A Moral Proposal

I'm finally getting around to writing this little nugget, after years of debating whether or not I should. I have to admit that the idea itself isn't mine -- it was proposed to me by my lovely, intelligent, (social worker) fiance. I debated whether or not to write this because, while not everybody has agreed with my socio-political stances, I've never been accused of being a fascist before. That may change now.

What raised the issue again for me recently was that our illustrious Gov. Perry signed a bill requiring mandatory vaccination for 12-year-old girls against HPV (the virus that causes cervical cancer) before they can be admitted to school. This has caused a minor uproar here in Texas, with some people congratulating the governor for his forward-thinking stance, while others are calling him a fascist dictator for forcing a vaccine that focuses on a behavior-based illness. This raised the question on the talk shows and pundit circuit -- how far can/should the government go in requiring medical procedures for its citizens? Even if it's for a cause that most agree is good and just, should the government have that much control over our bodies? And exactly how "good and just" does a cause have to be to require such a measure?

As usual, I see both sides of the argument. I feel uncomfortable with that kind of intrusion, but if the positive effect of the act is virtually indisputable, what's the harm? It's a tough issue, which is why the debate has been so heated. However, I'll scoff at your little HPV vaccine controversy, and go you one further: If such a measure were medically possible and readily available to every citizen free of charge, I believe there should be mandatory sterilization for every infant born in the U.S.

Wow, how Orwellian is that, eh? However, our "Big Brother" was originally designed to govern a few thousand people, not the 300 million that we have today. Virtually all of our government systems -- legal, medical, social, etc. -- are screwed up beyond repair. The problems are systemic, which means that they can't be fixed without a complete overhaul or even destruction and rebuilding of the systems themselves. Unfortunately, too many people rely every day on these systems for their health and livelihoods, so we can't just do away with them. The reason these systems are beyond repair, besides corruption and unscrupulous givers and takers, is overpopulation. The U.S. is in serious danger of overpopulation. Our systems can't work because there are simply too many people trying to use them (and abuse them) for an infinite number of reasons.

Since we can't tear down the systems and start over, and since a citizen revolution would be plain unsavory, and since we can't just go around exterminating 1/3 of our population (even more unsavory), we need to plug the hole in the dam... so to speak.

As fascist and ugly as mandatory sterilization at birth sounds, it would work if these 3 principles were followed: 1) The procedure is completely safe, 2) The sterilization is easily and 100% reversible, and 3) The reversal procedure is free to everyone and easily accessible to all people.

The arguments against such a measure are easy. People would say that you can't take away reproductive rights that way, and that the government shouldn't be able to manipulate our bodies in such an extreme way, and it would be too expensive, and it would be too dangerous. Also, since the Catholicism specifically forbids birth control in any form, it would be impossible to implement for religious reasons. All valid arguments. So let me say, for the sake of this discussion, that I realize this is a hypothetical situation. For this to work, the vaccine (as it were) would have to be foolproof, meaning 100% safe and 100% reversible, and medicine just doesn't work that way. And since such a drug doesn't exist in today's world, I admit that this "moral proposal" is purely hypothetical here in 2007.

That said, for the sake of discussion let's stipulate that the vaccine we're talking about does fit the "foolproof" criteria. The vaccine is harmless, can be administered at birth or pre-adolescence (maybe a type of tiny implant in the arm), and can be removed easily at any time. The removal causes instant fertility. The removal can be done at any doctor's office or free clinic, takes only a few minutes, is virtually painless, and is totally free of charge.

As bizarre is this sounds, no one's rights would be taken away. All that would happen is the elimination of accidental pregnancy -- a person must actually choose to have a child. A person would actually have to make a tiny effort (besides "doin' it") to be able to get pregnant and have kids. We have to go someplace to get a license to drive a car, own a gun, go fishing, or get married. Getting pregnant is the only thing humans do (and the most important thing we do) that takes virtually no effort, no planning, no money, no nothing. All you have to do is have unprotected sex. What a chore. Literally ANYBODY can have kids, and they have to do nothing to earn them (OK, except for having to go through childbirth and all). We don't even have to take care of them, because the government will do it for us. Under this proposal, all you would have to do to be able to have children is go to a clinic for 30 minutes. Not that much to ask for something so important, is it?

So what would all this accomplish? It would virtually eliminate teenage pregnancy, and it would pretty much do away with abortion and all the subsequent arguments and culture wars. Without the millions of unwanted and un-cared-for kids, crime would go down significantly. And with that, our jails would be less crowded, and we could keep violent criminals in them instead of the revolving door we have now. Government programs like Child Protective Services and Welfare Services wouldn't be so overtaxed and outgunned, since sheer volume is the main reason for their dysfunctionality. I'm pretty sure that no one (except for sociopathic capitalists) thinks that we need more than 300 million people in the U.S., so our population growth could slow down from exponential growth to mere multiplicitous growth.

Since one of the principles our country is founded on is welcoming immigration (unless you're 100% Native American, we're all immigrants from somewhere), we are inherently bound for overpopulation, if we're not already there. I doubt that our founding fathers had any idea that their 13 colonies would become the world's largest superpower and the most successful empire in history, much less in the tiny space of 200 years, so the founding policy of welcoming immigration and population growth didn't account for America's domination and cultural popularity worldwide. In the first 50-100 years of our existence, policies and programs were conceived, such as boundless capitalism, our legal system, and social welfare, that were never meant to be exercised by 300 million people. Those systems work for an at-least-semi-scrupulous group of thousands, but with the infinite number of situations and individual loopholes that are inherent with 300 million, the systems break down. If we can stabilize our population growth, through a program such as mandatory, reversible sterilization at birth, then our systems and the principles of our founding fathers may still have some chance to work. If not, and we keep going at the frenetic and conscious-less pace we are going, then we're only going to keep getting worse.

As drastic as this "moral proposal" is, I think most people agree that some drastic measure is needed to keep from destroying the principles our country was founded on. With this proposal, no one's rights would be taken away. Literally anyone and everyone can have children, as many as they want. They just have to make one tiny errand to be able to do it. Children are the most revered commodity of any society, since the adults they become dictate the way our society is able to function. In our current situation, our society is barely functioning, but occasionally functions well. Those occasions will become fewer and fewer if we continue on our current pace of unfettered population growth, increasing government and corporate corruption, and the societal apathy of our citizenry. To keep our society from eventually completely breaking down, something drastic will probably have to be done at some point. Since no one really wants a violent revolution or another Civil War, which is where we're headed in the next hundred years or two, this proposal (if it were realistically feasible) would be a viable, moral option.

Roger