Sterilizing people who do more than four abortions

Actually it's funny, it's been shown that as the population rises in devloped countries so does economic stability and average wealth.

Well she's a genuine nutball to begin with. Personally I don't think it should be legal for her to request that of a doctor, much less the doctor actually doing it.

kids are expensive. I don't know how people can support more than one or two kids

That's not because they restricted births, that's because they killed off female babies.

Get your facts straight.

Only to a certain point; however, there comes a certain point at which more children does not equate more consumers, especially when large amounts of the children being born take more out of the system (through welfare, crime, etc.) than they give. A sort of "saturation point," if you will.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Oct 3 2009, 12:04 PM

Average wealth means nothing. The USA is the eight wealthiest country in the world.
Most Americans don't seem very wealthy to me seeing how they have to pay for everything from school to medical care. While they get more money and spend more money, they aren't better off just because more money has been flowing in the economy.

This post has been edited by DJ Elly on Oct 3 2009, 12:06 PM

I suppose that's true. So I suppose it's the conflict between a culture and a law that's causing the strangeness, not so much the law itself.

Still, I don't agree with sterilization. Again, we only have pockets of overpopulation in cities, and yet, I have my doubts it's that big a deal, at least here in the U.S. I live near the fourth most populated city in america and we don't seem to have much troubles. I also live close enough to the country to know that we have freakin' huge peices of land that could be populated if we needed it. We are nowhere near a crisis as far as I'm concerned.

You're right! Force that teenaged mother to have that child and ruin the lives of both the child and the mother! Make sure both of them grow up in poverty! Watch them leech off of our tax money for welfare and food!

I love that sort of thing!

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Oct 3 2009, 12:07 PM

And we have an average debt in the thousands with a government deficit of 10 or so trillion. But we are starting to fall behind since we've lost our Math and Science advantage, time to wage war with the religious right for stopping scientific progress, brb.

Gotta love American logic!

wat

I'm not talking an overpopulation in terms of shortage of food and area of living, I'm talking of overpopulation in terms of the world economy not being able to handle the sheer amount of people in the developed world.

Either quality of life in the developed world goes down, or the population in the developed world goes down.

So it's a large scale civil issue then. If more parents put more thought into it then they'd be more careful about their financial works. If they planned for these things then they'd be more careful with their money and probably be able to pay for their child. This is how my parents have done it and that's why none of my family has touched welfare. As for the crimes, that would ultimately be the parent's fault as well for not teaching their kids correctly.

the responsibility falls on the parents for whether or not their children will have a negative or a positive outcome on society.

So you're saying that in times of economic trouble we should start sterilizing people so that the living people have a better chance at financial success?

Well, I could have just blamed parents for making their children become lawyers (lol joke), or the common families that do not encourage education and the children who don't give a **** about it but on a national level they do try to legislate certain sciences because of the supposed morality, and when you prevent progress in that respect, we can loose an edge. I'm not saying that because I hate religion, but because some of their governmental actions are made to impede science.

You won't get a substantial decrease that way, which we need and the people who do not want kids are not large enough to make a substantial impact. Also, I'm not suggesting a permanent rule like that, just for 100 years or so, get the population to early 20th century levels (1.5-2 billion).

Forcing a teenager to have a child is a bad idea, and with the welfare argument she tried to win over people who were opposed to abortion by showing how they may "drain on society".

This post has been edited by negasquid on Oct 3 2009, 12:17 PM

But they don't.

So there needs to be a solution to that.

It's that simple.

I mean, you could hypothetically solve so many problems with vague "if" statements, but the fact of the matter is that it's simply impossible to recognize that solution. For example, let's take the supposed oil shortage we have now -- what's a solution to that? Well, if we use less oil, we won't have a shortage.

Yeah, but how do we do that? Is that even possible right now? You're using the same logic in your argument "Well, if people thought more about their pregnancies, then they wouldn't need abortion, etc." Yeah, this is true, but they're not going to think more about it. That's why the problem exists and why abortion has been conceived as a viable solution.

I'm not arguing the parents don't have responsibility, but in some cases, it's their responsibilty to end the whole endeavour before the child is actually alive.

And don't even try to argue that a child is alive inside the womb. In the first trimester or so, it is a clump of stem cells, which have the potential to be anything given their environment. It would be more or less the same as picking live cells off your skin and throwing them away, and to defend a lump of cells before they even somewhat resemble a human, much less an organism, is indeed an uphill battle.

Don't get me wrong, I in no way support later abortions, but when the fetus isn't even really determinably a human, I don't see the point in defending it.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Oct 3 2009, 12:18 PM

Yes because economy means one thing, management of resources. If we're low on them, and we're heading into times where we'll have even few, limiting our expenses by having less consumers we'll be able to maintain a high (if not higher) standard of life.

It'll also make people think twice about the whole idea of parenting itself. Right now the idea of parenting seems to many to be taken so lightly we have massive amounts of people living in welfare.

In the developed world, welfare should be something that keeps someone alive inbetween jobs, not something to live your life off from.

I thought the post she quoted was referring to the woman who wanted 15 babies.

Then out of the blue she said that.

You completely missed the point. Average wealth does mean something; if it goes up, people have more money in general - this has nothing to do with what they choose to spend it on.

The more people there are, the richer people living in developed countries are.

If average wealth goes up, the value of said wealth will probably go down, not everyone can be rich.

But yes, first world countries profit greatly from DC's and LDC's.