Sterilization after two kids

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.overpopulation.org/impact.html

Once parents have so many kids that's misery, too! You do not see the flip side of this, parents weeping because they cannot feed their kids. Kids crying because they are always hungry. This is a very real, all-too-common situation. Where I live, there are parents with very few kids who do not feed them. The local food bank must send back packs with peanut butter, bread, and snacks because such kids only get food at school and need to survive over the weekend. Their parents will not feed them.
This kind of thing disgusts me. Child neglect. It is common where I live. At first, the food bank only provided food for the child teachers identified at school as being "chronically hungry," thinking that would be enough. They were wrong. They soon discovered, when the child took the backpack home over the weekend, his starving toddler brothers and sisters took all the food leaving him hungry again, so the food bank started sending enough home to feed not only the one child, but all his brothers and sisters too young to go to school. It's so bad here, all day kindergarten and keeping them in school from practically birth is being sought as a way to take care of these kids. The parents simply won't do it. It's deplorable. If the state wanted to tie all their tubes I would not object. There's no reason why a parent cannot go to the dollar store buy a loaf of bread and some peanut butter over the weekend. They have a couple of dollars, I am sure. They just won't. Tie their tubes! All of them!! !!

Gee you would think if someone is old enough to conceive a child they would understand, weekend's almost here, gotta find a way to get to that dollar store. Gotta spend a couple of dollars of my 24 pack beer money to buy a loaf of bread and a container of peanut butter for all those kids I keep bringing into the world. It's the least I can do. But noooo, I will just let them go hungry all weekend. They will get lunch Monday at school. Kids these days are too fat and spoiled anyway!

My belief is, if you can't take care of one child, you can't take care of two and you certainly cannot care for three, four or more.

Not a good idea.

Even currently there is a problem with not enough workers to keep all the old/sick retired people alive. Not a long time ago our government (Poland) increased the age you can retire from 60 to 67 because of this. If we set restrictions on the amount of children being born we are just going to accelerate the problem - less children, less people working in the future, our old age pensions bottom low. Government should rather pay people for having children, not make people unable to have them, at least in so called "aging populaces" (the ones with more old people than young ones) - which include the best developed countries all members of internet society live in (since people in "young populaces" usually are too poor and ret*d economically to get a computer).

You cannot rely on the young to care for the aged. This system is outdated and ineffective, as we have discovered in the US. This paradigm fails even as I type this! Population consistency goals should be the new normal.
Aged people need to be encouraged to do more for themselves in their older years, be healthier, stronger, and better able to care for themselves. Being self empowered is far better and less cruel, in the long run, than relying on others. It sounds cold but it's just reality. People are flawed. Aging ppl need to be kept strong and independent as long as possible and restructure pensions, etc, so a larger younger generation isn't necessary and balance is maintained.
Besides, if populations were steadily maintained, there wouldn't be as many wars involving massive amounts of troops. Humans would be more valuable. Anytime there is less, it is seen as more valuable. Massive amounts = permission to waste in the eyes of the human. Anytime there's a large number it brings out human's destructive side because they are fooled into believing that extra really means infinite and that's a lie.

Since there is so much widespread child neglect in my state, this is the government's plan:

1. Enroll them in school at the earliest age possible.
2. Keep them in school most of the year.
3. Expand the school day so they are kept longer during the day.


If they had their way, they would provide breakfast, lunch and dinner five days a week for most of the year, then the foodbank would send food home over the weekend which I am sure the parents gobble some of it themselves.

Right now there's a special program during the summer where kids call a number and sign up for free lunches all summer long so they won't starve since the school is no longer parenting them for, at the least, a few months. Districts are itching to go to year round school though so the summer break will be much shorter in duration. The schools pretty much raise kids parents have no desire to. The school is already the parent so what's the difference? The state is already pretty much raising kids parents don't feel they need to make an effort to.
This is very basic stuff, I am not talking about spoiled kids asking for designer clothing. This is basic FOOD. It's really sad. Parents in this state do not feel they are responsible for even the basics *smh* and they see nothing wrong with that.

Thats right, the system is outdated and ineffective but it is a trap we can't break free from. We have to keep the old people alive by taking 50% of our wages because they deserve it for working their whole lives and giving money for their pensions (that in fact disapeared as the pensions of other old people that time). But at the same time we got no money to make savings and pay for our medical bills so we have to depend on future generations to pay for our own pensions. And so on.

The only possible solution is to kill the currently retired people so working people can put the 50% of their wages into their own accounts to use in their own future. But noone is going to do it. I personally think it would be kinda OK to eutanase those old people who can't do anything for themselves anymore and are are a pain on their family ass. I got a 98 year old grand-grandma myself. She never worked (she lives of the pension for her dead husband) and she got a total Alzhaimer. She can't recognize anyone, acts like a 2 year old child and is making the whole family arguing who is going to take care of her. But suggesting euthanasia is a no-no because she is "still a human".

