Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Compulsory Sterilisation

Announcements Posted on
One quick question - from of our list, who would you most like to see on TSR doing a Q&A? 23-09-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    The amount of demand in the economy (not just the UK economy but the world economy) would prevent unemployment provided if there were no political factors preventing full employment (currently there are such factors). If someone has a job they want done and there is a large source of cheap labour to do it why would't they employ that labour? If the demand for certain skills is high then there is an incentive for people to develop those skills where possible. And we don't have a comparative advantage because our government consumes half of the country's income. If what you were saying is true then the Hong Kong economy would be expected to stagnate rather than grow at 6% for the next few years.

    Furthermore if there was low demand for unskilled labour in the UK there would be a much lower amount of illegal immigration.

    Income equality is not as important as increasing income. If the poor doubled their wealth while the rich tripled their wealth do you consider that to be a negative outcome?



    The purpose of cutting off the benefits is so that those people cannot consume more than they produce and have a negative impact on more responsible people. And those children will still be better off than the average African, South American, or Asian.



    It doesn't necessarily pay for itself; government education is inefficient and costly and varies drastically from region to region. And given that we already give people all the educational opportunities they could possibly need I don't see why we need to put more money into the system.



    And yet youth unemployment is at a record high and it is difficult for people with a lack of experience to find any work. If the minimum wage has no effect on unemployment why not raise it to £50/hour?



    But society would correct it if the government stopped interfering because that's what society was doing for a hundred years before the government decided that it had to be responsible for our welfare. If we want to make people richer then we need to grow the economy; if we could achieve the same level of growth as Hong Kong then we could double our wealth in a little over ten years. And "suffering on our doorstep" is complete hyperbole and leads me to ask why you don't think the UK government should send hundreds of billions of pounds overseas to help people who are actually in poverty in other countries?
    In regards to the first paragraph of your response, they would employ the labour, would this would be irrelevant of two or three pounds wage difference. They are likely to want a certain amount of the good made, and will employ resources to do so at the wage accepted by the labour market. They are unlikely to employ more people given a lower wage due to other limiting factors, such as the spare capacity. The high youth unemployment at the moment is, as you say due to low demand in the economy, but the unemployment, including youth unemployment which is most damaging is the long term unemployment, whereby people do not have the skills to enter the available jobs, which is expressed by the market through wage differences. The market function of signalling does not work with the labour market. Firstly because it is incomprehensible to a 5 year old that they must learn at school in order to live well in the future. Secondly because market behavior changes in the time that it takes to train to join a profession. For example, accountants may have high wages, so graduates may train to become a accountants. However, due to modern computing, the demand for accountants may become reduced, meaning that when the graduates become accountants they will be oversupplied and under demanded, pushing wages down, whilst there is high demand in other professions. Because of the time scale, market forces will not apply.
    The Hong Kong economy is growing because they are constantly investing in more capital, not because they are increasing labour productivity through low benefits and low wages. Their economy is growing towards the size of the UK economy, not away from it.
    I also do not think the income effect you talk of is plausible. You say that removing state help from the poor, and legislation helping to maintain a living wage for the low paid would help the poor to double their incomes. This would have the complete reverse effect- they would get poorer due to their lack of employable skills and wages vastly below the norm. I think that this measure would not even help benefit the rich in the long run- the skills of their employees would deteriorate over a number of years making firms less productive and hence less profitable.
    The measure of stopping people from consuming more than they produce is also unnecessary- what we should do is enable that this is no the case over their lives. All children need to consume more than they produce in order to learn and reach a stage where they are able to produce more than they consume, benefiting society. We do not know who the few will be who will stay on benefits their whole lives, but hopefully giving them more whilst they are still young will create larger tax revenue in the future.
    Your example on rising the minimum wage to £50, I believe, would have little effect on the level of unemployment, but would instead raise the average wage by a huge amount, and probably result in hyperinflation.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)

