3rd Degree - Sterilization

Sterilisation should become mandatory after a specific number of children.

Perhaps not ethical but definitely practical. It would stop our overpopulation mess pretty fast. Much easier to provide crucial services to poor communities when they aren't growing so fast.
 
Sterilisation should become mandatory after a specific number of children.

Perhaps not ethical but definitely practical. It would stop our overpopulation mess pretty fast. Much easier to provide crucial services to poor communities when they aren't growing so fast.

Who decides who gets sterilised and also if you want to do away with some basic human rights, sooner or later someone else will come along and do away with the rest of them. After all logically speaking, one could justify genocide this way too - fewer people, better development for the remainder.
 
Serialization is actually encouraged at most state hospitals and is done for free. I think that a lot of women and perhaps men take up this offer. I think that a lot of people realise that it is something that will help them in the end.

I do believe that it should be law in some situations but I think that people need to understand what it entails first, doing it without permission is wrong but I can certainly understand why they do it.
 
Who decides who gets sterilised and also if you want to do away with some basic human rights, sooner or later someone else will come along and do away with the rest of them. After all logically speaking, one could justify genocide this way too - fewer people, better development for the remainder.

Humans have taken themselves out of the circle of life by all our 'medical advances', people are living longer, and there is no population control anymore, in the wild the weak would become food for another, and so the circle of life. nature would create a balance where the strongest of the species would survive.

We are no longer in the loop, doctors will try and save every person that is injured, half dying, not matter what as long as the medical aid is paying... if you dont have medical aid then you are turned away to gvt hospitals... WTF is with that hippo-critical oath.

simple logic: look at the behavior of a virus, it mutates and adapts to its environment, multiplies and consumes everything it can from the environment, eventually killing off its host... now look at human behavior? can you play spot the difference?
 
Humans have taken themselves out of the circle of life by all our 'medical advances', people are living longer, and there is no population control anymore, in the wild the weak would become food for another, and so the circle of life. nature would create a balance where the strongest of the species would survive.

We are no longer in the loop, doctors will try and save every person that is injured, half dying, not matter what as long as the medical aid is paying... if you dont have medical aid then you are turned away to gvt hospitals... WTF is with that hippo-critical oath.

simple logic: look at the behavior of a virus, it mutates and adapts to its environment, multiplies and consumes everything it can from the environment, eventually killing off its host... now look at human behavior? can you play spot the difference?

SA doctors do not do the Hippocratic oath...
 
simple logic: look at the behavior of a virus, it mutates and adapts to its environment, multiplies and consumes everything it can from the environment, eventually killing off its host... now look at human behavior? can you play spot the difference?

Actually that's only some viruses, other viruses such as Herpes live in an almost symbiotic relationship with the host - if your immune system is ok, you keep it in check. Look also at all the symbiotic bacteria that inhabit your colon (making vitamins and preventing harmful bacteria from taking over) and others inhabiting your nose, mouth, skin, etc.

I guess a cancer would be a better example - that is aberrant tissue which has lost all control over growth and spread. It invariably always kills its host if it's not excised or poisoned/radiated away.

People are capable of living in symbiosis with their environment, however we all have primary needs - food, money, sex etc which drive us - but if we can balance everything out we can live well with the environment. Deciding however for others who lives or dies or who gets to reproduce or not is a pretty fascist idea for me and repugnant to the extreme.
 
Who decides who gets sterilised and also if you want to do away with some basic human rights, sooner or later someone else will come along and do away with the rest of them. After all logically speaking, one could justify genocide this way too - fewer people, better development for the remainder.

What do you mean who decides who gets sterilised?

Everybody gets sterilised after X number of children. Mandatory, No decisions. No inequality.

You don't take away the right to have children, you take away the right to have zillions of them.

EDIT: Unless you regard the right to procreate as equal to the right to life I don't see how the genocide argument applies.
 
