Right to procreate?





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Right to procreate?
By Joe1220 (Joe1220) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 09:15 pm: Edit

Is the reproduction a fundamental human right? Should every human being be allowed to have children without any restrictions?

By Arthurd (Arthurd) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 09:29 pm: Edit

As long as one can support his/her progeny, s/he should have the right to procreate. Once a person reaches a level or reproduction where they can no longer afford to support their offspring, their right to procreate infringes on their offspring's right to live happily.

My 3 cents.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit

So what would you do ... make it illegal?

The government should stay out here.

By Arthurd (Arthurd) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit

I wouldn't make it illegal. A republican might...

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 09:40 pm: Edit

I'm not sure where you are going with this... but since I consider the continuance of our species above all else, I would have to say yes. Procreation is not just a fundamental human right, but THE fundamental human right.

By Joe1220 (Joe1220) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 10:57 pm: Edit

I would like to think that children have a fundamental right to safety that superceeds the parent's "right" to procreate.

Unfortunately, many people in our society are losers who should never be allowed to have children. Some examples:

-Heroin addicts
-Crack Addicts
-Alcoholics
-people with HIV
people on welfare
-people who cann't/don't give their children medical care, food, etc.
-people who have repeatedly committed violent crimes
-Loony religious people who don't believe in modern medicine
-and many more


Thankfully, the good state of wisconsin agrees with me on this.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/other_noteworthy_cases/lu_Oakleysummary.htm

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:06 pm: Edit

So I'll ask again ... what would you do ... make it illegal?

By Ambitiousyokel (Ambitiousyokel) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Joe, are you insane? Welfare recipients can't be allowed to have children? Who the •••• are you?

By T2opine (T2opine) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

I have kind of mixed feelings on this one. I don't think the government should control every single thing. For example, some people may be on welfare because they just lost a job, and others may truly not believe in using modern medicine. But I would have to agree that when someone is a crack addict, heroin addict, ect, I don't think it would necessarily be the best idea for them to have children. Then again, it's not my call.

By Mercury (Mercury) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit

You need a license to drive a car...

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit

I cannot believe this. If someone is ill suited to be a parent has a child then that child can be taken away -- that's what happens and everyone is all right with that. Is it the best solution? No, but it's the only possible one. What do you want to do? Sterilize them? There is no solution and the government best stay out.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit

But don't you understand? This may sound cold hearted, but think of how much money these children (with HIV, birth defects because of parental drug abuse, etc.) cost! And who is paying for them? You and me.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

I'll pay for them ... I don't have a problem with that. It's far better than the Orwellian alternative.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit

I'll ask you again ... what are you going to do about it?

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit

I'll have to side with Craig on this one... there simply is no viable alternative to letting people reproduce at will and dealing with the children as they come. It's a hard choice, but I like my government intervention on the reactive side of my personal life, not the proactive.

How about we concentrate on helping/lowering the numbers of the groups Joe mentioned before we restrict their ability to reproduce?

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit

Are you saying when the solution to a problem isn't obvious, we should just act like it doesn't exist?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:13 am: Edit

What's the solution then Benjamin? I keep asking but you can't answer it besides giving a vague statement that has nothing to do with the subject. Just give me a viable solution that does not infringe upon my or anyone else's human rights. That's all I ask.

By Joe1220 (Joe1220) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit

Didn't anyone read the artical?

"David Oakley was convicted of intentionally refusing to pay court-ordered support for seven of his nine children, which he had fathered with four different women. The trial judge declined to impose a jail sentence but conditioned Oakley’s parole on his not having any more children until he proved he was ready, willing, and able to support them. "

This could be a good parol condition for cases where a drug addict, violent offender, or neglectful parent is tried.

The surgeon general currently has the authority to quarantine people with communicable diseases. HIV is communicable to offspring. As a condition of release from quarantine, the carrier could be ordered not to have kids.

its reactive, not proactive.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit

It's scary that anyone is even talking about this. Sounds like the old eugenics movement associated with the Nazis. But Craig, I've been telling you, this is the kind of mentality that naturally springs first from birth control and then from abortion. Your right to birth control becomes your duty to be sterilized, and your right to abort your children soon becomes your duty to abort. The same with euthanasia. Your right to "die with dignity" has now become your duty to hurry up and get it over with in Oregon.

Only healthy, perfect people are worth anything in this mindset. I have two adopted children who should never have been allowed to exist on this earth according to this thinking. One was conceived in a mental institution and the other was born to a couple of homeless drug addicts. I think their lives are worth something, even if they had been raised by their birth parents.

