NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: this is a real life issue.

History: Naomi was a 10-week old baby of a 'mentally less-gifted' couple, aged 20 and 22, who died due to 'shaken baby syndrome'. Basicly one of the parents could not cope with her crying and shook her till she died. Both are devasted and never intended this to happen.
Following this a Dutch politician has now proposed that couples with a mental handicap (or otherwise expected not going to be able to raise a child) should not be allowed to have children, to be ensured through regular injections with a contraceptive (a 'prickpill'). The idea is that the welfare of children supercedes the right to actually have them - and some even go as far as to say that such a right does not exist.

What does the NS population think of this ?

Note: this is a real life issue.

History: Naomi was a 10-week old baby of a 'mentally less-gifted' couple, aged 20 and 22, who died due to 'shaken baby syndrome'. Basicly one of the parents could not cope with her crying and shook her till she died. Both are devasted and never intended this to happen.
Following this a Dutch politician has now proposed that couples with a mental handicap (or otherwise expected not going to be able to raise a child) should not be allowed to have children, to be ensured through regular injections with a contraceptive (a 'prickpill'). The idea is that the welfare of children supercedes the right to actually have them - and some even go as far as to say that such a right does not exist.

What does the NS population think of this ?
Reproduction is one of the most basic rights. Trying to decide who should be able to reproduce is a slippery slope if ever there was one!

Reproduction is one of the most basic rights. Trying to decide who should be able to reproduce is a slippery slope if ever there was one!
Eugenics was quite common everywhere until the holocaust, and not only that but people should not be allowed to have children if they are unable to take care of them. these people are not being permanently kep from having children through surgeries but are being given contraception

Not to mention those people who would, if they could, force every couple who became pregnant to carry the child to term whether or not it was good for child or potential parents....

I think it is a choice; however, in the case of 'special needs' parents, there needs to be a 'safety valve' -- someone they can call, be it family, community, or otherwise when they are in danger of losing it.

For once, I agree with Eutrusca. Who's to say you won't be the next who is deemed "unsuitable" to be a parent?

having children is a right, but children have the right to live in a safe and comfortable environment. the last 3 articles in the universal declaration of human rights say that one's rights may be forfeited if they interfere with someone else's rights. perhaps there should have been more education available to the couple in question so that they would be better able to care for the child, or in extreme cases some form of help or outside supervision might be made available to them.

Eugenics was quite common everywhere until the holocaust, and not only that but people should not be allowed to have children if they are unable to take care of them. these people are not being permanently kep from having children through surgeries but are being given contraception

Sources, please? Because honestly, this sounds very unlikely to me.

as far as i'm concerned, procreating is the only pre-ordaned point to life. the right to reproduction is very important.
perhaps the world would be a better place if certain people weren't allowed to reproduce (stupid or severely genetically handicapped people), but this is a right we should never take away from the individual.

Eugenics was quite common everywhere until the holocaust

And it was as wrong then as it is now!

I think it is a choice; however, in the case of 'special needs' parents, there needs to be a 'safety valve' -- someone they can call, be it family, community, or otherwise when they are in danger of losing it.

Exactly! While this couple has every right to have children, they should have been given support (in the form of a regularly visiting nurse, or financial assistance to hire a nanny) in caring for this child, as they were unfortunately not mentally capable of doing so on their own. :(

exactly

Sources, please? Because honestly, this sounds very unlikely to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Many, if not most, people see reproduction as a right. I do not. Taking care of another human who is helpless is too great a responsibility for some. The rights of the child to have decent parents should outweigh the rights of the parents to pass their genes on.

People who are severely mentally ill, mentally retarded, or who have abused children in the past shouldn't be allowed to have children.

Reproduction is one of the most basic rights. Trying to decide who should be able to reproduce is a slippery slope if ever there was one!

I don't see why it should be a basic right. Some people clearly aren't sufficiently responsible to handle it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics


I hardly think that the examples you have given prove it was WIDESPREAD -- except for selective breeding in animals, there are, what, three examples of it since the 17th century?

Kind of an odd opportunity to discuss this, but here goes:

This can be seen as another form of natural selection. If the father/mother cannot care for their children, this is a weak characteristic for a society. Their genes should be eliminated from the pool, so that society may progress.

In other words, society as a whole is better for having lost the offspring of such worthless people. It is a tragic event, but in the history of humanity the world will be a better place.

Most of you will disagree with this, and I don't blame you.

