You hold the burden of proof making the ontologically positive statement that also runs against established convention,
Established convention holds weight simply for being that now? That's an is-ought fallacy.
specifically the claim that governments have a right to sterilize their civilians. Your talk of principle seems to be an attempt to side-step that obligation. If you truly believe it an irreconcilable matter of principle, what was the point of asserting your indemonstrable principle multiple times? By your own admission it would have been impossible for you to have anything further to add to the conversation.
Which is why I tried to move into a different direction by my own admission several times. I said there are probably less severe ways of dealing with the situation (but simply re-iterated that I don't that situation would be innately unjust).
Since you insist on a logical argument I will oblige: Your premise fails because it lacks proportionality to the infraction and, more importantly because the underlying premise is non-universalizable. Your premise as derived from the statement:
Kantian ethics? There are numerous problems with them, I won't bother to parrot at you what you can look up on Wikipedia.
If someone abuses their ability to perform [action x] in order to make money in a damaging, ethically dubious way, [there is no] problem with taking away their ability to perform [action x].
You're universalizing what I said in a way that makes your argument, yet there are countless other ways of "zooming out."
For the sake of justice such statements need to be universal and do their best to share a common punishment. There is a reason we do not take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Rather we punish disparate infractions similarly with (to characterize it with broad strokes) fine, imprisonment, and in the rarest most heinous cases death. This is done because it ensures proportionality in punishment. Without such a system justice is no longer blind nor balanced.
Where exactly did you prove that this was even a disproportionate response? You've merely assumed such. Some people don't care about their ability to reproduce (and would gladly give it up) and to others it's a precious commodity. We're wandered into the realm of personal preference, which is precisely where Kantian ethics begin to break down.
To take away the physical ability to perform X in one case via surgery, and in another via imprisonment for similar crimes is unjust. We do not lobotomise people who defraud governments in other ways in order to remove their ability to defraud a government, we imprison them. The burden is on you to show that this case of defrauding a government is substantially different to warrant different penalty.
Well, yes, because lobotomizing people for defrauding governments hurts them in numerous ways. It leaves them unable to perform a multitude of other tasks, crippling them mentally.
Sterilizing someone... just sterilizes them. There may be residual effects which occur as a result of that, but the act itself doesn't impair their ability to think in a certain way, or act many others. They just can't get someone pregnant. You're disabling someone's ability to do one particular thing, whereas lobotomy disables a family of unrelated actions. Isn't this that very proportionality you were discussing? If the crime is excess reproduction, what better solution is there than stopping that reproduction?
The whole notion of reproductive rights is without merit in my view. I've never seen a solid argument put forth backing it up, so I don't understand why I should accept it as a valid "fundamental truth." At the same time however, I don't expect you to except anything I've but forth, because you're right. I haven't offered proof.
Not that I'm unwilling to change my point of view on it. If someone did present me with an argument that resonates with me that explains why reproductive rights are valid, I would change my point of view. If someone presented me an argument showing how non-invasive, civil methods of sterilization are severely damaging to people outside of their ability to produce, I'd adjust my opinion. Or you could simply put forth a viable alternative to my proposed solution which is less severe, and I would agree that option is the better choice.
I have never got anyone pregnant in my life, and don't really want children either, but I live off benifits. Why should I work, when the higher-paying jobs that would make it are all forever out of my reach? I will never be famous (nor do I want to be famous, it's frankly not worth it.) I will never own car parks or be a lawyer or a doctor or a politician or a published writer.Why give up my freedom and answer to a boss when I can be free,as long as I don't break the law?
Because you survive off of the hard work of others. You're only allowed to live the life you do because other people are paying for it, by force, through the way our government is structured. You're taking advantage of laws which take money from other people at gunpoint (essentially, if you refuse to pay taxes you go to jail) and giving it to you. In my estimation that's clearly wrong, unless you are somehow incapable of working for a living.