Should The Poor Be Sterilized

Man, you guys have got caught up in it. Did you really cause all the strife in the World? Why, I think you might have. Yeah, let's kick 'em down some more.

: Cut off that rain!
: Start another blight!
: Down with resistance, no strains insusceptible!
: Plause another cause!

I dare you walk down the street and say these things.


[edit on 5/18/2007 by bothered]

Should the poor be sterilised. No because lots of poor people manage to have kids and bring them up responsibly and not make them a burden on the rest of society.

Should anyone, poor or affluent, who cannot bring them up responsibly be sterilised. No because it's a permanent solution used in a situation where circumstances may change, and we don't have the right to permanently deny someone the right to breed.

Should an ongoing contraceptive programme be available, even enforced on a population until such a time as they are capable, mentally, emotionally and financially to bring children into the world and care for them adequately. (Please note this does not translate as only the rich or well off merely that you can adequately provide for your own offspring, if neccessary with the help of state allowances and welfare programmes/day care etc.). IMO yes this is a reasonable, sensible way to address a number of problems while not denying people their rights but encouraging them to balance these with their responsibilities.

posted by Seagull

The United States being one, and China the other. America has been a global power for just about a century, and a player on the global scene for about a century and a half . . sometimes I think that as a nation, we're tired, and to solve problems we try the quickest or easiest way. Whatever the solution is, it'll neither be easy, nor quick. It'll, in all likelihood, be bloody, at least at first, and protracted . . The key to this whole thing is for someone to step outside the box that is the rampant tribalism in Africa. Once that is achieved, the sky is the limit. Or I could be completely delusional. Which is it? [Edited by Don W]

Seagull, I see your cogent and very excellently expressed observations but I must deal somewhat harshly with you, as I perceive your argument to be. First off, I am no isolationist such as we had in over abundance in the late 1930s. But neither am I an interventionist such as we had in Vietnam and have now in Iraq.

I opposed the Bush43 response to the Nine Eleven Event from the very beginning. It was a criminal act and should have been dealt with as such. There was time enough to use our military force to enforce our criminal laws. But no, we - say Bush43 - “declared war on terrorism” And VP Cheney has warned us several times this” war” would be “perpetual” but when that fell flat, he changed it to “decades long” or “generations long.”

You do not have to be very smart to 1) realize we cannot afford perpetual mobilization, and 2) our civil liberties will not survive an endless war.

Item One on January 20, 2009, is to declare the War on Terror is over.

We have no choice but to return to the United Nations and with hat in hand ask for Resolutions about the al Qaeda and similar groups who are employing extreme violence and finding shelter in sympathetic countries. Then we must begin to use our brains and not our brawn - which the terrorists have shown to the world is greatly limited - and correct the conditions that give rise to young men and women willing to die for their cause. About which we know all too little.

We are smart enough and good enough to do the right thing, if we want to. We will begin by bringing the Israeli government under control as only we can. We must give the Palestinians back at least part of the land we took from them by force of arms in 1948-49, when we did one of our dumber tricks on the world stage.

Hugely remorseful as primarily a nation of Christians - but not a Christian nation - which sat by and watched as 6 million “innocent” - I hate that word - people were murdered, so we “gave” the surviving Jewish people a homeland but we forgot the place was already inhabited.

We never asked the inhabitants of Britain's old Palestine Mandate what they wanted. Although we had fought WW2 for the “Right of Self Determination” and we wrote it into the 1946 UN Charter, barely 3 years later we ignored it. This injustice will not go away. It is the cancer that underlies the hatred for the US (and Israel) in the Middle East. It must be fixed someday.

Well, I must stop here but you get my drift. Maybe more later.

[edit on 5/18/2007 by donwhite]

Don. There is much to what you say, whilst I don't agree as to the criminality of the WOT, I do agree it was, is, and in all likelihood will be, handled poorly.

