There are plenty of restrictions placed on people who commit crimes to prevent them from commiting further crimes. Drunk drivers are prevented from driving again, violent criminals are prevented from owning handguns, abusive husbands are legally prevented from approaching their former wives, brokers convicted of insider trading have their licenses take away, as do doctors convicted of serious offenses. And Kevin Mitnick, for one, can’t touch a computer for another couple years. So yes, we often do take steps to prevent future crimes by an offender.
There is no doubt that every restriction is a lessening of freedom. That one is a no-brainer. All laws restrict freedom, but the question is how much are we willing to give up in exchange for the perceived benefits of doing so.
The one thing that is different in restricting procreation rights of proven abusers is that an innocent child, with no choice whatsoever is the victim. We would not allow a couple convicted of child abuse adopt a child fter they leave prison, so why let them make their own? They have abused their right to parent, just as a drunk driver has abused the right to drive, or a hacker to program, or anyone else on the list above has abused certain rights that have been curtailed after the crime.
As the old saw says, with rights come responsibility. If you neglect your responsibilities, or pass them off onto someone else (i.e. the state) then (at least theoretically) you have given up some of your rights.
Well, I am really just asking first whether this would be considered fair in principle, not positing an actual system yet. That would be Step 2. Were people to agree that such punishment were fair in principle, then we would have to determine a length of sentence just as we do in any other crime, for first and repeated offenses.
As to your second point, jail sentences being woefully short for abuse crimes as opposed to other crimes like crack possession, enforced sterilization could be a condition of parole or the revocation of any other privilege restricted to felons. Sterilization need not be a moot point if the sentence is executed when the felonis returned to society.
As to the third point, there are crimes where the felon is prevented, at least in theory, from committing future crimes. Gun ownership, driving, and even computer access can be taken away from offenders. One very important difference between abusers and other criminals is the status of parenthood. As parents, we have in many ways practical ownership of our children. They live where we say they do; go to school when, where, and if we say they do; leave the house when we say they do. They are weak and unschooled in the ways of the world. An abuser who makes a new child is allowed to almost own another largely helpless victim at will.
This is not punishment without a crime. As I believe I rather plainly postulated, I’m only in favor of restricting the ‘right’ to procreation for those people who have previously been convicted of a crime. Convicted. Did I omit that word in the post which you quoted?
In your next paragraph, you seem to realize that I was referring to previously convicted criminals, and you wrote
Yes, it does.
Exactly.
I submit that allowing an innocent child to be born to an individual who has already abused a previous child would be a crime. Children aren’t toys. You can’t just abuse one and say you’ll do better with the next one.
We do prevent them from driving, though. It’s called losing your license.
I think the marriage comparison is an invalid one; marrying someone is a choice, unlike either being born or being hit by a drunk driver. As for the muggers, we do prevent them from buying guns. Which is certainly a better weapon for mugging than a knife.
Exactly. But you do punish people for the crimes that they do commit. Thus, if you molest a child - no kids for you. If you have never been convicted of a crime - have as many kids as you like as long as you don’t commit a crime between now and then.
Um…that’s what this is supposed to do. If you value having children, but know that if you abuse one, you will both lose that child and not be allowed to have any more, you hopefully won’t go abuse your child.
Smartass, you and I obviously have a communication problem here. I don’t see how you possibly could have misread my previous post, but I hope that my dissection of your response to it will enlighten you.
You then go on to address the example of FAS. I could have quoted this too, but I think we both know what you’re talking about. I don’t have a pat response for you. I agree that someone churning out a crack baby or a baby suffering from FAS is putting an unfair burden on society (read: my tax dollars). But I have a real problem with restricting the drunk lady’s right to procreate until she has the kid. It just smacks too much of 1984 to me. If she’s caught piss-drunk while pregnant, I’d be in favor of keeping her under some manner of surveillance until the kid is born, and then neutering her (spaying?). And taking the kid away.
The issue that concerns me is the drunken lady who might sober up as soon as she realizes that she is pregnant and now responsible for a theroretical person (to borrow a phrase). In your world (correct me if I’m wrong here), this lady would lose her right to procreate as soon as she established herself as an alcoholic. And this scares me a bit.
