Should The Poor Be Sterilized

Originally posted by Royal76
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.

I don't want to kill any child. I just want them to stop imposing a death sentance on their own children. If they only had 2 children, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Many of these people have 4-5 children, that they impose a death sentence on.

And I am sorry, but you are mistaken, the Nazi's hated the Jews. The fact that they could use them to stir the masses up, stemed from the fact that they dispised them. You don't exterminate those you love.

And if the person doesn't want to be "sterilized"?

Originally posted by eyespy2
Many of these people have 4-5 children, that they impose a death sentence on.

But we are all born with a death sentence. It is the one guarantee in life. We give birth to children knowing that at some point, they will die. But that is the farthest thing from our mind during the birth of a child. What we think of is the life that they have ahead of them, no matter how short or long it is, and no matter how much, or little, adversity they will face.

A life is a life, and they are all worth living.

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

I understand where you are coming from. But I can say the same to you. How do you know these children would rather suffer?

It will just go on and on. You have your opinion and me mine.

Originally posted by enjoies05
I understand where you are coming from. But I can say the same to you. How do you know these children would rather suffer?

I am advocating that we allow them to make the decision. What you, and others, are saying.. is that you want to make the decision for them and sterilize the parents.

You are making the decision for them, I am allowing them to make the decision themselves.

Originally posted by chissler
I am allowing them to make the decision themselves.

They aren't making the decision themselve if they are getting raped.


"Excuse me ma'am, may I rape you?"

Originally posted by enjoies05
They aren't making the decision themselve if they are getting raped.

And what percentage of births account for rape? Minimal at best. At least you can look to appease the majority of these individuals. Not take a drastic measure that is geared towards a minimal portion of the population.

And yes, I am allowing them to make their own decision.

The sterilization of the woman, is ultimately the death of her unborn child. The child was not permitted to make the decision of whether or not he/she would of preferred to live a life of adversity, rather than no life at all. You've made the decision for this child, which ultimately resulted in their non-existence.

Allow the child to live. Allow the child to see what the earth has to offer. Allow the child to hear the sounds, taste the sweetness, and touch the softness. If at that point, the child feels that he/she can no longer go on, and this life is not worth living, that is their decision to make.

At least they had the opportunity to live their life, and decide for themselves where they are happier.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by chissler
And what percentage of births account for rape? Minimal at best.

Not sure exactly, but it seems like alot to me from these articles.

One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by CIET Africa, non-governmental organisation, said they had been raped in the past year.

Source

South Africa has one of the highest rape statistics in the world. In 1988, a total of 19 308 cases of rape were reported to the South African Police Service (SAPS). In 1994, this figure increased to 42 429 reported cases of rape. In 1996, 50 481 cases of rape were reported to the SAPS. According to the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation (NICRO), the situation is more serious.

NICRO has estimated that only one in twenty rapes are reported to the police. On the basis of this estimate,it is calculated that one rape occurs every 83 seconds.The SAPS has recently presented an even bleaker picture and they have suggested that one rape occurs every 35 seconds.

Source

Thats kind of old though, but it is still shocking.

Nearly 60 children are raped every day in South Africa

Source

Anyways, there is a lot of rape going on, and most of it is towards children and infants. So the mothers don't have a choice, and there is a great possibility that their children could get raped, and get AIDS, and bring another child born with AIDS into the world, continuing the cycle.


[edit on 7/5/2007 by enjoies05]

I understand what your saying, and to an extent I agree.

But rather than further victimize the victim by sterilizing them, why don't we combat the rape? We can put a man on the moon, we can pick the phone up and call anyone, anywhere in the world, hell.. we can record live television these days, and even find Saddam in a hole in the middle of a dessert.

We've fought off plenty of enemies in our day. Apartheid was something we thought we could never topple, and that crumbled before our eyes.

I don't buy this whole, "we can't stop the rapes". No, it's not that we can't stop them. It's just more work. It's easier to swoop in, sterilize the whole bunch of them, and not have to worry about it anymore. Even though the rapes, abuse, torture, etc., will continue, we won't have to see innocent children be the byproduct of this torture.