    But society would correct it if the government stopped interfering because that's what society was doing for a hundred years before the government decided that it had to be responsible for our welfare. If we want to make people richer then we need to grow the economy; if we could achieve the same level of growth as Hong Kong then we could double our wealth in a little over ten years. And "suffering on our doorstep" is complete hyperbole and leads me to ask why you don't think the UK government should send hundreds of billions of pounds overseas to help people who are actually in poverty in other countries?
    This is complete nonsense. Society was not correcting itself a hundred years and if you think this is so I think you need to re-read the history books you have read. We cannot possibly achieve the growth seen in china and Hong Kong for various reasons, and changing the welfare system and work legislation is not going to change this.
    Yes, we should send aid oversees to correct a market failure, similar to the principle of doing so in Britain. It does not have to be one or the other though, as you seem to suggest. With regards to oversees aid, we should not just give them the means to survive, but give them tools to help lift themselves out of poverty, such as education.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chapman.)
    No, that's murder.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Well, if you're going to go around dehumanising people and compromising the integrity of their bodies in other ways, all in the name of efficiency, then systematically killing people is in many ways a more reasonable thing to do than sterilising them. It would be quicker, cheaper, and easier to organise on a large scale - and it wouldn't produce aggravate the 'ageing population' problem as much as mass sterilisation would.

    If you're going to subject people to forced sterilisation because you consider them 'unworthy', you've already comprehensively trashed their human rights. So why shouldn't you kill them?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alistair122)
    In regards to the first paragraph of your response, they would employ the labour, would this would be irrelevant of two or three pounds wage difference.
    It isn't a two or three pound wage difference; it's a two or three pound per hour wage difference. If you are employing someone on a 40 hour week for 50 weeks of the year then increasing their wage by two pounds costs £4000 (ignoring that some of that increase will disappear to taxes).

    They are likely to want a certain amount of the good made, and will employ resources to do so at the wage accepted by the labour market. They are unlikely to employ more people given a lower wage due to other limiting factors, such as the spare capacity.
    Hence why I think the minimum wage is unnecessary; the market sets a lower limit anyway. All the minimum wage does is prevent people from gaining experience.

    The high youth unemployment at the moment is, as you say due to low demand in the economy, but the unemployment, including youth unemployment which is most damaging is the long term unemployment, whereby people do not have the skills to enter the available jobs, which is expressed by the market through wage differences. The market function of signalling does not work with the labour market.
    Yes it does; if it market signalling didn't work didn't then we'd all still be agricultural workers.

    Firstly because it is incomprehensible to a 5 year old that they must learn at school in order to live well in the future. Secondly because market behavior changes in the time that it takes to train to join a profession. For example, accountants may have high wages, so graduates may train to become a accountants. However, due to modern computing, the demand for accountants may become reduced, meaning that when the graduates become accountants they will be oversupplied and under demanded, pushing wages down, whilst there is high demand in other professions. Because of the time scale, market forces will not apply.
    Firstly, a five year old's parents have an incentive to give him a good education. If they don't they will pay the price in the long term. Secondly, a lot of children (not quite so young) want to be successful and want to take education as far as they can.

    Secondly, market forces don't stop just because the timescale is long; what would occur is that the number of people training to become accountants would drop as those people would go into other more profitable professions, and supply would decrease. If market forces didn't apply then people would continue to training to become accountants regardless of the decrease in demand. There's also the possibility of existing accountants applying their skills and experience elsewhere.

    The Hong Kong economy is growing because they are constantly investing in more capital, not because they are increasing labour productivity through low benefits and low wages. Their economy is growing towards the size of the UK economy, not away from it.
    The only way to increase labour productivity is through capital investment; the problem with the UK is that there are a lot of obstacles to capital investment including the high tax rate. Low wages don't increase productivity, low benefits only reduce consumption (and hence increase investment). And Hong Kong is as rich as London; its economy is growing away from the UK economy.

    I also do not think the income effect you talk of is plausible. You say that removing state help from the poor, and legislation helping to maintain a living wage for the low paid would help the poor to double their incomes. This would have the complete reverse effect- they would get poorer due to their lack of employable skills and wages vastly below the norm. I think that this measure would not even help benefit the rich in the long run- the skills of their employees would deteriorate over a number of years making firms less productive and hence less profitable.
    But historically the poor have doubled their incomes without state help. If the minimum wage is removed then it becomes easier for youths from poor families to gain experience and hence, when they leave their families, support themselves with higher wages later on. If the state makes it illegal to employ youths for less than minimum wage and reduces the incentive to find work (as the welfare state is a burden on the working) then people will stay poor for longer. And the skills of employees do not deteriorate; they improve. Your suggestion that people can only increase their wealth with significant state help conflicts with history.