I think that this debate has become two separate issues - 1. Whether or not it is ok to remove the right to have children to individuals convicted of a serious crime, which almost everyone seems to be largely in favour of (myself included).
2. Whether or not it is ok to remove the right to have children to individuals considered to have the potential to abuse, neglect, or otherwise provide insufficient parenting to their children, which appears to have about a 50/50 approval rating, possibly just under (I am still in favour).
I don’t think that these two problems can be considered as a single issue, even though they are very similar. The first issue is really, in my opinion, a no-brainer - rapists, child molesters, mentally handicapped and so forth should not be allowed to have children. Just as a side note - my Father used to work with the mentally handicapped, and was witness to 3 generations of mentally handicapped people (people not handicapped enough to be placed permanently in care, but certainly not full and productive members of society). Several of them were arsonists, they were all of dubious sanity, and yet removing their ability to have children would have garnered incredible complaints because it would have been, supposedly, ‘a violation of their rights’. This, in my opinion, is a clear case - remove that right. This really falls between the two different facets of the debate, I feel.
The second issue is more complicated. People appear to worry that the governing body would be far too harsh with their rulings, and single parents, people with a past history of alcoholism, parking ticket wielders and so forth would be denied the right to have children. Fair enough, this is hardly fair or a good thing, but I think that it’s equally possible that the policies could be applied fairly and even handedly across the board (I’ve put forth a few of my views on what ‘fair and even handed’ consitutes all through the debate, and I’m happy to provide more if necessary). This appears to be where the debate is currently at - no problems?
Sorry to be so late with this (after all, nobody made it clear that the following was not common knowledge), but rights, schmights! In point of fact, the rights issue is entirely moot.
The species has achieved the pinnacle of development. Her given name is Michaela, but we just call her Kayla. She turns four on the nineteenth of this month, and there is now officially no room for improvement.
So, whether reproducing is a right or not, it is, in fact, an exercise in redundancy.
The good news is, you can all go back to having sex just for fun.
You’re making a pretty big leap here. While your other arguments may have merit, it’s a bit dubious to insist that a potentially abused child is worse than no child at all. One might continue from there to suggest that we prevent the birth of deformed or genetically inferior children as well.
In truth, we have no way of knowing whether the victim of this abuse would prefer a hard life or no life and it sounds crazy to even speculate. Better to stick to arguments we can appreciate… i.e. “the child’s care will be a burden on society”, “we don’t want those genes passed on”, etc.
meara said, in response to my notion that child abusers should not be allowed to procreate,
How so? I don’t see how child abusers are such a great leap from rapists or murderers. An abuser is somehow a better parent to have than a rapist? Do you feel that child molesters should be allowed to have further children on the off chance that, the umpteenth time around, they might finally stop molesting the kids? Or do you think that they should be allowed to have the kid, but that it should be immediately removed from them and placed in foster care of some sort? My insitance that a potentially abused child is worse than no child at all follows, in my mind, exactly the same logic that leads me to believe that a child born to a rapist is worse than no child at all.
My argument has never been about the genetics issue, and, quite frankly, I’m not sure where you pulled that out of. I do have some concern for the tax burden issue, as has come up with andros. Mainly, however, my concern is for the welfare of the theoretical person. Let me give you an example.
My SO is adopted. This did not occur until she was fairly old. Before it occurred, she bounced through a variety of foster homes, in several of which she was severely abused, both physically and emotionally. She was placed into the foster system in the first place because her father was both physically and emotionally abusive. Her life as a small child was absolute living hell. Whenever I hear her talk about it, I want to go look some people up and kill them. Literally. I can’t believe that people would do this kind of deranged shit to a small child.
Miracuously, she came out of it all the wonderful person that she is today. But I shudder at the thought of what any further children born to some of the families she lived with must have gone through.
Obviously, I don’t wish that she had never been born. But that is because she is who she is now. Look at it from an objective standpoint (which is damn hard to acheive at this point; thinking about this has gotten me all riled up again), which is a little crazy to speculate on. I don’t believe that, before you were conceived, you were some conscious bundle of potential floating around in the ether.
