25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672i think your premise is flawed.
Well, this is getting a bit into the logistical part I had hoped to avoid, but it still deals with the ethics issue. You tell me - what would you think is reasonable, or do you think my premise is flawed?
The diversity of humanity, in all its wonderful scariness, is what makes us who and what we are.
You need the whole scale from top to bottom, left to right. In whichever field you measure.
Besides nature may do the choosing for us. If it really doesnt work it tends to die off in the end anyway. Lets leave this one to the expert!
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I am also against 3rd Trimester abortions. Only before 24 days please.
I'm not an abortion guy. I'd much rather the life not be created in the first place than have a viable fetus chopped up inside the mother's womb in the third trimester. (I have the same squeamishness with meat - I eat it, but always with the awareness that an animal died for my meal.) So I'd prefer that yeah - sure - all girls at age ten or somet ...[text shortened]... ck, white, green...you don't get unsterilized, point blank. There it is and there you have it.
It seems to me that, if the technology were available to reliably induce reversable sterility (but what if we something went wrong, and we die out!), then you could, reasonably morally, adopt the scheme you suggest--especially if you have low social cohesion--but if you only have very conservative criteria about who couldn't reproduce, applied by an enlightened committee of judges.
However, the main practical problem would be that people at risk of not having their sterility reversed would likely rebel against the deprivation of their right to have children, and a black market in reversing sterility would develop. It would be an impossible scheme to enforce logistically, except under a dictatorship.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by coiI don't think we should sit passively marvelling at who and what we are if that is suboptimal.
i think your premise is flawed.
The diversity of humanity, in all its wonderful scariness, is what makes us who and what we are.
You need the whole scale from top to bottom, left to right. In whichever field you measure.
Besides nature may do the choosing for us. If it really doesnt work it tends to die off in the end anyway. Lets leave this one to the expert!
If you had the choice, would you vote against any new rapists and serial killers from being born, or in favour? And if the latter, what would you say to a family member of someone they raped or killed? That it's all part of the scary wonderfulness?
25 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by mokkoWho said anything about being affluent? I just think like buying a car or a house, you should be able to meet the bare minimum income to pay for a child. Otherwise the family goes on welfare or goes bankrupt.
I think more importantly a phycological test over money. It doesn't take money to raise a child effectively and truth be told money often leads to the corruption of many children. As it's been stated many children grow up less than afluent yet succeed beyond their wildest dream. Life is NOT about money. The ability to budget and plan for a future in which yo ...[text shortened]... mmed, crying and peeing dolls for a year. That should fix most peoples want to reproduce anyway.
So sterilze everyone at birth (logistics of that are tough enough to finure out though) then at say age 25 (or whatever number you want to pick) you can apply to be "unsterilized". Simply show a good track record (no criminal activity or at least no repeat criminal activity) and be able to afford to have a child.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeMy point is you dont know what is 'suboptimal' you have to take the good and bad as a whole. what may be optimal is everything we have.
I don't think we should sit passively marvelling at who and what we are if that is suboptimal.
If you had the choice, would you vote against any new rapists and serial killers from being born, or in favour? And if the latter, what would you say to a family member of someone they raped or killed? That it's all part of the scary wonderfulness?
it doesnt prevent you fighting personel battles
Apart from that, what are you on about?
How can you vote against new rapists anyway. explain how that would work.
25 Oct 05
Do any of you in this thread think you are qualified to make a decision as to who gets to have a child and who doesn't? Here's the answer - you're not.
This talk of sterilization borders on insanity. To think that anyone of us has the right or authority to decide whether other citizens can reproduce and raise a family sounds like something straight out of "Hitler's Handbook For The Newbie Dictator".
You "Pro Sterlize" folks see sterilization as an easy solution to a difficult problem. News flash - it's not. Stop trying to take away someone else's rights in order to make your life a little better. Because that's all you're doing with these ideas.
Yes, crime, inner city blight, unemployment, crack head welfare moms, etc are all serious problems. But the answer is not to take away one of the most basic human rights from these people. There is no quick fix. The answer is education, employment, a helping hand, counseling etc, all of those things that require hard work, and a lifetime of dedication to achieve.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I understand that, but we can't criminalize bad parenting. All we can do is try to help people become better parents. The solutions I listed above keep us on the right path.
Wib, you don't think you're qualified to say that a woman who's an addict should not be having kids? You don't think you're qualified to say that a guy who has no intention of being a father, when he engages in intercourse outside of a marriage, should not be having kids?
I do. I feel qualified to say that. People destroy not only their own ...[text shortened]... a kid you don't want and failing to raise them because they're a victim of your own stupidity.
