I was going to put this into Great Debates but I knew that something so polarizing to so many should be put into the Pit. Disagree with me, that’s fine. Every noble belief was shunned and mocked before its time.
If poor or incapable people where sterilized, and those who currently have children have them taken and put into orphanages how much money long term will that save the USA?
I think it’s obvious something needs to be done with the increasing poor people still insisting on having children. With a policy like this in place, along with euthanasia will increase the over all wealth and well being of our country.
Right now our gene pool is being depleted by increasing life spans for people that in the past would have died before reproduction.
Luckily soon enough we will have designer babies, and that should mean the ability to have far better children both mentally and physically. But the poor people will not be able to afford those “super” babies so implementing this policy of sterilization now would clearly make more sense.
I know people will come in here and spout off about freedoms and what not but you can have your freedoms until they infringe on mine. Right now we are on the verge of losing our freedoms because the ignorant poor people think it is a right to have as many children as our tax dollars can support and believe in what they are told. Eliminating this would result in an era of prosperity and enlightment. Over time we will see less need for all of the natural resources thus limiting our dependence on foreign sources for oil and other products. We will limit welfare (both corporate and personal) for multiple reasons, least of which the lazy people that use welfare would be motivated to work simply by the threat of sterilization.
And before you go and say “You’re only saying that because you have money” let me end that right now by pointing out I would be one of those sterilized, rightly so. I shouldn’t be able to have children I cannot afford! But neither should I have to help you support your children you cannot afford.
In a previous thread we talked about cigarette taxation being fucked up, which it is. Why not tax those who want to have children, instead of lowering the tax by credits etc.? Why should those without children have to pay for schools? You do not smoke, so you do not pay the taxes on them, you do not have children you shouldn’t have to help the schools through tax dollars, donations sure.
Children may be the future, but which child betters the future? The poor child? The mentally retarded child? I say neither of them, they are but a burden on society, sure some pull out of being poor and become something that is important, but the ratio is not that great.
The savings would begin almost immediately, in healthcare costs for the poor pregnant woman, then the money savings will just increase within a few decades we will be a much richer nation.
Yes bringing up such a hot topic will enrage some, because it is forbidden to talk about such things. Much as talk of equal rights where once scoffed at and forbidden to talk about.
Can such a policy be enacted? Sure it can, all it takes is to disengage the policy from that of Hitler, which clearly is different this is not genocide. This is not religious or ethnic based. I am sure people will still try to lessen this OP by other means, attacking me, rather then using logic and pointing out where my proposal is not sound.
Since I travel for work I cannot always answer right away usually I compose offline and go online and take some interesting threads with me to read. I apologize if it may seem like I do not reply fast enough currently I am in Hawaii and the connection is not the best.
I’m *not * going to get involved in this argument. I do want to ask something before it gets off the ground. Why did you pick sterilizing them completely as the best idea instead of limiting the amount of babies?
Dude, lay off that return key. You’re going to wear it out.
This belongs in GD, where the resident noodleheads will be forced to answer civilly.
Here, you will get the answers you deserve.
Problem is, who gets to decide who’s “incapable”? And how do we determine that that decision is being made in a way that doesn’t disadvantage people on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion? It’s entirely possible that we could get someone making the decision who thinks non-Christians or non-white people or Spanish-speaking people necessarily make unfit parents, for instance.
I am gussing thats what he is after…
Probably none - the theory being that people are supposed to be productive members of society and add not only to its general advancement, but to its overall wealth. Me, I’m not ready to say that people who’re unproductive by today’s measures will necessarily spawn and rear offspring which are destined to be equally unproductive. If you’re actually willing to write off millions of people on a somewhat arbitrary basis, then all I gotta say is, you’ve made my list.
Again a rather arbitrary set of boundaries you’ve placed around your argument - in this case, actual geographic boundaries. I think if you’ve any inkling of the anything going on outside the U.S. borders, you’d have noticed that on a global scale, babies born to even the poorest of U.S. citizens have a far more likely chance of atttaining success and prosperity that the poor unfortunates of say, Somalia. You wanna eliminate the financial burden of the U.S., why not go farther and do it globally? That way we can just get rid of all the poor little dark-skinned bastards and be left only with happy, weatlhy pink ones.
Arguably, this is already done. Thru sales tax. After all, folks with babies buy an awfully large quantity of products which the childless do not.
An argument in favor of state-enforced eugenics based one’s economic class. Era of enlightenment, my pimply white ass.