Im not sure if it should be a right, but the question is "is it a right?" (not whether it should be). I cant speak for any other countries, but in the US there is no such right granted in the constitution (I havent read each states constitution, so perhaps there are some states that do offer this right).

I dunno about reproduction being a right. I reckon that Darwin might argue that it's the fundamental goal and struggle of all living things. But a right?

That said, I think there are other issues here as well. I mean it's kind of like the "freedom to" vs. "freedom from" argument going on in one of the other rights/liberties thread. Sure, people should be allowed to have kids, but on the other hand, the end result of unchecked breeding could that I'm going to spend my twilight years running around yelling "Soylent green is people!" at anyone who'll listen. It gets into the conflict between the right to breed vs. the right to have sufficient resources and elbow room to live a comfortable life.

But this problem is a ways down the road yet and I suspect we'll deal with it in the typical fashion: Wait until a crisis and then have a good panic.

For once, I agree with Eutrusca. Who's to say you won't be the next who is deemed "unsuitable" to be a parent?

I don't see why that kind of selfish reasoning should be an obstacle for Eugenics. The argument is basically, "I should be allowed to have children because I want to", not, "because I am capable of caring for them."

Society has always made rules to prevent people following their own selfish desires where they have the potential to harm other people; there's no reason this should be any different.

It's a really tricky subject. Because I can't imagine not being allowed to have children. Yet I can't imagine bringing a child up in an unstable environment with parents who can't look after them. I think the best option, like someone else said, would be to provide support so that things don't go wrong. Saying that... my economy is imploded. Wonder why?

I don't see why that kind of selfish reasoning should be an obstacle for Eugenics. The argument is basically, "I should be allowed to have children because I want to", not, "because I am capable of caring for them."

Society has always made rules to prevent people following their own selfish desires where they have the potential to harm other people; there's no reason this should be any different.

Don't think Nazz and Entrusca touched on Eugenics when they said that.

But their point, is how do you determine a person would be a good parent. We can't really. It's like giving driving lessons. Teach them how to drive, but they still can be a bad driver.

Nothing to do with Eugenics. But on the topic of parenting.

I hardly think that the examples you have given prove it was WIDESPREAD -- except for selective breeding in animals, there are, what, three examples of it since the 17th century?
are you suggesting it only happened to three people or something?

i said it was common, and it was. it wasnt jsut nazi germany doing it.
Almost all non-Catholic western nations adopted some eugenics legislation, with the notable exception of Britain. Sweden forcibly sterilized 62,000 "unfits" as part of a eugenics program over a forty year period. Similar incidents occurred in Canada, Australia, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Switzerland and Iceland for people the government declared to be mentally deficient. Singapore practiced a limited form of "positive" eugenics which involved encouraging marriage between college graduates in the hope that they would produce better children.

their are definetly a lot of bad drivers around. how did they pass their tests? people would surely slip through the cracks in a similar way if a 'parenthood license' was required.

Don't think Nazz and Entrusca touched on Eugenics when they said that.

But their point, is how do you determine a person would be a good parent. We can't really. It's like giving driving lessons. Teach them how to drive, but they still can be a bad driver.

Nothing to do with Eugenics. But on the topic of parenting.

Eugenics, as far as I'm aware, is selective breeding to improve a species over several generations, and therefore covers measures to prevent people with traits deemed undesirable from breeding. So it is entirely to do with Eugenics.

However making a couple take contraception is far different than neutering them. When the prove themselves able to take care of children and support them they can stop taking contreception.

Eugenics, as far as I'm aware, is selective breeding to improve a species over several generations, and therefore covers measures to prevent people with traits deemed undesirable from breeding. So it is entirely to do with Eugenics.

i think it is more to do with their ability to raise the children than with the 'suitability' of their genes.

their are definetly a lot of bad drivers around. how did they pass their tests? people would surely slip through the cracks in a similar way if a 'parenthood license' was required.

Plenty of murderers go unpunished too, but murder is still illegal.

It would't catch all cases of irresponsible parenting, but it would prevent a lot of them.

i think it is more to do with their ability to raise the children than with the 'suitability' of their genes.

Well pardon me if I'm using 'Eugenics' as a catchall phrase. Substitute 'selective sterilisation of unfit parents' or whatever. The intent of everything I've said is reasonably clear.

This is kind of interesting. I was in a mall over the weekend and saw a lady with down syndrome carrying a baby doll. I was a little taken aback, when I realised there was a social worker with her, and they were practicing how to take care of a baby in different situations. I asked the social worker what else they do to help parents with mental handicaps here. She said there is a wide range of help available, including regular home checks, training in basic skills like changing diapers, making food, anger management and so on. All parents should have such training! I think they absolutely can be good parents, if they are given the opportunity to.

