaguery.)

And whatever your goal is, why do you think that setting an arbitrary age limit will accomplish it? If you are going to take the fairly radical step of instituting an involuntary, forced medical procedure, you really should have a really fucking clearly defined reason for doing it and some kind of evidence from somewhere that it will accomplish your goal. Many, many things seem intuitively like they should have a cause-effect relationship really do not when examined more closely.

[Droid101]

Because calling my brother-in-law a dog is totally not offensive. :expressionless:


Depends on the in-law, I suppose. ;)

[Janos]

Tie a 2X4 to your ass so you don't fall in?

Like waving your arm in a warm room?

Yeah, I got that meaning. He implied there was another though.

[Goblin Girl]

Nevermind. I really need to read the entire thread before posting!

[Trainz]

If droid had is way, my daughter would never have been born.

Just saying.

[Varaj]

If droid had is way, my daughter would never have been born.

Just saying.

None of my three kids would have been.

[Droid101]

If droid had is way, my daughter would never have been born.

Just saying.

*a thousand voices cried out in pain, and then went silent*

[Droid101]

None of my three kids would have been.

Argh! If the rule is put in place, there isn't a retroactive taking away of people's children. You'd all still have your current children should America vote such a law into existance!

[Varaj]

Argh! If the rule is put in place, there isn't a retroactive taking away of people's children. You'd all still have your current children should America vote such a law into existance!

Learn to read: If the rules you want had been in place our children wouldn't have been born.

[Droid101]

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The baby shouldn't have made it so damn dirty! :p
That it's not retroactive isn't the point. The point is that a good portion of the board, including myself, are good parents with great kids even though we wouldn't meet your rules. That being the case, we think those rules are utterly shitty and would prevent an incredible number of people who would be good parents to great kids from doing so.

If you want to seriously talk about this, then so be it.

Say, 100 years ago, or whenever, this rule was put into place worldwide and somehow enforced. You would never have known anything else, so you wouldn't be missing these phantom children that you 'would have' had if this rule didn't exist.

The point I'm making is, you can't miss something you never had. Yes, if you are thinking about it from your point of view now, it would be devastating and you'd never want to give it up. But if you never had a family, and just started one when you were 25, you'd be just as attached to that family, and wouldn't have ever wanted it any other way (as you are arguing about your current family).

Either way, it doesn't matter, as nothing like this would ever come into existence anyway. So there's really no point in thinking too deeply about it. :)

[Xavier Lang]

If you want to seriously talk about this, then so be it.


If you want to talk about it seriously then realize you are too ignorant to be allowed an opinion. :D

Humanity doesn't have the knowledge or wisdom to make these kinds of judgments. Maybe someday we will, but i doubt it.

How many people like Stephen Hawking and Robert Frost would you be willing to sacrifice?

The ideal of a "perfect" children, society etc... are dangerous ones. Your perfection is not mine and is not anyone else's.

(As an aside, I'm not saying Frost and Hawkings are equal, they were the first scientist and artist names I could think of)

[Droid101]

So, you want to take away rights because we won't miss them? That's a great arguement there. :rolleyes:


In 1913, when a mandatory age limit was imposed on driving, they took away rights. It happens.

I was just trying to get you to hypothetically look at a situation, and give me your hypothetical answer, but you don't want to. And that's okay, I'm just trying to see what people think. That's why I made this thread!
If you want to talk about it seriously then realize you are too ignorant to be allowed an opinion. :D

Humanity doesn't have the knowledge or wisdom to make these kinds of judgments. Maybe someday we will, but i doubt it.

How many people like Stephen Hawking and Robert Frost would you be willing to sacrifice?

The ideal of a "perfect" children, society etc... are dangerous ones. Your perfection is not mine and is not anyone else's.

(As an aside, I'm not saying Frost and Hawkings are equal, they were the first scientist and artist names I could think of)
Humans don't really have the wisdom to pursue a lot of things we pursue. But we'll keep pushing the limit, you can be sure of that. :p

[Droid101]

So does anyone get what I wanted to do with this thread at all? Spark a debate is all.

Instead, everyone's getting defensive about how their families are being taken away from them. I'm not, and nobody is taking your baby. Just please think about this hypothetically.

According to a bunch of studies, crime rates have decreased (in certain areas) since abortion has been legalized (you can look up the reasons for that yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)). If everyone had to be 25 have a procedure to have kids, there'd be no abortion (essentially).