Don't you think this is a rather snobby way of looking at life? Who is to say who is too poor or too stupid or too irresponsible to have children? You are stripping life of its inherent dignity and worth and valuing it like a pork chop at the supermarket.

The Chinese are currently doing what you propose. They allow only one child per family, and if you violate the law, they drag you kicking and screaming into an abortion "clinic" or burn down your home. Is this the kind of society we want?

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:28 am: Edit

It's an extreme case -- that tactic is nice but doesn't have the breadth necessary.

Your mindset seems off a little Chavi in my mind. Making something legal does not encourage the behavior (though I could be wrong). I don't think the legalization of any of the things is making people want them to occur. Smoking is legal and that is not practiced by too many. Oh, and don't get me started with euthanasia and John Ashcroft.

I do agree with you on this specific case however.

By Anglophile (Anglophile) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 03:28 am: Edit

Joe1220, I think you make a very good point. Sometimes people abuse their rights, and having too many children than you can reasonably support is a primary example. I can't tell you statistics, but it seems to me that wealthy people tend to have 1-2 kids, and poor families tend to have many children. This is not a brilliant plan!

Craigk10, while I can understand your disapproval, it surprises me that you can't see the merit in what Joe1220 has to say. Where did the open minded Craigk10 go? Yeah, the Nazis had a similar premise-- but they had some good ideas (in a sea of very bad ideas) that are ignored when people look at the bigger picture of their atrocities. I know that people are going to misinterpret that last sentence, so don't even start. I'm not condoning-- just trying to be objective.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:36 pm: Edit

I think I'm being open-minded -- I just have yet to be told a solution besides something that would work with a very small percentage of the people in question. Does it work there? Yes. Do I like it? I think it's a good idea and is appropriate though cannot be used every time. Should there ever be any illegalization of having children on a broad scale? No without a doubt.

I was just at the Holocaust Museum and they had a exhibit of the science of Nazism so I will say this -- their solution was sterilization and they did so to get rid of the weak in society. The plan went hand in hand with the murders of people with mental illnesses, etc. Is that what you want? So that was not a positive aspect of Nazism just another atrocity that is not well known. Remember, the intent may have been a good idea, but the implementation really does matter. Also, they targeted people out of speculation not science -- how would you draw the line?

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 01:46 pm: Edit

"The Chinese are currently doing what you propose. They allow only one child per family, and if you violate the law, they drag you kicking and screaming into an abortion "clinic" or burn down your home. Is this the kind of society we want? "

Cruel as it may be to allow only one child per family, if they did not have this policy what would happen to China? Even with this policy the population of China is still overcrowded and China is far from self-sufficient. I don't know how China can go on without the policy.

And I don't think people with serious mental or medical problems should be allowed to have children. Its survival of the fittest, and if having offsprings will only cause more trouble for society, I don't think that the offspring should exist.

Our world is already overpopulated as it is. I don't know the real statistics(somebody please provide it) but at this rate all our spaces and natural resources would be used up unless the elite of our society can find a solution.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit

IF you do a search on Google or other search engines for "earth population dilemma" you will find some interesting facts and statistics. Read and consider them before you post an opinion.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

If China had a freer society, their economy would improve and people would naturally have less children. It's basic, proven human behavior. If population was the problem, how do you explain the economic success of Taiwan and Hong Kong? And speaking of being tolerant and open-minded, how intolerant are you towards the disabled and the poor? You have condemned them all with a very broad brush stroke. It's one thing to decide to take children away from parents who are being irresponsible towards them, but quite another to decide ahead of time that they should never be parents and sterilize them.

By Nmoreno1 (Nmoreno1) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Yes, people have the right to procreate. There is a court case relating to it...I studied it for the We the People competition. oh well, I seem to have forgetten it. But yes, it is an IMPLICIT right, meaning you're not going to find it said specifically in the Constitution. so go out there and excercise your IMPLICIT rights!

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 04:42 pm: Edit

"And I don't think people with serious mental or medical problems should be allowed to have children. Its survival of the fittest, and if having offsprings will only cause more trouble for society, I don't think that the offspring should exist."

That's exactly what the Nazis believed. Don't take that the wrong way, but it is. Go back and look at their beliefs and how they acted on them (not talking about everything else) and really ask yourself if that's what you believe.

So what would you do??? Make it illegal and force abortions? Sterilize them? You all talk of the problem but you have no solutions that do not seriously call into everything our system stands for.

