Is it legal to pay the people to get themselves sterilized?

There is an history of abusive sterilizations, this would be amply remembered in the upcoming shitstorm indeed. While talking about blasting far beyond Godwin point, what about opening a lebensborn fertility clinic while you're at it

Even with the best scientists it would be hard to securely target any precise group, serious genetic studies giving rather fuzzy ones

Why sterilization is a touchy subject, one example:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_deaf_people_in_Nazi_Germany?wprov=sfla1
Some references for general culture
https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn?wprov=sfla1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics?wprov=sfla1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_hygiene?wprov=sfla1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization?wprov=sfla1

Since I never want to pass my disfunctional genes on, I'd gladly accept money to get myself sterilized.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_law_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1

This form of self depreciation show that you really care and that you are better than many others.

I know that usually when men get vasectomy or something like that they will more than likely die due to a heart attack but I think it's like cause of the lose of hormones but I think you can take pills but then does it work as good as the real thing?is it safe with no side effects?are the possible side effects worse than your current one/ones? I really don't care to know what your answers are my questions were to just make you think about a couple things… In that area

But if there was a simple way of doing this OP that has no danger to me I'd do it for money, but I really don't use my dick other than self abuse(lulz) and ain't interested in being in a relationship even if it is rust sex. How's that for a data mine?

...

are you implying that white 3DPD that fuck only niggers due to nigger somehow being 8-10/10 even tho they have low IQs and thus their earning of money limited, or that replacing 3DPD with robots is better then making niggers sterilized.

Thank you for doing your job by not procreate the baby with bad genetic. I wish that there are more people like you. :(

Bump

Not user your responding to but replacing 3DPD with companion bots and growing new children in facilities that are strictly controlled and regulated where as tampering with protocol is a death sentence to trying to fight cucks,chads, soyboys, and women to stop them breeding hordes of niggers and subhumans. It is far more easy to set up a whole new system to the one we have now. Instead of focusing on developing families, men have been driven to needing to remake the whole damn thing from scratch.

Still to many guys that think they have good genetics breeding with women who also think they have good genetics to make any difference. I know a lot of single healthy guys who never need to visit the doctors and fight off any sickness naturally that will never have children because women don't want healthy men they want media men.

we could just throw 3DPD out, and let them be the nigger's problem, and lose nothing.
just have family via hte artificial womb, and get companionship form robots.
We still get what we want, and we don't have to take care of 3DPD.
it is a win-win for us.

from robots*

you should all support planned parenthood….
even if this quote is bullshit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics

That's what i figure is the best way to finally stop cucks importing subhumans with their Chads leftover 3DPD women. Also this will put a stop to soyboy orbiter wanting used up 3DPD since they can just have a sexbot and wont have to waste time and resources on women. All we really have to do to accomplish this is keep being "beta providers" and spending our wealth on programs that will benefit us instead of women and "the state".
Planned parenthood would be good but they do alot of shady shit. If they just stopped degenerates from having kids then fine but they give them a free drug ride and get out of responsibility card. Now if they castrated all women who walked in after the abortion then that would be a good program to support. But, they don't so it's not fixing a problem and costing to mush money where it can be spent in developing companion bots.

various real quotes
In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of 'fit' and 'unfit.' Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind. But among the writings of the representative Eugenists one cannot ignore the distinct middle-class bias that prevails.
Chapter 8, "Dangers of Cradle Competition" (also quoted in Charles Valenza, "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.)

Eugenics aims to arouse the enthusiasm or the interest of the people in the welfare of the world fifteen or twenty generations in the future. On its negative side it shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization.
Chapter 8, "Dangers of Cradle Competition"

Our 'overhead' expense in segregating the delinquent, the defective and the dependent, in prisons, asylums and permanent homes, our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrate our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism. No industrial corporation could maintain its existence upon such a foundation. Yet hardheaded 'captains of industry,' financiers who pride themselves upon their cool-headed and keen-sighted business ability are dropping millions into rosewater philanthropies and charities that are silly at best and vicious at worst. In our dealings with such elements there is a bland maladministration and misuse of huge sums that should in all righteousness be used for the development and education of the healthy elements of the community.

quote continued
[Charity] conceals a stupid cruelty, because it is not courageous enough to face unpleasant facts. Aside from the question of the unfitness of many women to become mothers, aside from the very definite deterioration in the human stock that such programs would inevitably hasten, we may question its value even to the normal though unfortunate mother. For it is never the intention of such philanthropy to give the poor over-burdened and often undernourished mother of the slum the opportunity to make the choice herself, to decide whether she wishes time after time to bring children into the world. It merely says 'Increase and multiply: We are prepared to help you do this.' Whereas the great majority of mothers realize the grave responsibility they face in keeping alive and rearing the children they have already brought into the world, the maternity center would teach them how to have more. The poor woman is taught how to have her seventh child, when what she wants to know is how to avoid bringing into the world her eighth. … Such philanthropy, as Dean Inge has so unanswerably pointed out, is kind only to be cruel, and unwittingly promotes precisely the results most deprecated. It encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.

