[chapman.]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Yes our society, we'd make a profit.

Now that's organ trade which is a whole new kettle of fish. Would you like to keep within the topic? Or please stop posting, thanks!

[When you see it...]

(Original post by najinaji)
That's kind of one and the same. If they saw that having families resulted in mass starvation and yet still did it because of the Church, then they are having children despite being too poor to afford them.

Okay, I see what you mean.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by chapman.)
Now that's organ trade which is a whole new kettle of fish. Would you like to keep within the topic? Or please stop posting, thanks!

I have kept within the topic. Entailment does't stop at whichever point it makes you feel uncomfortable - if you dehumanise groups of people for no reason, this is what you get.

[chapman.]

(Original post by mmmpie)
I have kept within the topic. Entailment does't stop at whichever point it makes you feel uncomfortable - if you dehumanise groups of people for no reason, this is what you get.

This thread is about sterilisation, not taking organs or selling organs. It is not a general thread on how to improve society.

[lightburns]

(Original post by Maker)
Why don't they try to her mental health problems instead of proposing to sterilise her.

This is just a excuse to practice tyranny. It really is the slippery slope.

I would assume that they have, although I admit that I don't know the circumstances. Some things are simply not curable, so hypothetically there are certainly situations that I would call for forced sterilisation. But only if there wasn't another option.

If you're calling on the slippery slope argument.. think hypothetically of just this single extreme example. If it were to have no effects on any other individual, and this would be the sole sterilisation, would you say yes or no to it? On one option you have dozens of unstable, criminal and/or severely disabled children, requiring care as not all of them will be adopted (late adoption is highly damaging to children, but not having parents even more so!). On the other option... you don't. The woman still has sex with multiple partners all across the board, but no children come out of it. The only downside is that you have to force her into it.

It's worth bearing in mind that I do believe that women have certain temporary contraceptions that are inserted into the womb. This would mean that if a woman changed, it could be removed. Of course, this doesn't help much for males forcibly sterilised...

It's extreme and it fills me with dodginess to support the state having power over people's bodies, but I think the protection of the children who come out of these sorry affairs should be the priority issue.

[InspectorSophie]

I'm sure everyone could justify compulsory sterilisation for one group in society. Not just out of cruelty but out of compassion, for example, in meth and heroine addicts so there are not so many babies born addicted to drugs.

Personally I see it as an appropriate medical treatment for repeat sexual offenders and pedophiles, in order to lower their libido. If you see them as having a severe mental illness and unable to make a decision such as this for themselves (as sanctioned under the mental health act), in theory chemical castration after prison time served is not necessarily beyond the bound of reason.

Either way I feel slightly uneasy about it.
Its classic foot-in-the-door technique. I don't understand anyone labeling this as a pragmatic idea. Its tyranny of the majority. Rights such as these, for citizens (who are not at high risk of committing further sexual offences as a caveat possibly) should be universal and indivisible. If you infringe of the rights of a individual then you are risking your own rights too.

Perhaps you shouldn't make light of sterilisation of jews in Nazi Germany. Firstly, their methods of sterilisation were nothing like what we would experience. There are reports of women being dragged in, screaming in agony and often dying due to the sort of procedures they would use. Even so, unless you yourself would not mind being forced to lose you libido with chemical injections or having an invasive surgery that would stop you from ever having children, against your will, you should not sanction its use on others.

I am a great believe in testing policy with its universality. You can't apply it to others if you wouldn't apply it to yourself. Therefore, if I were a repeat sex offender or a child molester, behind the veil of ignorance, I would think it best if I was chemically castrated.

Perhaps I find this particularly chilling because I look forward to have a big family some day.

[The Patriot]

(Original post by OMGWTFBBQ)
Being illiberal is not itself an argument against the proposal.

It is if you consider liberal values to be universal on a basic level.