Forced sterilization?

[paravani]

The moral objection is that nobody should have to take steps to AVOID sterilization at the hands of their government.

This is simply inflammatory language.

Contraception is not "sterilization". Sterilization is permanent; contraception is not.

The whole point of contraception is that it is easily stopped whenever one wishes to have children.

Without UBC (universal birth control), only the choice NOT to have a child is deliberate. Pregnancy may be a choice upon stopping intentional birth control, but can be accidental when no birth control is ever used.

With UBC, it is the choice to have a child that is deliberate.

No more abortion-as-birth-control, no more crack babies, no more heroin babies, no more fetal-alcohol-syndrome babies... no more teenage accidental pregnancies... and no more forced sterilization of anyone.

-- Paravani

 

[koshergrl]

"In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force. "

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

 

[koshergrl]

The moral objection is that nobody should have to take steps to AVOID sterilization at the hands of their government.

This is simply inflammatory language.

Contraception is not "sterilization". Sterilization is permanent; contraception is not.

The whole point of contraception is that it is easily stopped whenever one wishes to have children.

Without UBC (universal birth control), only the choice NOT to have a child is deliberate. Pregnancy may be a choice upon stopping intentional birth control, but can be accidental when no birth control is ever used.

With UBC, it is the choice to have a child that is deliberate. No more accidental pregnancies, no more crack babies, no more heroin babies, no more alcohol-syndrome babies... no more teenage accidental pregnancies.

... And no more forced sterilization of anyone.

-- Paravani

Then you are in the wrong thread. This thread is about forced sterilization. Apparently you believe we must either have forced sterilization, or government-administered contraceptives in the water supply?

 

[koshergrl]

New Zealand has dealt with the issue before:

"
"The problem is, in the department of Work and Income, when you're a beneficiary in there trying to get a benefit, trying to keep a benefit, you are totally at the mercy of those case officers," Bradford told Close Up tonight.
"There will be enormous pressure on women to go for this contraception.
"Steps like this are actually going down the direction of the Government saying 'well, if you're on a benefit and you get pregnant, you should have an abortion, you should have forced sterilization'. I know they haven't gone that far, but this is the first dangerous step on that road."

Beneficiary birth control 'slippery rope to eugenics' - Politics News | TVNZ

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

So Jimmy... what if the people who made the choice were the individuals who wanted children? What if, in fact, every child were a choice, and nobody could have a child without first planning for one?

I'm talking about the concept of universal birth control, "UBC", whereby a harmless contraceptive would be administered to the entire population in the public water supplies. To counteract its effect, a healthy couple who wished to have a child would only need to stop drinking city water and eating food prepared with it.

Imagine... every child a choice, a planned choice, and no one making that choice except the parents involved...

Actually, that's not as sinister as it may appear on the surface. It's an interesting idea, and not a terrible one logically, but it does have some issues, not the least of which is practicality.

The additive would have to be consistently and reliably applied to the drinking water, and EVERYBODY would have to have access to it. Otherwise, the state would then have responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. Do you trust our infrastructure to be able to pull such a thing off? I don't. It's a good idea for a novel, but in reality I don't see how it could work.

Additionally, there is an assumption that it would be safe. People already avoid tap water, install whole house filtration systems, use bottled water, etc. Again, it's not a bad idea, but there are some practicality issues.

There some other more personal reason that I don't "like" the idea, but I will leave it at the above and say no more.

Thanks for your vote of confidence, Jimmy!

Actually, the biggest problem with it is that as far as I know, no UBC drug has yet been developed, no is one currently being developed. I do see this discussion as a starting point, however... call it a "wish list", if you will.

Yes, any UBC drug must be effective for the entire population it serves. Because people drink varying amounts of water, with 1/2 gallon per day being the bare survival minimum up to 3 gallons per day for extreme hydration drinkers, UBC must be effective in small, irregular doses without causing any negative effects in higher doses, up to twenty times the smallest effective dose. Further, it must have no negative effects on children, the elderly, and other vulnerable sectors of the population.

But... given that all of these concerns are met, and that a UBC drug is developed that effectively prevents pregnancy without any adverse effects whatsoever...

What are the moral implications? What objections would it have to overcome, besides the obvious (Catholic) concern that it is "tampering with God's plan"?

-- Paravani

Well, yes, personally, I have no religious moral objection because I am not religious. However, I do believe firmly in both of the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment, as well as the importance of upholding the Constitution. Such a blanket policy flirts too closely with, or even goes over the line into endangering free practice.

In short, I can't see eugenics as any kind of practical course of action, and I have my moral issues with it as well. It's just a mess from almost every angle.

 

[paravani]

"In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not ...

Nobody cares what John Holdren wrote in 1977.

But UBC (universal birth control) is an idea whose time has come.

We as a society and as a world are facing enormous pressures due to overpopulation. We are using our resources -- trees, air, sea life -- faster than our planet can renew them, and we are facing imminent starvation and/or water rationing. Even here in America people are going hungry now, as world food prices rise; in other parts of the world, the shortages of food and water and fuel are much, much worse.

This thread is about forced sterilization, against which I am absolutely and unequivocally opposed, on the grounds that we as a society have not proven ourselves wise enough to plan for our own consumption; should we expect that we are wise enough to choose the best genetic stock for our future?

No. Only individuals can and should choose whether they are ready, willing, and able to reproduce... and only they can and should decide whether the effort and expense of raising offspring is worthwhile.