    The measure of stopping people from consuming more than they produce is also unnecessary- what we should do is enable that this is no the case over their lives. All children need to consume more than they produce in order to learn and reach a stage where they are able to produce more than they consume, benefiting society. We do not know who the few will be who will stay on benefits their whole lives, but hopefully giving them more whilst they are still young will create larger tax revenue in the future.
    Children's consumption is paid for by their parents; it isn't a problem. What is a problem is when someone is entitled by law to be allowed to consume without producing; that creates a burden on other people in society.

    Your example on rising the minimum wage to £50, I believe, would have little effect on the level of unemployment, but would instead raise the average wage by a huge amount, and probably result in hyperinflation.
    It wouldn't result in hyperinflation because there isn't enough money in the economy for it to do so; hyperinflation only occurs if the money supply is rapidly increased. Hyperinflation would be necessary for full employment on a £50/hour wage - without it unemployment would occur.

    This is complete nonsense. Society was not correcting itself a hundred years and if you think this is so I think you need to re-read the history books you have read. We cannot possibly achieve the growth seen in china and Hong Kong for various reasons, and changing the welfare system and work legislation is not going to change this.
    Yes, we should send aid oversees to correct a market failure, similar to the principle of doing so in Britain. It does not have to be one or the other though, as you seem to suggest. With regards to oversees aid, we should not just give them the means to survive, but give them tools to help lift themselves out of poverty, such as education.
    Society was correcting itself or we would have never reached this level of wealth. The UK went from a poverty striken agricultural economy to a rich, industrial economy over the course of the 1800s with very little in the way of a welfare state, and even substantial burdens in the form of military conflicts around the world. The poor of the 1920s were far better off than the poor of the 1810s. And we could achieve the level of growth in Hong Kong; Hong Kong has no natural resources. If we cut the welfare system we could also cut taxes; do you not think that having the lowest tax rate in Europe would generate a lot of investment?

    And foreign aid is nowhere near as useful as competent government.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chapman.)
    I don't necessarily agree with it - I'm using this as a test for my debate.
    I don't see how this is unrealistic - we have the resources.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Well, how do we decide who is sterilised? How do you do it? This is all assuming that the Court of Human Rights doesn't mind, which would be the first of...never. Having the resources to do something does not make it realistic.

    It's without doubt the most unrealistic and absurd suggestion I've read on TSR, and I've seen some shockers in Debate and Current Affairs.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Old Father Time)
    In my opinion, life begins at conception, therefore I firmly believe that to sterilize an individual, is preventing life from being created and therefore murder. Using condoms too, prevents life being created, and is murder, however these are necessary to prevent diseases such as HIV from spreading, whereas sterilization is totally preventable, and even unethical to decide that one person is not allowed to reproduce, but another is.
    Maybe you should go and comment about your views in a religious section or something then.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Well, if you're going to go around dehumanising people and compromising the integrity of their bodies in other ways, all in the name of efficiency, then systematically killing people is in many ways a more reasonable thing to do than sterilising them. It would be quicker, cheaper, and easier to organise on a large scale - and it wouldn't produce aggravate the 'ageing population' problem as much as mass sterilisation would.

    If you're going to subject people to forced sterilisation because you consider them 'unworthy', you've already comprehensively trashed their human rights. So why shouldn't you kill them?
    I've comprehensively trashed their human rights? That's ridiculous, how you think the ability to have children is the end all and be all for human rights makes me laugh.
    Killing is ending a life, and these people haven't necessarily done anything to deserve that. If you want to discuss the death penalty for murder or child molestation however then I'm very flexible.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    Well, how do we decide who is sterilised? How do you do it? This is all assuming that the Court of Human Rights doesn't mind, which would be the first of...never. Having the resources to do something does not make it realistic.

    It's without doubt the most unrealistic and absurd suggestion I've read on TSR, and I've seen some shockers in Debate and Current Affairs.
    Obviously a decision would be made with a panel - I am not a dictator who would say 'off with his cock'.

    If you think this is that bad then you seem quite naïve. Open your eyes.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chapman.)
    Obviously a decision would be made with a panel - I am not a dictator who would say 'off with his cock'.
    And who sits on this panel?

    If you think this is that bad then you seem quite naïve. Open your eyes.
    Okay now I really am thinking this is a troll post. Calling me naive when you think Human Rights would let us sterilise people by force, and that it's a realistic idea.

    - Like anybody would actually support this
    - Human Rights exist, sorry to rain on your parade
    - Just for argument's sake, I'll pretend we managed to introduce it, so I can point out the huge level of violence it would cause

    To name 3 blindingly obvious problem. Still undecided whether this is a troll post or not.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Everyone should be free to do what they want with their own body - that is why I am pro drug legalisation, and pro right-to-die (by not sectioning people who make a rational decision to commit suicide, and allowing euthanasia).