Self determination is supposedly what the UN is all about, and it does indeed seem to be ignored by nations intent on their own agendas. Every single one of them have a good and sufficient reason to do so, at least in their own minds.

The Palestinians are a special case, no one wants them; no one wants to deal with them. Nor do they help their cause in the least by resorting to terror tactics as a way to get their wants met.

Strange it is we never speak about neutering the rich. Draconian measures seem to lie in the exclusive domain of the poor. Hmm? Do you suppose Karl Marx was right, that history is an endless class struggle. That we are eternally destined to wage a war between the haves and the have nots? Even if you are uncomfortable granting the proper application of Marx, then what do you have to offer to explain what looks to be rather obvious.

A lot like America’s endless struggle with legal abortions. The R&Fs - Rich and Famous - never lacked for a quick, quiet abortion for their daughters who had gone astray, but it was a sin for the a child of the poor to want or have one. Hmm? A daughter of an R&F-er would go into the local hospital and have a D&C. Dilation and Curettage. Dusting and Cleaning as we irreverently referred to it. Or if she had waited too long - past her second period - then perhaps a vacation to Switzerland was in order. But who says hypocrites cannot mouth off on issues, too?

In 1869-1871, Prussia’s Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince von Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg, managed to bring 200 separate political entities together into one country, the German Empire! Last of the great powers to become a modern nation-state. Made possible by the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Under von Bismark, Germany became the first country in the world to adopt single payer health insurance (1883), the first to adopt worker’s compensation insurance (1884), and the first to adopt social security for old age retirement (1889).

Now von Bismark was a conservative monarchist. Born to wealth and position he was not motivated by any sympathies for the poor, ordinary man on the street, a person Bismark would have very little, if any, personal contact with. So why this bleeding heart liberal in the middle of conservative and capitalist Germany?

Germany was late in going through its own industrial revolution, which is garble-speak for urbanization of the country. Or, which came first, the jobs in the city attracting surplus farm hands, made ‘surplus’ by population growth and improved agricultural techniques, or did the ready availability of unskilled and semi-skilled labor in the cities attract in excess capital? I suppose the truth is, a little bit of both.

When families move to the city, the number of children is sharply reduced for a variety of reasons. Child labor laws make children into dependants and no longer are producers as in the case of farm life. Regimentation. People in the city get up at the same time, go to work at the same time and do mostly the same things. Children are compelled to attend school. Rented space is expensive. Everything has to be bought, including such elemental items as firewood. A single wage earner household cannot afford to feed a large family. Viola! Smaller families in the city. Even without condoms and despite the constant urging of the local priest. For many good Catholics, there is a disconnect between God and reality.

Whereas in the rural environs it was not uncommon to find 3 generations lliving in the same house, this would be a rarity in the city. Space considerations alone worked against that arrangement for most families. In the rural world, younger members of the family worked and shared their produce with the older members. Everyone worked, but it was work more suited to their age-born limitations or infirmities. In other words, the extend family was an old persons social security. Cities are cash economies, farms are "in-kind" economies.

In the city there was no opportunity for older, slower, less agile workers. Social Darwinism was the rule of the day. Only the strong survive. You did not have to be a bleeding heart to see this system was not working well. The quality of life was beaten down. Who wants to be a German if being old means you die of slow starvation in the city. Who wants to be homeless in the Fatherland? Von Bismark realized he could make a much stronger, mush more cohesive population by providing for basic needs of the working people. The class on which society is built. Not capital as the banker would have you believe. And what child would not rather pay 10% of his pay to the government which in turn would pay his older father and mother who could then live in a house of their own? And who would be promised the same arrangement when he was too old to work.

Conclusion. Because of a high death rate in Africa, a man and woman need many children to assure a few survive long enough to support them. And so it is unless we provide some means to support the old people there will be a huge resistance to reducing the size of families.

I support the Chinese model, one family, one child. Around the world.

[edit on 5/18/2007 by donwhite]

The Palestinians are a special case, no one wants them; no one wants to deal with them. Nor do they help their cause in the least by resorting to terror tactics as a way to get their wants met.

