Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Pyrrho]

[Minimalist]

[Catholic_Lady]

I would rather allot freedoms to individuals to decide their family life for themselves, rather than give the government the power to maim citizens in the pursuit of the alleged greater good.

Firstly, the government has a regular habit of abusing any power it is granted, and this would be no different. Except -- the power to maim a citizen, the power to determine that citizen's family life, is such an intrusive power that abuses would help to establish tyranny.

The human species is bound for extinction anyway.  This is a brute fact.  We will die out. All struggling for survival is currently and will be meaningless because while man proposes, nature disposes. Comet, climate change, megavulcanism, microbial plague. Like well over 99.9999% of all species that have ever lived, we too shall die out. That means that draconian steps taken to forestall this inevitable dieoff are not only inhumane, they are still futile.

I would prefer to live in freedom even knowing that that freedom may be our downfall, only because I know that our downfall will happen through one means or another. Better to die free than to die a serf, sterilized by the government, cowed by authority, beaten into conformity by the fear of death.

This^

The bolded pretty much sums it up. Thanks PT!

[Excited Penguin]

I'm glad I indirectly started this conversation on the forums.

Let me congratulate you, Pyrrho, on a beautifully done poll and a great OP to go with it.
And thank you for not showcasing my views in particular[by quoting what I said in other, seemingly unrelated threads] with a mind to sublty ridicule them, even if it would seem we are allowed to do so[as shocking as that is to me].

There's no choice to make here, really, whereas some would have you believe there is. The options are pretty straight-forward, yet it seems we have at least 6 people among us, as of now, that would rather see the end of the world[of our race, really], or something among those lines[millions of people dying], than lose their petty right to spawn mini-me's, as if we don't already have enough people that would do the world a service by being nominated to the Darwin Awards.

If I had the choice between extinction and anything else at all, I would choose anything else. This is obviously the thing to do.
Your having children doesn't mean anything at all if those same children will grow up to die of hunger or because of some other closely related factor one day.
We have rights, yes, but those rights don't mean anything in and of themselves. This is especially true if by having these rights you are giving up other, more important rights in the process[or if you are at the same time imposing on other people's rights]: like the right to live for example.

[Catholic_Lady]

[Minimalist]

In both cases, there is a violation of the integrity of the body of someone against their will.

No.  If someone wants to not vaccinate their kids they have that choice as long as they keep them out of public schools.  It is a choice not a violation.  Choices do have consequences.

[Pyrrho]

[Pyrrho]

In both cases, there is a violation of the integrity of the body of someone against their will.

No.  If someone wants to not vaccinate their kids they have that choice as long as they keep them out of public schools.  It is a choice not a violation.  Choices do have consequences.

In order to be allowed to keep their children out of public schools, they must do some other things.  They cannot just keep them out of school, but must meet the schooling requirements for their children in some way or other.  So there is indeed force in the situation, though you are right that there is a way for them to not have their children vaccinated.

The same, though, applies to my hypothetical situation.  You do not have to be forcibly made sterile; if you choose to not have children, no one forces the sterilization on you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except the individuals are not merely deciding for themselves.  They are deciding for many others.

Basically, you prefer to live in the way you prefer by letting others die who would preferred to live, then to live in ways you don't prefer and let other also live, which they prefer.

No. I prefer to value rights over futile transgressions. My having one son has not, to my knowledge, resulted in one death. If you have information otherwise, I'd be happy to see it.

 To argue that just because we are bound to all die, therefore we ought to be free to safeguard our optional abstract rights  for ourselves by placing at greater jeopardy sooner the lives of others is to more completely bankrupt the concept of rights.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

This is a misunderstanding of my point. It is not based on death of the individual, but on species extinction, and the reason that this is an important nuance is because the argument in favor of forced birth-control for humans is not based on the preservation of individual lives, but on the species as a whole. By conflating the two in the emboldened clause, you are making a category error. It's also an overweening application of consequentialism without taking into account things like social stability (who would give their loyalty to a government which arbitrarily decided to sterilize them?), and still ignores my point that such a government could not be trusted to exercise that power in a just manner.

Edit: It was me conflating the two, not Chuck. I apologize for imputing to him a view he wasn't propounding.

I still think there are better ways to address dangerous population growth than giving any government such powers as to mutilate their citizens.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Pyrrho, she's pointing out a slippery-slope fallacy. And it's there.