All I'm trying to ask is what do you think about, based on average people, unwanted or unplanned pregnancies by parents under 25 as compared to planned pregnancies by parents over 25? Do you think there is something to talk about there or not? Or do you just want to keep attacking me for slaying your children and kidnapping your babies?

[Varaj]

So does anyone get what I wanted to do with this thread at all? Spark a debate is all.

Instead, everyone's getting defensive about how their families are being taken away from them. I'm not, and nobody is taking your baby. Just please think about this hypothetically.

According to a bunch of studies, crime rates have decreased (in certain areas) since abortion has been legalized (you can look up the reasons for that yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)). If everyone had to be 25 have a procedure to have kids, there'd be no abortion (essentially).

All I'm trying to ask is what do you think about, based on average people, unwanted or unplanned pregnancies by parents under 25 as compared to planned pregnancies by parents over 25? Do you think there is something to talk about there or not? Or do you just want to keep attacking me for slaying your children and kidnapping your babies?


The reason you didn't spark debate is because you started the thread off in a non-debate friendly way. If you want constructive dialog start with constructive dialog.

[Droid101]

You're confused about what is a civil right and what is not if you think that driving (which was before unregulated because so few people had cars) is in any way an apt comparison.The courts decide what is a civil right, not you. I personally disagree that having children should be everybody's right. You feel that it should be. Fair enough.

You're also apparently not aquainted with enough young parents or older women who've had abortions if you think that only young parents raise delinquients or that abortion would drop to near nil. Your reference doesn't even mention the ages of the women getting abortions, so are you just pulling that part out of your ass to make a correlation? Not to mention that more abortion equals less people to commit crimes, not that people who are having abortions are necessarily the sort of people who cannot raise a good citizen.

The crime rates cited are based on percentages, so yes, they declined on a per person basis.

But in my example, you have to be 25, and you have to want to have children (and then go in to have the process reversed). So, nobody has the procedure to be un-sterilized until they want it. So, nobody can have children until they want them. Many 25 year olds wouldn't have the process reversed, as many 25 year olds (or older) don't want children (see: alsih20). While it wouldn't completely remove abortion, it certainly would remove most of them, no matter the age.

[Vermicious Knid]

I'm comfortable with reproduction being restricted. There would have to be some pretty crazy oversight to avoid appearing/being racist, classist, etc... though.

[Morbidity]

From a purely theoretical viewpoint (forgetting about individuals' rights etc) the problem is that enforced sterilisation, weeding out genetic conditions etc etc encourages conformity. Conformity doesn't encourage progress. You need the extremes to give us the incredible breakthroughs. So perhaps every genius who invents marvels is matched by an idiot somewhere who drools ... society as a whole is better off to have geniuses and idiots than to only have Joe Average.

[Droid101]

From a purely theoretical viewpoint (forgetting about individuals' rights etc) the problem is that enforced sterilisation, weeding out genetic conditions etc etc encourages conformity. Conformity doesn't encourage progress. You need the extremes to give us the incredible breakthroughs. So perhaps every genius who invents marvels is matched by an idiot somewhere who drools ... society as a whole is better off to have geniuses and idiots than to only have Joe Average.

Man, I just want to know what it's like if everyone had to wait until they were 25. I don't care if Joe Retard wants 50 kids, he can go nuts (after he turns 25!!)!! :mad:

[Morbidity]

Okay on that basis bear in mind that female fertility starts dropping around the age of 25 so you're proposing preventing women from having children whilst they are most fertile.

What would be more sensible is enforced sterilisation at age 14 or whatever, at the same time as rubella injections for example and you can change it back at whatever age you like. Thus becoming pregnant would be a conscious choice rather than an accident.

Oh and to everyone who argues against enforced sterilisation on the basis of the risk to individuals presumably it could be done on the same basis as vaccinations. If society viewed that it was in the interests of the whole then unless you can demonstrate a really good reason why you are especially risky you front up for your vaccination and hope you're not going to be in the small minority of cases where something goes wrong.

Once again the cost of compensating individuals for things which go wrong is likely less than the cost of caring for unwanted children .... on a purely economic rationale.

[Trainz]

I don't care if Joe Retard wants 50 kids, he can go nuts (after he turns 25!!)!! :mad:

But I thought the rule would be to prevent bad parenting. So Joe Retard can have as many kids has he wants as long as he's 25, but Johnny Wise can't because he's 23.

Gotcha.

