Compulsory sterilization?

Question

Due to the increasing population of the world, we should have compulsory sterilization of EVERYONE over the age of 25 AGREE? (not that it matters).

Answer 1

Hahaha, i love early morning answers, they bring out all the wierdos that cant sleep because of their tortured take on society and because of thier festering ill founded resentments. Racists, bigots, crackers, "all i have is my whitness, employment and sub 110 IQ, and i will defend those and the flag to the last" Did you ever see taxi driver??Priceless.

in answer to your question, no i dont

I wouldnt be defending no flag or race but i sure as hell would be defending my personal nuts, or do you suggest we sterilise women only as they bear the children? That would fit in with the mysogeny that usually comes with the side order of bigotry displayed by 50% of the answers.

Answer 2

You seem to omit the factor it is the device that calls for exchange no longer the "Chavs" ( sorry don't be conscious of this description ) I agree we'd desire to do something to deter the indiscriminate breeding and help for regrettably in many circumstances those little ones will finally end up being an excellent larger drain on components yet the place do you end what approximately couples that have 4 or 5 young little ones mutually and are made redundant from a activity they trusted to help their kinfolk????? i think each and every youthful lady has the staggering to make one mistake ( there yet for the grace of god flow you ) in spite of the undeniable fact that it would be made sparkling that next births would be taken into care the place it is going to a minimum of stand a raffle and mum receives the message breeding is a activity description this might instruct no longer straightforward with some nationalities using fact the explanation may well be argued as being racial in spite of the undeniable fact that that's a project all of us might desire to attend to

Answer 3

Oh brother. So how many people have kids under 25? Most people dont have kids until age 30. So maybe it should be anyone over 32. can you afford a kid at 21? A bunch of poor people with kids? Sterilzation is a nazi thing, what the hell is wrong with you. Maybe you should be sterilized and never get to have kids

Answer 4

absolutely NOT.

the overpopulation "problem" is only a problem in areas that do not have the resources to support their populations, and where the populations are not given any education in regards to contraception or birth control.

the "developed" countries are paying their farmers not to produce food and basic raw goods because its better for their bottom line to pull these resources from "underdeveloped" countries while blocking them from any real economic assistance or society building. If resources were respected, properly husbanded and evenly distributed, instead of factory farmed and over developed, then there would not be a serious "overpopulation problem".

its not too many people, its unequal distribution of resources.

Answer 5

No. Definitely not.
What if the people involved decide to make sure that they are both financially and emotionally stable enough before making the commitment to having children together? And what if that doesn't happen before that age? What if they are waiting to finish a degree, a doctorate? What are you going to deny doctors etc. the chance to procreate? Are you going to penalize those who want their child/ren to have the best? Surely that's the kind of parent you want?
And will it encourage people to have their children at a very young age, in order to have larger families? Will they be better able to cope, just because of their youth? Or will it increase the need for welfare assistance?
What of those people who need help with fertility treatment and need time to get it right?
Perhaps it would be more practical to get people to refrain from having sex until they were 25? That would reduce the number of people who have kids and are unable to support them. That would be just as impractical as your suggestion.

Answer 6

What , you would want the future generations of the world to be bred from the under twenty fives?,
your aving a laugh mate, half of em cant tie there shoe laces the other half are either binge drunk morons druggies Hades in hoods or illegals and maybe a few nerds thrown in for good measure.I think you might have meant to add castration to your question

Answer 7

No, a good idea, but you have it the wrong way around.

It should be Legally Enforced sterilisation of every-one UNDER the age of 25, with the mandatory taking of all biometric data and DNA too.

And, not only should all in-bound visitors be also subject to this, but all immigrants should be vetted prior to entering, and all would be emigrants should be barred, unless not born here.

Like the citizens of old Russia, you cannot leave thew UK without a permit ~ nor cross boundaries between England / Scotland / Wales / Ireland without visas also.

Sash..

Answer 8

If there are no young people in the workforce, who will pay the taxes to pay for the roads, etc...

including - of course - the staff at the old folks home who will wipe your bottom when you are too arthritic and no longer can?

Free Tip of the Day:
Governments are concerned with shrinking populations, NOT the reverse!

Answer 9

No. It means that if you do not find a partner with whom you wish to have children with or have difficulty conceiving that you would be penalised. Increased education and better standards of living are better ways in which to reduce the population.

Answer 10

Compulsion is not the way, but we urgently need too do something about population growth. Its the most important issue facing future generations and the direct cause of most of our problems. But for political and religious reasons the one not talked about.