On a sidenote, I can't believe Chavi and I are on the same side on any argument ...

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 04:53 pm: Edit

I'm will so not get involved with this thread.

- Poison Ivy

By Caramelapple (Caramelapple) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:15 pm: Edit

I know a family who adopted two twins when they were around four. Now in their mid-twenties, their adopted daughters spend their time sleeping around without any intentional form of birth control, frequently become pregnant, and having the child which is then taken away by social workers within months because the mothers cannot provide anything that remotely resembles a proper home. Between the two of them, there must be about a dozen children so far and there seems to be no sign of this ritual ending any time soon.

So these two women are creating an increasing number of children which tax payers support. We have no choice in this. They are dictating the terms. It is our "duty" to support the children they don't want. We can't even prevent them from having additional children.

Yeah yeah, I've presented no solution. I'm still thinking here...

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Craigk10, I'm not saying I know the solution, but I don't know the cure for aids, but that doesn't stop thousands of scientists and doctors searching for it.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Bad analogy ... that's a scientific problem. Plus I'm not stopping anyone or saying no one should find a solution. I'm just saying that right now, there should be no restrictions of any kind based on the alternative.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Caramelapple - I would imagine these children you talk about are being adopted by families eager to have them. There is no reason for your tax dollars being spent to support them for long, other than the child welfare agency taking them and puting them in foster care for a short period of time until they can terminate parental rights. The real problem lies with child welfare bureaucrats and judges who are often way too reluctant to terminate the rights of parents who neglect their children.

By Caramelapple (Caramelapple) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:50 pm: Edit

I believe the children not adopted by their grandparents (not "eagerly," but willingly) are among the over half million in foster care. Parental rights have been termintated, but they are waiting for permanent homes.

But I agree a big problem are those who are reluctant to terminate the rights of parents who neglect/abuse their children. I'm glad you brought that up.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit

"So what would you do??? Make it illegal and force abortions? Sterilize them? You all talk of the problem but you have no solutions that do not seriously call into everything our system stands for. "

First of all, I doubt those people will be able to find partners easily. The people I am referring to are those that must be housed in mental instuitions. I mean, seriously, what good would it do for the world if they had children? Now by all means I will not advocate sterilizing them, but I think that it is best for them not to have children. Because our current population is still not yet to the point where resources are very limited and endangered, I believe that we can still allow this behavior. But in the future as the world becomes more crowded there will be a need to prevent them from having children.

And Chavi, democracy does not happen overnight. It is not easy for such a large communist nation such as China to change into a democracy. China was in really bad conditions when they first initiated the one child per household law. Had it not been for that law, China would not experience the slow economic growth it is experiencing today.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 08:15 pm: Edit

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because our current population is still not yet to the point where resources are very limited and endangered


i'm going to take a wild guess and say that you, sir, live in a little bubble known as suburban america

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 09:03 pm: Edit

In case anyone has missed out on the bulletin, the population bubble doesn't exist. It never formed; rather, it fizzled while the leftist UN population agencies were making predictions of the world's population going upwards of 20 billion in thirty years.

At the predicted rate, we should've been at 6 billion years ago. It's debatable whether we're at that now. Demographic transition spread (it took hundreds of years for Europe; it took mere decades for Mexico, China (artificially, albeit), and others). At the moment, it's highly doubtful that the world's population will go anywhere near 10 billion, and the likeliest estimates are dropping every year.

Thus:

1) Eugenics is neither practical nor necessary at the moment.

2) Our planet faces no imminent shortage of carrying capacity. Rather, any current problems are due to distribution, not lack, of resources.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 09:47 pm: Edit

WTF you need to get off the computer and drive your daddy's volvo to south america or take some first class flight to china or india or something and tell the millions of starving homeless kids out there that there's plenty of resources out there for everyone in the world but they're going to starve to death while you eat roast beef because you're not too keen on sharing.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Why so much hostility?

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit

Stop debating on emotion. It doesn't work. Ask any legitimate international charity organization or demographer what the problem with resources is... the number of them, or the ability to get them where they are most needed.

Both the UN and the US Dep. Agriculture estimate that over 50% of the food gathered in the US and in the world spoils due to inadequate food distribution and local demand.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:28 pm: Edit

LisaSimpson,

When I was talking about resources, I was actually referring to natural resources. When I say that current resources are not endangered, I am referring to the fact that the human population as a whole is not in danger of becoming extinct.

