If one can say that one can kill a man who has not yet been conceived, by stopping his hypothetical future birth, then every form of contraception is murder, nay, the simple election not to have sex or otherwise procreate is then murder.

The argument of genocide of course does not imply that the man who is sterilized is killed so long as he be allowed to live after the sterilization, but rather that his future, hypothetical offspring is, because it would now never come to be.

The comparison I made was with forced foreskin removal and forced dental correction, something that can also not be undone.

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

As usual, U.N. definitions are made without much thought, and quickly lead to the absurd when being held to even the slightest of inspection — it is almost as if it be a forum of very emotional men, who put very little thought into what they are doing.

If we say that stopping future births rather is problematic, then most forms of sex education are problematic.

That would be perhaps true if the Dutch government were planning to give out free condoms only to white people or only to black people or only to blonds or only to christians etc. If they are universally giving out condoms, then they are obviously not trying to destroy any particular ethnic or national group inside their own country - the obvious limit to the UN definition.

Then they are only giving them out to the “ethnicity” called “the Dutchman”.

But this another matter of why I'm never very impressed with any definition that names the pseudoscientific concept of “ethnicity” — it is of course entirely an arbitrary thing what is and isn't classified as a separate “ethnicity” much like how the difference between a dialect and a separate language is of course one of politics, not science.

If only the province of Frisia were to have a plan for handing out such condoms, would that qualify as genocide of the Frisians then, which some claim is a different ethnicity for historical reasons? Are the inhabitants of each city perhaps a different ethnicity?

If you permanently and compulsorily sterilized everyone in Frisia, yes, that'd be a genocide. Giving them condoms they can voluntarily and reversibly use is not.

If the government were giving out free vasectomies or tubal ligations to certain ethnic groups and not others, that would be a wildly different story.

I'm simply saying that by the U.N.'s definition of “genocide”, handing out condoms can be construed as such, and that the definition is therefore not worth much, or rather, that following it's definition, genocide is not problematic per se¯, as it does not necessarily involve the involuntary taking of human life.

Free condom initiatives typically do not have that intent.

However, if the local authorities in Frisia were to implement such a plan, that would be closer to the first case of universal measures, since the authorities in Frisia shouldn't be expected to hand out condoms in other provinces. Of course, if it turned out that the measure was in fact planned by the central government and passed off as a local idea, that would again move the needle towards being suspicious.

In general, intent matters - that is why the law can't be formalized mathematically. If a country is targeting some group that it has historically considered "different" (regardless of how questionable the difference is) with some kind of measure which may have negative consequences, that measure should receive scrutiny, and the context should be identified. For example, giving poor people condoms may be an attempt at population control in one country, while in another country it may be a democratically enacted benefit.

We are far away from providing mathematically clear definitions of legal concepts such as genocide, murder, theft, fraud and anything you like. There are always surprising subtleties, and intent and context are always going to be a part of the definition.

>However, if the local authorities in Frisia were to implement such a plan, that would be closer to the first case of universal measures, since the authorities in Frisia shouldn't be expected to hand out condoms in other provinces. Of course, if it turned out that the measure was in fact planned by the central government and passed off as a local idea, that would again move the needle towards being suspicious.

This is a distinction you make, but not a distinction the U.N. definition makes, which shows that you, much as I do, do not find the definition credible.

The U.N. definition does not factor in supranationality as a condition.

> In general, intent matters

Perhaps, but that difference is not given in the U.N. definition.

> that is why the law can't be formalized mathematically.

Then the definition should have never been offered as a rebuttal.

> If a country is targeting some group that it has historically considered "different" (regardless of how questionable the difference is) with some kind of measure which may have negative consequences, that measure should receive scrutiny, and the context should be identified. For example, giving poor people condoms may be an attempt at population control in one country, while in another country it may be a democratically enacted benefit.

All of this goes far beyond the original definition and is quite ad hoc.

I suspect that if further challenges and exceptions be raised against all these further rules, that more ad hoc rules are further and further added.

> We are far away from providing mathematically clear definitions of legal concepts such as genocide, murder, theft, fraud and anything you like. There are always surprising subtleties, and intent and context are always going to be a part of the definition.

Indeed we are, so perhaps the definition should not have been offered as if it actually be meaningful and the U.N. should drop the prætence of it's having “definitions” and “rules” for what is clearly simply “we rule on a case by case basis, mostly on our gut feeling.”