When I weigh the moral aspect of the cancellation of the right to procreation, I only see weight on one side of the scale. That is the moral drive I have not to willingly allow a child, hypothetical or otherwise, to be abused. The other side of the scale, the right of the hypothetical person to be born, I see as empty, because I don’t feel any moral obligation to let a non-entity come into existance.
I realize that’s rather convoluted, but it is a crazy topic, I’m a bit worked up, and it’s getting late. Hopefully you get my gist. It’s an emotional viewpoint, and I don’t really know if it can be debated. However, meara, I definitely do believe that the issues which you brought up and which I addressed with the first quote I extracted from you, can be debated. So please answer my questions regarding those issues.
-ellis
ps.
mods (is it just gaudere now?) -
sorry about the bit of profanity. i cleaned it up a fair amount, but i can’t do it completely.
Kaylasdad99: Thanks for letting me know, I guess I was just wasting my time
Meara: I’m not sure about that - I think it’s perfectly ok. It’s a hard one to phrase (I just tried 3 times and they all made me sound like a heartless prick), but I think that if a child is going to grow up and be a burden on society and live an unhappy life, what’s the point? You seem to be implying that we should be straining to create as many children as possible no matter what the cost - I disagree. The generally accepted rule is that ‘All Life Is Sacred’, and I learnt that from Optimus Prime in Transformers, so it’s probably true - but extending this to theoretical people is pushing it. If all theoretical people are sacred too, then surely all females should be getting pregnant every 10 months without fail. Every time a woman has a menstrual cycle without becoming pregnant, a life isn’t wasted. Eesh, I hope all that made sense - it’s quarter past 4 on a Friday, I’ve been trying to get my machine reinstalled with win95 since 11am, and it’s beginning to show Ah well, till all are one.
Well, since you’re speculating on my views, I happen to agree with both of you that there’s no need to bring a child into the world under less than optimal circumstances.
However, I can’t accept the argument “I won’t allow a child to go through that”. I contend that most children would rather have a hard life than no life at all, so the desire to prevent child abuse is protecting your sensibilities, not theirs. You don’t want to see it (and neither do I), so you’d rather see no child at all. Unsettling, but true.
In any case, I think legislating reproduction would be a mistake. Giving a group of people the power to decide what is an appropriate life for a child and what is not is empowering them to “cull the herd”. They can decide that deformed children will lead sad lives and should not be born. Rapists’ children will be abused and should not be born. Mentally retarded children will never appreciate life and should not be born. Etc.
I’d rather shake up the gene pool and see what comes out of it. When population density reaches a sufficient level, space colonization will suddenly become viable, and we’ll finally have a chance to get off this rock.
My fault for being unclear. Up to present, no one has considered the possibility of having society be in the position to grant permission for procreation. At the time when we make exceptions to this, that means that everyone who wants to have a child is subject to approval. I am reminding you that this could cut both ways and that, once government begins to regulate something, the rules tend to grow more restrictive with time, not less. Are you sure that you never have, and never will, done something that society might frown on, that might one day disqualify you from parenthood? Are you really comfortable with the idea that your decision to have a child is subject to the approval of the government?
Only if he has been born. How can you infringe on the rights of an unborn person? At the time you are making the decision, the victim doesn’t even exist, so the crime has not been committed.
The invalid assumption here is that I think you should pay for other people’s children. I do not. Ptahlis:
Once again, you are talking about protecting the rights of a theoretical person. I don’t think it makes sense to justify such an attack on freedom in order to protect the rights of a person who doesn’t exist. However, the argument can cut both ways: Who is doing the child more harm, the parent who abuses it? Or you, who prevents it from having life at all? If we’re protecting the rights of theoretical people, does that make you (or, the government) a murderer?
An adoptive child already exists and has certain recognized rights. A drunk driver is not prevented from driving; he is prevented from being licensed to drive on public streets. He is also not prevented from owning a car. What you are talking about is the moral equivalent of cutting the hands off of a thief. Ellis555:
No, but you are implying an assumption of future guilt. Is this sterilization strictly a punishment? Or is it based on the assumption of a future crime? Who is being punished more, the criminal or the potential future victim?