And I live in BK NYC so dont give me the suburban sheltered bullsh*t

Yes, we all know that people are starving in other parts of the world, so what are you sugguesting that we do? Do you actually believe that distributing wealth evenly and create a communist Earth will improve the human populations? How about we work towards abstinence first in starving countries, which brings up the topic of this post: Don't have kids if you can't provide them with a bright future.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Purgeofdoors is very right. Do a little more research, his position is backed up by a lot of experts. But even so, lack of resources is no reason to go around sterilizing people you see unfit to parent.

Also, regarding the mental institution comment, many mental patients unfortunately have plenty of access to sexual relations because of a certain demented strain of thinking amongst social workers and medical practitioners that mental patients have a right to have sex and that the mental institution cannot deny them that right. Although I'm sure they toss plenty of condoms and spermicide their way. Not very dignified, if you ask me.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 11:58 pm: Edit

no need to sterilize, all we need is Education.

Once they know what they and their children will be facing, and once they learn about birth control methods and have access to them, I'm sure they'll understand.

By Paulhomework (Paulhomework) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

problem is not lack of resources its the distribution of resources

i did a whole extended essay on this.

By Joe1220 (Joe1220) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:33 am: Edit

Some of you may be missing the point. The reason to implement this policty in the US isn't to conserve resources. It is to pre-empt the problem of losers from creating children who's lives they will •••• up, children who will have to be supported by the state.

CarmelApple's experience is the perfect example:
"I know a family who adopted two twins when they were around four. Now in their mid-twenties, their adopted daughters spend their time sleeping around without any intentional form of birth control, frequently become pregnant, and having the child which is then taken away by social workers within months because the mothers cannot provide anything that remotely resembles a proper home. Between the two of them, there must be about a dozen children so far and there seems to be no sign of this ritual ending any time soon."

For developing countries the problem is not a lack of resources. The problem is they have failed to develop advanced market economies. They have more children THAN THEIR ECONOMY can support, NOT MORE THAN THEIR RESOURCES can support.

The solution is not as simple as educating these people. In some parts of africa, despite access to the truth, HIV positive men believe they rid themselves of the disease by having sex with a virgin! Condoms and birth control are violently opposed. Folk remedies and voodoo •••••••• is all those people adhere to, not knowledge and education.

Another source of misery and overpopulation in the developing world is catholic doctorine. The catholic church teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. They also teach that HIV can go through the latex in condoms, which scientist deny. This bullsit causes much misery.

By Stupid_Guy (Stupid_Guy) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit

things were so much easier when we let nature take care of us rather than vice versa.
We have 2 options:
1. be animals and stop worrying about ethical issues, because there are non. There's only natural selection and survival of the fittest.
2. be human and worry about ethical issues, because we created them.

perhaps we can draw a line in between?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 03:24 pm: Edit

Yes, the Catholic church so horrible that in partnership with the Ugandan government, they have brought the AIDs epidemic in that country to a screeching halt. They did this through education and promotion of chasitity and monogamy. No mass distributions of condoms, just good old religious doctrine. And it will make Uganda a better, more peaceful country.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 03:38 pm: Edit

That only works, I'd imagine, with conversion or those all ready converted to Catholicism. What you call success, I call success through proselytization.

What is wrong with the promotion of contraceptives? Why is that not a viable option (not looking for religious argument)?

By Czyrda (Czyrda) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Joe- thanks for http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/other_noteworthy_cases/lu_Oakleysummary.htm that guy lives in my city. we all had a laugh at that when it was in the papers.

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 03:41 am: Edit

Chavi, your adopted children do have a right to exist now that they've been concieved. However, there are many worse cases of seriously ill children being born to "bad" parents. It's not about aborting the child. More like preventing that he never exists in the first place.

And no, I don't think we should sterilize people because that is a very traumatic experience.

I do agree that somehow these addicts/exteremely poor/mentally unstable people should be given say.. a birth control shot (for the women) and something for the men (hopefully science is working on this) to prevent them from having children temporarily. I suppose the guys could store their sperm and get sterilized afterwards. You know, very humane and such. Nothing too gruesome.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 08:06 am: Edit

Moderators, please close this thread. This stuff is offensive. I think our budding Nazi friends need some time away from the Internet to learn about things outside their sheltered little subdivisions.

Some of you really make me ill.

-Noodleman

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who feels that way.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Craig, in case you really want an answer to your earlier question, promotion of contraceptives gives the impression of condoning or excusing indiscriminate sex and doesn't get to the root of the problem. The problem is promiscuity, which spreads not only disease but illegitmacy and broken families. By focusing on chastity and monogamy, you encourage the formation of stronger families, with both a Mom and a Dad, which is much better for society.

