mandatory sterilization after second child

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Pro claims we should impose mandatory sterilization because the world is overpopulated; we already have hungry people in the world; and sterilization is a safe and effective way of improving the standard of living for all humanity. Moreover, Pro claims we "can't afford" the children we already have, though I am not exactly sure who or what he is referring to. Surely many people can afford to support their children. While many poor people cannot, this resolution does not only apply to poor people. Therefore, this argument does not apply to the majority of people who are able to keep their offspring alive. Regarding Pro's argument that the world is overpopulated, that may not necessarily be the case. Overpopulation describes a situation where the number of people exhausts the resources in a closed environment, in such a way that it can no longer support that population [1]. This is not to be confused with overcrowding. Overcrowding should be solved by city planners, not population controllers. While Pro rightly points out there are hungry people in this world, he fails to prove it is due to overpopulation. There are currently 7 billion people in the world, yet the world currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people [2]. "Famines are not natural phenomena, they are catastrophic political failures." The key causes of hunger include poverty, natural disasters, poor infrastructure, war and political crises. Overpopulation is not the cause of starvation. Theoretically there is enough food in this world to feed everyone, if only it is/can be made available to them. Pro's last point is that sterilization is "safe and effective." Forced sterilization has been tried in India where the population is very high. There were 1,774 deaths due to botched sterilization procedures according to the Indian government's own statistics [3]. As such, we have no reason to believe that sterilization is safe. Indeed thousands of deaths by forced sterilization can be observed in India [4]. None of Pro's arguments withstand any scrutiny. However there are several key reasons why forced sterilization should NOT be mandatory. First and foremost, women should have sole reproductive rights over their own body. Only women themselves can provide valid consent to their own sterilization. Sterilization should not be performed within a government program or strategy that does not include voluntary consent [5]. The bottom line is that forced sterilization is a violation of bodily integrity and autonomy. "Manipulating a woman"s body against her will takes away her agency to make choices about her body, including the number of children she will have; and is a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to health, that are supposed to be protected by international treaties and instruments, including: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Articles 10h, 12, 16e, Gen. Rec. 19); and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (Women and Health par., 94)" [6]. There are viable alternatives to forced sterilization. People can utilize contraception such as birth control pills and condoms. However ultimately reproductive choices are personal decisions that should be left up to individuals, not the state. Sterilization is not only a violation of individual reproductive rights, but religious rights as well. Many religions call for natural family planning and/or having as many kids as possible, per their religious beliefs [7]. Inhibiting the number of children they have imposes on what they believe God wants for their lives. [ In Conclusion ] The government's role is to protect people's rights, not inhibit people's rights. Forced sterilization is a violation of people's religious and reproductive liberties. Pro has failed to prove overpopulation exists and is leading to mass starvation, nor has he proven that sterilization would be effective at solving poverty/hunger. Finally, Pro's proposal is dangerous and risks people's lives. Ultimately the right to bodily autonomy trumps the myth of overpopulation and the state's alleged solutions. [1] https://www.pop.org... [2] Gleick, Peter H. "A look at twenty-first century water resources development." Water International 25.1 (2000): 127-138. [3] http://www.evolutionnews.org... [4] http://www.telesurtv.net... [5] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org... [6] http://news.trust.org... [7] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...