Plus, being poor or “incapable” isn’t always a rest-of-your-life situation. A lot of people can and do bring themselves (or their children) out of relative poverty, yet they should be condemned to sterilisation for the rest of their lives? I’m not sure who you’d consider as “incapable” (as Anne Neville points out, that’s a very vague definition) but could you honestly say all “incapable” people will necessarily remain so?
Whoa, nelly. You have opened up a huge can o’ worms here with this post.
If you’re totally serious about your statements, you should really consider reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. It centers on a society where they essentially do just as you suggest. They go even further with it, actually. It’s one of the very few “required reading” high school books that I actually enjoyed reading.
Now this isn’t to say that the repurcussions from Huxley’s World is anything near this “nirvana” that you describe. The reality of your suggestions is far from ideal. Taking away these basic freedoms associated with reproductions has all sorts of negative impacts on society and is discussed at length in the book.
And we already had the Crusades. And the Inquistion. I remember how “enlightened” we all were in those eras.
Every silly idea was shunned and mocked too.
I think it’s a good idea. But who will pay for all this mass sterilization? What if you are rich and have kids but then something tragic happens and you have to file bankruptcy? Will the kids be removed from the household immediately? Where will they go? What about people who are rich but really amoral? I don’t think they should get kids either, but who determines that? What about the people who are right on the income threshold? Will they get desterilized and resterilized every year depending on their earnings?
As I have said I would be sterilized under this policy this is not me against them. But eliminating the ones with the least chance at success simply by sterilizing the parents before the act actually lessens the impact on what if’s. The designer babies will also have a better chance at becoming a success just by the right genes.
See you want to pull the whole world into what I am simply stating would work in the USA. If anything this policy if enacted would help those of poorer nations because out nation would become streamlined less input of global resources. Allowing the poorer nations a chance to play catch up without America gobbling all the goodies.
This may be true, but if that money is welfare money either through welfare or SSI or tax credit checks, they are simply just spending my money again.
Eugenics would be the proper term I assume, but I prefer population control. As for the other questions, who would decide that’s the simplest one to answer. The same way you decide which income bracket you fall into. Simple enough really. Sterilization is not murdering someone it is simply ensuring that they do not reproduce what they cannot afford. We are advanced enough to reverse some medical procedure so perhaps as a middle ground it would be reversible if you raised your income and had a set amount of money in a special account for your child/ren.
And, of course, all employers are enlightened enough not to take advantage of a worker who faces sterilization and losing his/her kids if he/she gets fired or laid off. No employer in that situation would ever underpay employees or force them to work long hours without overtime pay or make them work in unsafe conditions. Couldn’t happen.
I’m not going to touch upon your views, as they were poorly expressed. Instead, I will talk about the feasibility of your proposal.
Sterilization is not easily and reliably reversible at this time. Poor today doesn’t necessarily equal poor tomorrow. What happens if an individual is sterilized, then manages to better his/her lot? “Oops, sorry, better luck next life?” Adoption may be a partial answer, but still denies the individual the right to continue one’s genetic line. This is a powerful blow.
When will individuals be required to be sterilized? Twenty-five? Eighteen? Sixteen? Any of those ages might be too young to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, individuals at that age are arguably too young to have their future set in stone. By determining sterilization at an early enough age to avoid unwanted pregnancies, one would effectively create an underclass of individuals unable to breed regardless of current status.
Additionally, who would be required to be sterilized? Men? Women? Both? What will the qualifications for forced sterilization be? What about individuals for whom surgical sterilization could pose a significant health risk?
Are you suggesting that only individuals who already have children should be sterilized? If so, the efficacy of your proposal is decreased, as these individuals would have already reproduced. If someone has a child anyway, what will be done with the child? What if the child is discovered by the authorities while the mother is still pregnant?
How will the law be enforced? Fines? Jail time? Brute force?
What kind of precedent would this set for other forced medical procedures? Would such a precedent endanger the liberty of all?
Also. . .
If everyone is a designer baby, then what is required for success will change accordingly. We can’t have an entire world full of the wealthy simply because people are somehow better. Methods of distribution would have to change. Human nature would have to change. The distribution of natural resources would have to change. And the bloke answering the phones would have to be far more highly paid than he is today. Unless you’re advocating Communism, which I doubt.
SomeOneMusical has gone bye-bye. I’m closing this thread – if anyone wants to debate killing the poor, feel free to start another one.