The opposite end of the spectrum is Thailand, which also had some success in reducing its AIDs rates through the widespread distribution of condoms, testing, legalized and regulated prostitution, etc. But do you really want to live in a society where you are constantly accosted at the airport and other public places with people distributing basket loads of condoms, "safe sex" pamphlets, tested and approved hookers, etc.? Promiscuity and prostitution and other aspects of the sex trade there are rampant. Not exactly a great place to raise children. Besides, it was only a quick fix, and now their rates are rising again.

And Noodleman, I agree this thread is offensive, but this discussion is necessary. Have you noticed how many people actually think forced sterilization is acceptable!? Pretty scary stuff.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 07:54 pm: Edit

I do not support sterilization

Please refer to my previous posts again

Trust me, I do not live a sheltered life. You don't have NO idea at all.


And hold your horses... who do you think you are to close a thread? We live in America and everybodu has his or her say. You have something to say, say it. You don't like what someone else says, don't read it.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Settle down yourself ... I think the responses (at least mine) were in response to Fenix Three especially, which I found unbelievable.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Quit your whining, Thunder *snicker*. I wasn't even referring to your post. And I grew up in Brooklyn, so I'm not impressed.

Wah! My name is Thunder and that mean Noodleman hurt my feelings! Boo hoo! This is Amewica! My name is Thunder and I have a wight to fwee speech!

By Appliedmath (Appliedmath) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Chavi in this entire discussion you brought up the worst point, by implying how the chinese maintain their population has little to do with the US methods because the US is NOT overpopulated for one thing, and second China has no option but to impose such laws otherwise more of their population would suffer like they already are. Don't make a bad situation worse.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Noodleman, how does it help anything to have these "budding Nazis" hold their feelings inside rather than debate them in a public forum? I don't agree with eugenics and have been arguing against it throughout this thread, but I find it ironic that you are proposing censorship and calling people Nazis in the same post.

And then you go on to call people whom you do not know "sheltered."

Several posts after that, you proceed to mock someone who made a valid point whilst not actually contradicting him.

So how many rules of online debating did you break in several short posts?

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 08:52 am: Edit

Get off your high horse. Ever hear the famous quote from Judge Potter?

“I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

The ideas of eugenics and sterilization deserve nothing but contempt--not rational debate. To debate nonsense lends that nonsense an air of decency it simply doesn't merit. When someone proposes something so obscene, they deserve "shut up and go away" as a response. Garbage doesn't need to be aired. It needs to be disposed of.

Oh, and can the "whilst"--unless you're an expatriot Brit living in Shreveport. It's really affected. Try "while."

Censorship. You make me laugh. What high-falutin' nonsense. Last time I checked, CC's TOC didn't include the bill of rights.

Give it a rest.

By Joe1220 (Joe1220) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Right on Fenix_Three!

Noodleman:
Perhaps you should try to form an intellegent argument againt our proposal(s). Your lack of response implies that you have no good arguments againt eugenics.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Appliedmath - Apply some logic. What they do to people in China is as horrific as what some of these posters propose to do here in the U.S. How do you think they are going to accomplish their goal of stopping people from procreating? And are their reasons any better or different than the Chinese'? No matter the reason or situation, forced sterilization or "birth control" or abortion are crimes against humanity. I would much prefer bringing back some of the old methods, such as shotgun weddings, or fathers protecting their daughters from these older guys that prey on them, or expecting their daughters to act like ladies and not whores, or a whole host of other things we have gotten too far away from.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

That despicable ... how about you are infringing upon a person's human rights because they are seen as not good enough for society. That's a damn good argument. Or how about the fact that what you see as a little adjustment can spiral out of control as in Nazi Germany. What's next ... handicapped people? I dare you to do any reading on that subject and not be outraged beyond belief. Never, never should the government step in and forceably make it impossible for someone to have children (which is sterilization even it's only temporary).

Eugenics isn't even real science -- it's just pure guessing that the offspring will be a hamper to society like the parents. Give them a good home (which is available) and a chance.

That's an intelligent argument against your proposal. I'm sorry about my tone but this frightens me more than any political subject simply because it is a threat to our system while everything else is just debate within our system (except for the Patriot Act).

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 01:31 pm: Edit

I understand why abortion/sterilization can be considered crimes against humanity but why birth control? I understand that it doesn't work as well as scaring people with religious doctrine, but I've never understood why birth control is a crime against humanity.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Joe, you'd be a good argument for eugenics. Maybe I'll switch sides.