Aye, there's the rub... the word is DECIDE.

Currently, the only qualification for parenthood is the ability to find another person with whom to do the horizontal mambo. Some males don't even require that their mate consent -- they are willing to conceive by rape.

UBC would reverse that paradigm. Only willing parents who have planned in advance would be able to become pregnant.

Of all the various ways to limit population growth, UBC is the only one that would favor individuals who can plan ahead. It is also the only one that leaves intact the individual freedom to choose to have a child.

Ask any Chinese which they would prefer: forced abortion and sterilization, with harassment, beatings, and torture of family members of those mothers who don't comply?

Or UBC, which ensures that every child is planned and chosen?

-- Paravani

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, this thread is about forced sterilization, and you can tell that by the title of the thread: "Forced sterilization".

What you are talking about is birth control via the water system, to be inflicted upon an entire population at the behest of the state. It's just another way to accomplish the same thing...target and reduce (or wipe out) a particular population.

All eugenecists think they have the best idea going. But in the end, you're selling a fantasy, and a sick one at that.

 

[paravani]

Actually, this thread is about forced sterilization, and you can tell that by the title of the thread: "Forced sterilization".

What you are talking about is birth control via the water system, to be inflicted upon an entire population at the behest of the state. It's just another way to accomplish the same thing...target and reduce (or wipe out) a particular population.

All eugenecists think they have the best idea going. But in the end, you're selling a fantasy, and a sick one at that.

Given that the Chinese are currently being subjected to forced sterilization to limit their population growth, let me ask the question one more time:

Which do you think they would prefer?

... forced abortion and sterilization, with harassment, beatings, and torture of family members of those mothers who don't comply?

Or UBC, which ensures that every child is planned and chosen?

--Paravani

 

[koshergrl]

It's all exactly the same thing.

 

[paravani]

Actually, this thread is about forced sterilization, and you can tell that by the title of the thread: "Forced sterilization".

Given that the Chinese are currently being subjected to forced sterilization to limit their population growth, let me ask the question one more time:

Which do you think they would prefer?

... forced abortion and sterilization, with harassment, beatings, and torture of family members of those mothers who don't comply?

Or UBC, which ensures that every child is planned and chosen?

It's all exactly the same thing.

Well, no, it's not. UBC allows anyone to make the choice to have a child whenever they choose.

The key word here is "choice".

Forced sterilization takes away the choice to have a child.

UBC only ensures that every child is indeed a choice.

It is most certainly NOT the same thing.

-- Paravani

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, it only allows them to have a child if they are able to afford non-treated water. Or move.

 

[paravani]

Actually, it only allows them to have a child if they are able to afford non-treated water. Or move.

Kgal, I don't know where YOU live... but where I live, untreated water falls from the sky.

You must be a city gal, because only a true urbanite could worry that she won't be able to "afford" untreated water.

I suppose you think that stuff that flows in rivers and gathers in lakes is only good for fishing and swimming?

-- Paravani

 

[varelse]

She could live in a desert

 

[varelse]

It doesn't occur to you that your plan would make the price of untreated water and purification systems.skyrocket?

At least you finally admitted.your whole.idea is to use the.power of the State to keep people from reproducing who can't afford to pay a private(?) Firm to circumvent your measures

 

[koshergrl]

Irrelevant, logical fallacy. I don't live in the desert, nor am I a city girl.

 

[Katzndogz]

Eugenics is part and parcel of Utopianism. A perfect world filled with perfect people. To the Nazis anything other than blonde hair and blue eyes was imperfect because they were creating the master race. There is Utopianism on its face. The idea of preventing children with birth defects gets bigger and bigger. Should a girl genetically predisposed to small breasts be allowed to live. After all she will require surgery later in life to correct her birth defect. Isn't baldness hereditary? Sure it is, so those defective boys have to go as well.

Cultures that practice eugenics don't last very long. Which is a mercy. And goals of Utopia go even faster.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Eugenics is part and parcel of Utopianism. A perfect world filled with perfect people. To the Nazis anything other than blonde hair and blue eyes was imperfect because they were creating the master race. There is Utopianism on its face. The idea of preventing children with birth defects gets bigger and bigger. Should a girl genetically predisposed to small breasts be allowed to live. After all she will require surgery later in life to correct her birth defect. Isn't baldness hereditary? Sure it is, so those defective boys have to go as well.

Cultures that practice eugenics don't last very long. Which is a mercy. And goals of Utopia go even faster.

Utopian was the word I was searching for yesterday, just didn't come up with it. Like all Utopian ideas, they can never happen because of the nature of governments. The larger they become, the more unwieldy, inefficient, and unreliable. That's not libertarian paranoia, it's simply the way it is. Governmental power is political in nature, so it is plagued by a number of things that simply make it inefficient. Couple that with the law of diminishing returns that occurs in any organization or network, and there simply isn't the capability of carrying out such a thing. It's a fine thing for "what if" discussions, but I don't see how it can go any further than that. The late 19th and early 20th Centuries were filled with Utopian thinking, which culminated in two very bloody world wars.

 

[varelse]

. Which is a mercy. And goals of Utopia go even faster.

So the Jews will be gone soon?

 

[koshergrl]

. Which is a mercy. And goals of Utopia go even faster.

So the Jews will be gone soon?

 

[varelse]

. Which is a mercy. And goals of Utopia go even faster.

So the Jews will be gone soon?

Refer to the earlier example of the committee for the prevention of jewisj genetic disease