Should The Poor Be Sterilized

The only capacity that I would agree with this statement, is when a poor couple, or single person for that matter, keeps having children, and does not have the means to support these poor children.

I dont know why super poor people cant just but a pack of condoms and use them, rather then impregnating their choice female every 9 or so months.

I do not agree with sterilizing someone simply because they do not have as much money as the next guy, but if they cannot grasp the concept of having a child to raise them to be a positive contibuting memeber of society, then why on Earth should they be allowed to have 7 children, when they can barely afford to eat as well?

It is horrible that it has come to this, but no country in the world needs more hungry mouths to feed because someone was too ignorant to think of the consequences of their actions.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

If there was complicity, it can be found in a lack of willingness to fight the institutionalised degradation of other people. When the lives of another people become less deserving of the rights and privileges with which you endow your own...well, you're on the way. How was it that they described the proceedings at Nuremberg? 'The banality of evil'?

Absolutely rediculous! The degradation of a people begins with their unwillingness to fight for themselves! You folks keep bringing up Hitler, and germany as if demanding that a people take responsiblity for their own actions is the same as having rights taken away.

There is absolutely no comparison. You want to be a bleeding heart? Let your heart bleed for the 4th or 5th child brought into the world by an ignorant man, and a woman who was probably raped, who then has to find a way to feed a child when the others are already starving.

What you're talking is false compassion, mixed with an elitist vision that all God's chillen' are free to be happy. Please! The reality is that in some parts of the world, starving babies bring in revenue, for evil men, who could give a rats ass about the starving babies, only the money.

Originally posted by Don Wahn

I do not agree with sterilizing someone simply because they do not have as much money as the next guy, but if they cannot grasp the concept of having a child to raise them to be a positive contibuting memeber of society, then why on Earth should they be allowed to have 7 children, when they can barely afford to eat as well?

It is horrible that it has come to this, but no country in the world needs more hungry mouths to feed because someone was too ignorant to think of the consequences of their actions.

I just want to clearify that I'm not talking about sterilization just because a person doesn't have money. I am specifically talking about what's going on in Africa.

Millions of Africans are starving as we speak. Thousands are dying every single day. And still, these people are having babies. They have no controll over their lives, this is a fact. So they should not be allowed to have more children, Period the end!

Mod Edit: Removed Inappropriate Post.

Please Review The Links Below:
Courtesy Is Mandatory
ABOUT ATS: General ATS discussion etiquette



[edit on 7-5-2007 by chissler]

Are you serious?

Originally posted by chissler
Since when is money the end all/be all?

When you can't afford to feed your kids? When you and your family is dying of disease?

Can a poor family not be happy? Do we all need six figure incomes in order to live a happy life?

We aren't talking about poor as in you can't buy a big televison or a new car poor. This is poor, you can't afford food, can't afford any shelter, can't afford any medical help.

I don't think you would be that happy when you are dying of hunger or dying of some other disease and have no hope to live.

As a child, I was far from rich. We made the best with what we had, and always had a meal on the table. If I wanted something, my parents would do their damnedest to get me it.

Ok, we were the same way. But we still had food; we weren't starving to death, which is what these kids are going though. We weren't all born with AIDS and had no chance to live.

Don't tell me you don't see the difference.

Originally posted by enjoies05
They need to realize that it is unfair to bring another child into their life of pain. The children don't deserve it.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement?

Yes...no...wait...not see...No! I don't see it.

The child would live a tough life, so we'll just not have it. How is that in the best interest of the child? How do you, myself, or anyone else, know what is in the best interest of this child?

I think it is a little bit worse than a "tough life". Lets see...most likely be born with or develop some kind of disease in their life. No chance of being cured, no food and all the other horrible things that might happen to them. Yeah, I think that is a bit worse than a tough life.

To protect this child from suffering, we'll just deny his/her existence right from the get go?

Yes. Why would you want a innocent child to be put through the kind of abuse and pain they are going to go through?

enjoies05- If it comes to that you can't even afford food for yourself or your children, they should be taken and given to a family who can. It's how it was done in ancient time before the global community made up the farce that is social workers. Forced sterilization is not an answer.

PS I like that you "quoted" yourself. Originally posted by enjoies05



[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]

Ok, but what about all the disease? The children can be taken out of hunger but not if they are born with AIDS.


Yeah, I like quoting myself.

Originally posted by enjoies05
Are you serious?

Indeed.

Originally posted by enjoies05
When you can't afford to feed your kids? When you and your family is dying of disease?

Who is to say that a life full of pain and suffering is less than a life not lived? You? Me? Who?

Originally posted by enjoies05
We aren't talking about poor as in you can't buy a big televison or a new car poor. This is poor, you can't afford food, can't afford any shelter, can't afford any medical help.