Chapter 5, "The Cruelty of Charity"

cucks just go along with it, 3DPD are the ones that are importing niggers and such, not because they want BBC meme, but because they need a workforce to pay for their benefits and the government, for without those things, 3DPD will have to submit to men again, however if things ever become good again, 3DPD will start working to fuck it up again, so replacing 3DPD is the only way to fix this shit for good.

support abortions, at least for negroes

abortions for negros should be mandatory and prohibited for whites

I don't think we can just leave the cucks alone. Women don't save up, they spend when they get a check in. So women need cucks cash to import niggers. Also, niggers don't work all they do is fuck. So they are just like women when it boils down to comparison. Importing them wont generate future funds for women to leech off of. If this is what they think will happen then we have to start developing replacement companion bots faster. I've been pushing alot of single guys i know who can't find any "good 3DPD" to start investing into robotics and AI development. So far there is one good company with quantum computer chips but the only way to allow companion bots to have it as of now is to have it streamed to them since the space required to have the chip function is way to large.

3DPD are the brains, cucks are the hands. For now the cucks are the only thing we can deal with, we could deal with 3DPD, but they have the cuck white knights to protect them, so we have to deal with them either way.
I didn't say it would work, most niggers are lazy, and even if they weren't, they don't have the IQs to do jobs that would make enough money to support 3DPD's welfare state. importing niggers are just the last effort.
I hope we are saved by technology as well.

Hope is for women and niggers. You can't go by hope, you have to focus on what must be done to fix or at least prepare for whats coming. Start putting your energy is solving the problem even if you can only put a bit of that energy in. Cucks are a lost cause, Chads can be subverted once sexbots are better then 3DPD since all they want is easy hole. Whiteknights can be "tricked" into protecting an AI that will be attacked by women. Since whitenights don't get laid anyways it will be natural for them. The only ones we will have to fight are married (inslaved) men that will be pushed by their women (masters) to ban companion bots. So when it comes down to it, yes we will need to focus on degenerate women to fight. For the few men that actually have a good family and found that 1% good 3DPD they must understand this is not about them. It's about stopping the mass degenerates from continuing to gain power.

dude, I like an IQ in the 90s, I can't really do anything

I have an IQ*

So you can't sit down and learn shit? Don't be a lazy bitch, start to do some work even if its only a small amount every day. IQ can be increased over time unless your a women or a nigger. I was a lazy little bitch much like yourself once, but i stopped give a shit what Chads, and 3DPD said about me and now i have wealth and poorfags working under me. You don't have to be smart all around just be good at something. When i feel like i'm a dumbshit i always tell myself this "A rocket scientist that's considered a genius in his field will become a total idiot when taken out of that field and placed in a situation where a vagabond now has more important knowledge then him". You understand? Knowledge is situational and also requires wisdom on how to use it. So stop fucking yourself over and making excuses.

a shitty processor can't run some programs that too sophisticated
same principal with the brain with concepts and skills that require a lot of cognitive capacity
IQ is mostly if not all hereditary.

Not even close. Humans have the ability to adapt more than any other species, it's all about environment.

So your saying your a subhuman? Or are you just lazy and don't want to put in any work, in that case your acting like a nigger.

true, but raw cognitive capacity are genes
you can learn how better to do things in your environment, and thus have adapted to your environment, but your IQ remains unchanged.

if I could fix my brain with crispr, or some other method of horizontal gene transfer, and give myself an 300+ IQ, I'd happy to help in the fight against gynocentrism, however I simply am unable to do so, and struggle to keep my head above water in economic context, so I can't be much help.

You're entirely full of shit.

about?

WAITO PIGGU GO HOOOOME

Your should all start foundation for your charitable deeds for coloured people
Sell abortive pills at a discount or even offer it.
Heavy subsides for abortions and sterilization maybe with special offer for combined ops

...

...