    However, I don't believe that people should have the right to impose on other people's bodies. Everyone should make their own choice for their own body. That is why alcohol is, in my opinion, worse than some incredibly harmful drugs. Because it often makes people harm others which is infinitely more harmful than it hurting themselves.

    Where does this leave me for forced sterilisation?

    You are bringing another body into the equation; the child. This is not a topic of rights to one's own body, this is about how an individual is allowed to affect another.
    This is a true situation (four of the kids have been adopted by a family friend): a woman who is a bit 'off' mentally has lots of babies by lots of partners. She is incapable of taking care of them herself, and they are taken off her. She pops out more and more, and they seem to have inherited some issues (the family friend is worried about the younger two kids, as the older two have gone off the rails, for example, one of them beat up a lady in her 70s to steal her handbag).
    I think that this woman should be forcibly sterilised; she does not have a right to produce children who may not get adopted and quite possibly will have issues, which is not the best circumstance to be creating people.

    Another example that is true, but I have no personal knowledge of, is a woman deemed unfit to look after children, so has decided to keep popping them out until she is allowed to keep one. The unnecessary cost to the country is immense, but the larger issue here is that not all the kids have been adopted, and many of them have severe physical disorders.

    Ah well, when they crack immortality, everyone's going to have to be sterilised to be able to allow that future anyway
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    And who sits on this panel?



    Okay now I really am thinking this is a troll post. Calling me naive when you think Human Rights would let us sterilise people by force, and that it's a realistic idea.

    - Like anybody would actually support this
    - Human Rights exist, sorry to rain on your parade
    - Just for argument's sake, I'll pretend we managed to introduce it, so I can point out the huge level of violence it would cause

    To name 3 blindingly obvious problem. Still undecided whether this is a troll post or not.
    Me, Hitler's grand daughter and al-Assad. Is that evil enough for you?

    I don't understand how you can say you aren't naïve if you think everyone listens to Human Rights Courts. They have no real power.

    -Evidently some people would support it.
    -Human Rights are not crushed by sterilising people you pompous idiot.
    -Huge violence? Christ you are stupid.

    Please just go away and bother someone else if you don't want to actually articulate yourself after you have thought. There are two sides to each debate, after all.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I personally believe once you take a step like having compulsory sterilisation, the government would just continue to push the boundaries 'outside the box.' I'm sorry but that idea is completely insane, you can't possibly say just because someone has a lot of children that they should be sterilised. It would be expensive to make it actually work, with having people having to chase people up for their appointments. I believe one basic human right is the right to life, and there is too many fuzzy areas, on things like abortion and other issues that need to be sorted before you can say that compulsory sterilisation should be law. Also, even if it does become law, it shouldn't be for people on benefits, it should be for convicted murderers and rapists. I don't know, I just don't think it's ethical or moral in any way, people on benefits are not the worst people in society.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    Everyone should be free to do what they want with their own body - that is why I am pro drug legalisation, and pro right-to-die (by not sectioning people who make a rational decision to commit suicide, and allowing euthanasia).

    However, I don't believe that people should have the right to impose on other people's bodies. Everyone should make their own choice for their own body. That is why alcohol is, in my opinion, worse than some incredibly harmful drugs. Because it often makes people harm others which is infinitely more harmful than it hurting themselves.

    Where does this leave me for forced sterilisation?

    You are bringing another body into the equation; the child. This is not a topic of rights to one's own body, this is about how an individual is allowed to affect another.
    This is a true situation (four of the kids have been adopted by a family friend): a woman who is a bit 'off' mentally has lots of babies by lots of partners. She is incapable of taking care of them herself, and they are taken off her. She pops out more and more, and they seem to have inherited some issues (the family friend is worried about the younger two kids, as the older two have gone off the rails, for example, one of them beat up a lady in her 70s to steal her handbag).
    I think that this woman should be forcibly sterilised; she does not have a right to produce children who may not get adopted and quite possibly will have issues, which is not the best circumstance to be creating people.

    Another example that is true, but I have no personal knowledge of, is a woman deemed unfit to look after children, so has decided to keep popping them out until she is allowed to keep one. The unnecessary cost to the country is immense, but the larger issue here is that not all the kids have been adopted, and many of them have severe physical disorders.

