Trading Lives for Involuntary Vasectomies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DanielJohn

Guest
I’m an engineer, and a son of a pro-life attorney. I have been prayerfully trying to come up with a solution to a difficult moral problem. I’m sure you’re aware that many, if not most, abortions are had by women living in poverty. In many cases, they can’t even afford to pay for the abortion. This is why there is a push to have government funding of abortion. The alternative is government funding of orphanages. Since I believe abortion is murder, I believe that the unborn child’s right to life should be protected under law. But if this were to happen, then the orphanages would quickly become overflowing with the children of impoverished women. At the present time, there are enough people seeking to adopt children to prevent orphanages from getting overcrowded, but this would no longer be the case if the law were to be suddenly changed to protect the unborn child’s right to life.

The underlying problem is that men are making babies that they can’t provide for; either that or they refuse to provide for them. Sacred scripture says that such a man is “worse than an unbeliever” (1st Tim. 5:8). I know that it’s a sin for a believer to voluntarily get a vasectomy, but we are sharing this planet with men who are worse than unbelievers. We need a solution that does not involve killing their children. The only solution, that I can see, is to have a system of trading lives for involuntary vasectomies. The child is given to the orphanage and in return the child’s father gets a vasectomy. Even though he would probably want the vasectomy, it would be involuntary. An involuntary vasectomy would not be a sin, but rather the consequence of a sin. That would be the sin of making a baby that you can’t provide for. If the mother does not know who the father is, and she was not raped, then she would get an involuntary sterilization.

Such a system would allow the unborn child’s life to be protected by law without causing orphanages to suddenly overflow. What do you think? Would the system work? Would the system be moral?
 
Very few children in the US are in group homes. We have a foster care system and a private adoption system.

I’m also unsure of why you assume most impoverished women give their children up. That’s just factually incorrect. Most raise their children themselves in poverty.

That said, I am one Catholic who believe in contraception. I have no problem with vasectomies.

I do, however, have a HUGE problem with forced sterilization of men or women.

(Ignoring the fact that it’s completely unconstitutional.)
 
Rather then trying to pick the lesser of two evils I think it would be in the governments best interest to stay out of the situation or if all else fails try to not promote sexual acts outside of marriage.

No sex = no babies = no overflowing of orphanages.

There comes a point when rather than giving others alternatives that aren’t as bad (but still bad) we must just take a stand and say “no, premarital sex is wrong” and then stick by that decision.
 
This is a horrible idea. Your premise is flawed in so many ways.

First of all, where’s your proof that orphanages would overflow? This was not the case when abortion was illegal. There is currently an ever increasing number of couples who face infertility. There is no reason to think that the demand for adoptions would not keep increasing as well.

Second, most abortions are not commited on women living in poverty. While many women state that economics play a part in their decision, they aren’t living in poverty but rather mostly middle class women for whom another child might create financial burdens (but not impoverishment) or for whom a child is inconvenient or ill-timed.

Lastly, your plan WOULD be sinful. First the person consenting to the sterilization would be sinning; the social service person requiring the sterilization would be sinning and the medical person performing the surgery would be sinning.

The sceario you describe isn’t really “involuntary;” though it might be coerced. The parent could chose to keep the child, work with private adoption agencies to find the child another home or simply pay child support. You are just adding an additional, gravely immoral, choice to an already bad situation.

Characterizing this as “trading lives” is vile. :mad:
 
Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
A big problem,and I see behind Your issue. But whatever it is,a child is ALWAYS A GIFT FROM GOD,AND ALL EFFORTS IN AND OUTSIDE A MARRIAGE TO PREVENT THAT GIFT IS A SIN AGAINST GOD,THE CHURCH AND ALL WE HOLD RIGHT. There is no way to say yes to any effort to prevent,or to “choose” do we want this child or not is a sin,AND IT IS A SIN NOT ONLY AGAINST ALL HOLY,IT IS A SIN AGAINST ALL THOSE LIKE ME WHO ARE AGAINST “CONTROLLING” WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BE BORN OR NOT!!! All children will be taken care of by our Heavenly Father,so there is no worry,the only cause for consern is people who thinks preventing Gods wonderfull gift to the world. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGEL REASON WHY A CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE BORN,NON WHAT SO EVER!!! May God have mercy on You,blessings,Totterman
 
Place respect for the dignity for each person above an interest in him/her as a sexual object or as a target of a sexual pursuit.

The sexual act means nothing more pleasure and there’s no more committment attached to it than the physical act itself.
 
DanielJohn said:
I’m an engineer, and a son of a pro-life attorney. I have been prayerfully trying to come up with a solution to a difficult moral problem. I’m sure you’re aware that many, if not most, abortions are had by women living in poverty. In many cases, they can’t even afford to pay for the abortion. This is why there is a push to have government funding of abortion. The alternative is government funding of orphanages. quote]

your logic is faulty
the alternative to mass abortion is a larger pool of children available to the thousands of childless parents longing to adopt who are now disappointed because of the destruction of those children before birth.
Click to expand...
 
No. It wouldn’t work and no it would not be moral to force someones infertility.

You have the underlying problem wrong. It’s not that men are making babies that they can’t or won’t take care of. It’s that people are having disordered sexual relationships that do not reflect the true meaning of God’s plan for love and life.

The answer is to bring people to the truth instead of trying to find a way to patch up a lie.
 
If we can keep the radical and subversive element within the homosexual community from using their agenda to shut down orphanages and foster care services that won’t adopt to SS couples, we won’t need the government to be involved to any great degree. In fact, it seems that the more the government is involved in these situations, the worse it gets.
 
