I know it’s a bit OT, but I have been waiting for an opportunity to spring this and see what people think.
I suspect a large part of ‘bad parenting’ comes from unplanned parenthood. Yes, most people know what causes pregnancy, but people take risks, they act stupidly, birth control fails, etc. I’ve read somewhere where like half of all babies born were not planned. Now, I’m sure some of them were unexpected but welcome surprises, but I’d also bet that a lot of them aren’t, and due to moral convictions against abortion, pressure to keep the kid, or just plain ‘Well, I guess I was gonna have one eventually anyway’ people end up being parents when they’re not ready.
So my proposed solution is to develop some kind of birth control that goes into the public water supply, and let people apply for the antidote. Even if we have no other restrictions on it other than ‘you have to ask for it to get it’ I’d bet it would make problems like teen pregnancy and so forth disappear. It also eliminates the possibility of ‘oopsing’- as in, ‘oops! I forgot to take my Pill, now I’m pregnant so we have to get married or I’ll sue for child support.’ It does happen. It’d also help with the overpopulation problem (which some don’t believe in, I understand, but that’s another topic altogether).
To make this vaguely address the OP- stating that having children is a ‘right’ makes it reasonable for infertile couples to demand that their insurance pay for infertility treatments, which I strongly disagree with. I guess I’d rather say having children is an option.
Respectfully, Loki it looks to me like you are trying to set up a tautology.
Let’s take a look at your assumptions.
a) Enforcement is assumed to be trivial.
b) Establishment of the criteria is assumed to be trivial.
c) Detection of the criteria is assumed to be trivial. (i.e. a psychological exam would have revealed the Columbine parents as unfit)
So, in other words, if all the problems are eliminated with this issue then is there anything wrong with it? You can’t just ignore all the problems that are associated with the issue at hand.
Can you imagine a gun control debate that started like the following:
“Okay, you gun control fanatics. Assume that we can detect any person who would ever misuse a firearm beforehand and we could absolutely enforce these people from getting firearms elsewhere, what is wrong with people owning firearms?”
As to the eugenics argument, what Loki is proposing is not eugenics. Eugenics is a breeding program designed to improve the gene pool, whil Loki’s argument (at least my take on it) is that there are certain people not fit to parent from a social/moral/ethical viewpoint. His arguments aren’t really about ‘purifying the species’ but about keeping children out of the hands of idiots and the violent.
It seems everyone believes (I do) that having a child (if you are capable) is a right, and all the arguments against taking it away are pretty good ones. Parenting is a right, but one society has agreed can be suspended or even abrogated based on behavior. The state routinely takes children away from unfit or abusive parents. I think everybody is agreed that this is merited as well, (even if there are individual cases where this practice is sometimes unjust.)
However, quite often a parent who has had their parental rights abrogated due to abuse or neglect issues are perfectly free to try again. There is no law that prevents a child molester from siring a baby, no law that keeps a crack-addicted prostitute from becoming Momma. The guy that beats the hell out of his wife and whose kids are in a foster home can still become father to a new potential punching bag. Would it be A Good Thing for society to require sterilization for those proven to be extremely unfit parents?
I would argue ‘Yes!’ Norplant for the women and vasectomies for the men. Norplant isn’t permanent, and vasectomies are something like 95% reversible. Store sperm from the men on the off chance that they fail in their reversals. Does this seem unreasonable?
I firmly believe that humanity cannot continue to reproduce at this rate indefinitely. I am not saying “should” not but CANNOT. There is a limit to how many people can live in this planet. To say we have a “right” to reproduce is like saying we have the right to commit suicide.
Sooner or later (and the sooner the better IMHO) society will have to deal with this and start to discourage having more children than we need. If in the past having children was encouraged through government action like tax breaks, I can see nothing wrong with discouraging it through similar government action. Of course for this to be acceptable to society, the government has to be democratic so that the people would feel responsible and not that the measure is imposed.
To say having children is an absolute right is foolish. there is no such thing as an absolute right when the consequences are disaster for everyone.
To put it a way anyone can understand. We will all agree (I hope) this planet can only hold so many people. The number is not important, you give me your number and I’ll take it. Ok, when we get to that number, what do we do?