Lets not forget that the giving of Israel's lands "back" to the Palestinians because they were the original owners is of course false... Common misconception of course, but the Jewish people were there LONG before the Palestinians..

Off topic I know and I apologize, but that little bit of political correctness about the Palestine ownership of that land has been debunked on here several times.....

Semper

posted by semperfortis

The Palestinians are a special case . . Nor do they help their cause in the least by resorting to terror tactics as a way to get their wants met.

Lets not forget that the giving of Israel's lands "back" to the Palestinians because they were the original owners is of course false. [Edited by Don W]

Heck, you could have fooled me Mr S/F. Contrary to pro-Israel opinion, there are deeds of record covering all the land once known as the League of Nations Mandate of Palestine overseen by Great Britain. Somebody owned every piece of it that was not public property. There is no mystery who owned the land in 1948, the year when this “armed robbery” began.
‘

Off topic I know and I apologize, but that little bit of political correctness about the Palestine ownership of that land has been debunked on here several times . . Semper

Debunked? What’s there to debunk? Israeli lies and its American sycophants? Either you have a deed to your house or business or you don’t. If you have a deed, then you own it. If some guy comes in and either kills you or tells you if you don’t abandon your property he will kill you, and he takes your property and you flee to Gaza, then what is there to “debunk?” That still does not make it his property, legally speaking. And that’s no bunk!

Who owns the land is not hard to determine. That is why the US and its ME lackey Israel don’t want to talk about the real issues but instead rant on aimlessly and endlessly about non-issues. Joined in by such self described luminaries of wisdom as the late Rev. Jerry Falwell on the side of confusion, as usual.

[edit on 5/18/2007 by donwhite]

Just for the record,

How many of us are against sterilization, and how many for it? I did not keep count but it appeared that the majority of the posting members' were not in favor of sterilization, and not by a tiny margin.

That should compll any rational thinker who is in favor of such an option they should at least take it in their mind to understand the reasoning behind such unanimous animosity.

Take a moment to just imagine yourself in such a situation, and feel a little empathy, sympathy, and compassion for a suffering human being who is being treated as a slave with no rights that must accept orders or die.

Once we understand the feeling, we understand the proper solutions, and the improper solutions.

As good of an idea this is, NO we shouldnt. That would be a hitler action.
Also unless you created people you should not be able to manipulate them.
Its just not right, and if you ask your concious it would agree. I guess.
There just might be a god watching so just in case...

posted by DYepes

Just for the record, How many of us are against sterilization, and how many for it?

Against, with qualifications. If my position on limiting children is “right” then it should prevail just by reason and logic without requiring force. Only a failed policy needs the scalpel or chemical cocktails.

My qualifications include aborting any unwanted pregnancy by the bearer thereof, providing a variety of birth control means and explaining how fewer children will ultimately produce a better world for the people we are speaking to. And, replacing the support such children provide in traditional African society. Money. That is the necessary replacement. Either money they earn or money that is provided to them. But money is must be.

I did not keep count but it appears the majority of the postings were not in favor of sterilization, and not by a tiny margin. That compels any thinker who is in favor they should at least understand the reasoning behind such [near] unanimous animosity. Once we understand the feeling, we understand the proper solutions, and the improper solutions. [Edited by Don W]

I don’t like characterizing this issue as having “ . . proper solutions, and the improper solutions . . “ I prefer to keep it as a “proposal.” We’‘ve already endured several “solutions” including one labeled the “final solution.” The lesser ones we call “ethnic cleansing” and the more draconian, we call “genocide.” Spare us of either, please.

posted by earth2
As good of an idea this is, NO we shouldn’t. That would be a Hitler action.
Also unless you created people you should not be able to manipulate them. Its just not right, and if you ask your conscience it would agree. I guess. There just might be a God watching so just in case . . [Edited by Don W]

I don’t know about God. What I do know is that He (or Darwin) gave us a brain to use. Not just to carry around on top of a skeleton. God does not speak to me. I have serious reservations about those who say God speaks to them. It seems to me those who hear God speak, moist often hear Him say what to do to others but never waht to do for others.