Last edited:
Actually that's only some viruses, other viruses such as Herpes live in an almost symbiotic relationship with the host - if your immune system is ok, you keep it in check. Look also at all the symbiotic bacteria that inhabit your colon (making vitamins and preventing harmful bacteria from taking over) and others inhabiting your nose, mouth, skin, etc.

I guess a cancer would be a better example - that is aberrant tissue which has lost all control over growth and spread. It invariably always kills its host if it's not excised or poisoned/radiated away.

People are capable of living in symbiosis with their environment, however we all have primary needs - food, money, sex etc which drive us - but if we can balance everything out we can live well with the environment. Deciding however for others who lives or dies or who gets to reproduce or not is a pretty fascist idea for me and repugnant to the extreme.


Ok i stand corrected to some degree, not all viruses, but you get the basic picture.

taking your last paragraph, can I Challenge You:

to educate the population that we are overpopulating, and that we need to cut down the amount of children, we need to live in balance, you can educate them that nobody is going to dictate who can and cannot have children, but they must please keep it down to what they can afford to give a better life... let see how many people you can convince of that.

good luck esp with them beggars that are having the babes just to rent them out
 
What do you mean who decides who gets sterilised?

Everybody gets sterilised after X number of children. Mandatory, No decisions. No inequality.

You don't take away the right to have children, you take away the right to have zillions of them.

EDIT: Unless you regard the right to procreate as equal to the right to life I don't see how the genocide argument applies.

You still haven't answered who decides.
 
Ok i stand corrected to some degree, not all viruses, but you get the basic picture.

taking your last paragraph, can I Challenge You:

to educate the population that we are overpopulating, and that we need to cut down the amount of children, we need to live in balance, you can educate them that nobody is going to dictate who can and cannot have children, but they must please keep it down to what they can afford to give a better life... let see how many people you can convince of that.

good luck esp with them beggars that are having the babes just to rent them out

'Better off' societies automatically curb their family sizes. Why do you want to control how others behave? I'm sure we could find something undesirable about you.
 
'Better off' societies automatically curb their family sizes. Why do you want to control how others behave? I'm sure we could find something undesirable about you.

No i challenge you to educate the people as mentioned above, because everyone here on this forum know that it will not be 'curbed automatically' especially since we have kids in schools having sex and babies.

yes everyone has something undesirable, mine im afraid is that i cant stand the fact that humans are made to seem far superior species than others, and yet we constantly prove ourselves to be irresponsible and blame everything on accidents. yes accidents do happen, then why if a dog or other animal bites a human, they have to be put down, but humans who rape and murder are given meals and DSTV for free in prisons. SPCA puts down dogs because there are too many and they have no space... is our prisons not overcrowded?
 
The biggest problem in South Africa is that in certain cultures males have a huge cultural aversion to sterilization since masculinity is measured by fertility. This is the biggest hurdle. If we can change this through education then we will make progress.

Most women in these cultures are generally more progressive than their male counterparts.
 
No i challenge you to educate the people as mentioned above, because everyone here on this forum know that it will not be 'curbed automatically' especially since we have kids in schools having sex and babies.

As peoples' welfare improves, and education levels rise they self curb.

yes everyone has something undesirable, mine im afraid is that i cant stand the fact that humans are made to seem far superior species than others, and yet we constantly prove ourselves to be irresponsible and blame everything on accidents. yes accidents do happen, then why if a dog or other animal bites a human, they have to be put down, but humans who rape and murder are given meals and DSTV for free in prisons. SPCA puts down dogs because there are too many and they have no space... is our prisons not overcrowded?

Well, we are better than those who transgress by not exacting an eye-for-an-eye approach.

On the one hand you lament how inferior we are to animals on the other you want to promote a barbaric form of justice.
 
This is a very very hot potato.

In countries like Sweden and Australia, the population growth rate is in the minus, so the governments are actually trying to get their citizens to have more babies. They are even incentivizing it. But with many African countries, you will see a mother that is a walking skeleton breast feeding a infant??????? So yes, perhaps it is a question of education. BUT...how long will it take for Africa to pull its self together? By that time the planet has been ravaged by a unsustainable human population. The solution might come too late, and therefore it might be not such a bad thing that governments around the world put in place more stringent population control measures. People need to be reasonable, and understand that there is only so many that this beautifull planet of ours can sustain.