I believe it is a right, no exceptions. There have to be programs to help women though...get off drugs or alcohol, stop smoking, eat right, learn how to care for a child...all that should be available to those who need it.

How would you propose enforcing this control?

Should we all be sterilized at birth, and only given the "preggo pill" if we passed the test?

Should we abort those pregnancies that occur without bureacratic approval?

Do you have to do something 'bad' to get sterilized? How bad? Does that mean everyone gets the right to wreck one child, but not a second?

Can I leave your contry, concieve, and come back? If not - do we do pregnancy tests on incoming females or just radiate all the suspiciously fat ones?

OK - having too much fun here.

Technically, there are already more people on the planet then we can sustainably feed (nitrogen based fertilizers, while ensuring large crops, have been causing all kinds of problems in water supplies and such). Many of societies problem are actually connected to too many people: hunger, poverty (people will pay more for workers when there are less), declines in education (too many students per teacher), and epidemic disease (too many people too close to each other) to start.

That being said, I still want at least one child of my own for personal, evolutionary, and social reasons. We need to be careful with how we reproduce, and limiting unfit parents are a good start. To be honest, I not sure of the best way to do it though.

Having children is a privelige not a right: if I can't find a woman willing to carry my child I have no legal redress to the matter, so it can't be a government protected right because it can really only be ensured to women (sperm donation is a lot cheaper/easier than womb donation). Our processes of mate selection determines which men get to be married and which ones are stuck single.

As it is not an individual's right, the real question is whether it is the right of a couple? Having children one can argue is a huge part of "the pursuit of happiness", though there is no right to "attaining happiness." There are obstacles in the way of every goal, and proving you are a fit parent (to your mate and possibly to society) should be part of that.

Examples of Eugenics in History: many Utopian groups in the 1800s like the Oneida commune in New York State practiced controlled breeding. The only time Eugenics becomes immoral is when you kill the people with "bad geans" instead of just having them not reproduce. Since the Oneida commune was entirely voluntary and never killed anyone you can't say they were doing anything wrong.

I think it is a basis right for people to have children but I do have reservations on whether mentally retarded couples should be allowed children and also I don't think very old women should be given fertility treatment to help them have children, like the case with that 66 year old woman from Romania.

This is kind of interesting. I was in a mall over the weekend and saw a lady with down syndrome carrying a baby doll. I was a little taken aback, when I realised there was a social worker with her, and they were practicing how to take care of a baby in different situations. I asked the social worker what else they do to help parents with mental handicaps here. She said there is a wide range of help available, including regular home checks, training in basic skills like changing diapers, making food, anger management and so on. All parents should have such training! I think they absolutely can be good parents, if they are given the opportunity to.

I believe it is a right, no exceptions. There have to be programs to help women though...get off drugs or alcohol, stop smoking, eat right, learn how to care for a child...all that should be available to those who need it.
these are exactly the kinds of policies that are needed to ensure that people can exercise the right to have children without sacrificing the children's right to live comfortably and safely.

I don't see why it should be a basic right. Some people clearly aren't sufficiently responsible to handle it.
So you're going to be the one to decide who can and cannot have children? Hmm.

I don't think very old women should be given fertility treatment to help them have children, like the case with that 66 year old woman from Romania.
Oh? Care to explain your reasoning?

Oh? Care to explain your reasoning?

Having a 66 year old mother is not fair on the child.. his/her mother will almost certainly be dead before he/she hits 20 and also what kind of an upbringing is the child going to have with an old woman as a mother?

Having a baby at that age is disgusting.

Note: this is a real life issue.

History: Naomi was a 10-week old baby of a 'mentally less-gifted' couple, aged 20 and 22, who died due to 'shaken baby syndrome'. Basicly one of the parents could not cope with her crying and shook her till she died. Both are devasted and never intended this to happen.
Following this a Dutch politician has now proposed that couples with a mental handicap (or otherwise expected not going to be able to raise a child) should not be allowed to have children, to be ensured through regular injections with a contraceptive (a 'prickpill'). The idea is that the welfare of children supercedes the right to actually have them - and some even go as far as to say that such a right does not exist.

What does the NS population think of this ?
Let's say that having children is a basic human right. We will also say that a child has a right to the care it needs. I guess one conclusion is that the state must now provide that care for anyone who wants a child and is unable to provide it.