No, the humane thing to do is go in and save these victims from the torture that they are enduring.

If we can put the Iraqi country back together, why can't we help these people out?

Or do we only help people when we get something in return?

Might explain why the American government hasn't jumped on this ship yet. Until something can be received in return, this ship may never sail.

Good idea, but how? How could you stop people from raping others?

And if there was a way to stop it why hasn't it been stopped in America?

Originally posted by enjoies05
Good idea, but how? How could you stop people from raping others?

The same way we prevent it here. The same way we've developed new social norms that average citizens abide by, without even realizing it.

Societies all spin off of social norms. What behaviour is acceptable, what behaviour is not. Fifty years ago, it was appropriate to look down at an individual of color, and feel that a white man was superior. You could do that in the middle of the streets, and odds are you would not be stigmatized by your neighbours. Odds are that these days, if you were to do that, your neighbours would look at you under a negative light.

Over the years, our social norms have changed.

It is no longer acceptable for men to hit women. Years ago, this was something that was accepted by society. Law enforcement would show up at the home of a couple on a spousal abuse call, and exit the house to leave it in the hands of the husband. It was his "right". That isn't the way today.

Why?

Hard work, tough and consistent laws, and participation on all sectors of our society. Those that did not evolve, well they faced an appropriate punishment. After that, you either accepted the new norm or you run the risk of incarceration.

After so long, it is inevitable to develop these new social norms.

If we were to enter this nation and implement these new social norms, we would need the help of First World countries, plenty of aid, and the participation of citizens and the local government. The government needs to hold the guilty accountable for their actions, and the victims need to understand that they have an obligation to report these heinous crimes. If either of those two wheels are not spinning, this can not work.

This is not something that you can implement over night. It will take years and years of failure before it finally begins to spin, but if all sectors remain consistent, this is inevitable.

Our own society is living proof that this is possible. It is going to warrant the effort of many though in order to attain this goal.

Keep in mind that we are talking about millions and millions of lives.

The juice is certainly worth the squeeze.

Originally posted by enjoies05
And if there was a way to stop it why hasn't it been stopped in America?

They don't want to? Why did they send so many troops to Iraq and so little to Afghanistan? Was there more in it for them by invading Iraq rather than Afghanistan? Even though Iraq was a nation that had never attacked the United States, and Afghanistan was harboring the man who was guilty of the greatest terrorist attack on American soil, this Administration still sent more troops after Saddam instead.

Why?

Some may say Oil, some may say it was a priority. Bollocks if you ask me, but that is merely my opinion.

To take on this task, you are going to give a lot without receiving really anything in return. Why bother seems to be the motto of those holding the power.

So why haven't we done this yet? My opinion, they don't want to.

I feel like I should know better than to say this, because I know what's going to happen, but in this case I sincerely believe it's true and I'm gonna have to put it out there...

Can anybody here seriously tell me that not having any of the facts about two people, they could look at a handsome white guy in his 20s wearing a shirt that says John 3:16 on it and then look at a black woman in her 30s who's missing a tooth and looking a bit unkempt and wearing a shirt that says Budweisser on it and tell me that they wouldn't be inclined to "fix" one over the other right away?

Cause I haven't told you anything relevant yet. They're both young enough to turn themselves around, I haven't even told you how long they've each been poor. For all you know the black woman lost her job as a paralegal last month, has been outdoors for a week, and is staying at the rescue mission while she looks for a new job that will pay her the median household income, and in the same breath that white guy might have decided that all he wants to do in life is hit cows in the head with a hammer at a slaughter house.

Dangerous road we go down when we empower the government to make those kinds of calls. Have you been to the DMV and seen what government employees can be like? Do you want your genitals in their hands (no pun intended)? I trust if we put even a little thought into this we can do better than mutilating human beings against their will based on the government's cursory assessment of their human potential based on a few demographic questions.

white and blacks belong to the same race
but no i would not want to put my Willie in uncle Sam's hands

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.

