Smartass
“I thank the Lord there’s people out there like you.” — Elton John and Bernie Taupin, Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters, Honkey Chateau, 1972
Libertarian:
Oh, no I’ve said too much
I haven’t said enough
-REM
-VM
Vanix
(cool name BTW)
You forgot to include the fact that some minorities tend to breed heavily to ‘increase the race’ or to ‘bring another soldier for the cause’ into the world.
In some nations, breeding is out of control because male children are more valuable than female in them and a man will keep insisting his wife get knocked up until he has a son.
In several nations, birth control is not used because of (1) ignorance, (2) mistrust, (3) poverty, (4) a religious belief to ‘go forth and multiply’ {though I don’t think it was meant that humans should multiply until there is standing room only on the planet} and (5) in some places, a woman must prove herself by having a child out of wedlock before being considered marriageable.
It should also be noted that the deeper the area of poverty and the lower the level of education, the higher the birth rate. Areas where there is a lot of civil or national wars will have increased birth rates because it has been noted that wars seem to trigger an almost frantic urge to reproduce to replace the dead.
Smartass -
Gotcha. Kinda paradox, innit? (Which is my way of covering up the fact that I hadn’t thought about that angle.) I’m suffering from the problem that I agree with the basic angle of the points that you bring up, but I still can’t morally reconcile that agreement with the idea of knowingly allowing serious criminals to have children. And the fact that you keep on quoting from bands I like isn’t helping at all, either.
I’ve got to head off right now. I’ll think about what you’ve said, and hopefully come up with an answer at some point.
-ellis
A limited proposal:
Condition receipt of certain welfare benefits upon acceptance of some type of reversible sterilization procedure. If an individual is not able to care for their personal economic needs, and is asking the government to assist them in that respect, I question why they shuld enjoy an unfettered “right” to increase the price tag. When and if they are able to turn things around, reverse the procedure and breed away.
If this modest proposal has merit, we can debate how and whether the slope slips away.
Smartass -
If you’ll allow me to take things out of order…
No. There are probably plenty of people sitting on death row right now who have someone back home who still loves them. Executing these criminals therefore also punishes those innocents at home. But that doesn’t disturb me a bit. If you’ve killed five people in cold blood, I don’t give a damn if you have 50,000 people who love you, you’re still going to fry. And I feel that this analogy can be safely extended to the case that you proposed.
I still feel like Dukakis. My position does feel morally sound to me, but it comes out sounding awful when you word it in that manner. Nonetheless, since these hypothetical people will never know what they missed (whether it be a long life of joy and happiness or a short, brutal life of abuse), I don’t see any harm in denying their parents’ right to procreate.
I understand the point that you are trying to raise about deciding what’s in their best interest. But, since they are hypothetical, I think that I am justified in using this level of “protection.” Look at it this way. If they are born, they could a)be abused, or b)not be abused. b) is desirable, a) isn’t. By preventing them from being born, an alternative option, c), which is less desirable than b) but more so than a), is selected. I contend, however, that since these people are hypothetical, making the choice of c), which denies the option of b), does not constitute any improper use of authority on my part. It is a selfish decision to some extent, I’ll freely admit to that; but I think it is the better decision for society at large. By at large, I mean given 10,000 such cases; if you could run the experiment both ways [two timelines, one in which the child is born and one in which it is not], I believe that c) would be the proper choice, as more instances of a) would occur than of b).
That was, of course, phenomonally convoluted. But I hope that you get the point.
I am able, and I’m going to exercise that right, as I don’t feel like staring at a computer any more just now.
-ellis
I find it simply a scream that, in analogizing this rather insidious proposal out, at least 3 people have posited that “we” prevent drunk drivers from driving anymore by taking away their licenses. Man oh man, that’s a good one. Hoo, boy.
Eek, haven’t checked this all weekend.