And that is too how laws work. I find that in practice the written text of the law is largely irrelevant vis a` vis the gut feeling of whatever man vested with the power to interpret the law and I believe that not much would change in practice if entire law books were simply replaced with “The judge may do as he will and punish what he finds immoral on a case by case basis.”

Rule of law is almost always a veil for rule of men.

> Perhaps, but that difference is not given in the U.N. definition.

Yes, it is. The UN's 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines it explicitly with intent in mind:

"... genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."

Of course it is! The definition explicitly says "any of the following acts committed with the intent to [...]".

One more thing that the definition says that I hadn't even noticed and that significantly simplifies my examples, and immediately makes your example clearly NOT genocide, is that point (d) talks about imposing reproductive restrictions, which offering free condoms will never do.

> All of this goes far beyond the original definition and is quite ad hoc.

Yes, I was going beyond the strict definition of genocide and exploring similar concepts. The idea of defining what "ethnic groups" etc. means by historical precedent is probably the exact intent of the UN definition, though.

> And that is too how laws work. I find that in practice the written text of the law is largely irrelevant vis a` vis the gut feeling of whatever man vested with the power to interpret the law and I believe that not much would change in practice if entire law books were simply replaced with “The judge may do as he will and punish what he finds immoral on a case by case basis.”

This is completely wrong for 99% of law, and might be slightly true for a few aspects of criminal law. In 99% of cases, the judge is ruling entirely on the law, there is no moral cause to be explored.

In general, actions done to children by their parents (or with their parents' expressed, unequivocal consent) are not considered "forced" except in cases where the harm is large. So, male circumcision or teeth corrections or vaccinations are not "forced" on the children, because they are acts that their parents consider are beneficial to the child.

However, if the state were to force children to be circumcised or have their teeth aligned regardless of their parents' desires, then most people would object to that.

Even more importantly, any actions which affect someone's ability to use their body in a normal way are generally considered abhorrent. That is why male circumcision is usually tolerated, while female circumcision is an abomination, even if done by one's parents. Forced sterilization is obviously in the second case, since it is terminally preventing someone from performing one of the 3 fundamental components of life.

Obviously so is forced foreskin removal and forced tooth correction, so I fail to see that point.

> In general, actions done to children by their parents (or with their parents' expressed, unequivocal consent) are not considered "forced" except in cases where the harm is large. So, male circumcision or teeth corrections or vaccinations are not "forced" on the children, because they are acts that their parents consider are beneficial to the child.

I see, so it would be fine of the parents were the ones forcibly sterilizing them rather than the government.

I find that absurd: I for one am in favor of government-mandated vaccinations and find this to be a very desirable thing opposed to letting parents be the ones to decide.

> However, if the state were to force children to be circumcised or have their teeth aligned regardless of their parents' desires, then most people would object to that.

Yes, which I find absurd.

It matters not to the man whose body was irreparably altered whence the order to do so came — it's a rather shallow comfort to then be told that it was fine because it was the will of one's parents rather than the government's.

> Even more importantly, any actions which affect someone's ability to use their body in a normal way are generally considered abhorrent. That is why male circumcision is usually tolerated, while female circumcision is an abomination, even if done by one's parents. Forced sterilization is obviously in the second case, since it is terminally preventing someone from performing one of the 3 fundamental components of life.

Yes, you call it fundamental which goes right back to that it only holders water if one considers reproduction a higher goal that all must aspire to.

And with “all”, one can argue roughly half of all; I've noticed that he moral queasiness of sterilization of the male seems to be quite a bit lower than with sterilization of the female — as if that not be rooted in some belief that a female's primary function is to be a reproductive engine: close your eyes and think of England.

Reproduction is a fundamental function of your organism, whether you chose to use it or not (for example, I am not going to reproduce). Any entity forcefully removing your body's ability to perform any of its fundamental functions is obviously abhorrent. If the state were seeking to remove your ability to see or your ability to consume food or excrete it, would you find that a matter of definitions?

By contrast, male circumcision and teeth straitghening are essentially cosmetic differences. Male circumcision is more problematic (and it is certainly not considered anywhere close to normal in most of the world), but even there the harm is minimal - being able to cover one's glans with one's foreskin is not a significant ability that anyone could claim has a significant effect on their life (of course, the risks of complications associated with the procedure itself are a different matter).

> I've noticed that he moral queasiness of sterilization of the male seems to be quite a bit lower than with sterilization of the female

I have no idea where you have seen this. I haven't even seen the sex or gender of the person being potentially sterilized discussed at all in any discussion of the horror of forced sterilization. Certainly nowhere in this thread or even the deleted tweet.