If you can't swim you deserve to drown.

Unless there is something wrong with the unborn babies then the abortion is allowed.

b-but muh publically financed birth control is socialism!

Sterilization is fine, but abortion is murder.
vid related.
he still makes a good argument.

he is a kike

abortion isnt murder and he doesnt make a good argument

what trait defines life

i dont know

A chicken is alive. A blade of grass is alive. Life is only one factor.

human life

its not more special, cuz its human

that's what murder is dumbass

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought

it really isnt

Abortion isnt murder, just like denying a kidney to your kid isnt murder

It's alive and human, you're ending a human life. That's murder.

a baby isn't human?

its not a baby

It's been spelled out a million ways to your stupid ass why it is murder and all you can reply with us "NUH-UH, IT ISN'T." It isn't, isn't a fucking argument.

If you can provide reason that killing a human baby isn't murder, by all means, but if you're just going to keep repeating "It isn't" over and over, you're the reason less people support abortion year after year. You can't argue your position, because your position like you is GARBAGE.

what makes it a baby?

A fetus is a baby. The word fetus stems from the latin fecund or "to suckle". Fetus literally means baby you mouthbreathing retard. Just quoting yourself saying "nuh-uh" isn't an argument.

its not a baby and denying organs to your offsprings isnt murder
a foetus doesnt have the right to use other ppls organs without their consent

You already lost on this point retard, fetus literally means baby. Try again.

She gave consent by having sex, not using contraceptive, not having sex other than coitus, not having their partner use a condom, and allowing their partner to ejaculate inside her womb. She gave consent at least FIVE times.

you don't give any organs away, what a shitty equvalence.

if foetus literally means "baby", why is it "foetus" and ot "baby"?
No, foetus isnt a baby
Consent to sex isnt consent to pregnancy, just like constent to having a child isnt consent to be an organ bank for it

when u work, u ont give your arms away. Its her uterus and she decides to lend it to who she chooses, or not

It's my house, does that mean I can deny my children food?

The abortionist is so stupid he's pretending he's never heard of synonyms. This is like saying apple isn't a fruit because it's called apple, or that soda and pop are different things. Stop pretending to be dumber than you are, it's a synonym imbecile.

Yes, it is. Because she knew the risks and chose to take them. It's like hanging a sign on your front door that says "free room for rent, enter if you like" and then claiming you're being robbed when someone moves in.

once it becomes a child, u r responsible, so no.

synonym is a word of a SIMILAR meaning.
Ill just solve it for u: foetuses live in uteruses, babies dont
No, it isnt. Walking out isnt consent to be hit by a car

No, I'm just going to pull straight from the fucking dictionary to shut your stupid ass up.

Synonym - a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language

And fetus?

It literally means baby. This is how stupid you are. Now march your tard ass back here and admit your stupid ass has no argument and just got owned by repeating "N-n-no it isn't!" like you have brain damaged, and the dictionary is wrong.

I've already proven it is. Just say "no it isn't" again if you explicitly admit it is and that you have a severe form of mental retardation. Do it, faggot. Do it. Now.

ABORTIONIST BLOWN THE FUCK OUT

This is like proclaiming soda is only soda while it's in a can, but as soon as you pour it out it becomes something else.

You're creating an artificial distinction that exists only in your ass and asserting it should be taken as fact. You really SUCK at arguing.

Wait, what's that?
Speak up britfag, say again?
One more time…
FOETUSES LIVE

And we've established foetus is a synonym for baby, it's human and you've admitted it's alive, to terminate it is murder. Thank you, fuck off.

You pay me to sterilize me? Where do I sign in?
BTW I'm of Italian descent so that qualifies as non white.

it literall doesnt mean "baby"

No, u didnt prove it is

on top of "needing to live in a uterus" is a big difference from being able to live out of some1s body

"living isnt a criteria. Your skin cells live too
its not a baby

You mean like you're conveniently omitting "OR"?

You're leaving out a ton here:
It specifies it's been born.
Tell me retard, how does it suckle in the womb? Fetus comes from fecund which literally means to suckle.

I see you admit you have no argument and are retarded. Please say "No I didn't" to also confess you have micropenis.

why do I become responsible once the child is out of the uterus and not eralier. how do you morally justify that?

Did you seriously try to reference lava and magma as if that was a counter argument?

