Re: Life Duty Death

Julie Locascio (
Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:29:10

>In the article about mandatory sterilization, the writer referred to a
>woman Lidia Garcia who had been pressured after her fifth child to be
>sterilized. She refused and after the birth of her SIXTH baby, she awoke
>to find that she had had a "tubal ligation" done
>How many children SHOULD she have?

Have you ever thought to wonder why she did not want the tubal ligation done?
Probably because she was taught it was a sin, and probably because motherhood
is the highest social attainment a woman can hope for in Mexico. Aside from
the issue of whether or not you agree with the value of those perceptions, the
fact remains that those are what were probably motivating her. A forced
sterilization may make her feel that she is no longer a complete woman and no
longer a good Catholic. This is a very callous attitude on your part. A
person's beliefs about what her/his gender means, and how their eternal soul
finds harmony with the universe are two of the most fundamental aspects of
their personality. You are, in effect, attacking such a person's strongest
beliefs. Your are forcing them to live their life against their own
fundamental beliefs--this would be EXACTLY psychologically and morally
equivalent to somebody forcing YOU to get pregnant and have a baby which you
vehmently do not want.

If you feel such a woman's beliefs can be converted to something else,
violently attacking her body is not exactly the best method of getting your
[rational?!' point of view across. (And while we're at it, how come you did
not question the fact that SHE was the one forcibly sterilized, and not the
MAN getting her pregnant? Vasectomies have far fewer health risks than tubal

Children in Mexico in the socio-economic level these were in
>do NOT RECIEVE ANY OF THESE THIBGS with the exception of love.

So you are saying only rich people should have children? Interesting social
theory--but don't be surprised if rich people end up having to drive their own
cars, do their own gardening, launder their own clothes, etc., etc., as the
poor classes disappear from existence.

>Also, Mexico is a debtor nation. It cannot AFFORD the people it has NOW.
>Their population is burgeoning at a horrible pace. Right now, the Mexican
>government practises "geographical popuylation control". That's right,
>the excess population streams North. How many can WE absorb?

Mexico is not a debtor nation because of high fertility. Have you ever even
studied economics? Mexico had a huge economic boom when petroleum prices got
high, and was given a lot of loans during that period with the expectation
that they would be easily repaid. When petroleum prices dropped, Mexico could
not pay back the loans because the corrupt politicians had stolen or wasted
most of the loans in unproductive projects. Poor economic planning and
corruption caused the debt crisis in Mexico--not high fertility. And yes, if
you lived in Mexico, you would probably head North, too, because that is the
rational thing to do. Mexicans are not "told" to do it by the government or
anybody else--it is obvious. We can absorb plenty--already have--and it is
the least we can do considering U.S. bankers are the ones responsible for
giving most of the loans that have got Mexico into trouble in the first place.
And if you kick out the Mexicans, I hope you figure out a way to get around
your disability and start picking vegetables for yourself, or you may have to
switch to an all-meat-and-potatoes diet.