what would be the pros and cons of mandatory sterilization?

Question

....say for instance...your salary is a certain amount ...or you are on welfare...up to 2 kids ....just your thoughts..

Answer 1

I see no cons of the two kids rule. Especially if you are on welfair. If I am going to pay for your income I should be able to tell you how to live you life and what you spend your money on. However if you are making it on your own at a smaller salary by working you should be able to make your own decisions including how many children to have.

Answer 2

I do heartily agree. If we sterilize bad elements of society, then they should be weeded out more quickly. For instance, child molesters and wife abusers. Also it is proven that poverty is has a strong influence on the percentage of crime rates. But this I believe is due to how our society views the poor, not the poor themselves. If someone is convicted on drug charges, I believe they should be castrated. The more drugs a person does the higher the rate of birth defects. I think that poeple should have to be able to pass an IQ test before having children. I think that mandatory sterilization has its good points, but once it takes affect their would be alot of crime. This would be mostly due to the fact that after the operation what would the people have to live for. Also another problem that would arise is the decreasing manpower available to fill jobs in the longrun. Conservation is not friendly to cultural and industrial expansion.

Answer 3

then if taking the ONE example that you use you would always be assuming that this family dynamic would ALWAYS be on welfare..............

I would look towards India where there was mandatory vasectomies of the males after a certain amount of kids and all the trouble that caused.....back in the 70's if I recall correctly.

The pro's a LOT less kids born..................cons huge infringement of rights...........what if the first child was so disabled and the second one was mildly so, but both died at an early age............

IMO I dont expect anyone to maintain my kids so i feel I should have as many as I wish to.....i do only have the two BUT that was a choice......no one has the right to remove that choice regardless of what their own personal moral views are they can NOT inflict them upon anyone else...........

Answer 4

laws that infringe upon the rights of an individual will evolve into laws that infringe upon the rights of the whole.

What is good for the whole is not always good for the individual and therefore not good for the whole.

make sense? A society is a group of individuals and laws affecting person liberties such as procreation is a limit of free will and is therefore something that is not GOOD.

If a person mindlessly has children with no thought to their welfare, then it is up to the society to have laws in place to punish the behavior of that person. If all the children are clothed, fed and loved and are being raised in such a way to foster Goodness, then I say, let that person be blessed even more and encouraged by us, because they are obviously better equipped to bring Goodness into the world than we.

I gladly pay taxes to raise children of Goodness. Even if I must pay my taxes to those who do not. If one Good child comes out of poverty, then all of the sacrifices given are worth it, aren't they?

All things considered, look at how poverty and charity have brought Good people into the world. Those who are born wealthy have no need to help the poor because they have not suffered poverty themselves. Some people who have wealth of the material sort are so immersed in it, they don't see how their gains are the losses of others and those who are born poor and have wealth of the spiritual kind almost always seek to SHARE it. The wealthy who share their material wealth are common, those who share the wealth of their spirit are rare. Who would you rather see populate the earth? People of money or people of spirit?

Answer 5

The below link was an interesting site that discusses the issues of sterilization in China. Included were the pros and cons of China that would certainly help in answering your questions!

Best wishes!

Answer 6

maximum with the help of no potential. quicker or later somebody would be harmless (possibly there at the instant are?). Throw away the main coverage incredibly. The human rights element has long gone too far for offenders. i'm no longer asserting this with Karen Matthews in strategies. it incredibly is amazingly confusing to choose like this whilst anybody isn't in courtroom to pay attention the info. different horrendous crimes have had human beings effectively appealing convictions and in many situations particularly rightly so. whether we could have one regulation for all no longer many rules for as we see extra healthy. hence the main being thrown away.

Answer 7

Umm what are your thoughts on mandatory YOU CAN'T ASK THESE QUESTIONS? .... just a thought.

The idea of controlling people and their will to the point where your telling them how many kids they can have. Please. Maybe just try a little education for these people. If they continue to have children, perhaps a little economic intervention would work better. .... take away the welfare. Our government just gives gives gives. Vote Libertarian to stop the hand outs and maybe, just maybe there won't be any panhandlers like these people you speak of anymore.

Answer 8

Well, you probably would not be here. . ., is that a pro or a con?

Seriously, why stop with welfare and two kids? Why not the retarded, disabled, and, of course, which ever race, creed, or ethnic population you don't like.

Answer 9

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~
A con would be loss of another freedom. But we DO want to save the Earth from human overpopulation...that would definitely be a pro.

It couldn't be done without revolt...unless everyone had access to a good education—we're already paying enough taxes for this to happen if you take away the right of colleges and universities to build giant, ultra-luxurious buildings, etc., at taxpayer expense.

It couldn't be done without revolt unless everyone had access to good, salaried positions.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Answer 10

That's a great question, unfortunately I don't feel like thinking or writing much.
Simply,
-If you steralize people you may infact avoid the person who cures cancer from being born.
-If you don't steralize people you have the world in which we live in today.
You decide if it's good or bad.