No one is calling for anything drastic. Most older people want to work longer as long as they enjoy what they are doing. They don't like being isolated and not needed. That is destructive to the psyche. This idea that old people should be put away and left alone for twenty years until they die of old age is part of the outdated paradigm. In order for them to remain active as long as possible requires good health so keep them healthy as long as possible by encouraging good habits so they can stay independent and participate in society is a way to effective change for the better.

Better treatments and cures. Quality of life for those already alive instead of thinking of ways to create billions more is a worthy cause.

I once read that the pension system based on payments from young people to ensure the solvency of the current pensions to pensioners is the nothing more like the Ponzi scheme

I was just about to mention exactly the same thing before I read your reply.

Here, in Australia, they also just did that (for 'budgeting purposes').

They are cutting down pensions to fund childcare - go figure.

Australia has the highest old age population per capita out of just about anywhere in the world.

If you want to halt the population growth and bring it back to manageable levels, not only does it require sterilisation after ONE child, but euthanasia at age 60...like Soylent Green...

It's just a speculation only based upon mathematics.

The goal isn't to completely balance the population. I am against widespread acceptance of euthanasia because it can desensitize people to the point they are comfortable with killing folks just to get rid of them. If it is allowed at all, it should only be in the most extreme circumstance. To me, it can become a slippery slope.
The goal is to keep one generation from becoming exceptionally out of size with the other, as in way too much or too little.
Keep in mind, developed countries are actually losing population now, not gaining.
There will always be plenty of people who forfeit the right to have children and the west is generally hostile toward reproduction, focusing on genetics to the point large segments of the population are actually terrified to reproduce, thinking their genes are not worthy of replication. So even with a four kid maximum there will be plenty who haven't any children.
It is declining now without any encouragement.

Point taken, but I can also say that the person who suggested that people should pay 250K per child, won't work either (for the same reason).

What kind of society shall we have when only the very, very wealthy can breed? where a child becomes a 'status symbol' and divides the 'haves' and 'have nots' even further causing more robberies, murders and more focus on greed than already exists,?

Where babies become marketable commodities (more than they are already)?

Nope, that won't work either.

No thanks.

What if you have 2 children that die suddenly due to unforeseen circumstances?

What if after their death you decide you want more children?

I am never for anyone having to pay to have a baby. They should put that money in the bank to raise them with. They shouldn't have to spend it just to have it.

Other posters have approached this from an ethical perspective so I'll approach it from a pragmatic perspective.

First and most deal-breaking pragmatic problem: making a global law. There is currently no global consensus on anything so why would this be any different? It would come across (accurately) as the 1st world being genocidal-as-usual against the 3rd world. There is already strong suspicion from some 3rd world thinkers that the push for birth control (which has come from the 1st world countries and is pushed to 3rd world countries) is an attempt to be genocidal without actually starting a war. PJ O'Rourke addressed this in his book All The Trouble In The World (which is very funny and insightful).

http://www.groveatlantic.com/?title=All ... +the+World



An attempt to make this policy a global law really would be perceived as "Just Enough of Me, Too Many of You" and rightly so. That has been a common perception just with 1st worlders trying to get 3rd worlders to use birth control. Imagine the unleashed fury when 1st worlders tried to impose this by force rather than suggestion. Them's fighting words and this would unleash war(s) on multiple fronts. Some 1st worlders would be in the "not on my watch!" camp too. The Catholic Church would unleash its pent up power to fight this, moblizing Catholics around the world to make sure this did not become law and fighting (with weapons, not words) any attempts to enforce it.

But suppose against all odds, it really did become a global law. Now it has to be put into practice. That means every single woman who has given birth twice will need to be sterilized and every single man who has fathered two children will need to get a vasectomy. This is a far more medically involved endeavor than merely vaccinating everyone against smallpox (a succesful global campaign- and not everyone was vaccinated, but enough were). Sterilization is surgery. It's a simple surgery but still.... That's a pretty large number of surgeries that will have to be preformed around the world and will require a gargantuan medical infrastructure that dwarfs the WHO in its current incarnation. There will also need to be increased police/military infrastructure to coerce people who don't want the surgery.

It was hard enough to give most people a smallpox vaccination. You are talking about giving most people a minor surgery, but not all at the same time (as the vaccinations were batched by village). There will need to be soldiers/police to drag people to their mandated surgery, doctors to do it, and followup care.

All in all, eliminating poverty might actually be the easier way to accomplish the same goal.

Actually with insurance thanks to the AHCA it is easier than ever to enforce something like forced sterilization. They simply perform the operation right after the woman has her second (or fourth?) baby. That's when most women get their tubes tied, right after their baby is born. They are in the hospital anyway so they decide to just get it over with.

Only when women are giving birth in a hospital that has that capability. But if you're at the stage where everyone in the world can give birth in a well equipped hospital, you probably won't have a high birth rate anyway, because you're not going to have any big poverty stricken areas where women don't have any other options.