Thanks all of you for the comments on such a repulsive idea. Amen to those who agree with me that abortion should be illegal. It’s possible that there would be no foster care overcrowding problem if abortion suddenly became illegal. If there would be no problem, then there would be no problem. Case closed.

But here’s why I figured that we would have a foster care overcrowding problem. Remember, I’m an engineer. I will try to use conservative estimates in my calculations:
  1. I know that about 3300 children per day are currently murdered in the womb by abortion.
  2. Let’s estimate that 1/2 of those 3300 would be going to the foster care system if abortion suddenly became illegal.
  3. Let’s estimate that there are about 100,000 waiting in line to adopt.
  4. Let’s estimate that this line grows by about 500 per day.
  5. Are there any math whizzes out there? If so, please check my math.
  6. My math says that as soon as abortion became illegal, the line of those waiting to adopt would be gone in 87 days.
  7. After 87 days, the number of children in the foster care system would be increasing by 1150 children per day.
  8. That would be a problem.
Constantseeker, my repulsive solution is not quite FORCING sterilization as you suggest. I was suggesting something similar to capital punishment, except it would have to do with CREATING LIFE rather than TAKING LIFE. Capital punishment is not FORCING death on a person. With capital punishment, lawmakers say: if you TAKE a person’s LIFE, then you will NOT LIVE anymore. With my suggestion, lawmakers would say: if you CREATE a LIFE that you can’t (or won’t) provide for, then you will NOT CREATE LIFE anymore. Do you see the connection?

Another solution, along the lines of what TantumErgo is suggesting, is that taxpayers foot the bill of an ever-increasing foster care system until it strains everybody’s pocketbook so much that everybody has no choice but to shout from the rooftops, “PREMARITAL SEX IS WRONG!” I could go with this solution.

I also want to thank Corki, because I’m the type of person that wants to be rebuked if I am in the wrong. I never should have said, “trading lives.” What I meant was “trading the saving of a life,” but I tried to simplify that since it sounded awkward. I’m sorry about that. I’ve improved upon the title in this reply. I don’t think I’m able to change the thread title. 😦

May God bless all of you.
Daniel
 
DanielJohn, you are missing the point.

The math is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many of this or that might happen, what the statistics are.

We do not judge the morality of an action by those types of measures. The ends **never **justify the means.

Sterilization is intrinsically evil, and coerced sterilization is moreso. Both are grave sins against God. This is outlined in the Catechism under the fifth commandment (coerced sterilization) and sixth commandment (voluntary sterilization).

Perhaps you should read the catechism section on the Moralit of Human Acts:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
 
Again, the solution is to bring people to the truth. Getting people to only participate in sexual relationships that are free from selfish intentions and open to life should be the goal. Simply human beings living out God’s plan for our sexuality would fix all of this.
 
The almost total breakdown of religious belief among the young of the underclass allied to the socialisation of provision for the children born to them at a time when government deficits are rocketing under the strain of welfare ( these are all measurable facts ) means that in future radical solutions will be sought.and fascistic - I’m using the word in its true corporate sense - solutions will be sought and probably imposed.

In a post Chriatian welfarist culture It is impossible to prevent massive scale random copulation and the consequent millions of unplanned and /or unaffordable pregnancies. The burden this imposes will force action sooner or later. I think we will live to see a trade off between welfare provision and voluntary sterilisation or at least verifiable and verified long tern policed contraception use.

The fact that the vast majority of these people are in no meaningful sense Christian and taht Christians will be able to opt out means there is no immediate moral objection.
 
DanielJohn said:
I’m an engineer, and a son of a pro-life attorney. I have been prayerfully trying to come up with a solution to a difficult moral problem. I’m sure you’re aware that many, if not most, abortions are had by women living in poverty. In many cases, they can’t even afford to pay for the abortion. This is why there is a push to have government funding of abortion. The alternative is government funding of orphanages. Since I believe abortion is murder, I believe that the unborn child’s right to life should be protected under law. But if this were to happen, then the orphanages would quickly become overflowing with the children of impoverished women. At the present time, there are enough people seeking to adopt children to prevent orphanages from getting overcrowded, but this would no longer be the case if the law were to be suddenly changed to protect the unborn child’s right to life.

The underlying problem is that men are making babies that they can’t provide for; either that or they refuse to provide for them. Sacred scripture says that such a man is “worse than an unbeliever” (1st Tim. 5:8). I know that it’s a sin for a believer to voluntarily get a vasectomy, but we are sharing this planet with men who are worse than unbelievers. We need a solution that does not involve killing their children. The only solution, that I can see, is to have a system of trading lives for involuntary vasectomies. The child is given to the orphanage and in return the child’s father gets a vasectomy. Even though he would probably want the vasectomy, it would be involuntary. An involuntary vasectomy would not be a sin, but rather the consequence of a sin. That would be the sin of making a baby that you can’t provide for. If the mother does not know who the father is, and she was not raped, then she would get an involuntary sterilization.

Such a system would allow the unborn child’s life to be protected by law without causing orphanages to suddenly overflow. What do you think? Would the system work? Would the system be moral?
Click to expand...
You know you make a very point. I’d never considered the logistics of the orphaned children if you will.

I think the big question is: for arguments sake, lets say that roe vs.wade is overturned and abortion in this country were to be 100% eliminated. What would we do with the millions of children who were born? Obviously some of them would have homes with their natural parents; but what of those who have no home or where the parents could not properly care or afford to care for them? Would the orphanages be completely overwhelmed? Where would the money come from to care for them? Who would pay for their medical/dental, if they had any at all?? Their schooling? Clothing them? Do we depend on government funding for this?? Or charitable causes?

I think it certainly leaves a lot of questions to be answered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top