4 ms·

Why is forced sterilization more objectionable than forced body modifications that commonly happen? That it be worse than, for example, forced foreskin removal

Why is forced sterilization more objectionable than forced body modifications that commonly happen? That it be worse than, for example, forced foreskin removal or teeth correction would only follow from the axiom that reproduction is a higher goal that all should have.

ceejayoz 6y ago
You can't really genocide a minority group with circumcision.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Genocide is the killing of men who are currently alive. If one can say that one can kill a man who has not yet been conceived, by stopping his hypothetical future birth, then every form of contraception is murder, nay, the simple election not to have sex or otherwise procreate is then murder.
  - croissants 6y ago
    Do you not see the difference between forced sterilization (removing a person's ability to procreate) and contraception (giving a person the ability to have sex without procreating, which they can choose to change later)?
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Of course I do, simply not by the argument that forced sterilization is genocide, an argument which necessitate that one can “kill” a not yet existing man by stopping his future existence. The argument of genocide of course does not imply that the man who is sterilized is killed so long as he be allowed to live after the sterilization, but rather that his future, hypothetical offspring is, because it would now never come to be. The comparison I made was with forced foreskin removal and forced dental correction, something that can also not be undone.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    The UN definition of genocide, note point D: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Then I see nothing wrong with genocide per sē if (d) fall under it, for by this definition, the Dutch goverment's plan to hand out free condoms to teenagers is a form of genocide, as it is a measure intended to stop births within the group of Dutchmen. As usual, U.N. definitions are made without much thought, and quickly lead to the absurd when being held to even the slightest of inspection — it is almost as if it be a forum of very emotional men, who put very little thought into what they are doing. If we say that stopping future births rather is problematic, then most forms of sex education are problematic.
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        > the Dutch goverment's plan to hand out free condoms to teenagers is a form of genocide, as it is a measure intended to stop births within the group of Dutchmen. That would be perhaps true if the Dutch government were planning to give out free condoms only to white people or only to black people or only to blonds or only to christians etc. If they are universally giving out condoms, then they are obviously not trying to destroy any particular ethnic or national group inside their own country - the obvious limit to the UN definition.
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        Say a proof of citizenship be required. Then they are only giving them out to the “ethnicity” called “the Dutchman”. But this another matter of why I'm never very impressed with any definition that names the pseudoscientific concept of “ethnicity” — it is of course entirely an arbitrary thing what is and isn't classified as a separate “ethnicity” much like how the difference between a dialect and a separate language is of course one of politics, not science. If only the province of Frisia were to have a plan for handing out such condoms, would that qualify as genocide of the Frisians then, which some claim is a different ethnicity for historical reasons? Are the inhabitants of each city perhaps a different ethnicity?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tsimionescu 6y ago
Because it is forced? In general, actions done to children by their parents (or with their parents' expressed, unequivocal consent) are not considered "forced" except in cases where the harm is large. So, male circumcision or teeth corrections or vaccinations are not "forced" on the children, because they are acts that their parents consider are beneficial to the child. However, if the state were to force children to be circumcised or have their teeth aligned regardless of their parents' desires, then most people would object to that. Even more importantly, any actions which affect someone's ability to use their body in a normal way are generally considered abhorrent. That is why male circumcision is usually tolerated, while female circumcision is an abomination, even if done by one's parents. Forced sterilization is obviously in the second case, since it is terminally preventing someone from performing one of the 3 fundamental components of life.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > Because it is forced? Obviously so is forced foreskin removal and forced tooth correction, so I fail to see that point. > In general, actions done to children by their parents (or with their parents' expressed, unequivocal consent) are not considered "forced" except in cases where the harm is large. So, male circumcision or teeth corrections or vaccinations are not "forced" on the children, because they are acts that their parents consider are beneficial to the child. I see, so it would be fine of the parents were the ones forcibly sterilizing them rather than the government. I find that absurd: I for one am in favor of government-mandated vaccinations and find this to be a very desirable thing opposed to letting parents be the ones to decide. > However, if the state were to force children to be circumcised or have their teeth aligned regardless of their parents' desires, then most people would object to that. Yes, which I find absurd. It matters not to the man whose body was irreparably altered whence the order to do so came — it's a rather shallow comfort to then be told that it was fine because it was the will of one's parents rather than the government's. > Even more importantly, any actions which affect someone's ability to use their body in a normal way are generally considered abhorrent. That is why male circumcision is usually tolerated, while female circumcision is an abomination, even if done by one's parents. Forced sterilization is obviously in the second case, since it is terminally preventing someone from performing one of the 3 fundamental components of life. Yes, you call it fundamental which goes right back to that it only holders water if one considers reproduction a higher goal that all must aspire to. And with “all”, one can argue roughly half of all; I've noticed that he moral queasiness of sterilization of the male seems to be quite a bit lower than with sterilization of the female — as if that not be rooted in some belief that a female's primary function is to be a reproductive engine: close your eyes and think of England.
scpedicini 6y ago
Your analogy is poor. Removing your ability to reproduce and have a biological family is taking away a natural "capability" that your body has. The two counter examples you provided are specifically cosmetic in nature and thus not at all the same. You might as well ask, why is forced sterilization worse than forced removal of your appendix?

