CDZ For the 3rd world, Is sterilization inhumane?

[Whytee]

I have not read a compelling argument for why it is inhumane to sterilize people that already have a family and have also demonstrated their inability to care for that family. Don't tell me about what some group has done before, that is irrelevant. I did not say deny them aid, they desperately need help. But to just hand them aid and not do something to stop further procreation is itself inhumane IMO. Let's hear an argument for why, given the conditions I've stated, it is inhumane to sterilize.

Lets try the not sending "aid" first? See how that works out?
We can talk about your nazi sterilization plans later.

 

[MarathonMike]

I have not read a compelling argument for why it is inhumane to sterilize people that already have a family and have also demonstrated their inability to care for that family. Don't tell me about what some group has done before, that is irrelevant. I did not say deny them aid, they desperately need help. But to just hand them aid and not do something to stop further procreation is itself inhumane IMO. Let's hear an argument for why, given the conditions I've stated, it is inhumane to sterilize.

Lets try the not sending "aid" first? See how that works out?
We can talk about your nazi sterilization plans later.

I can see you are new so I will explain a couple of things to you. This is a clean debate zone which means you do not attack the OP. Secondly your job, if you are capable, is to respond with a compelling argument for or against the topic. Both of your posts failed. Try again or go to a forum less challenging.

 

[Whytee]

Again, lets see how the not send "aid" works out.
The nazi fantasy discussion of forcibly sterilizing people should be after.

Perfectly clean debate, correct?

 

[MarathonMike]

Again, lets see how the not send "aid" works out.
The nazi fantasy discussion of forcibly sterilizing people should be after.

Perfectly clean debate, correct?

Strike three. Not sending aid is an invalid response and I'm not a Nazi. I realize this is complex, try some other forums.

 

[Whytee]

Again, lets see how the not send "aid" works out.
The nazi fantasy discussion of forcibly sterilizing people should be after.

Perfectly clean debate, correct?

Strike three. Not sending aid is an invalid response and I'm not a Nazi. I realize this is complex, try some other forums.

Again, lets try the not send "aid" approach. See what happens.
Why do you find that such a hard concept to follow? What is with your need to justify forced sterilization?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Compulsory sterilization, as a condition of being fed, is, IMO, inhumane. Period.

 

[MarathonMike]

Compulsory sterilization, as a condition of being fed, is, IMO, inhumane. Period.

Ok I can accept that position. I would counter by first saying there is nothing horrific about vasectomies or tubal ligations. Americans walk into doctor's offices everyday and have the procedure done outpatient. Secondly, remember this would only apply to adults who already have children, so you are not denying them the ability to have a family.
My main point is if you provide aid to impoverished families without any conditions for sterilization then you have contributed to perpetuating their misery. Is it better to let that family go off and have another child or two or three making the suffering worse for all of them? What have you accomplished other than giving them a few days worth of relief and enough energy to have sex?

 

[outrigger]

Hello, everyone. First time poster here. Interesting topic. Those who depend on public support, third world or first world, should receive mandatory, reversible sterilization. Reversible because at some point they might be able to support themselves and their families.

 

[outrigger]

Wow, I came online and everyone left. Must be my deodorant not working.

 

[Hossfly]

Wow, I came online and everyone left. Must be my deodorant not working.

Nah, most everybody posts in Politics or the Flame Zone.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Compulsory sterilization, as a condition of being fed, is, IMO, inhumane. Period.

Ok I can accept that position. I would counter by first saying there is nothing horrific about vasectomies or tubal ligations. Americans walk into doctor's offices everyday and have the procedure done outpatient. Secondly, remember this would only apply to adults who already have children, so you are not denying them the ability to have a family.
My main point is if you provide aid to impoverished families without any conditions for sterilization then you have contributed to perpetuating their misery. Is it better to let that family go off and have another child or two or three making the suffering worse for all of them? What have you accomplished other than giving them a few days worth of relief and enough energy to have sex?

Ok I can accept that position.

Okay. I'm going to leave it at that then.

The rest of your reply's theme is evident from the OP, so I have nothing more to say.

 

[TNHarley]

I dont think you asked the right question. Sometimes "inhumane" is irrelevant.
On this, that applies. Who cares? Eventually it will have to happen.
We only have 7 billion people right now and how many go to bed starving?
IMO, some sort of population control is inevitable.
People breed like crazy. In this country, for instance, people get rewarded for having a bunch of kids.

 

[jwoodie]

Well, "inhumane" is hardly an appropriate term to use when discussing this topic. Would anyone prefer incarceration without conjugal privileges? At some point, a Malthusian dilemma may occur where adding one more person may sink the lifeboat. In that case, who gets to make the decision?

 

[sakinago]

For impoverished families WHO ALREADY HAVE CHILDREN, is it inhumane to require them to have vasectomies/tubal ligation in exchange for food relief and general health services? Or is it inhumane to provide the food and health services to impoverished families and not require sterilization?

I would argue the latter given the horrific life these children endure living in dirt and squalor and wondering if they will get anything to eat or drink. And what kind of life is it for the parents who live with the cries of their children from morning til night and not being able to ease their pain? I would like to hear the counter to his argument because I can see no virtue in doing nothing to curb the crisis of poverty in 3rd world countries.

Everyone should be allowed to experience having a family, but there should be a limit when you have shown your inability to provide for them.

This is only an argument that those who a part of a collective make. And it's as old as collectivism itself. Why is it that society should dictate who is going to succeed and who isn't?