Just interjecting some facts here .....

Only 1.4% of white Americans owned slaves. Only 25% of free black Americans owned slaves. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, of
all races, volunteered to fight against slavery. Hundreds of thousands
volunteered to give their lives to end it.

Your post seems to lump the entire country of America into one group.

Should the poor be sterilized?
Should the mentally ill be sterilized?
Should the physically retarded be sterilized?
Should the mentally retarded be sterilized?

I know a woman...sweet as can be. She is about 65 with about a 60 IQ, illiterate. She was sterilized by the state (yes many states including Virginia (where I live) had a policy of forcibly sterilizing the mentally and physically retarded and the mentally ill from the late 1920's well into the 1970's. They also used the policy to forcibly sterilize many uneducated blacks even though they were not mentally or physically deficient. The nazi's did the same thing on an even larger scale.

In effect you would be denying a person the right to self determination based entirely on their economic status. That is more odious than denying a person the same rights based on mental or physical capabilities though both are morally wrong.

Should the ignorant be prevented from voting?

Here's a thought...

Instead of sterilizing the Africans, why not industrialize? As countries industrialize, the birth rates drop. That is a FACT.

But no, it's better to sterilize. After stealing most of the wealth from the continent, colonizing damn near every country, destroying established land boundaries, and giving the countries loans at loan shark interest rates, why not sterilize them?

BTW, the UN is WAY ahead of you. They've been sterilizing the 3rd world for YEARS. Not to mention how many children in Africa "magically" end up with AIDS when neither of their parents have it. It's just a "coincidence" that this often happens around the time the UN comes in with their needles full of "goodies" for the children. Same as how AIDS took off after a huge round of smallpox vaccinations in Africa, while it jumped off in the American gay community after a round of hepatitis B vaccinations.

But those Africans are SO ignorant. When the UN comes now with the shots, they RUN from them. Those dumb Africans; screwing themselves by not getting those injections.

At any event, you're late potna. Sterilization of the 3rd world is not a brand new idea; it's a continuing reality.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Instead of sterilizing the Africans, why not industrialize? As countries industrialize, the birth rates drop. That is a FACT.

Not much danger of that happening. All the banking and manufacturing classes want from the third world (in Africa and elsewhere) is raw materials and a complete lack of anything resembling law and order. Nobody really cares what the birth rate is, much less the standard of living.

But no, it's better to sterilize.

No one is seriously suggesting that. Why would you sterilize a population that owes you debts that they can never repay? As long as there are African countries with at least some revenue, the rich will be getting a slice of that revenue. Sterilization? Never gonna actually happen.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No one is seriously suggesting that. Why would you sterilize a population that owes you debts that they can never repay? As long as there are African countries with at least some revenue, the rich will be getting a slice of that revenue. Sterilization? Never gonna actually happen.

The OP seemed pretty serious to me. And, while you're right about the debts, sterilization is ALREADY happening. In parts of Africa, South America, etc. The UN goes in and bribes the countries, making them comply with sterilization programs to get money. The leaders of the countries who get the cash don't give a spit; it's not them being sterilized.

You see, this is but a portion of the UN's population reduction agenda. They're looking at 85-95% world population reduction, depending on which bucket of feces you ask.

truth, do you have any links to substantiate these claims?

I do not doubt you. But I would love to read up on this, if this is the case. Something tells me you are right, but it would be good to read an article or two on it.

Who decides which poor person gets sterilized? Which gov't. bureaucrat gets to decide the future of someone he/she doesn't even, and never will, know? The Nazi's did this, hell some states in the United State up until fairly recently did this. Who knows what the unborn little girl or boy might have grown up to be. Another Jonas Salk, Desmond Tutu, or someone with all the best traits of both? What a world changer he or she would be. Who are we to make that decision. We have neither the omniscience, or omnipotence to make that decision for others. We are not God. We shouldn't attempt to act like it.