PS: My above post elucidates why I'll not stoop to arguing with you point for point. You don't deserve it.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Who here is on a high horse?

You're claiming that an opinion evidently held by fair numbers of American teens is not even worth debating against.

When illogical views are not opposed by the people who should be pushing against them, they will inevitably become more popular. Don't expect "budding Nazis" to recognize the error of their ways in an atmosphere of tacit acceptance.

And the mods tend to follow threads like these very closely... when they need to be closed, they are closed promptly.

By Joe1220 (Joe1220) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 03:31 pm: Edit

"how about you are infringing upon a person's human rights because they are seen as not good enough for society"
No. I prospose we infringe upon a person's PRIVALEGE to have children because they have been determined to be bad for their children.

"Or how about the fact that what you see as a little adjustment can spiral out of control as in Nazi Germany"
But it didn't spiral out of control in Nazi Germany. It did exactly what it had intended to do. That is not even remotely close to what i propose.

"Eugenics isn't even real science -- it's just pure guessing that the offspring will be a hamper to society like the parents."
No. In my proposal, it would be entirely founded on scientific grounds. It is a fact that mothers with HIV have a high rate of transferring the virus to the child. It is a scientific fact that use of drugs like crack and heroin by pregnant women have detrimental effects on their children. History has proven that some idividuals, such as Mr. Oakley, will never support their children.

"Give them a good home (which is available) and a chance."
Great, give the kid a good home and her HIV will just go away.

Sometimes different people's "rights" can conflict.

Every child should have the right to food, healthcare, and safety. This must come before the 'right' of degenerates like Oakley's to procreate. It can't be any other way.

As Mercury said, "You need a license to drive a car..."

By Takiusproteus (Takiusproteus) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 04:22 pm: Edit

Howabout a "Procreation License" then?

It would not deny the right to procreate, but would allow for some regulation with some minimal requirements.

I don't think people should have the completely free "right" to reproduce in any way they want, because this act has a potentially life-affecting impact on others (the offspring). Similarly, you can't go around practicing medicine anyhow the hell you want - lives are at stake and your ability to perform both properly and safely needs to be ensured. With a license. It's the only way to make sure you use your powers responsibly.

As far as I know, you can't exactly (or almost never) exercise all of your rights completely freely - in the cases where they might infringe on the rights of others or endanger others, there are limitations.
For example... right to protest? For some reason, you have to go get a permit to do so. And then you can't do it in certain places.

Just tossing out an idea.

By Neo (Neo) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit

This thread is disturbing.

By Oliviakang (Oliviakang) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 04:46 pm: Edit

that sums it up quite nicely.


neo- ALIAS fan, are you?

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Oh, and forgive me for the "whilst"...

I spent a good part of my summer in Australia and more than likely picked up a few non-American words which I liked.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit

We have a freaking system for taking children away from bad parents. Improve the system, don't take away a fundamental human right. And your scientific basis comments all included "high" percentages but not 100%. Therefore, it IS a guessing game that the child will be affected by the parent's actions. But that doesn't even matter.

It did spiral out of control in Germany because eugenics inspired thinking like yours made it all right to MURDER handicapped people, etc. because they were deemed a burden on society. If that's not spirally out of control, I don't know what is.

I cannot honestly believe that people think this way. I really don't know what to say beyond that.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Noodleman, you are not funny. What part of brooklyn do you live in? When were you living there? And does your childhood experience in brooklyn justify your calling my life "sheltered"? Just because your life in brooklyn is sheltered doesn't mean everybody's is okay? What a dumb a ss.

You seem to have too much pride in yourself to debate in here. All you say is, "his point is garbage," OMG, and I won't even argue with you because I'm a too good for it, so there. Who is whining here? You don't agree you give your point and support it. Otherwise stop wasting your time here.

And BTW, let me ask you this, do you think patients in mental instuitions should be allowed to procreate? I just want to see what you actually think. And please, for god sake, give us a reason.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit

Response Number 2:

"Every child should have the right to food, healthcare, and safety. This must come before the 'right' of degenerates like Oakley's to procreate."

No one is debating this but we can still provide for this along with protecting a fundamental human right. It's simple, have the children taken away from an unsuitable home. Frankly, I don't know what you're saying because it has just about nothing to do with the issue.

Do you want a license for everything? How about a free speech license?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Well, now we're talking!! Let's be like communist China and issue licenses for procreation. That's exactly what they do there. What a fine, upstanding, freedom-loving, moral government they have.