I prefer to keep God in the same position that Jesus put Him when responding to the question, “How many commandments are there?” Jesus is reported to have said, “There are 2. First that you LOVE God with all your heart and second, that you LOVE mankind as yourself.” Or words to that effect. Which leaves God out of most of the situations man faces. Adding God to the discussion does not make our job easier. It adds an infinitely variable quantity to the equation. More heat than light. In the final analysis, we are on our own, groping our way in the dark.

[edit on 5/19/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Strange it is we never speak about neutering the rich.

Sign me up for that facebook group. The world has enough Hilton's and Bush's.

Originally posted by semperfortis

The Palestinians are a special case, no one wants them; no one wants to deal with them. Nor do they help their cause in the least by resorting to terror tactics as a way to get their wants met.

Lets not forget that the giving of Israel's lands "back" to the Palestinians because they were the original owners is of course false... Common misconception of course, but the Jewish people were there LONG before the Palestinians..

Off topic I know and I apologize, but that little bit of political correctness about the Palestine ownership of that land has been debunked on here several times.....

Semper

The Bible, in the OT, clearly admits that the Hebrews were invaders, and brutally slaughtered men, women and children when they took over what is now Israel.
Many untrue statements are made about the details and specifics regarding the founding of Israel, and subsequent expansion by force later.
First, Palestinians have occupied the area since OT times, and contrary to some claims, have been called by that name for over 2000 years, Herodotus being one example.
Secondly, between 200 and 300 Palestinian settlements, villages, and towns were bulldozed by the Israeli's despite the claims that the land was unoccupied.
Even though 78% (the better quality land) of British Palestine was given to the Jews in 1948, and 22% to Palestinians, the Israel government has since taken even more of the land by force.
Though Palestinian militants are forced by economic reality to knowing sacrifice their lives in suicide bombings, while their foes can use expensive stealth technology to fight them, the side who have no choice but to give their lives are called the cowards, while the ones who sneak in and out untouched when they carry out their attacks are called heroes.

Im poor, I got a vescectomy
I say yes.

Yes of course the poor should be forbidden to reproduce, all that happens when they reproduce is make more poor people. So there are exceptions, but they are rare and the vast majority of their offsprings fall into the same economic trap; from that results desperation which eventually leads to criminal activity and it just spirals down from there. What should happen is that unless you are making 50k a year or more, you should not be allowed to reproduce.

I don't make a lot of money. Take me in chains, tie me to a bed, slice into my genitals! That's the way to do it! Careful, I might "make more poor people!"

^ewwwww, that's gross....! Can't ya'll just control yourselves, and stop acting like primates...oh wait...n/m

posted by BlackGuardXIII
Though Palestinian militants are forced by economic reality to knowing sacrifice their lives in suicide bombings, while their foes can use expensive stealth technology [furnished by the United States of America at not charge to them] to fight them, the side who have no choice but to give their lives are called the cowards, while the ones who sneak in and out untouched when they carry out their attacks are called heroes. [Edited by Don W]

Victorious Allied Powers of a mainly Christian culture if not much at practicing Christianity, felt great remorse when they discovered proof beyond doubt that the Nazis had systematically murdered more than 6 million persons of Jewish heritage. And for no reason other than those people were Jews. A millennia of madness condensed into 2 decades of unimaginable brutality. Yes, what people in authority say in public does matter.

For a 1000 years Christian clerics across Europe had denominated Jews as “Christ Killers!” I am old enough to have heard that in my city of Louisville. Heck, it was only in the 1990s that the reigning Pope apologized - and he nearly chocked on the words - for the inestimable role the Church had played in setting up the circumstances that made Hitler and the Nazis possible.

