Since this is only semi-serious discussion, forget the fact that it's considered genocide, the people that are protesting, the monetary need for this to happen, etc.
What would you feel if people legally needed to be scanned for most detectable STDs before having a child and had to abort if they both have an STD and are pregnant, but still could adopt (given that they're not pedos that would have sex with the child)?
If it were actually possible, I think it would destroy almost all STDs after one generation, more strongly encourage people to know about their own and their partner's STDs before sex, and reduce amount of orphans.
I actually think this is a pretty good idea. Not only would it keep the population down a bit and give orphans homes and families, but there would be no more STDs. caterpie;
...Why would it be considered genocide?
I don't see how preventing people with STDs from having kids would stop the spread of STDs.
Last time I checked one didn't get pregnant every time they had sex. They could just have sex and spread it.
also, how is that genocide?
Wikipedia: While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 of this defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Meh, I dunno if people with STDs counts as a valid group for that but whatever.
Considering that I'm against abortion in the first place...
Quote from: JMV290 on February 17, 2008, 12:45:07 PM
I don't see how preventing people with STDs from having kids would stop the spread of STDs.
Last time I checked one didn't get pregnant every time they had sex. They could just have sex and spread it.
Unless people have sex with people significantly younger than themselves, the disease shouldn't spread to younger generations.
Quote from: bluaki on February 17, 2008, 01:45:55 PM
Unless people have sex with people significantly younger than themselves, the disease shouldn't spread to younger generations.
Or maybe some one has sex with some one 3 years younger than them, gives it to them, and they then give have sex with some one 3 years younger than them, and the cycle repeats.
uh, not every std can be transmitted to the fetus while in the womb, if that's what you're getting at psyduck;
also, i see no reason why this would be a deterrent at all to men, given that they can't give birth doodthing;