Also, dont just think about the planet as a whole...think of your country as a single little planet. Can your country afford to sustain its population? Even though China's policies might seem cruel and harsh, they have a rediculously large nation to sustain, and the government took action. Harsh yes...but also very much needed.
 
Two children per couple, then sterilization.

Only idiots multiply above that number in this day and age and we have enough of those around already.
 
Last edited:
You still haven't answered who decides.

I don't understand what you mean. Mandatory. EVERYBODY gets sterilised after X number of children. There is no deciding. The number 'X', is created through population growth studies and is a constant for every single person and is applied to everyone regardless of class, income or any other factor.
 
Last edited:
Why do you want to control how others behave?

I don't think those in this thread "want" to control how others behave. I certainly don't. I do however recognise that we have an overpopulation problem and we need to deal with it.

By the same token why should my tax money go towards maintaining the behaviour of others? People are free to overpopulate all they want as long as my tax money isn't used to maintain that lifestyle. That seems fair to me.
 
As peoples' welfare improves, and education levels rise they self curb.



Well, we are better than those who transgress by not exacting an eye-for-an-eye approach.

On the one hand you lament how inferior we are to animals on the other you want to promote a barbaric form of justice.
No it is not a barbaric approach, what i am saying is we have alot to learn from nature, Nature is not barbaric, since that is what you are implying. Nature has its own systems to ensure the best of a species does what it needs to for the environment. Nature provides a balance, since we have taken ourselves out of that balance, by overpopulation, Nature introduces cancers, HIV, and the likes to try and cut down the overpopulation. This seems to be a competition to the humans to try and beat nature, but nature is not competing, Nature just wants to balance out the human population and fix its environment.

It is most certainly not an eye for an eye approach, middle east countries cut off hands of criminals, hence the big reduction of crime there, if a rapist was sterilized and castrated, then he would not think to rape another, this then sets an example to others with the same intentions that this would be the consequences. Humans follow like sheep, if one does something and gets away with it, then everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, but 'if they see someone going and touching the heater and getting burnt' then they all will not go and touch it. Education, that's all it is, but sometimes telling is not good enough education, showing is more educational.

I do not lament how inferior we are, i am merely stating a fact that our behavior has become very bad, and we are becoming so self centered and selfish because of money. What would you say to a world where everyone's wealth was measured by the amount of good they do instead of the amount of money they make? is that not the ideal world?

How do you propose to improve people's welfare? when workers strike, they dont get the true salary they deserve in order to live a decent life, everything people need to do they are asked to pay... everything seems to evolve around money, even education costs money, so who is going to pay for the education. That theory of yours will never work unless you are going to give everyone the welfare they need, and have been begging for all these years.

My solution is a double edged sword, whereby it will curb crime in a major way, reduce the population, and promote a more kinder society, people will not only be kind to each other but to learn to understand and not hate the fellow animals that live in our world. We are all equal, this planet does not only belong to the humans, but to every living species. We being an 'advanced' african country have an advantage, unlike new york and manhattan from the US who have concreted their world, let us be an example that yes we are a caring countries.

I urge you to look at countries like india, where animals walk and roam the streets freely, these animals are respected and fed by people, they live in harmony, where there is very little crime. the villages live very simple lives with the animals and plants, yes they are poor, but IMO they understand how their environment works much better than we do. If you would like to mention the pollution, then yes there is a big pollution problem, not in the villages though ,but this pollution was introduced by the western world
 

To add to your nature reference:

In nature when animals have more offsrping than they can support with the resources they have access to the excess offspring die. This maintains balance. We have destroyed this balance. In fact through our welfare programs that provide money for every child we are creating motivation to have more children. Purposefully pushing the world further and further out of balance.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X