Christians of all stripes are guilty of that horrible “tradition.” Well, I’d exclude Quakers and Unitarians and maybe one or two others from that general indictment. All of which makes me ill when I hear Bush43, Jerry Falwwll and others of like ilk lambasting extremist Muslims; so short is our memory. And so conveniently selective. On toleration, we are not much.

And so in 1948 at Lake Success in NY, we “gave” the Jewish survivors of our Holocaust half of a much unwanted land, Palestine. Unwanted except by the people who already lived there and who we did not consult. Empire. Hubris. White man’s burden, and etc. Why ask a camel rider’s opinion? Who cares what his opinion is, anyway? And for which United Nations Charter perhaps 50 million peole perished in 1933-1945, but alas, we chose to ignore those inconvenient provisions, at our pleasure. But now, maybe at our risk?

Anyone who wants to do right can resolve the Arab-Israeli problem. We don’t want to do right. We want to do wrong . But Osama bin Laden and newly invigorated people like him, are making us re-think that choice. I predict at some point in time, we will be compelled to do right. A few insurgents in Iraq have shown the world (again) that there are limits on a super power’s real on-the-ground power. Ho Chi Minh gave us a lesson earlier but we did not like that lesson so we promptly forgot it. 59,000 KIA then. 1,000,000 Vietnamese dead; we call that collateral damage. We are being re-taught this lesson in Iraq. Over 90,000 Iraqis dead since we launched our great Shock and Awe! More collateral damage. We ourselves are over 3,410 KIA today. How many more this time? Will these also die for naught? As in 'Nam? Do we say to them, "Oops, sorry about that?"

Hezbollah has shown the world that the IDF is not invincible as it survived despite the 30 days ‘mad-dog’ rampage in South Lebanon by the IDF egged on every day by the United States which fully supplied them with weapons of death. Furnished them satellite intel in real time. As the Nine Eleven Event showed, there is a price to pay for that moral ineptitude. But we do learn ever so slowly. Now, we have 3 missing US soldiers to join the 3 missing IDF soldiers. Who’s ahead in this game?

Advice: Do right while you have the time. It's easy then. It hurts a lot more to have to do right when it's forced on you. Ask any child.

[edit on 5/20/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by laiguana
Yes of course the poor should be forbidden to reproduce, all that happens when they reproduce is make more poor people. So there are exceptions, but they are rare and the vast majority of their offsprings fall into the same economic trap; from that results desperation which eventually leads to criminal activity and it just spirals down from there. What should happen is that unless you are making 50k a year or more, you should not be allowed to reproduce.

Would you mind if I asked you what your occupation is, and what your personal income is? I just want to know what you do that makes you a better human being with more rights than me. Honestly, then maybe I can strive to be as good as you.

Originally posted by DYepes

Would you mind if I asked you what your occupation is, and what your personal income is? I just want to know what you do that makes you a better human being with more rights than me. Honestly, then maybe I can strive to be as good as you.

Um... first of all I'm not a dung ape, second, some information I won't detail. My occupation is in IT and business administration. I'm no multi-millionaire, but I make enough to support myself and all my animals. And if I ever earned less then what I make now, then I should be subject of having my animals taken away from me if I cannot maintain them properly. Keep in mind that these are animals that recieve health insurance and have never faced a day without food, like some people deprive their kids of...These are 'parents' that allow their kids to suffer a life with out proper nutrition or a proper education. Now you may say that I am or the government or the president is at fault for these children's needless suffering. No...it's not. It's their parents that failed them completley because they lacked self discipline and control.

dung ape, what a colorful description of a different human bieng. I work at Wal-Mart and me and my wife make less than 50,000 combined, and we just had a child four months ago. We still get by, live comfortably, and have no problems enjoying our free time.

Am I to assume you would have preferred we been sterilized? We know very well how to live within our means. I am born from immigrant parents, niether of which make 50,000 a year, combined neither. Should I have not been born? Should I kill myself now?