Should The Poor Be Sterilized

If they don't want to be sterilized all I can say is too bad! It's like saying I don't want to be born! Or I don't want to die! It's going to have to happen and several methods have already been implemented, whether you like it or not. It's only a matter of time before it becomes a standard in the U.S. Why should any hard-working Americans pay for your mistakes? It's not their fault you decided to have ten kids and can't seem to afford to feed them or send them off to school.
The two methods I mentioned above are excellent! How could you possibly not see their practicality?

Originally posted by laiguana
If they don't want to be sterilized all I can say is too bad! It's like saying I don't want to be born! Or I don't want to die! It's going to have to happen and several methods have already been implemented, whether you like it or not. It's only a matter of time before it becomes a standard in the U.S.

Well, saying "I don't want to be sterilized" is a bit different than saying "I don't want to die, or be born!" Don't you think?

And just how in the hell do you know that sterilization will be standard practice in the US, sometime in the future? Or is this just one of your fantasies, like marrying a lizard?

Originally posted by laiguana
If they don't want to be sterilized all I can say is too bad! It's like saying I don't want to be born! Or I don't want to die!

Okay, so what exactly will you do to force your will upon them?

Originally posted by whaaa
And just how in the hell do you know that sterilization will be standard practice in the US, sometime in the future? Or is this just one of your fantasies, like marrying a lizard?

As oppose to marrying a dung ape? How do I know? Ok, have you looked at the history of compulsory sterilization in the U.S. alone? There has and still is implementations of compulsory sterilization whether the population affected acknowledges it or not. There has been quite a few programs proposed for the purpose of compulsory sterilization, not always targeted at the same population, but introduced nevertheless. Although public archives state that most of these programes were vetoed or dismissed altogether. Classified governent programs cannot be traced in this manner, and could easily be employed within one of many public services available. All I'm just sayin' is it's going to happen, and it's with good cause. It's only going to take a little bit more time to fully secure.

Originally posted by laiguana
If they don't want to be sterilized all I can say is too bad! It's like saying I don't want to be born! Or I don't want to die! It's going to have to happen and several methods have already been implemented, whether you like it or not. It's only a matter of time before it becomes a standard in the U.S. Why should any hard-working Americans pay for your mistakes? It's not their fault you decided to have ten kids and can't seem to afford to feed them or send them off to school.
The two methods I mentioned above are excellent! How could you possibly not see their practicality?

Practical, potentially so, yes, laiguana, you may have an effective temporary stop gap solution. On the down side, you are supporting forcible reduction of ethnic and cultural groups who, interestingly, are the remnants of the victimized, oppressed, exploited, and murdered peoples around the world whom the west has gleefully profitted from through their criminal and aggressive behaviour over the last few centuries or so. Now that you have become rich off of the spoils of war and conquest, allowing you to produce ever more amazing killing machines and high tech, high dollar weapons, you want to get rid of those pesky survivors who are still stubbornly hanging on. Wow! Americans, among many others, should feel so ashamed that they can do nothing else but devote all those trillions of ill-gotten gains to the goal of balancing the scales. Western nations could never repay what they have taken. How do you pay for erasing a culture, or making a people destitute, while still profitting from their resources to this day? It can't be done, but sadly, I see a very good chance that the thieves and killers will refuse to do much of anything at all. Doesn't look good. Not long from now something will give.
I'd bet on it.

This thread sounds like the workings of prince phillip or one of his cronies. Of course people shouldn't be sterilized against their will, what kind of monster could advocate that. If you think there's an overpopulation problem?, you might be a nazi. Go do some soul searching.

Originally posted by wingman77
Of course people shouldn't be sterilized against their will, what kind of monster could advocate that.

Thats the worrying thing [as proven by this and other threads here]. Hitler's beliefs are actually very common.. no need to convert anyone to Nazi-ism.. don't need to fly a specific flag.
They can rationalise their beliefs by saying 'but we're not advocating extermination'.. when in essence thats exactly what they're doing. They are just stopping them getting concieved. Someone even suggested that this would be a compassionate gesture to african women for when they get raped. What about the children they do want? It's hard to believe that they genuinely care when they are advocating violating her rights all over again.. it's the same thing as rape. There have been atrocities throughout history that have been committed 'for their own good'.. I guess justification is the only way some people can live with themsleves.

