mandatory sterilization after second child

Thanks for responding, dude100. 1. Pro's first point is that sterilization should be imposed because people are starving to death. I've proven that we have enough food and resources to care for everyone on Earth and then some. Pro responded that we cannot infinitely maintain this when there is no population limit and our resources are being exhausted. He writes, "Eventually we will reach our population limit and people all over the world will go hungry." Later in the debate, Pro presents an analogy where he compares death by car accident to death by starvation. Pro's mistake here is assuming that starvation is inevitable. However reports claim "The principal barrier to ending world hunger is neither lack of resources nor insufficient knowledge," says Bread for the World president David Beckman. "It is the failure to put ideas that work into practice on a broad scale" [1]. Pro claims, "I don't need to prove that hungry people are hungry because of overpopulation, I only need to prove that reducing population will increase the amount of food each person has." This is false. I've already explained how political failures and not lack of food causes starvation. The social and political obstacles would still be a barrier. Consider the fact that empty houses outnumber the homeless by six to one [2]. Just because more food could be available does not necessarily mean the food would actually BE available. Just as the homeless don't have homes even though the homes exist, poor people might still not have food even though more of it exists. "Over-population is merely a symptom of resource scarcity due to resource mismanagement. In reality, the only reason resources are scarce is because we as a civilization are still figuring out how to manage them effectively and in a sustainable manner" [3]. 2. Pro says that unsafe sterilization is only the case in india, but theoretically if applied to American standards of health, the risks are greatly reduced. However why should we assume that American standards would be utilized all over the world? It's most logical to assume those standards would only exist in America; at the very least it could exist in the Western world or developed Eastern countries. But third world nations (or more developed ones that still have a lot of poverty) would not be able to utilize these standards. Pro hasn't explained how this would be possible. If we can't even feed the poor, how can we afford to provide substantiate medical care via surgical procedure to the poor? Thus the risks of sterilization are still problematic. 3. On that note, I'd like to introduce another argument in my favor: we already have a doctor shortage in the world [4]. Our doctors are currently saving lives and working to cure disease among other noble endeavors for the problems we know already exist. We don't have the medical resources or supply of doctors to implement this endeavor. 4. Pro claims that both men and women should be sterilized. But my arguments of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights were not only meant to be applied to women. Men also have the right to govern their own bodies. 5. I've argued that bodily autonomy is the proper moral standard, though Pro suggests another. He asks, "In the future when we reach our limit, would you rather have a child you can't feed who will die hungry and miserable or never have the child in the first place?" This suggests a subjective standard of morality rather than a universally utalitarian one. If I would prefer to have kids and risk the potential they starve to death (but not the guarantee), that should be my choice. Tyranny of the majority or might-makes-right (aggressive force) should not be the moral standard upheld by the populace and authoritative state. Pro writes, "Personal autonomy and rights are irrelevant to the big picture." On the contrary individual rights are the very basis of our humanity and freedoms. To give up the right to govern our own persons essentially makes us slaves, and inhibits our personal liberties. Why would we want to live in a world where we were not free? 6. Pro concludes, "One might argue that it's not our responsibility, does that make it any less unethical? If we can, we must because it's the right thing to do. If you don't, then how can you live with yourself?" However my opponent has failed to prove a singular objective standard for morality, nor has he proven that overpopulation would inevitably lead to the death of humankind. In fact global climate change, loss of biodiversity, the decline of bees and bats, a pandemic of disease, biochemical or nuclear warfare, terrorism/war, super volcanos, asteroid, the rise of machines and even a zombie apocalypse are greater threats to humanity than overpopulation [5]. 7. In the last round I presented alternatives to sterilization. My opponent completely dropped my suggestions which included birth control. Additional, more moral alternatives to sterilization include better education - especially sex education; making people aware of family planning; providing access to birth control to anyone who wants it; and offering tax benefits or other incentives to people who choose not to reproduce or to reproduce at a lower rate. Ergo, the fact that there are so many viable alternatives to sterilization that can reduce population is a great reason why the drastic measure of sterilization ought not to be imposed. 8. Many people suggest that the rise in artificial intelligence and virtual reality will cause a natural shift in depopulation. For example, in Japan well over 30% of the population chooses not to get married or have kids. Many attribute this to a growing fetish with engaging in romantic relationships with robots and video games vs. real people, while others claim there are social factors (like an intense work culture) that is leading to a declining birth rate [6]. 9. Sterilization is also occurring naturally in the world at a greater rate. Almost one in six couples are now infertile [7]. Reasons for this include increased use of birth control (which reduces fertility rates in some cases), the effects of STDs, increased levels of oestrogen in the water supply, etc. [8]. 10. Please extend my argument that forced sterilization is a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to health, that are supposed to be protected by international treaties. This is to show that this standard would likely be impossible to actually implement around the globe. Therefore only some would have their rights inhibited (if this were tried) while others would not which is unfair. People around the world recognize the right to procreate as not only an extension of their bodily freedom but religious freedom; another argument that my opponent dropped from the last round. I look forward to Pro's final case. Sources: [1] http://www.csmonitor.com... [2] http://www.mintpressnews.com... [3] https://timmcgivern.wordpress.com... [4] http://www.irinnews.org... [5] http://www.alternet.org... [6] http://theweek.com... [7] http://www.reuters.com... [8] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...