The state has an infinite number of powers that are imposed on every citizen, both individually and collectively. Virtually every moment of your life is either observed or regulated. Wether it's the origin label on your underpants, the amount or areas of flesh you expose, the substances you ingest, the medications you take, weapons of defense, your rate of travel or the volume of your pontifications is limited by laws and regulations. Along with all the rules, comes your rights - the way others must treat you, who must hire you and a slew of entitlements, many of which are paid for by your fellow societal members (e.g. welfare, food stamps, Section 8) are regulated by various strictures.
Some of your "freedoms" are not just regulated, but exist in a state of flux. What is abortion? Freedom to choose or deprivation of a future citizens life function? We have yet to come to a societal agreement.
Let's face it. "Freedom" is a bull**** word that we like to toss around because it sounds so noble. It's the word of politics, not reality. You don't have an iota of freedom except where the state has chosen to permit it.
If one can accept the reality of this, and recognizes that all freedom is not free, then the argument becomes simply the methods by which "freedom" is utilized.
One "freedom" that is zealously protected by the state is the right to unlimited reproduction. You can have 99 children and you don't even have to educate them in the language of the country. You a "free" to not teach them the difference between right and wrong (although if you do your right to spank them is not a "freedom"). Should you neglect them, the state will provvide for them (at the taxpayers expense).
So, in the absence of this mythological freedom, we should try to gain value. Determinedly protecting the breeding ability of obvious failures is a ludicrous application of the so-called "rights" and provides at least a small pathway for the betterment of the world.
Now, if I were King, having a child would require a permit which would be partially based on income and resources. I think about $5000 - all of which would fund the child's future education/retirement/medical fund. Having a child without a permit would not only result in immediate sterilization of both partners but also a substantial fine in addition to the original permit fees. Now, this in itself is a long and arduous discussion so let it rest for now instead of wandering off topic.
Since you are a criminal, I certainly don't feel any sense of obligation to assist you and protect your rights to providing future criminals. Both the male and female surgeries required and minor, and relatively painless. Since you are confined anyway, you have no risk of infections and the like.
(thanks for the intelligent debate. If we could have more conversations on DP that don't become shouting matches and insults, we would all be the better for it. I appreciate the courteous manner in which you have disagreed with me and look forward to your persuasive, intellectual counter-responses)
The state having the power to remove peoples bodily function is allowing the state to impede on the bodily functions of their citizens. To say that a decidedly coercive and frankly an immoral choice to offer someone that leads to loss of bodily function is fine because they might not commit further crimes or they will have no further children is simply saying it's fine to have the state bully its citizens in giving up their bodily functions. That does nothing to improve society.
I am sorry, but it is the land of the free, right? I am all for promoting people to stop having untold numbers of kids, but blackmailing them with reduced sentences for sterilization, that is just immoral.