Riley.

They're only practising "compassion". I mean, after all, why shouldn't a woman who's been raped in one horrible fashion want to be raped in yet another horrible fashion.

This sordid little topic is stomach turning at best, and down right nauseating at worst. Advocates of this claim its a practical solution to what ails the poorest parts of the planet. Ignoring the true solution of proper leadership, education, and spiritual guidance (of whatever form enlightens you best).

Riley and Seagull,

You are both absolutely right. Some posters are claiming that sterilization is actually a form of compassion showing how very much they care. Why provide education and help with infrastructure when instead we can rape these women again and again. The statement has been made that higher educated people don't have as many children then the same poster advocates sterilization almost in the same breath or sentence. The solution is not further rape but rather education and jobs.

Instead of judging these poor and forcing yet another rape on them; shouldn't we instead provide help that counts through education and infrastructure rebuilding. If we have to provide protection while they take charge of their own lives then so be it.

One poster was even mocked as being a dreamer. Well, Seagull you said it best right here in the living room; "Dreamers build countries and futures; pragmatists go to the wall." I believe that which can be dreamed and visualized can be achieved.

This topic is sordid at best and should some of these so called solutions actually come to fruition criminally insane at worst.

Well said GH,

The propensity for us as a society to immediately reach for a knee jerk immediate solution has had dire consequences in the past and reading these suggestions one can only shudder at the inhumanity some propose...

We must remember that the easiest solution is not always the best and that anything worth doing, is of course, worth doing correctly.

Where is our compassion and understanding?

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis


The propensity for us as a society to immediately reach for a knee jerk immediate solution has had dire consequences in the past and reading these suggestions one can only shudder at the inhumanity some propose...



Semper

Semper, you are so right. When will people learn the truth of the words "What you do for the least". We will be judged by our actions and indeed our inaction's. Instead of committing further atrocities in the name of humanity let us help them build. Build a future of their own design and desire. We haven't the right to determine their path and beliefs for them.

Originally posted by laiguana
I want to ask why the heck do you think the U.S. should be held responsible for the success of another country's economy? Or education or ANYTHING. The United States, should look after its' own interests, not anyone elses. No other country looks after another country's interests unless it is somehow tied to their own. By forcefully decreasing the population of the poor the economy would get better on its own because people would have the time to invest in infrastructure, education, medicine and health.... You know why? Because they won't spend everyday of their lives looking for a way to survive. They won't be milking the government millions of dollars from our taxpayers who have to support their lazy behinds because they refuse to get a job, yet choose to reproduce like rats. Atleast rats have the dignity of working to support their own offspring because they know nothing else will.

There's this really cool thing called nukes that need places to be tested all the time. Why not test them on breeding grounds? Yeah I know it seems shameful to say such a thing....but those people are causing war because they can't control themselves. They don't take responsibility and they are putting the entire world are risk because of their sick habits, therefore a good nukin' is in order. Um...
..lol?