I agree. Children are not toys. They aren’t cars or driver’s licenses. If they are born, they are citizens with rights. By presuming society is entitled to judge who may give birth, you are presuming that society is entitled to judge who may be born. Are you saying this is for the child’s benefit or for the general benefit of society? How many other children might society be better off without?
That doesn’t prevent people from driving. It makes it illegal for them to drive on public-owned streets.
I do not presume to be in a position of allowing or not allowing someone else to give birth, and I don’t think that society or the government should either. I believe in personal liberty. Some things are beyond the authority of men or governments to regulate.
Worse to whom? Would you rather have been an abused child or to have not been born at all? On what basis do you consider yourself qualified to make that judgment for others?
General:
I think I am done with this thread, because I can’t–for the life of me–figure out where you people are coming from. It amazes me that so many people think that there is some set of solutions that will prevent crime. Unless you have an extremely powerful totalitarian governmnent, it will always be possible to commit crime. You can take away guns and knives, and I can still figure out a way to kill you. You can outlaw abortions, and I can still figure out a way to have one (that is, if I were able to get pregnant). You can sterilize me and I can still figure out a way to abuse or molest a child. Justice should be about punishment for crimes committed on existing humans and should not be “cruel” or “unusual”.
No one would argue that it is possible to have complete freedom. But the infringement being discussed here is profound, and the justifications for it are wholly unacceptable. We already have punishments for child abusers, rapists, etc.
You people just want to remove (and give up) freedom.
And yet, we restrict other “rights” prior to violation of laws.
And I still haven’t been convinced that procreation is a right. How does the creation of another life fall under the blanket of my own right to life?
As it should.
But let me be perfectly clear: I have not in this thread created or postulated a “world.” I’m letting Loki deal with the specifics, and I’ll admit I don’t fully agree with him. I have not to the best of my recolleciton, proposed ANY specific limits on one’s precreative priveleges. I’m coming entirely from the viewpoint that breeding, while a biological imperative of sorts, is neither a societal right nor necessarily a benefit to society, and is therefore subject to restriction by society.
I am, as always, open to persuasion. I’m not a fan of dogma.
One way I could be persuaded otherwise would be if I could be shown that unrestricted childbirth benefits me and the world in which I live. And I maintain that no one can demonstrate that. Another way is if someone can explain WHY creating another human being should be a societally granted right. smartass:
I thought we were having a good conversation. I guess you don’t share that feeling, and I’m sorry you find the subject matter “unacceptable.” But in case you do want to continue the discussion, I’ll respond to your latest.
I’m always a bit uncomfortable with the slippery-slope agument when discussing government restrictions, because I feel that all governments rule and operate with consent of the governed. I take your point, but I see the alternative to be barbarism and anarchy, and that’s certainly where we disagree.
I believe that driving a car is not a right but a privilege. I believe that as long as I follow the rules as established by my society through my government, I will never be disqualified from driving.
I believe that raising children is not a right but a privilege. I believe that as long as I follow the rules for raising children as established by my society through my government, I will never have my children taken away by CPS.
Is it so much a stretch then, to believe that bringing a child into the world is a societal privilege?
So when a child ends up in the hospital without insurance, I don’t have to pay for it? If he ends up in State custody, I don’t have to pay for it? If the parent goes to jail as a result of beating on a kid (s)he shouldn’t have had, I don’t pay for that either?
I guess I don’t understand your point. Surely you’re not suggesting we sit around and watch babies die?
I have never suggested a solution for the prevention of crime.
And “you people” just want to abdicate all responsibility to the society of which you are (like it or not) a part.
There are two different ways of approaching thoughts on rights:
Any right that you want to claim, you must justify by a benefit to society, which appears to be your position.
Any right you want to take away, you must justify by a harm to the rights of others, which is the way I think.
In other words, you are asking me to assume that rights don’t exist until granted. I am asking you to assume that rights exist until you can justify taking them away.
There has to be a starting point. In the U.S., the guiding principle is individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of disposable diapers.