ceejayoz 6y ago

You can't really genocide a minority group with circumcision.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Genocide is the killing of men who are currently alive. If one can say that one can kill a man who has not yet been conceived, by stopping his hypothetical future birth, then every form of contraception is murder, nay, the simple election not to have sex or otherwise procreate is then murder.
- croissants 6y ago
  Do you not see the difference between forced sterilization (removing a person's ability to procreate) and contraception (giving a person the ability to have sex without procreating, which they can choose to change later)?
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Of course I do, simply not by the argument that forced sterilization is genocide, an argument which necessitate that one can “kill” a not yet existing man by stopping his future existence. The argument of genocide of course does not imply that the man who is sterilized is killed so long as he be allowed to live after the sterilization, but rather that his future, hypothetical offspring is, because it would now never come to be. The comparison I made was with forced foreskin removal and forced dental correction, something that can also not be undone.
- xxpor 6y ago
  The UN definition of genocide, note point D: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Then I see nothing wrong with genocide per sē if (d) fall under it, for by this definition, the Dutch goverment's plan to hand out free condoms to teenagers is a form of genocide, as it is a measure intended to stop births within the group of Dutchmen. As usual, U.N. definitions are made without much thought, and quickly lead to the absurd when being held to even the slightest of inspection — it is almost as if it be a forum of very emotional men, who put very little thought into what they are doing. If we say that stopping future births rather is problematic, then most forms of sex education are problematic.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      > the Dutch goverment's plan to hand out free condoms to teenagers is a form of genocide, as it is a measure intended to stop births within the group of Dutchmen. That would be perhaps true if the Dutch government were planning to give out free condoms only to white people or only to black people or only to blonds or only to christians etc. If they are universally giving out condoms, then they are obviously not trying to destroy any particular ethnic or national group inside their own country - the obvious limit to the UN definition.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        Say a proof of citizenship be required. Then they are only giving them out to the “ethnicity” called “the Dutchman”. But this another matter of why I'm never very impressed with any definition that names the pseudoscientific concept of “ethnicity” — it is of course entirely an arbitrary thing what is and isn't classified as a separate “ethnicity” much like how the difference between a dialect and a separate language is of course one of politics, not science. If only the province of Frisia were to have a plan for handing out such condoms, would that qualify as genocide of the Frisians then, which some claim is a different ethnicity for historical reasons? Are the inhabitants of each city perhaps a different ethnicity?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tsimionescu 6y ago

Because it is forced? In general, actions done to children by their parents (or with their parents' expressed, unequivocal consent) are not considered "forced" except in cases where the harm is large. So, male circumcision or teeth corrections or vaccinations are not "forced" on the children, because they are acts that their parents consider are beneficial to the child. However, if the state were to force children to be circumcised or have their teeth aligned regardless of their parents' desires, then most people would object to that. Even more importantly, any actions which affect someone's ability to use their body in a normal way are generally considered abhorrent. That is why male circumcision is usually tolerated, while female circumcision is an abomination, even if done by one's parents. Forced sterilization is obviously in the second case, since it is terminally preventing someone from performing one of the 3 fundamental components of life.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Because it is forced? Obviously so is forced foreskin removal and forced tooth correction, so I fail to see that point. > In general, actions done to children by their parents (or with their parents' expressed, unequivocal consent) are not considered "forced" except in cases where the harm is large. So, male circumcision or teeth corrections or vaccinations are not "forced" on the children, because they are acts that their parents consider are beneficial to the child. I see, so it would be fine of the parents were the ones forcibly sterilizing them rather than the government. I find that absurd: I for one am in favor of government-mandated vaccinations and find this to be a very desirable thing opposed to letting parents be the ones to decide. > However, if the state were to force children to be circumcised or have their teeth aligned regardless of their parents' desires, then most people would object to that. Yes, which I find absurd. It matters not to the man whose body was irreparably altered whence the order to do so came — it's a rather shallow comfort to then be told that it was fine because it was the will of one's parents rather than the government's. > Even more importantly, any actions which affect someone's ability to use their body in a normal way are generally considered abhorrent. That is why male circumcision is usually tolerated, while female circumcision is an abomination, even if done by one's parents. Forced sterilization is obviously in the second case, since it is terminally preventing someone from performing one of the 3 fundamental components of life. Yes, you call it fundamental which goes right back to that it only holders water if one considers reproduction a higher goal that all must aspire to. And with “all”, one can argue roughly half of all; I've noticed that he moral queasiness of sterilization of the male seems to be quite a bit lower than with sterilization of the female — as if that not be rooted in some belief that a female's primary function is to be a reproductive engine: close your eyes and think of England.

scpedicini 6y ago

Your analogy is poor. Removing your ability to reproduce and have a biological family is taking away a natural "capability" that your body has. The two counter examples you provided are specifically cosmetic in nature and thus not at all the same. You might as well ask, why is forced sterilization worse than forced removal of your appendix?