[strawberry]

Man, I just want to know what it's like if everyone had to wait until they were 25. I don't care if Joe Retard wants 50 kids, he can go nuts (after he turns 25!!)!! :mad:

Honestly, I don't think much very much would change at all. I think you're ascribing too much importance to two assumptions: 1. Most abortions happen before 25 and 2. Something magically happens at age 25 that makes people better parents. Most Joe and Jane Morons would still be Morons at 25, a few would grow up and be Non-Morons, and most Joe and Jane Non-Morons would still be Non-Morons.

Also honestly, even if you had evidence that there was some sort of impact on the crime rate if this plan was insitituted, I still wouldn't support it. There are some means that aren't worth the ends, and this is one of them to me. We'd have a lower crime rate if everyone lived in a metal cube that they were only let out of to go to work, too, but it wouldn't be worth it.

[mollygrue]

It seems to me that droid was well intended in his questions--but simply didnt construct the intial phrasing and responses as well as some more experienced debators might. So maybe we should cut the kid a little slack--guidance and instruction are better than attacks. Questions better than assaults. Just a thought.

I agree with morbidity (post 85) standardization results in conformity, and quite aside fromthe genetic risk that entails, the genius', and the artists, the prophets, paragons, and pioneers rarely conform to the standard mold.

We need the rare and the wonderful, and ultimately, i think that means we are stuck with the stupid.

[Droid101]

We'd have a lower crime rate if everyone lived in a metal cube that they were only let out of to go to work, too, but it wouldn't be worth it.

I'd like to sign up for the next boat to cube-town!

[Goblin Girl]

So does anyone get what I wanted to do with this thread at all? Spark a debate is all.

Instead, everyone's getting defensive about how their families are being taken away from them. I'm not, and nobody is taking your baby. Just please think about this hypothetically.

According to a bunch of studies, crime rates have decreased (in certain areas) since abortion has been legalized (you can look up the reasons for that yourself (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2 Fwiki%2FLegalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)). If everyone had to be 25 have a procedure to have kids, there'd be no abortion (essentially).

All I'm trying to ask is what do you think about, based on average people, unwanted or unplanned pregnancies by parents under 25 as compared to planned pregnancies by parents over 25? Do you think there is something to talk about there or not? Or do you just want to keep attacking me for slaying your children and kidnapping your babies?

The way you view the world and other people makes me devoutly hope you never have any real power. Even Moosoid is more compassionate and reasonable than you.

[FeatsofClay]

If we are going to sterilize at birth (surgery 1) and then desterilize at 25 (surgery 2) why not just issue to "Free abortion" cards to everyone under 25. Males wouldn't need them and you have then halved your surgeries at minimum.

It is a stupid fucking idea and comparing reproductive rights to driving is the heighth of asinine.

[Droid101]

The way you view the world and other people makes me devoutly hope you never have any real power. Even Moosoid is more compassionate and reasonable than you.

Ditto toots, 'cept I'm a man so the probability of me having power is much greater than you.

Oh, and like I said in the very post you quoted, this was a mental masturbation exercize, not my threat of action once in power. Obviously this can and never will come to pass, so you can all rest easy that I won't be stealing your babies.

I would think you're used to this kind of post by now, from all the mysoginistic posts and posts talking about murdering women who have abortions from your husband.

[Space Cadet B^3]

Ditto toots, 'cept I'm a man so the probability of me having power is much greater than you.

Oh, and like I said in the very post you quoted, this was a mental masturbation exercize, not my threat of action once in power. Obviously this can and never will come to pass, so you can all rest easy that I won't be stealing your babies.

I would think you're used to this kind of post by now, from all the mysoginistic posts and posts talking about murdering women who have abortions from your husband.
Toots?!

:eek:

[Droid101]

Toots?!

:eek:

Yeah, I don't know where that came from. Something must have sent me back to the 1930's.

[Droid101]

Okay on that basis bear in mind that female fertility starts dropping around the age of 25 so you're proposing preventing women from having children whilst they are most fertile.

What would be more sensible is enforced sterilisation at age 14 or whatever, at the same time as rubella injections for example and you can change it back at whatever age you like. Thus becoming pregnant would be a conscious choice rather than an accident..

This, of course is a much more rational idea.

The point isn't the age of 25 really, it's just the fact that you have to one day say "I want to be able to have kids from now on" and suddenly you're fertile. Faries and magic make it possible, just like your computer.