It sounds like you don't know that the US owes a great deal of its success to interfering in other nations affairs, just like most western nations. The current state of affairs in many of the poor countries is a direct result of western exploitation, manipulation, and predatory actions. In many cases, it is still going on, and where it is no longer overt activity, almost everywhere there is covert aggressive, selfish interference. Nicaragua, Chile, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Rwanda are a few places to look into. The information on the reasons that the US shares much of the responsibility for the misery in such countries is vast. The Kurdish people's odds of a positive future, Palestinians' 60 year nightmare, Native Americans' great sorrow, Africa's countless tragedies... all share common ground. Much, if not most, of their problems to western pillaging. One wise man, Balzac?, said, "Every great fortune hides a crime."
Your post implies that poor people are poor because they are lazy, and hard work is what separates the successful from the unsuccessful. Most of the time, poor people work as hard, and imho, harder than the wealthy. Who takes more holidays, golfs more, skis more, etc.? The leisure activities always contain far more rich than poor. Poor people can't afford golf clubs, skis, etc. They usually can't even afford more than a week or two holidays a year. The wealthy rarely take so little time off. A month, or two, or three per year is more often the case. You clearly don't know the reasons which make it almost necessary for the poor to have a large family, and to try to have as many kids as they are able. It is out of need, not laziness and 'sick habits', as you are saying. More babies means more potential income sources in the future, which helps insure the impoverished parents senior years. The posts you write all support the idea that the rich have a right to kill the poor. They don't.
Ayn Rand put it well, "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
Your take on the war issue is hard to believe. It is my view that the US in particular is focussed, almost obsessed, with anything to do with war. Who spends the most on war? Who makes the 'best' weapons? Whose military is most feared on earth? And you say they are the warlike ones?
And as for putting the world at risk, the US refusal over the last ten years to sign the Kyoto accord, because there is no money in it for them. The nations who have been eco-friendly ironically will still suffer because of the errors of others who refuse to change their harmful ways.
An oft heard whine in western social circles is that we are not at fault, it wasn't us, we didn't do it, etc. The Simpsons show regularly mentions the behaviour, and Bart is a leader in the "I didn't do it." group. Homer is top ten at least, with his advice such as, "It was like that when I got here.", and other such blame ducking words of wisdom. How far we've come from Truman's view, "The buck stops here." I heard a Native American lawyer once say, "If your dad stole my dad's house, should you have to give it back to me after they are gone?" I say yes. It is my feeling that most people get angry, and refuse, when asked to return the mailbox.
I suggest a new priority is set up. Before anyone can acquire any blatantly unnecessary luxuries for themselves to enjoy, every person must already be taken care of in areas such as food, shelter, and clothing.
It is like putting love ahead of material possessions. So, people can still have their golf clubs, etc., but lets make sure no kids are starving to death first, okay?

WHat should we do? Stop interferring. Pull out ALL UN and American involvment. People, money, food, everything.

Why? Africa is Africa, America is America. I don't remember reading the Constitution and seeing "We must let Americans die of curable diseases while sending billions to Africa"

Anyways, in what, 20 years Africa will be depleted? AIDS and Ebola and starvation and war will wipe out it out. I'd say make it an animal preserve. After all the people are dead make it a preserve for animals. While having workers in the mines and stuff. UN workers, say, you have a choice, go to prison or go to Africa and work off your debt.

Let's create a nature preserve... and stripmine it. Yes or no: Do you work for the white house?

I say this in jest, and I don't mean to offend you. I'm just making the point that your plan seems questionable, even before the millions upon millions of deaths are considered.

If the human costs or the inherent contradiction of the endgame plan don't sway you, here's one more thing to consider: If you think the Democrats got good mileage out of drilling in ANWAR, what do you think their gonna do with THAT issue? You've got to admit, that's a pretty solid utilitarian reason to do the right thing.

Hey, just saying Africa population will be gone in about 20 years due to genocide, disease, and starvation. Leave the rest to the animals except for the mines. It would help the hundreds of endangered species in Africa and we'd get the diamonds and gold and whatever to say... raise money to help other out. Have the UN run it and use the money made to run relief, emergency relief, like the Tsunami victims. Not use it to fund warlords for decades like now.

reply to post by HHH Is King


So you promote the death of millions so western civilization can reap the benefits of diamonds?

Is the death of a child on the western hemisphere any more painful than the death of a child from any third world country? A death is a death is a death. The only difference is the media exposure that each death over there gets. None! Hundreds, thousands, and millions need to die before anyone gives a damn. But when one child dies on this side of the planet, it's on the local news day in and day out. I appreciate the exposure that a life gets on this side, but I speak in disdain when we blatantly ignore those of our comrades across the ocean.

It's easier though isn't it? To ignore them. With any luck, they'll all just die and we won't have to have that on our conscious anymore. Ahh, that'll be the day.

What's disgusting is some people think like that. Rather than acknowledge the suffering of so many, we'll just ignore it because it makes me feel better.

A weak coping mechanism.