And now you're trying to move goal posts and assert survivability is an issue? Tell me genius, how well does a newborn or for that matter a 2 year old survive without an adult taking care of it? That's a shit argument if ever I heard one.

its 1 OR another, foetus is "nearly"
offspring doesnt specify this
words r defined by use, unfortunately and twats like u try to push "foetus" to mean "baby", so i can oppose this easily
its just a core of the word, not its meaning

cuz u carried it to term. Also u can put it out for adoption

its an example of "the same or similar thing" having differnt name and definition, and i also did justify why they r different - u quoted the explanation

Listen fuckwit, if you want to argue this get off your fatass, build a time machine, go back to the first printing of a dictionary and get them to change the definition. Until you've done that, you lost ages ago. The definition of fetus is literally baby. This has been clobbered over your stupid had again and again, just screeching futilely that it's not doesn't change that it is by definition a baby.

The fact that you're unwilling to argue on the basis of it being a baby shows that deep down you KNOW your beliefs are wrong. You think if you just call it something else it changes the act but you've provided utterly no basis to redefine life to suit your idiotic whims shitforbrains. It's alive, it's a baby, you're killing it, she gave consent, now come back and repeat the same non-argument again.

No, or means it's both. Synonym means the same, and the definition of fetus was provided to demonstrate the basis for it meaning baby. You have provided nothing to refute this, you just assert it isn't without any reasoning or logic. Again, the dictionary > you. Your whining amounts to NOTHING in the face of it. You're wrong. You lost. You're an idiot ashamed of endorsing the murder of babies. DEAL WITH IT.

Me and the dictionary you mean asshat. You haven't a leg to stand on at this point. It's a baby.

definitions change all the time with use, u shit
foetus isnt a baby, no1 is killing babies and a foetus doesnt have the right to use other ppl organs without their consent

All u try to do is play with my emotions to make me regret a death. I dont care. U dont have rational arguments, so u can kill yourself

Something unborn cannot suckle, you're trying to weasel out of this but you can't because you're wrong.

Ah yes, tell you what,

CONTACT ME WHEN THEY CHANGE YOU COLOSSAL FUCKING RETARD.

When it changes in the dictionary, come back and gloat about how it has. Until then your stupid ass just got handed to you and there's not shit you can say about it. So repeat after me "The dictionary is wrong! I'm not killing babies! It's not real until it exits the magic hole! I don't have to give you a reason you shit!!!" and beat your fists impotently on your keyboard.

The dictionary has already proven it is a baby and all your whining and repeating yourself won't make you any less stupid.

(dictionary note: Fetus means baby)

She gave consent when she had sex knowing the possible consequences. This has already been established. She knew a baby could result and chose to go through the one and only set of events that could lead to a pregnancy.

look up "faggot", faggot

A fetus is a stage in the prenatal development of viviparous organisms. In human development, a fetus or foetus (/ˈfiːtəs/; plural fetuses or foetuses) is a prenatal human between the embryonic state and birth.

Next timeuse the specific dictionaries

Men r mammals, yet they dont feed kids with nipples. Why r they mammals?

Trying to limit it only to your definition when it's already been shown the entirety of the definition says it's a baby and that the word itself comes from fecund which means "to suck". Shameful.

The dictionary says it's a baby, taking out key words won't change this faggot. It's a baby.

Now tell me, why are you so embarrassed to admit you endorse the murder of babies?

you aren't responsible as long as it actually needs you but you somehow become responsible for it exactly at the moment it doesn't depend on your body anymore? this doesn't make sense.
yes, why do you need a right to kill it then?

Because they suckle on their mother's mammary glands and are born from them, duh. Serious question, are you twelve? What's with all this "r" "u" shit? Are apostraphes beyond your grasp as well? Do you just keep repeating refuted arguments as a consequence of your age?

the diference is my definition defines the reality, not a word

your children might need your kidney, heart or liver and u r not obliged to provide, even though they can die without them
Its not a right to kill - why r u trying to give a right to use somebody elses organs without consent to no1 but foetuses?

men r not mammals
your logic is stunning

they can get the organs from someone else

Listen to yourself, you're trying to assert with no basis at all that because it's your definition it's "reality". The word is the reality you retard. The definition of fetus is that it's a baby. You have dodged again and again answering what the difference is between it whether or not it was removed from the uterus. It's the same organism. There is no difference other than it's location, it's not shrodinger's womb you fuckwit.

Truly, you are profoundly idiotic. Men have "breasts" and can be induced to lactate through hormonal means or various drugs such as domperidone.