That's what welfare does now. Why shouldn't we expand the definition to include the parents mental incapacity for child rearing and just send them an nanny. That's not such a big leap, is it?

On the other hand, isn't it more reasonable to say that the couple must be able to provide for the child they conceive, or they shouldn't have it? Let's just put this test on the whole thing. If a baby is born and the couple can't pay the bill for that, then they have a long way to go before they can provide a decent life for their baby. Draw the line at 90 days past due. Then the child becomes a ward of the state until the parents can prove they can afford the child.

For the original case, when the parents prove they have taken steps to provide adequate care, e.g. brain transplant, nanny, live-in parents, then they can have the child back.

I would say it is a right to have a child, but keeping it isn't necessarily guaranteed.

Mentally deficient people (ie. retarded people) do not have the right to reproduce. Reproduction ought only be limited to those fit.

Having a 66 year old mother is not fair on the child.. his/her mother will almost certainly be dead before he/she hits 20 and also what kind of an upbringing is the child going to have with an old woman as a mother?

Having a baby at that age is disgusting.
That's just your agism showing. And how many people do you know who were raised by their grandparents? I was raised by my father's parents and didn't turn out too badly. :p

So you're going to be the one to decide who can and cannot have children? Hmm.

Did I say that? That because I think that some people aren't sufficiently responsible to raise children, that I, personally should be the one to arbitrarily declare who can and can't have them?

In any case, there are already plenty of laws which allow certain people particular priveliges and not others. My sister, for example, is not allowed to drive because of epilepsy.

How about anybody with an IQ under 100, or maybe 90 at the lowest, just gets sterilized? Or anybody with say, Down syndrome, anybody who is autistic, anybody with a major genetic defect which affects mental or physical health.


If we do that, it won't be harming anybody (it's not like you're killing them) but it will assure that far less people will have to endure those awful problems because the problems simply won't be carried on to the next generation.

How about we say that everybody who confuses "less" and "fewer" isn't allowed to breed? It's a much easier test than the whole IQ cut-off.

How about anybody with an IQ under 100, or maybe 90 at the lowest, just gets sterilized? Or anybody with say, Down syndrome, anybody who is autistic, anybody with a major genetic defect which affects mental or physical health.


If we do that, it won't be harming anybody (it's not like you're killing them) but it will assure that far less people will have to endure those awful problems because the problems simply won't be carried on to the next generation.
I would agree in principle, but the fact is sterilization is a surgical procedure, and carries with it some risks. We shouldn't force anybody to accept those risks.

I would agree in principle, but the fact is sterilization is a surgical procedure, and carries with it some risks. We shouldn't force anybody to accept those risks.


Chemically sterilize them, radiate their testicles, there are a number of ways to do it without surgery.

Mentally deficient people (ie. retarded people) do not have the right to reproduce. Reproduction ought only be limited to those fit.
Don't you mean to also add that only whites should reproduce?

How about anybody with an IQ under 100, or maybe 90 at the lowest, just gets sterilized? Or anybody with say, Down syndrome, anybody who is autistic, anybody with a major genetic defect which affects mental or physical health.


If we do that, it won't be harming anybody (it's not like you're killing them) but it will assure that far less people will have to endure those awful problems because the problems simply won't be carried on to the next generation.
People with autism or down syndrome or whatever don't necessarily pass this on to their children...you do know that right?

I'm ashamed to say that in Alberta, they DID sterilise the 'mentally unfit' for many years. The government has been forced to apologise and make restitution. It was a terrible policy, and I don't see any justification for it.

Don't you mean to also add that only whites should reproduce?

I honestly don't care what a Sudanese man is doing in Sudan, he can breed as much as he wants, it's his country. I don't care what the Chinese do in China, let them live their lives, their way, in their country.


I do care though when they come to my country and try to live their lives their way in MY country. Yes, because I consider the United States, my country.

I as a white man would face a mountain of difficulties trying to move to China or Mexico or Sudan. But they are allowed in here so easily. I just don't agree with that at all. I believe that it's really for the best of all involved if all folks kept with their own.

But hey, VoteEarly, let's sterilise natives too, since we are more prone to diabetes than the rest of the population...wouldn't want that trait passed down. Oh yeah and blacks should be sterilised because they are more prone to sickle-cell anemia...terrible...

don't necessarily


In other words, "may or may not", playing russian roulette doesn't necessarily kill you, just if you're unlucky. The risks are too high though.