    Ah well, when they crack immortality, everyone's going to have to be sterilised to be able to allow that future anyway
    Thank you

    By the way the end paragraph sounds like the plot for the Declaration book


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Patriot)
    No. Completely insane idea.

    Illiberal and impossible to manage.
    Being illiberal is not itself an argument against the proposal.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bethanyd)
    I personally believe once you take a step like having compulsory sterilisation, the government would just continue to push the boundaries 'outside the box.' I'm sorry but that idea is completely insane, you can't possibly say just because someone has a lot of children that they should be sterilised. It would be expensive to make it actually work, with having people having to chase people up for their appointments. I believe one basic human right is the right to life, and there is too many fuzzy areas, on things like abortion and other issues that need to be sorted before you can say that compulsory sterilisation should be law. Also, even if it does become law, it shouldn't be for people on benefits, it should be for convicted murderers and rapists. I don't know, I just don't think it's ethical or moral in any way, people on benefits are not the worst people in society.
    Well if you're saying that murderers and rapists should have it, then surely you're saying they don't deserve human rights? Are you not then saying they are not deserving of said rights? You argued against yourself then friend.

    And the word insane has been used quite a bit, as a matter of fact I laugh manically whilst murdering old ladies.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chapman.)
    Maybe you should go and comment about your views in a religious section or something then.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    I don't believe I have mentioned my particular religious views in this topic. Maybe you should try and pay more attention to what I actually wrote instead of ignoring my post and making an irrelevant reply, unless you are unable to debate a logical argument about human reproduction and sterilization without mentioning religion.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chapman.)
    Me, Hitler's grand daughter and al-Assad. Is that evil enough for you?
    ...

    I don't understand how you can say you aren't naïve if you think everyone listens to Human Rights Courts. They have no real power.
    Until we choose to opt out, all of our laws have to be in line with the Human Rights Act.

    -Evidently some people would support it.
    Clearly, I mean you got so much support here, right? :rolleyes:

    -Human Rights are not crushed by sterilising people you pompous idiot.
    One of the fundamental human rights:

    "Right to have a family"

    Checkmate?


    -Huge violence? Christ you are stupid.
    I'm sure these people you see as scumbags that need to be eradicated from the gene pool won't be too happy when you knock on their door and forcibly try to sterilise them.

    Please just go away and bother someone else if you don't want to actually articulate yourself after you have thought.
    I have been articulating, and there's plenty for you here now. I apologise if pointing out the flaws in your argument is 'bothering' you.

    There are two sides to each debate, after all.
    I know, here I am supporting mine.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Old Father Time)
    I don't believe I have mentioned my particular religious views in this topic. Maybe you should try and pay more attention to what I actually wrote instead of ignoring my post and making an irrelevant reply, unless you are unable to debate a logical argument about human reproduction and sterilization without mentioning religion.
    You say you're a Catholic in your profile, that's why I mentioned it.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chapman.)
    I've comprehensively trashed their human rights? That's ridiculous, how you think the ability to have children is the end all and be all for human rights makes me laugh.
    Killing is ending a life, and these people haven't necessarily done anything to deserve that. If you want to discuss the death penalty for murder or child molestation however then I'm very flexible.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Forcibly subjecting people to medical procedures against their will, that is against their human rights.

    These people haven't done anything to deserve forced sterilisation either. Again, you're arbitrarily interfering with the integrity of other people's bodies, so why not go the whole hog?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse Rocker)
    ...



    Until we choose to opt out, all of our laws have to be in line with the Human Rights Act.



    Clearly, I mean you got so much support here, right? :rolleyes:



    One of the fundamental human rights:

    "Right to have a family"

    Checkmate?




    I'm sure these people you see as scumbags that need to be eradicated from the gene pool won't be too happy when you knock on their door and forcibly try to sterilise them.



    I have been articulating, and there's plenty for you here now.



    I know, here I am supporting mine.
    And what do we do if we don't comply with the act, send in an army, morally condemn us? Oh goodness gracious.

    Are you attempting to say that TSR is a representative of an entire population?

    I never said that they'd be stopped having families. To make that clear to you in case you don't understand, I do not mind if they've had children. Chances are them children will die in a gang fight thank god.

    People resist arrest now, is that to say its bad to arrest people because they can be violent?

    Support your view, but use better ways of arguing your point if you hope to have a chance of changing my stance.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 4, 2012
New on TSR

TSR Freshers' blogs 2014

Read what TSR's freshers have to say as they head off to uni

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.