She gave consent by having sex knowing the pregnancy could result.

they r not allowed to use other organs without consent either

word is a concept and it exists conceptually, unlike a foetus

consent to sex isnt consent to pregnancy, weve been over this and u lost that argument

Tina and Sarah are both pregnant.

Tina gives birth prematurely at 5 months. The baby is alive and healthy, she suffocates it in a garbage bag.

Sarah decides at six months to have an abortion. The baby though a month older is killed while in the womb.

Explain to me why one of these women should be charged with murder and the other shouldn't.

Which the dictionary defines as a synonym for baby against all your screeching and wailing.

You're moving goal posts, another admission you've lost the argument, and you further demonstrate your ignorance of basic biology. Sperm cannot become a baby by itself, it must enter an egg. Neither sperm nor egg is a child until the two meet. Shame you evidently flunked reproductive health.

We've been over this and YOU lost that argument. She's consenting to sex knowing full well she's risking pregnancy. That is giving consent.

they don't depend on only one person, there is still a chance for them to survive if the mother denies it. your argument would be valid if a child could only receive organs from their own mother, and in that hypothetical scenario I'd argue that a mother should be forced to give them as long as it doesn't put her health at risk.

i gave a definition of murder
Tinas intent was to carry it to term
Sarah didnt consent to lend her uterus anymore

why would "u can jam hormones in men and that causes them to develop breasts" be an argument for "men have breasts" Is it cuz u can develop them? Well, sperm can be children, so masturbation is murder. Sperm is alive, u know

no - u lost it. Twice now with the same example

Thats no argument. Its not their organs to decide about, regardless of their dependancy

The dead cannot give consent, this is why necrophilia is illegal. Therefor organ donation is rape and theft and should be illegal.

theres your problem

...

Why do you hate women so much that you seem to think they're so stupid they don't understand that if they let a man cum inside their vagina they have a good chance of getting pregnant? You must be super misogynistic to think they're seriously that stupid. I mean if they're not braindead, they've giving consent. Obviously.

Because the same can't be said of giving the same hormones to reptiles or birds, idiot. It only works on mammals who have this capability. Duh.

No, it can't. It can't become a child until it meets an egg. That's the whole point. There is no other way for it to become a child.

why do u hate women so much u want to take away their right to decide about their own bodies?

and foetus cant become a baby without a uterus, so not giving it the uterus solves the problem

Just saying "No you lost it" isn't proving it, imbecile.

Driving doesn't have a near guarantee of a crash. A more accurate analogy would be driving drunk is giving consent to a crash, or driving off a cliff is giving consent to a risk of injury or death. This is like asserting attempting suicide isn't giving consent to die.

I see you have no response and are admitting that either women consent, or you think they're all retarded. They "invited" the baby in, why do you care only about her and not the baby she forced into being? The baby didn't ask to be there, the mother decided it. What gives her dominion over the baby's body?

nice ignoring the rest of the post. if she 1. doesn't put her health at risk and 2. is the only person that can help yes, I believe that would be morally right. You don't? The mother would be at least guilty of denial of assistance.

Now you're starting to get it! And she gave the sperm access to her uterus when she consented to a man CUMMING INSIDE IT YOU FUCKING RETARD.

the rest of the post is irrelevant, if i disagree to force her to do it in any case

u still dont get it, though.She didnt gave consent for the foetus to use her uterus to use it for development

consent to sex isnt consent to pregnancy and thats not consent to remain pregnant. Just like driving isnt consent to be killed in a crash and its not a consent to drive others and to their estination

Mo it's not. Forced in a legal sense of course, she can still deny it but it would be a crime. You think it shouldn't be?

yes, it is - i disagree to your conditions too

so if someone's dying and you're the only one who can help, you could save his life without putting your own life at risk, but you choose not to. You shouldn't be punished for letting that person die?

i shouldnt

for the same reason every1 is not obliged to always donate organs all the time

even if the person is a small child? let's put punishment aside and answer if you think it would be right to let it die.

no1 is obliged to donate organs for no1. And child thats also small is even better reason to let it die - parents r still able to reproduce and the investment isnt that big yet

now you're dodging the question. we already went through this, the situation is different: only you can help and you don't have any significant loss by doing it.

i dont have a gain either. Its still a different situation, than consent to use organs. And u cant sway me with emotional appeal

wait nvm, you think letting children die in general is right, of course you are pro abortion then.

who do u save: a parent, or a child?

murderer

if I had to choose? probably the child because it's less likely to be able to help himself.

u want to murder adults
no wonder u r pro enslavement