The ability to give birth is fairly fundamental to being human. The fact that not all people are physically able to do this or interested in doing it does not change this fact. I am saying that if you want to interfere in this, you should have a profound reason for doing so, because it is not far from saying that I should have to “qualify” to follow a biological drive. You want to take away this “right” as a punishment? That’s way beyond cruel and unusual.
Or, you want to do it in the interest of the children? I say that neither you or anyone else is qualified to make that judgment.
Background:
My father abused my mother. Before I was born, he abused my older brother. He was an alcoholic. By your reasoning, he should not have been “allowed” to father me.
As it turns out, my parents divorced when I was 4. My father killed himself when I was 7. Thanks to my mother’s remarriage, I was primarily raised by a caring and generous stepfather.
Of course, who knew how things would turn out?
By your proposed system, I should never have been born. Is there any way for me not to take this personally? You want to propose a set of rules that would have prevented my very existence? Fuck you, too. I guess I should consider myself lucky that society wasn’t looking out for my interests.
A clarification:
I can understand the argument about costs to society, in terms of welfare, Medicaid, etc. These hold no weight with me because I am against these programs. When the government takes my money and spends it on feeding other people, without my permission, I consider it to be stealing. In a better system, money given to feed and medicate the poor would be given voluntarily. Then you could weigh the cost of feeding these children according to your own values, rather than “society’s”.
Do you really want to limit individual rights to those that can show a justifiable benefit to society? Or might there not be a better approach?
meara -
I feel like I’m just not getting my points across to you. You said,
By prevented a rapist from having a child, I see society as preventing a possible case of child abuse or worse. I do not see society as denying the opportunity to life to an-as-of-yet unborn child. I don’t see any need to consider what that hypothetical person might prefer, because s/he is hypothetical. I’m not saying that we should force abortions on already pregnant rapists or wives of rapists; that would be making the decision that you’re postulating. I’m saying stop it before it’s ever started.
The idea of culling the herd implies that these hypothetical children would somehow dilute the genetic stock of the race. This is not what I’m saying at all, and I don’t think it’s even close to what anyone has said so far. The whole idea of preventing some people from procreating is not to change the structure of the race, but to prevent some hypothetical children from having to go through hell. Because knowingly putting children into the hands of proven rapists, etc., is, in my eyes, criminal.
Smartass -
(In case you do return)
First off, I’m going to cut in on something you addressed to andros.
I’m comfortable with the idea that if I kill someone, I go to jail. This strikes me as no different. If we postulate, as Loki has done, a benevolent government (a reach, mayber, but that’s what we’re working with here), I can assume that I won’t be arbitrarily deprived of the right to a child. I will only lose that right if I commit some crime (in my view) or show that I would harm that child or not be able to care for it (in what I think is andros’ view).
Now on to what you said to me:
Please take a gander at what I just wrote to meara above. I don’t believe that you can punish a hypothetical person (the “potential future victim,” in your words). When you sterilize the rapist, only s/he is being punished. And it is to some extent based on assumption of a future crime. That’s the same reason people are locked away for a longer period of time after their third offense than after their first. By the third time, it’s assumed that they can’t learn a lesson, and it makes more sense to keep them off the streets, on the assumption that, having shown themselves to be criminal, they will commit another crime. I firmly believe that you give up a whole hell of a lot of rights once you commit a serious crime (such as rape, murder, or child abuse), one of those rights being the assumption that you can re-enter society completely peaceably.
You then go on to bring up a series of points that all seem to point to either a)who am I to decide whether or not a child has a right to life or b)watch out for Big Brother. For a) again direct yourself to what I wrote to meara. As for b) direct yourself to what Loki has postulated about a benevolent government.
And as for the drunk driving bit, stop splitting hairs. Society does as much as it can, aside from physically mutilating the offender so that it would be impossible for them to operate a vehicle, to keep them from driving. I happen to think that physical mutilation (that won’t harm the offender in any manner other than preventing them from procreating - they can still whack off in their spare time), is an appropriate punishment for a crimes worse than drunk driving.
andros -
Sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth with the world vision bit. I was just trying to get a better grip on your beliefs.