Overall, you seem to want to either make some kind of eugenic argument for forced sterilization (which I consider so abhorrent it's not even worth arguing against), OR some kind of strange more-liberal-than-thou argument that reproduction shouldn't be given some special place (which no one is, it's just that reproduction is the ONLY function of the body that anyone seems to think it might be ok to take from you for some strange reason - it isn't, anymore than gouging your eyes or removing your inner ear would be).

And what test or criteria might you use to decide what is and isn't a “fundamental function of one's organism”?

> By contrast, male circumcision and teeth straitghening are essentially cosmetic differences.

It is not so much the result of both that I find problematic as the painful methodology by which they are achieved.

Cutting up a man sans any anæsthesia, sewing him back up, and leaving him otherwise alive but with a scar is also merely cosmetic; it was, however, rather painful for him.

> I have no idea where you have seen this. I haven't even seen the sex or gender of the person being potentially sterilized discussed at all in any discussion of the horror of forced sterilization. Certainly nowhere in this thread or even the deleted tweet.

It has been well discussed and noted that physicians seem to be far more willing to perform elective sterilizations on males than on females and find some kind of greater moral fault with the latter than the former.

> it isn't, anymore than gouging your eyes or removing your inner ear would be).

And I would submit that most, if not nigh all human beings when given the dilemma of either surrendering their reproductive capacity or an eye, would surely pick the former.

It's telling that human beings willingly surrender their reproductive capacity all the time, but I have seldom heard of a man who decided to have a healthy eye removed simply because he wanted himself rid of it.

So yes, I consider removing a man's reproductive capacity to be quite trivial and inconsequential compared to removing his eye.

Which of both would you choose?

Sure, that is something to discuss. In the case of teeth, most parents in most of the world only have their children go through procedures that are likely to be important for their health (even if the child may not like the procedure). Male circumcision is also not something I condone personally, and it is relatively rare in most of the world outside some ethnic/religious groups.

> It has been well discussed and noted that physicians seem to be far more willing to perform elective sterilizations on males than on females and find some kind of greater moral fault with the latter than the former.

We are discussing forced sterilization here in general. When you are talking about male elective sterilization, do you mean vasectomy? Because then, one reason why surgeons may be more willing to go through with it is because it is (at least theoretically) reversible, so it constitutes a smaller decision than surgical female sterilization, which is always definitive.

It is also true that historically doctors have felt far more entitled to make decisions for women's bodies than for men's, so I do expect that this shamefully persists.

> So yes, I consider removing a man's reproductive capacity to be quite trivial and inconsequential compared to removing his eye. > Which of both would you choose?

This is not about choice - that is the whole point. The population we are talking about is not given any choice - the state is deciding to change the way their body works, against their own interests.

Even more importantly, while taking away someone's reproductive capacity may be a smaller apparent harm than taking away their eyes, it is a much, much worse harm over the long term of the community. Literally destroying the Family as a core part of their community is going to destroy their old age, and it is an explicit attack on their culture.

> It's telling that human beings willingly surrender their reproductive capacity all the time, but I have seldom heard of a man who decided to have a healthy eye removed simply because he wanted himself rid of it.

You will find very, very few human beings permanently surrender their reproductive capacity willingly EXCEPT for those who are essentially finished with it - people with at least one, but likely several children. True, there are likely slightly more people who willingly permanently give up their reproductive capacity than people who have an eye removed, but the reason is also obvious: there is absolutely nothing to gain from having an eye removed, while giving up your reproductive capacity allows you to have unprotected sex without the possibility of expensive, hard to care for children.

> And what test or criteria might you use to decide what is and isn't a “fundamental function of one's organism”?

There are many ways to come up with a definition that will include reproduction but not include crooked teeth or the foreskin. In fact, reproduction is so fundamental that we usually define life as being primarily related to reproduction - that is, any chemical substance that can simply reproduce itself is usually at least a candidate for being considered a form of life (the minimalist definition is just a fixed physical form and reproduction + heredity).

So while many functions of a living organism are more or less "fundamental", reproduction is almost the only one you can't debate away.

Now, if looking strictly at one individual organism, it is true that reproduction becomes much less fundamental, so I am assuming that this is the angle you are thinking from. But I don't think this is the right way of looking at it when considering whether a medical procedure could be justly forced on an entire population.

You might as well ask, why is forced sterilization worse than forced removal of your appendix?