I understand that. I never once referred to the luxuries that you've mentioned. But again I reiterate, who is to decide when and where an individual has lived a life that is not worth living?

I've watched loved ones suffer through excruciating pain. I've witnessed a loved one take a massive heart attack and pass before my eyes. Their biggest fear was the pain would subside and that darkness would prevail. Pain was his friend, as pain was his reminder that he was still alive.

It is an assumption that these individuals do not want to live, and that they would prefer death. Some may, some may not. But any legislation that infringes on the individual's right to love a child is downright criminal.

This is nothing more than an effort to create a superior race of individuals who do not live in poverty. Someone else had a bright idea like that. Adolph anyone?

Problem is, if we wipe out the poor and the impoverished, the standard of living will rise for everyone. And then we've only created a new population that are living in poverty. We can not defeat it, we can only make the best of what we got. And that is what these individuals are doing. We are not in any position to determine what life is not worth living.

Originally posted by enjoies05
I don't think you would be that happy when you are dying of hunger or dying of some other disease and have no hope to live.

Says who? How can you even make that statement without having walked in those shoes? Are you saying that you would choose death over a life of adversity?

Originally posted by enjoies05
Ok, we were the same way. But we still had food; we weren't starving to death, which is what these kids are going though. We weren't all born with AIDS and had no chance to live.

And who are you comfortable with, inheriting this power. We are talking about genocide here. So who has the power to determine what life is worth living, and what should be "expunged".

Originally posted by enjoies05
They need to realize that it is unfair to bring another child into their life of pain. The children don't deserve it.

So the child deserves to of never seen this earth? Rather than offer a life of adversity, we offer nothing. Yeah, I don't see the benefit in that. Why do you feel that you, or anyone else, is in a position to determine how someone should live their life? Or whether or not someone should bother to live a life in adversity?

Originally posted by enjoies05
I think it is a little bit worse than a "tough life". Lets see...most likely be born with or develop some kind of disease in their life. No chance of being cured, no food and all the other horrible things that might happen to them. Yeah, I think that is a bit worse than a tough life.

No chance? No food? Seems to me that there are adults over there. So some of them are obviously finding some way to survive. They may not have the life expectancy that we have, but at least they have an opportunity to live a life.

We've only got one shot on this earth. Whether it is a pleasant one or not, it is what it is and we need to make the best of it. Telling someone to "never mind" is not an option.

Originally posted by enjoies05
Yes. Why would you want a innocent child to be put through the kind of abuse and pain they are going to go through?

Because at least it is a life lived.

I've lost loved ones in very suddenly and very tragically. And I know that they would of preferred to live in pain than not live at all.

You say that we should infringe on their rights and deny them the opportunity. I merely state that we allow them to speak for themselves. If they choose to, so be it. But you have no right to tell someone that they do not have the right to live a life.

Not everybody sees it as you do. Open the mind and look at it from a different point of view for a second. Some people would take any life over no life at all.

And that is their decision to make. Not mine, and not yours.

Originally posted by Royal76
enjoies05- If it comes to that you can't even afford food for yourself or your children, they should be taken and given to a family who can. It's how it was done in ancient time before the global community made up the farce that is social workers. Forced sterilization is not an answer.

PS I like that you "quoted" yourself. Originally posted by enjoies05



[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]

What is the answer then on a continent like Africa, where children can't be taken away and given to someone else to raise? Unless you're Madonna, or Angie?

Remember, we're talking about a continent, of countries that use the poor as pawns for money, and for indicriminant slaughter.

Some how, some way these people need to stop having babies. You can't ask them to stop, they won't. And you can't stop the rebels from raping the women.

Originally posted by eyespy2
Some how, some way these people need to stop having babies. You can't ask them to stop, they won't. And you can't stop the rebels from raping the women.

Genocide is the best possible solution to this that you can come up with?

Originally posted by Royal76
If it comes to that you can't even afford food for yourself or your children, they should be taken and given to a family who can.

Say you go bankrupt, will you still feel that way? We have a social safety net for a reason.

It's how it was done in ancient time before the global community made up the farce that is social workers.

Um.. what? When and where are you talking about? In most ancient societies if you could not provide for your family no one really cared, you and your kids starved. In really ancient day of hunter gatherers everyone had a job to do in the community, everyone ate or everyone starved.

Forced sterilization is not an answer.

Unless the question is “what’s the most evil solution to poverty you can come up with?”

Your answer is to sterilize them? I'm from America were we believe in the Freedom of choice. Right or wrong, this would be evil. You would put yourself as a "God" who seeks to control them and their lives. You think you can wave your magic wand and puff they can't have kids anymore. You think that will fix everything?????????????