Ellis555: Thanks! (nice name/thread)
By the way Andros, thanks for taking the side of some of my arguments but disagreeing with me on others, that’s precisely the kind of debating I hoped to start. I’m only advocating this idea because someone has to to keep the debate going - I’m not even totally convinced myself it’s perfect.
I haven’t the time or inclination to do a point by point seeing as everyone else is waaaay ahead of me, so I’ll just post a general reply to the more notable stuff:
Smartass: I think it was you who said that you had an abusive father, and fuck me for saying you shouldn’t have been born, or words to that effect. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have been born at all. I don’t think that your case holds any relevance however - the policies that I’m suggesting eliminate potential problems - not definite ones. You must surely agree that, without the benefit of hindsight, that you were more likely to have had poor parenting than a child with a father with no history of abuse (apologies if I’ve given offence in any way, just trying to get my point across). In addition you must surely agree that there are far more cases where the hypothetical father continues to be abusive than not?
Oh, and Pldennision, could you clarify your point slightly? I’m not entirely clear on what you’re getting at.
Loki:
It is a shame that I cannot convey facial expressions with text. You probably have this picture of me screaming “Fuck you!” and being all hurt. Actually, I was being ironic. Also, the purpose of my story was not to inspire any sort of sympathy or to try to make my case as any sort of poster child for the debate.
My point is this: A likelihood is not a good enough justification for what you are proposing. If you assume that letting abusers give birth will lead to abused children, you are assuming an ability to predict the future that you don’t have. I offer my history in an effort to make sure that you don’t think this is an entirely theoretical position.
Also, you seem to think that society should prevent child abuse based, I guess, on the notion that this abuse does some harm to society. Actually, I think the primary receiver of the harm is the child who is abused. Obviously, society displays a legitimate interest in stopping this sort of abuse. But to propose to do so by preventing the children from being born is to offer a solution that is, arguably, worse than the problem. The fact that you feel it would be better not to be born than to be abused is a legitimate position to take. What is not appropriate is to go ahead and draw this conclusion in advance for people who are not born. Once again, the reasoning is thus:
- Unborn people are only theoretical citizens. It is ridiculous to try to protect the rights of people who don’t exist.
- Even if we did want to protect the rights of theoretical people, you are making a value judgment for them that is way outside of the authority of anyone to make for another person.
Hope this clarifies.
-VM
Loki, my point was that the penalties we enact on drunk drivers in no way prevents them from driving. I’ll bet that, for anyone on this board within 50 miles of a metro area, there was a repeat DUI offender without a drivers license driving within 20 cars of you on the way to work this morning.
Aside from incarceration, we have NO way of preventing drunk drivers from driving. They merely do so illegally.
Extrapolate that to the driving/childbearing analogy (which is an amazingly poor one anyway) however you prefer.
Smartass:
**
No. You cannot murder a theoretical person. If that were so, birth control would be morally reprehensible, and the vasectomy I had would be akin to mass murder. The truth of the matter is that we, as a society, prevent births all the time, through birth control, abortion, and voluntary sterilizations. It is done for many reasons, stemming from personal situations to medical necessity. The prevention of birth is not so much your problem with the issue as who does the preventing.
**
I don’t see this as an equivalent at all. In theory, license revocation is there to prevent the DUI from driving again. If there were a pill that made him unable to grasp a steering wheel we’d use it, but just because it’s more difficult to implement is no reason the analogy doesn’t stand. The intent is to prevent future crimes, which was the objection originally.
As far as the “cutting hands off” analogy, it strikes me as being overblown. Sterilization, whether permanent or temporary, serves to restrict only a single activity, that of creating a child.
**
As to the argument that criminals will find a way to prevent crimes: Of course they will. No law, from a restraining order to license revocation, is going to prevent all the crimes they were intended to. That is not to say that they will not reduce crimes of that nature, or make life tougher on the repeat offenders.
All government is an exercise in limiting freedom. Every law we make is a limit on what some group of people can do. Do I want to limit freedom to procreate for some people? Yes. I find that crack babies and beaten children to be more than acceptable as justifications. Add to that the oft-cited statistics that abusers are overwhelmingly likely to have been abused themselves, and it’s a done deal for me.