Would this be a good thread in which to bring up Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where all reproduction is run by the State via donated ovaries, artificial insemination, and incubation bottles?
Or Gattaca, where parents who refuse to remove genetic defects from their children prior to impregnation are deemed immoral, and their genetically-imperfect children discriminated against?
Hi. I just popped into this thread to make sure that Libertarian hadn’t had a heart attack. Seeing no evidence that he has, and further seeing that based on the responses so far his health is assured, I shall return to GQ.
Beakerxf: If someone hypothetically fails the test to have children (which in my ideal world is pretty lax), then yes - they are damaged goods. Would you say the same thing happens when families have their children removed from them by Welfare? One of the foundations of my argument (from my point of view) is that all the policy really is is a pre-emtive version of removing children from parents and placing them in foster homes. No offense meant, but I think your examples are tending towards a worst-case scenario. Consider Hitler’s parents - if they had undergone an exam to see if they were capable of raising a nice friendly child (assuming for the sake of argument that Hitler’s little peccadilloes were parenting-based) then WWII may have been averted. I suppose what I’m really trying to say is that you can show anything with made-up stories.
Danielinthewolvesden: Precisely my point - there are licenses for guns, but a badly raised child can do more damage.
Notthemama/Glitch: Alright, I think you’ve sort of got me on that one, I must concede. Ok, I’ll accept that I now have to defend my policies as well as the concept. Call me Mr Naievety, but I still beleive a fair policy could be created. If children were never removed from their parents by Welfare, I’ve got a feeling I’d be arguing the same thing. Why not use the same criteria that Welfare uses? If a parent would have their child immediately removed from them when it was born, why let them have it at all?
Ptahlis: I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion for sterilization. I’d still be a trifle nervous at letting a scalpel wielding leechmonger near my happy sack, but still, a good idea
Sailor: I agree on your views of having children as an absolute right, but I disagree on your suicide policy - I would say that suicide is an individuals right. It harms noone but the individual - if the individual in sound mind has decided he or she no longer wishes to live, that’s fine with me.
Tracer: I loved Brave New World Gattaca was ok. I don’t think bringing up stuff like 1984, BNW etc is very relevant, however. 1984 and BNW exist because they make interesting fiction. A world where a nice breeding restriction program exists and works wouldn’t be very interesting to read about! Then again I assume there are a few worlds like that - anyone remember any offhand? Maybe some Heinlein or something similar?
I'm a rather simple minded man. I have a hard time discussion "ideas" without the pesky thing we call reality getting in the way. You initially asked whether or not it was a right to have children. Rights apply to real life so in that context I think I have to know how someone would prevent people from procreation in order to give a good answer.
But to answer the question as it is posed, yes. If we lived in a magical make beleive world where we didn't have to consider the effect our ideas had then eugenics would be
MGibson: Ok, ya got me Arguing for compulsory birth control in a theoretical perfect world is sort of meaningless. So… here’s the plan (like all wondrous plans, It’s being created on 5 hours sleep and not enough coffee) - use the same criteria that welfare uses when removing children from parents (though I must admit I’m a little fuzzy on that). Plus, no convicted rapists or child molesters get to raise kids. Or individuals with a history of violence. Plus anyone with severe psychological problems. Ok, there’s my spurious policy - what are everyone’s thoughts on that? Does anyone think that my theoretical policies are too harsh? Obviously it would have to be done on a fairly case-by-case basis, but based on this pretty quickly laid down policies, I don’t see any problems.
Having children is a right, currently. Sometimes I often think that it should not be a right, that people should have to get a certificate to have kids, to go to school for breeding and have to pass it.
Having been in the general public businesses for years in various forms, including medical, I’ve seen a lot of real friggin’ morons breeding like rabbits and producing more morons. Then there are the ‘studs’ who insist on having as many kids as possible with as many woman as they can because they are ‘macho’ and, let us not forget the women who allow this.
I’m aware of young woman who seem to drop a kid each year, only to give it up to the State because they don’t want it and are too friggin’ dumb to use birth control. Some people I’ve met should never be allowed to breed because of the piss poor way they treat their kids and I’ve know some of the meanest people drop litters and raise more mean and nasty people.