Mr Mxyztplk- IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR KIDS YES. You would want them to be able to live past their current age. You would want them to be able to do things like eat food. If you can go stay with a relative, do that. But if you go bankrupt and can't afford to eat let alone feed the kids, yes.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]

Originally posted by chissler

Genocide is the best possible solution to this that you can come up with?

Watch how you use that word Genocide. It's not genocide, because there are no lives being taken. I'm talking about Preventing people from being able to give birth, when they are incapable of being a responsible human beings.

It is irresponsible to the max, to see children dying from starvation all around you, and then bring another one in the world to suffer the same fate. That's what we're talking about here. There is such a thing in this world as being so completely ignorant that you can loose the right to make choices.

We don't let the insane vote, drive automobiles, carry loaded weapons (Cho aside) or fly airplanes. It is a form of insanity, I believe, to watch death all around you, and then choose to create another child who's fate will be the same.

At some point in time, responsible people have to step in and say enough.



[edit on 7-5-2007 by eyespy2]

Watch how you use that word Genocide. It's not genocide, because there are no lives being taken. I'm talking about Preventing people from being able to give birth, when they are incapable of being a responsible human beings.

You know that's the same type of argument the Nazi's, had for the Jews. Sterlizing a whole group of people isn't Genocide, were doing it for the children right...It would be Genocide. You know it, and just refuse to realize it.

It is irresponsible to the max, to see children dying from starvation all around you, and then bring another one in the world to suffer the same fate. That's what we're talking about here. There is such a thing in this world as being so completely ignorant that you can loose the right to make choices.

While it might be "Groady to the Max" to see starving children, sterlizing and ending their lives before it can begin is a cowardly thing to do. It something that an elitist might do in the Middle Ages. The real question is who are you to make these choices for them. Were you elected god and no one told the rest of us? I would think you would be impeached as god, for choosing the "Easy" path, rather than the hard one.

We don't let the insane vote, drive automobiles, carry loaded weapons (Cho aside) or fly airplanes. It is a form of insanity, I believe, to watch death all around you, and then choose to create another child who's fate will be the same.

At what point did "Poor" and "Insane" become the same. Your objected though noted is ignored if you can't carry out your argument.

I wonder what you would think if your government decided for you today that you were too poor to be allowed to reproduce children. You were forced to go to a government health facility, had your jr, cut open and sterilized because the government decreed there were too many children already in the world.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]

Originally posted by Royal76
Your answer is to sterilize them? I'm from America were we believe in the Freedom of choice. Right or wrong, this would be evil. You would put yourself as a "God" who seeks to control them and their lives. You think you can wave your magic wand and puff they can't have kids anymore. You think that will fix everything?????????????

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Royal76]

Here's the problem, we can't bring our American ideals to the table on a continent like Africa.

The warlords are their gods, who controll their lives through violence, poverty, rape, and tremdous suffering. We have absolutely no idea in America what that's like.

Americans have the freedom to choose because we fought for it, we liberated ourselves from the British.

Think about it. Is it evil to end the cycle of birth and death by simply ending the cycle of birth, until the situation stabilizes, or is it more evil to allow the births so the goverments of Congo, Rowanda, Darfur, etc., can use the dying, starving children as a propaganda tool to extract billions of dollars that goes into their own pockets?

No, simply because it's a gross violation of rights to do so.

This type of behavior is why their were slaves

A long time ago, my people (American's) saw these people as beneath them, unworthy of chosing their own destiny. It was evil then, its evil now.
You don't see them as people, you see them as beneath you. I can feel it in the way you speak.

You would have us exert control over them and eventually wipe them off the earth, because they are inconvient to you. You will respond that: I'm not saying wipe them off the earth, i'm just trying to stop them from having children...Well in a couple of generations, what do you think will happen? They live in an area that is like a cross between Nevada, West Texas and Kansas that still has lions snatching people from their actual homes. They have snakes that can kill a person in over a minute with one bite. Then their leaders change everyday, the next one might hate them because their ancestors were from another tribe. He's idea's well hey lets kill all those people so we can save the food for ourselves. Your choice is the same one the Warlords have made. You want those you feel beneath you to no longer exist.

You would choose the easy path and exterminate them because they annoy you. Rather than the hard path of actually trying to feed them. Africa is a continent that will only change if its brought to a one continent government were there aren't 72 warlords all trying to kill each other. This place is what the rest of the world looked like in the Middle Ages.

How would genocide or Sterilization as you would put it solve anything?

Originally posted by Royal76

You know that's the same type of argument the Nazi's, had for the Jews. Sterlizing a whole group of people isn't Genocide, were doing it for the children right...It would be Genocide. You know it, and just refuse to realize it.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

I'm not advocating destroying anyone or anything. These people already have children. The children they have are starving to death. I don't believe they should be allowed to have more, until the situation stabilizes.

