mandatory sterilization after second child

Thank you for the argument I appreciate your concern for autonomy and personal bodily rights, however you're not considering the rights of the children. I've already given you proper statistics to back my claim and so I will further them.The GFN estimates that human consumption first began to exceed the Earth"s capacity in the early 1970s and the overshoot day has been falling steadily earlier ever since, due to the growth in the global population alongside the expansion of consumption around the world. This is an unavoidable fact. It's not a matter of managing resources better the world is only so big. Humans compared to other large mammals, is the only large mammal to number in the billions. This has a catastrophic effect on on the environment with respect to overconsumption. By the year 2030 humans will be consuming the equivalent of two earths worth of natural resources. This is also a fact based on current projections. Once we reach our limit, it's the children who will suffer. Your statement that "If I would prefer to have kids and risk the potential they starve to death (but not the guarantee), that should be my choice" is appalling and irresponsible should you choose to risk harming a child. Nobody should have the right to endanger the welfare of a child ever. This is not question of IF we run out of resources it's when. And when that time comes it would've been responsible for us to prepare today rather than tomorrow when it could be too late. An ideal law system would allow people to have more kids when population drops below a threshold and then lowered back to 2 once numbers are replenished. I never said that such a feat as mandatory sterilization wouldn't be difficult regarding political and social as well as health standard hurtles, I merely suggested that it's a better alternative than current law systems provide. Even if you are right about managing resources, you lack legitimate data to support you claim that "Many people suggest that the rise in artificial intelligence and virtual reality will cause a natural shift in depopulation." The only statistic you provide is japan which is the only country affected by this grand scheme, and yet neither china nor the the united states have this problem to the extent of the Japanese and the US as well as China produce more video games than Japan. Numbers don't lie, human population goes up every year, and it hasn't stopped growing. You're not thinking about the rights of the children. Children don't ask to starve yet you would knowingly allow them to in the future? Do you honestly believe that it's YOUR right to endanger the welfare of your children? I'd like to see you find a single country in the world that would condone such an action. Though it isn't the case currently, projections show that both population and consumption of natural resources is on the rise and have been for decades. It hasn't changed The problem is still ahead of us, and you suggest that your personal freedoms are more important to you than the welfare of your children, and if not your children than the children of someone else. You say that we have a shortage of doctors in the world, but that would change upon the drop in population because, less people=less consumption= less doctors needed which further exemplifies the benefits of mandatory sterilization. Fortunately birth control helps, and is one of the primary reasons for the plateu-like drop in population growth, never the less population is still growing at a rate too high to control completely. We as a society need to do the responsible thing and safeguard the future of our children by bringing population into decline. Your statistics on infertility are completely inaccurate this is from the world health organization. "Research by the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that in 2010, 48.5 million couples worldwide were unable to have a child. They found that 1.9 percent of women aged 20-44 who wanted a child were unable to have their first live birth and 10.5 percent of women who had previously given birth were unable to have another baby after five years of trying. This represented a 0.1 percent and 0.4 percent decrease from 1990, respectively. 'Independent from population growth and worldwide declines in the preferred number of children, we found little evidence of changes in infertility over two decades', the authors wrote, adding that 'further research is needed to identify the etiological causes of these patterns and trends." http://www.bionews.org.uk... so as a matter of fact you got that backwards infertility has actually gone down a little bit. However, lack of proper nutrition will eventually lead to stillborns and malnourished children/women. It's a fact that a woman's body requires more nutrients for reproduction but less food means more death by childbirth which is something that can be reduced with mandatory sterilization. To prevent too many children and thus prevent more death of women and babies. Religious freedom is also irrelevant to the big picture. If your religion states that it's ok to kill people in the middle of night while they sleep for no reason, does that make it morally right? Time and time again reformed laws contradict many religious beliefs because of their (with respect) "outdated concepts." For example the public has been having a difficult time to adjusting to Gay marriage which (as proven by popular vote) is acceptable in our society now. People argue that it's a violation of their religious freedoms. So is telling a suicide bomber that he can't kill people in public for Allah so he can go to heaven to meet his 70 virgins. Yet you would argue for your religious freedoms on the premise that YOUR religion is the standard for morality. The law says NO this is not the case, just because it's against your religious beliefs, does not mean that it contradicts the public's view on morality. This is why people like me and you debate on the subject :). The bottom line is that if we live by your philosophy and have as many children as we want, we would be condemning children of the future to hardships we can not possibly fathom. Stillborns, women dying from child birth, hungry babies, hungry people, desperate people, dangerous people. We can see this coming years away so we should do our best to prevent it now. Don't just think about yourself, think about other people. Just because your children might not be starving, doesn't mean that someone else's children won't be. If we lived by your philosophy, then those who can afford children will be denying the right of those who can't afford children and even if those people do have children then those children will starve.