I dunno. It’s a RIGHT to have kids now, but I seriously agree with Rich Dickerson on WZZR, 92.7, who is of the opinion that before people can have kids, they should be certified as able parents.
Having undergone the procedure myself with only a local anesthetic because I have a stupid HMO that wouldn’t pop for a valium, I can definitely say that ‘trifle nervous’ doesn’t cover it. It’s more like “Sphincter Factor 9!”
**A world where a nice breeding restriction program exists and works wouldn’t be very interesting to read about! Then again I assume there are a few worlds like that - anyone remember any offhand? Maybe some Heinlein or something similar?
[/quote]
Try Niven’s Known Space novels.
Having argued this one before, I should know better than to stick my hand in. Loki, you’ve noticed the knee-jerk reactionaries who like to pop in, call you a Nazi and a troll, and then leave. Don’t let them get you down; there are plenty of rational folks, as you’ve also noticed.
The primary argument against requiring minimum societal standards for parenting (apart from the “it’s bad, you’re Hitler” idiocy) is the question of determining whose standards to use.
Just when I think we can all agree that crack-addicted welfare slugs with a history of abuse should maybe have some minor restrictions placed on their procreatice “rights,” someone pops in and starts screaming that I’m wrong.
I’ve pretty much decided that the best solution at the moment is to pay people to voluntarily sterilize (as is happenning on a small scale in many areas of the country). I think it’s gotta happen somehow. Just as your right to swing your arm ends at my nose, your right to have a baby ends when I have to feed and raise it, through taxes, increased medical insurance rates, etc.
But hey, that’s just my opinion, and I’m obviously a jackbooted Nazi thug. :rolleyes:
please excuse if i am sayin something that has previously been said, i stumbled upon a thought early on and didnt have the patience to read on from that moment on.
the basic concept of having a kid is having a woman and a man(granted that modern tech can work wonders). basically the kid is going to have parents, mom and dad. how would the subject of being suitable to have kids when you are single? for whatever reason(divorce, accident…).
the only possible solution for this would be to take every children away from their parents, suitable or not, and place them in a “raising school”.
getting a license to have a baby like getting a license to drive a car is something that will never happen(my opinion).
Thanks for the link. Now I think I may be Millosarian too I recall thinking (or hearing) of this idea quite a few years ago. In fact I contemplated starting a GD thread on the very subject, I see Millosarian beat me to it.
You know, much of the land mass of North America (and in fact of most of the world) is empty space, so I’d like to know where this alleged overpopulation is occurring.
If there is a problem, it lies in efficient resource allocation and delivery, not in population. And before you ask, no, I don’t have any children.
Hey, just out of curiouity, how did the human race manage to survive for 10,000 years before you guys all came along and proposed breeding rules or secret contraceptives in the water supply?
My turn to flaunt my ignorance, but I am entirely familiar with the criteria used by Children’s Protective Services (welfare).
My current understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that essentially what CPS looks for is abuse not at the potential to cause abuse. So … how exactly do you detect this? I mean they look at it from the perspective of reality … i.e. you are beating your child, therefore we will take the child from you. I am not aware of any criteria they have that says: You are statistically likely to beat your child, therefore we will take the child from you.
So, to clarify, how do you determine if a person is going to be a child abuser before they have children?
I’ll state right now. I you can show with a perponderance of the evidence (I’ll cut you some slack and cut short of without reasonable doubt) that there is a straightforward highly successful exam that can be administered in a fair, non-subjective way that can determine a child abuser before they have children, then I’ll agree with you. Piece of cake, right?
If you can show that there is a straightforward, highly successful exam that can be done in a fair, non-subjective manner that can show that a couple will at least not be abusive (physically, mentally or spiritually). I’ll agree to global sterilization with passing a test to have kids.
You’ll have to provide reasonable definitions of abuse for this case.
Well, what about curtailing the rights of known abusers after the fact? Making sure Joe Childbeater and Momma Neglect don’t generate more wards of the state? Temporary sterilization (in case of a miscarriage (PI) of justice) doesn’t seem to be any extraordinary bending of the already established legal practices. Indeed, it seems that a logical extension of current laws calls for such measures.