And Craig, I was referring to "forced" birth control.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Chavi, does that really happen anywhere? I assume you are referring to an implant or something and not some other means of contraceptives.

By Neo (Neo) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Oliviakang -- I'm definately an Alias fan :^)

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 10:00 pm: Edit

In China, the women are urged to take birth control pills.

By Takiusproteus (Takiusproteus) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 10:06 pm: Edit

Is there something really ethically objectionable about issuing licenses for procreation?

"Do you want a license for everything? How about a free speech license? "
Yes, I want a license for everything; everything that can endanger or affect the life of another person in a serious way. We have licenses for guns, cars, practicing professions, even MARRIAGE. And I thought marrying was a fundamental sacrosanct untouchable godgiven right? Hmm... what's up with that, anyway?

Sorry to sound like Uncle Ben: with great power comes great responsibility. When people act completely irresponsibly, can we curb their power? That'd be too extreme and Nazi-ish.

Howabout forcing them to go through training in order to understand their duties to their children for the purpose of becoming a licensed parent?

I believe that a child's right to a happy life comes before the parent's right to reproduce. One just seems much more necessary and vital than the other. Flame away.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 10:18 pm: Edit

"It's simple, have the children taken away from an unsuitable home."

And what if nobody wants the child? If such families have children they only cause more trouble for society. One or two is okay, but if you keep on encouraging families that can barely take care or themselves to have children either mentally or financially, then you are advocating the creation of problems.

Humans are not animals. Animals can procreate as much as they want, because they do not know better. But if the parents are unfit to survive in the environment, so will the offsprings, and both will eventually die out and not give rise to more problems. We as humans know better and have to be more responsible for our actions. If the parents are unfit to raise a child properly, do not have kids! Simple as that.

By Takiusproteus (Takiusproteus) on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Thunder, I disagree with you on the whole "bad for society" thing. You can't justify preventing poor families or large families with the "bad for society" idea - that sounds very close to unacceptable ideologies that place the nation or collective's value way above the individual's. Social darwinism, fascism, etc...

Let's not think in terms of "Bad for society" but more along the lines of "bad for the kids".

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit

Thunder, in a purely Darwinian sense it's ironic that you classify humans as "not animals" and then proceed to apply the ideology of animal evolution to us. Actually, you could very easily be the first eugenicist that has not classified humanity in the reductionist animalistic category. Not very consistent, but neither is the whole eugenics philosophy to begin with.

And I suspect you've taken some sort of biology course, and are applying the things you've read about to the human species. Pretty enticing, but it doesn't exactly work like that. There's no gene for "success", and neither is there one for "inability to raise kids." I'm not going to get into a nature/nurture debate, but almost all of the scientific evidence available to us today suggests that it's a combination of both genes and environment. Improve the environment, and any negative genes can be negated.

Secondly, some of the greatest/most intelligent people I know could easily be classified as "unfit" by you, let alone some government bureaucracy or whoever the hell you intend to enforce this. People who have made mistakes? Sure. But not a big pile of inferior genetic information.

Sorry, but you don't have the power nor insight to decide that.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 04:11 am: Edit

I admit there are many situations in which children are in a bad situation, but you are tinkering with something that should not be tinkered with. You are demanding that a certain group of people not have children through some physical means (forced abortions, sterilization, etc.). This group of people MAY be bad at raising the children and the "may" part is key. It's like saying people with anger problems could really hurt someone in the future so they should be locked up or at least forced to take medication. It's an uncertainty and we have a system to deal with this uncertainty. Sure it's not perfect, but don't you think improving the said system is a better then funding sterilization projects or whatever the hell you want to do. Just because someone is the offspring of a heroine addict doesn't mean that person cannot be placed in a good home and lead a productive life (and I know this because I've seen it). You are just taking guesses ... that's all it comes down to.

Regardless, this is not the place of the government until something of harm is actually done.

The idea of having licenses for everything seems so Orwellian that I don't even want to get into it.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:43 am: Edit

The bottom line is you can't force this kind of stuff on people without horribly invasive gestapo-like tactics. Education is great, but what do you do if someone has a kid without taking the class or getting a license? Are you going to take the child out of a perfectly good home until the parent complies? Do you really think you could force this on society without widespread trauma and rebellion? You would have to create a "birth control" police department that monitors the most private aspects of people's lives. Tell me how you would enforce any of this.