The Nazi's were exterminating living people. Not because they didn't want them to procreate, but because they hated them. There is absolutely no comparison what-so-ever.

"At what point did "Poor" and "Insane" become the same. Your objected though noted is ignored if you can't carry out your argument."

The poor become insane when they can watch thousands of their own children dying before their eyes, and then be so thouroughly irresponsible to bring more children into this world to suffer the same fate, over-and-over again. This is insanity. This truly fits the definition of genocide.

"I wonder what you would think if your government decided for you today that you were too poor to be allowed to reproduce children. You were forced to go to a government health facility, had your jr, cut open and sterilized because the government decreed there were too many children already in the world."

It wouldn't be necassary, because I have already deemed myself unfit to raise another child, (Having done a such stellar job on my first any only) so I have completely stopped dating women with wombs, or women capable of bearing children. LOL!!

This is a fact though. Haven't dated a woman capable of bearing children for 10 years. So you see, I practice what I preach. If I was such a horndog that I could not controll myself, then I would have gotten a vascectomy.



Mod Edit: Fixing Quote Tags.
Please Review This Link.
Quote Reference

[edit on 7-5-2007 by chissler]

eyespy you really got to break up the quotes man its hard to follow with out the highlighter.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. I'm not advocating destroying anyone or anything. These people already have children. The children they have are starving to death. I don't believe they should be allowed to have more, until the situation stabilizes.

Sterilization is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group. Poor people of Africa are a group. Fine you want to only kill the 2nd child. When does it stop. You can't see the government deciding that well we are still starving so none of those people, the ones beneath us who have money need to now not have any kids.

The Nazi's were exterminating living people. Not because they didn't want them to procreate, but because they hated them. There is absolutely no comparison what-so-ever.

The future generations would be "living people". PS the Nazi didn't hate the Jews. They need them to be used as a scape goat for all the problems of the masses. They were just convient, patsy's. They would have moved on to the Christians next when they ran out of jews to "Hate". They did see the jews as beneath them something they should control just would have us see the poor of africa. As something you could control.

The poor become insane when they can watch thousands of their own children dying before their eyes, and then be so thouroughly irresponsible to bring more children into this world to suffer the same fate, over-and-over again. This is insanity. This truly fits the definition of genocide.

Sounds like the words of a person ready for a job a Homeland security. We as a people are too readily availible to "Lable" a person, sort them, and deal with them as we see fit. We aren't god, we don't have the right to do so. Do you know right now there are people who have never done anything wrong, would never dream of doing so, would fight to their last breath to save the US, who can't fly because their name is similar to someone who's one the terror watch list. They have notified the government of their mistake, and the government doesn't care. You have marginalized these people with a lable, it isn't right.

It wouldn't be necassary, because I have already deemed myself unfit to raise another child, (Having done a such stellar job on my first any only) so I have completely stopped dating women with wombs, or women capable of bearing children. LOL!!

I'm glad that you are happy with Your decision, why can't you be happy with others choosing a different route.

Originally posted by Royal76
This type of behavior is why their were slaves

A long time ago, my people (American's) saw these people as beneath them, unworthy of chosing their own destiny. It was evil then, its evil now.
You don't see them as people, you see them as beneath you. I can feel it in the way you speak.

You would have us exert control over them and eventually wipe them off the earth, because they are inconvient to you. You will respond that: I'm not saying wipe them off the earth, i'm just trying to stop them from having children...
How would genocide or Sterilization as you would put it solve anything?

You know, you're completely stepping over the line here. Your characterization that I see them as being beneath me, is a low blow, just because you dissagree with me.

In fact, I care a great deal more for the children who are dying right now, as we speak, just because it was too inconvient for their parents to consider using a condom, or dad pulling out! So because their parents were stupid, and uncaring, and ignorant, 1,000 babies across the continent of Africa will die tonight.

And not one dollar of the billions sent to that continenet will save them.

These people have no destiny to choose for themselves, don't you get it. It's not America. Their lives are 10 times worse than any slave in America ever suffered. It is a land where their lives hang in the ballance between warlords, evil dictators, and murderous rebels. They have no hope of a life on that soil. The longer they stay, the shorter their life span. Their own governments are starving them to death.

I am talking about the lowest of the lowest, those who neither you, nor any other civilized country on the face of this earth really give a damn about. Not even their Arab brothers;

www.iht.com...

They need to stop having babies who will die in the desert of starvation. This is a fact. If it is too inconvient for them to stop, then they need to get a shot, or a pill or something to prevent them from killing more children. They are killing their own children through their ignorance. This is what I care about, not their rights to kill more babies.







[edit on 7-5-2007 by eyespy2]

[edit on 7-5-2007 by eyespy2]