I simply cannot take away a person's right to reproduce. It's an easy solution to a difficult problem that violates the most basic of human rights.
My opinion of someone else as a good or bad parent is simply that - my opinion. No more no less. I've known lots of people that I thought were bad parents and lots that I thought were fine. That does not and should not give me the authority to control how those people raise their kids. It certainly doesn't give me the right or authority to decide if they can even be parents.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by wibOh look, Hitler's name again... an nice cheap way to try to discredit someone without thinking.
Do any of you in this thread think you are qualified to make a decision as to who gets to have a child and who doesn't? Here's the answer - you're not.
This talk of sterilization borders on insanity. To think that anyone of us has the right or authority to decide whether other citizens can reproduce and raise a family sounds like something straight o ...[text shortened]... seling etc, all of those things that require hard work, and a lifetime of dedication to achieve.
Wib... this is just a discussion. I can virtually garauntee that no one is going to go out and change the world because of it.
So you are saying that we DO have the absolute right to reproduce... that is the actual question posed here. Understood. No sweat.
I don't agree. I think we all should have the right to do anything we want as long as it doesn't negatively impact others. Somone having a child that they then do not care for and who then is virtually garanteed to grow to become a drain on society if not an actual menace IS negatively impacting the rest of us.
For some reason (religion or otherwise) people think they have the absolute right to reproduce. "who's going to tell me not to reproduce?" Well, who's going to tell you not to drive 80 on the freeway? Who's going to tell you not to hunt animals to extinction? Who's going to tell you not to dump motor oil into the river?
It's basically the same right? All do not have a direct impact on others, but rather an indirect impact. All are things that not so many years ago there were no laws about because it wasn't a problem at that time. Now it is.
25 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by brad999hallNo, those things are not "basically all the same". They're not even close. When you take away the right of an indiviual to reproduce, or sterilize them at birth, you are penalizing a person for a crime they have yet to commit. And I hesititate to call bad parenting a crime, but that seems to be what the discussion is revolving around.
Oh look, Hitler's name again... an nice cheap way to try to discredit someone without thinking.
Wib... this is just a discussion. I can virtually garauntee that no one is going to go out and change the world because of it.
So you are saying that we DO have the absolute right to reproduce... that is the actual question posed here. Understood. N ...[text shortened]... o many years ago there were no laws about because it wasn't a problem at that time. Now it is.
This is the same argument I hear from the anti-gun folks that want to confiscate every gun in America bacause of crimes that "might" be committed with them. Because of the damage that guns "could" do.
I cannot punish a person for what they may do in the future.
Suppose someone had decided that your mother wasn't gonna be such a great mom so they took away her right to bear children. Or mine too for that matter. Both of my parents would have been considered poor by todays standards. Where would you and I be right now?
As for the Hitler remark, perhaps you should read Mein Kempf to see these exact same ideas that turned into a reality for many people that were mentally/physically handicapped, homosexual, or of the wrong religion.
25 Oct 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Agreed that bad parenting is a problem. I just don't see sterlization as anything more than a radical violation of human rights. We've got too much of that going on already.
I agree with you that this isn't an easy concept. But why can't we criminalize bad parenting? When the results of bad parenting are crimes themselves - why can't it be a crime to raise bad kids? I'm not talking about nutty soccer moms and hockey dads, I'm talking about people whose kids stick people up in the middle of the night, who are dealing ...[text shortened]... something really stupid, don't you have a vested interest in getting the kid to straighten up?
I do know of a few instances where parents are liable for the criminal behavior of their children, though I don't know the specific laws. But I also know that we, and our legislators, are constantly lowering the age for treating juvenile defendents as adults. We can't put a 16 year old on trial for murder and also hold his parents responsible at the same time. The sins of the father... the sins of the son... yada yada yada.
25 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672Yes, people that have children do have a moral obligation to that child to raise them as best they can. That child becomes the #1 priority in their lives.
I think the "sterilization" concept took the thread off track. I may even be responsible for that. But my basic thought behind the thread was simple - that people of all income levels, classes, and races have a moral obligation to raise a child that can stand on their own in society, provided that child has the physical and mental capacity to do so.
When they fail to do that is where things get complicated. The very definition of child rearing is going to differ from family to family. Starting simply with *how* someone chooses to raise their child it's easy to see how complicated this thing gets.
My main, and probably overbearing gripe, was that sterilization is a quick fix for those among us who may not know what else to do with bad parents.
So yes, my main rant here is not against the discussion you're having, it's the idea of sterilization being used as a solution.