By Takiusproteus (Takiusproteus) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:43 am: Edit

If they have a kid without training and license, then take the kid away if they further refuse. If it is a "perfectly good home", then I don't see why the parents would not agree to take a brief class, sign a few papers, and take a test. If you had a kid, really wanted to keep and love it, and was required to do something so simple, you probably would. Right? No rebellion and trauma there.

You won't need spies peeking on people constantly. Just go to to the hospital, tell the docs "Look, if they don't show you a license when the kid comes out, give us a call." In that case, they call the authorities, who then contact the parents to inform them of their requirement within a certain timeframe. If the parents refuse outright, take the kids away.

Why would they refuse, anyway? Hmm... "Oh, it's just a damn kid, I don't want it anyway, I don't feel like doing all this stuff for a kid..." Would you want a mom that sounded like that?

You make it sound so much scarier than it really would be. The threat to seize the kids would be pretty much an empty one, in most cases. All it does is make sure that every kid has parents who are aware of what they need to do and know how to do it.

By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit

Something I can see is making it beneficial (tax wise) for the parents to take a class. In my area (and most I imagine) there is a class for parents after they divorce. That is a realistic and good idea (though funding would be difficult). But to take children away if they don't take this class ... come on. This is an area in which encouragement makes sense but mandation doesn't.

Plus if a parent is going to be a bad parent, the class really doesn't matter at all. A bad parent will be a bad parent regardless.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Craig's right about the tax benefit idea. Plus, mandating doctors to report non-licensed mothers to the authorities is setting this country up for a lot of non-hospitalized births and a very high infant mortality rate.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 07:52 pm: Edit

Ok, let me rephrase what I meant as "unfit parents"

Unfit parents are either those that require regular housing in mental instuitions and those families that live in areas so poor that people are starving to death daily like the poorest parts of Africa where the AIDS epidemic is running wild. If either of these parents have kids, they will be causing more problems.

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

I have lived in some of the most desperately poor sections of the country for my entire life, and I have yet to encounter a place where kids are starving to death daily a la sub-Saharan Africa.

I can name plenty of areas where young people are shot to death daily, though.

By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:06 am: Edit

So are all the newspaper articles and fund-raising companies lying to us all along about the condition in parts of Africa?

By Anijen21 (Anijen21) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:13 am: Edit

Has anyone ever seen the movie "Parenthood"?

There's a scene where Keanu Reeves is talking about being abused by his father, and he says something like "You need a liscence to drive a car, catch a fish, etc, but they'll let any[one] become a father." I know it's similar to what a lot of you have been saying, but it's interesting that a movie explored this too.

Everyone's offering good arguments; to be honest, I'm not sure what my opinion is yet.

I guess I agree with the fact that if a parent is unfit to raise a child; ie sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc, then the child should be taken away for the protection of the child. Unfortunately, no one knows exactly what goes on behind closed doors. There are probably a lot more children who are abused and nothing can be done about it. There was a commercial on TV a while ago where a woman was walking into a school to pick up her child, and a man with a T-Shirt on that said "Child Abuser" was walking out with his son around his arms. Then it said something like, "you can't tell who's a child abuser" or something.

Fortunately, there are programs in effect to at least curb this problem. It is a child's right to grow up in a safe home, but with our government, you can't just barge into someone's home to see if everything's all right. Basically, what I'm saying is I don't know how to improve the system.

As for liscensing procreation because of the prospect of overpopulation: no. That's wrong. It's no one's right to say how many children you can have as long as you're treating your children well according to the government. Even if our tax dollars go to welfare checks for these families, we can't just say those families can't have any more children because we have to pay $10 extra to Uncle Sam every year. That's insane.

Just FYI, I took a government class over the summer, and there's a bill in the House of Representatives that will require all teenage females get the Norplant Implant to prevent any more excessive teenage pregnancies. That's pretty similar to what some of you are saying, isn't it?

By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Thunder, I misunderstood what you said. I thought you were talking about enforcing reproduction limits in just the United States, not the third world.

I am well aware of the conditions in much of sub-Saharan Africa, however, enforcing eugenics in that part of the world is not only impractical but fairly racist.

By Kiwee (Kiwee) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Procreation IS a fundamental human right, but kids also have the right to live in good homes. What needs to be done is to re-evaluate the foster care and DCF systems in our country to make sure that ALL kids have good, safe, clean homes ot live in, and educate people about the importance of being stable in all ways before having children.

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit

The weiner goes into the vagina and makes a baby.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

We know Aim78.

I agree 100% with you Kiwee!


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page