mandatory sterilization after second child

Since he did not stick to the numerical arguments for clarity, I will try to piece it back together. 1. Pro's first point was 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 that political failures have encouraged poverty. Thus we have no reason to assume politics will magically improve to the point of taking care of all humankind. Simply having more food doesn't necessarily mean more food will be available to the people who need it. Pro (seems to) contest this point with statistics, but does not address the statistics I've presented, and does not provide sufficient sources to prove his claims. Please compare this to my quotes and numerical figures which I've cited and sourced in the last round. Moreover, even if Pro did prove a guaranteed shortage of resources (which he hasn't), my other arguments would still take precedent over this one. 2. I've argued that sterilization can be dangerous, specificially in places where there is a lot of poverty and low standards of health care to perform these procedures.3. I also pointed out that we don't have enough doctors in the world to implement this unnecessary endeavor. Pro says "[A doctor shortage] would change upon the drop in population because, less people=less consumption= less doctors needed which further exemplifies the benefits of mandatory sterilization. " But this is illogical. A smaller population also means a smaller pool of doctors providing care. Furthermore this stands contrary to Pro's opposite contention. If diminished resources lead to starvation and death, then population shouldn't be a problem since there would be a low life expectancy meaning less living people, right? And most importantly, this response doesn't address that there aren't enough doctors NOW to even theoretically reduce the future population. 4. I've asserted that both men and women have the right to bodily autonomy; this is not limited to women. Neither sex should undergo forced sterilization. 5. Next I argued that bodily autonomy is the proper moral standard. Pro says that the rights of our children (future generations) to exist and presumably survive trump our right to bodily autonomy and individual freedom. I contest this on the basis that we don't grant future people rights. To do so would be nonsensical. Further, why should their rights trump our rights? Pro has not explained. He claims that nobody should have the right to "endanger" a child, but everyone has the right to have children regardless of the type of lifestyle the parents can afford. We cannot know or presume who will be able to provide for their children now let alone generations from now. 6. One of my most significant arguments (which Pro completely dropped) is that there are other, greater threats to humankind than overpopulation. 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. Since we are not taking proactive measures to address these things, why should sterilization be our priority given the imposition on rights and problematic effects? Pro has not explained.7. My opponent claims that my proposed alternatives to sterilization are not sufficient. However my point is that they are superior alternatives to Pro's proposition. 8. He also claims that we have no reason to assume the birth rate will continue to decline, because that is only seen in Japan. However that's simply not true. Millennials' birth rate is dropping to historic lows across races, specifically among Blacks and Hispanics [1] however it's a widespread problem all over Asia [2] and in the West [3]. In fact Italy's government has started providing money to people for having kids, since their population is declining [4]. 9. Research shows that we may be facing a DECLINING population problem [5] and in fact it is directly related to fertility [6]. Many books have been written on the biological shift toward infertility [7] and some of the causes, such as those I detailed in the last round. 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 (again). ConclusionPro has failed to prove that the world is overpopulated and will continue on a progression of overpopulation that is unsustainable. He's also not explained why the rights of potential future beings matter more than the individual rights and bodily autonomy for those of us already in existence. I've given alternatives to deal with the (alleged) population problem and explained how Pro's proposition is problematic. Not only is it morally questionable, but arguably unnecessary and probably not possible. We don't have the resources to allocate toward this endeavor. We have more important things to worry about, as I've highlighted and Pro ignored. Thanks. [1] . http://www.cnbc.com...[2] . http://www.eastwestcenter.org...[3] . http://www.forbes.com...[4] . http://www.nation.co.ke...[5] . http://www.slate.com...[6] . http://brilliantmaps.com...[7] . http://www.amazon.com...