Hi, all. Sorry I’ve been away from the thread all weekend. I’ll clear up some loose ends, as it looks like the thread is on its way to achive oblivion.
Smartass:
I believe that rights are a human construct, granted by consensus of society and guaranteed by government. They are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation by successive generations or manifestations of society. I further believe that there are no “God-given” or “natural” rights.
This belief makes me singularly unfit to be a Libertarian.
It also provides the answer to my question. I asked,
And the answer is simply, “Because our society has said it is.”
ellis:
Two issues here: Firstly, define “harm.” How many degrees of separation from act to harm are acceptable? How indirect can something be and still be harmful? Secondly, where’s the burden of proof? You can say that it’s on me, as you have the right to do anything you want in absence of proof. I can say it’s on you, as you have the right to do anything in presence of proof. Stalemate, I suppose, and you’re right–it’s not worth debating.
Unless sentinel wants to back up his assertions with some evidence, I think he’s safe to ignore.
dinsdale, welcome. You sed:
I like it. It strikes to the heart of my argument (such as it is). While folks are debating rights, the fact remains that I have to support people who can’t support themselves. I accept that as a function of government (and again, I’ll never be a card-carrying citizen of Libertaria). But while I support governmental support of the indigent, I do not care much for being taken advantage of. And anyone who has a child without being able to support it is taking advantaghe of me. Neener neener.
phil:
And I’m one of them. Of course DUI is a poor analogy. And of course we don’t completely prevent idiots from driving. But there are laws in place. Unless you can tell me that the laws have no effect at all, that everyone who has had their license taken away continues to drive, then the “we don’t catch everyone” argument doesn’t hold much water. We don’t prevent murder, either, or theft, or . . .
Not to mention that driving is not a right. That part of the (admittedly silly) analogy holds, ACAICT.
I reckon I’m about done here. I’ve gotten two “you are Hitler” emails already. I guess I should expect that sort of thing when I’m arguing a distasteful position. Shame, though.
So, which other biological imperatives do I now need society’s permission for? Breathing? Defecation? Growth?
The difference is that the others are not matters of choice, while reproduction is. Come to think of it, there are already laws that curtail where you may defecate.
The fact that we can choose to foil or own drive to reproduce makes it no less a biological imperative than the others.
And, while society may dictate where, they cannot dictate whether.
False analogy.
If you stop breathing or defecating (and arguable growing) you’ll die. If you stop having children you will continue to live.
Phil: So biological imperative = right? OK, I can see that in your defecation example. You’re absolutely right–no law or societal constraint will keep people from shitting. Or breathing. Or dying.
Those are going to happen, regardless. Death is the only altenative to not shitting.
I have yet to encounter anyone who died from not making a baby.
-a-
Whether we choose to foil a drive is exactly the point. Denying someone reproduction is no more fatal than caging a duck and keeping it from flying south for the winter. Of course, we do take away the right to all the biological imperatives you describe above whenever the state decides to execute someone for their crimes. Taking away a single right, reproduction, is hardly incompatible with the laws of a society that favors capital punishment.
Also, the idea that “natural” equals “right” is not particularly convincing.
Forgive me, Ptahlis, but I just found this slip of the tongue (or finger, as it were), rather amusing.
Those damn criminals, always trying to catch each other and put the poor police out of a job.
andros
I agree. Phil seems to be making some effort to revive this thread on the car issue, but the opposing views on the OP appear to have come to a draw. If we were all together physically, we could just have a brawl over it. Some people appear to think that the alternative is Hitler emails, and I’m sorry to hear that.
It’s been fun, and I’m bowing out.
Ellis555: Agreed - everyone’s said what they wanted to say, and no-one’s opinions are going to change any more than they have already. Gentlemen, ladies, it’s been fun. Hope to debate with you all again on some other controversial issue 