Could you give an example? I don’t really doubt you, but I just can’t come up with one off the top of my head (and I don’t believe that restricting the drinking age is comprable, though you could try that argument if you like).
All I can do is point you to what I previously said. I have a right to do whatever I please as long as it doesn’t harm others. Therefore, unless you can prove that my having a child will harm others (either the kid or you as a taxpayer), I have a right to have as many kids as I want. If that doesn’t cut it for you, we obviously have drastically different opinions on this matter, and I don’t know how much help further debating will be. But it’s always fun to do…
Why can’t I just wise up and leave this thread alone?
Anyway, let me make sure that I am clear on your position.
-You find no problem with government revoking the right to procreate as a form of punishment. After all, rights are revoked as a form of punishment all the time.
-You would not find it acceptable to revoke this right out of concern for the potential children who, after all, do not warrant protection since they are theoretical.
Is this your position?
In that case, I assume that you recognize some rights as being more “fundamental” than others. After all, we do have somewhat of a hierarchy of rights revocation:
Loss of life
Permanent loss of freedom (incarceration)
Temporary loss of freedom (incarceration)
Loss of property
Am I to conclude, then, that you put loss of reproductive rights somewhere in between “Permanent loss of freedom” and “Temporary loss of freedom”?
The thing is, for some people, able to recreate is at the bottom of this hierarchy; for others, it is at the top. Based on its importance to members of the population, I again assert that you need a profound justification for revoking this right, perhaps even a crime more serious than one resulting in the death penalty.
With all the access to cheap and highly effective birth control available in this country, there is no excuse for bringing a child into the world that one has no means of providing for. Unfortunately, there are many, many, many people who make the choice to have a child with less consideration that I would give to the decision to get a pet, and the results are predictible. We have forteen year old girls getting pregnant on purpose so they can have a little doll baby of their very own, or in order to force their boyfriends to marry them. We have to solve that problem first, and we ought to acknowledge that the welfare state contributes to the problem immensely, as does puritanical attitude in this country that treats marriage as a good in and of itself regardless of its effect on the lives of the parties involved.
You nailed the first part of my position on the head. But I’m confused by your second recap here. I am not in favor of revoking this right unless the potential parent has done something to warrant it (which I’ll leave open-ended for right now). This means that I would not revoke the right of an alcoholic to procreate just for being an alcoholic. If they father/mother a child and continue their alcoholic ways, then I would consider revoking it, if they’re being abusive (or have caused FAS in the child). I base this on the fact that someone might sober up once s/he realizes a child is imminent. I think that this is what you were trying to summarize. But I’m not positive, so please let me know.
As for your background, I’m sorry to hear it, but it doesn’t change my position. I feel like Dukakis here. Once you’re born (or thirdtrimester, or whatever; I don’t want to get into that issue) then you have rights. But had your father been denied the right to procreate, you would have been hypothetical. Now, in the aftermath, we know that you’re around, and appreciate having you here. But if you’d never been born, we wouldn’t be missing anything. I know this is hyperbole, but extend your premise. Every time I practice safe sex, I’m denying the creation of a hypothetical person. Should I not be allowed to do this? If I asked that hypothetical person, they’d probably prefer to be born, even though I’m in no way prepared to offer them a stable life.
Your point about theoretical people is clear and, actually, I agree with it–I posted something along those lines earlier. The point I was making is that, if you are saying you want to protect the rights of theoretical people, you are overstepping your bounds by preventing them from being born–who wants that kind of protection? I would hate to think that my life was cancelled in order to protect me from potential abuse.
Actually, my story does apply to your position also. My mother was not abusive and, in fact, took a great deal of abuse because of a tendency to stand between my father and the children. Were someone to have punished my father by sterilizing him, they would not only have removed his right to procreate, but would have also effectively removed my mother’s as well, and she had committed no crime, other than bad choice of husbands (it was her first try).
Usually, when someone reproduces, another person is required. If this person feels strongly about doing it with your punished criminal, you are punishing them as well. Does this not disturb you?
btw, I am laughing at myself now:
Not what I meant to say (I’ll blame it on the codeine in my cough syrup), but the more I look at it, the more I like it.
Ah well, till all are one.