But hey, VoteEarly, let's sterilise natives too, since we are more prone to diabetes than the rest of the population...wouldn't want that trait passed down. Oh yeah and blacks should be sterilised because they are more prone to sickle-cell anemia...terrible...


Hey, you said it, not me...

Don't you mean to also add that only whites should reproduce?
I didn't see that in his post. Kind of a harsh accusation you're making there.

I as a white man would face a mountain of difficulties trying to move to China or Mexico or Sudan. But they are allowed in here so easily. I just don't agree with that at all.

Wouldn't a better solution be to make it as easy for you to move there as it is for 'them' to move here? Instead of going for the other extreme.

I didn't see that in his post. Kind of a harsh accusation you're making there.

A true one though seeing as he does hold that view. Maybe he expressed views like that before in another thread.

People with autism or down syndrome or whatever don't necessarily pass this on to their children...you do know that right?

It isn't so much about whether they'd pass it on to their children, but whether it would limit their ability as a responsible parent.

I honestly don't care what a Sudanese man is doing in Sudan, he can breed as much as he wants, it's his country. I don't care what the Chinese do in China, let them live their lives, their way, in their country.


I do care though when they come to my country and try to live their lives their way in MY country. Yes, because I consider the United States, my country.

I as a white man would face a mountain of difficulties trying to move to China or Mexico or Sudan. But they are allowed in here so easily. I just don't agree with that at all. I believe that it's really for the best of all involved if all folks kept with their own.
Well the US isn't your country, even though you consider it to be. It belonged to the natives first, so get off my brother's land.

Let's not be silly. People who move to the US also consider it their country...their children and grandchildren even more so. You have no more right to procreate in 'your country' than they do. But thank you for revealing yourself once again as a racist.

Wouldn't a better solution be to make it as easy for you to move there as it is for 'them' to move here? Instead of going for the other extreme.


Not really, since they have no inherent right to move to the USA. Immigration is not a right. Nobody has an inherent right to move into my city and spread their culture and ideas via their mere presence, just because egalitarian liberals assure the world we're all equal.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe cultural imperialism (immigration) to be moral or even justified. They have no inherent right to live near me and I will NEVER change that belief.

I didn't see that in his post. Kind of a harsh accusation you're making there.
Sorry...that accusation comes with some history. It's based on many, many of his other posts. That and the posts you can now read in THIS thread. It wasn't just coming from nowhere...I don't go around calling people racist for no reason.

By the way, no sandwich for you! :D

Well the US isn't your country, even though you consider it to be. It belonged to the natives first, so get off my brother's land.

Let's not be silly. People who move to the US also consider it their country...their children and grandchildren even more so. You have no more right to procreate in 'your country' than they do. But thank you for revealing yourself once again as a racist.



My family has been in the USA for over four centuries, it is our land, and we're not leaving anytime soon. The natives couldn't manage it well enough, so here we are. Anyway, it was our land, they were just on it before we got here. I believe that America was the promised land to the Puritans, a covenant was formed with God.

Immigration is not a right.

Oh? In that case, back to Europe with you!

It isn't so much about whether they'd pass it on to their children, but whether it would limit their ability as a responsible parent.
Yes, I agree...just as this should be the question with alcoholic parents, parents who gamble or whatever. Yet the issue is often focused on those with mental or physical disabilities. Again, I think we should encourage programs that help ALL parents who need it...it's a tough job, and you don't just automatically KNOW how to do it well. Support is essential...sterilisation is reactionary, and often focused on a specific group for reasons other than openly stated.

I as a white man would face a mountain of difficulties trying to move to China or Mexico or Sudan. But they are allowed in here so easily. I just don't agree with that at all. I believe that it's really for the best of all involved if all folks kept with their own.

Glitz, why did you even validate this with a response? VE obviously has no idea as to how the immigration process into the U.S. works, let alone what "mountain of difficulties" are or are not involved with emigration to China, Mexico, or anyplace else.

Not really, since they have no inherent right to move to the USA. Immigration is not a right. Nobody has an inherent right to move into my city and spread their culture and ideas via their mere presence, just because egalitarian liberals assure the world we're all equal.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe cultural imperialism (immigration) to be moral or even justified. They have no inherent right to live near me and I will NEVER change that belief.
You only believe in cultural imperialism (under your skewed definition of such) when it benefits you then? Go back to your country of origin then. Who drew the line and said "Every who arrived before this time can stay, the rest must go"? Pretty arbitrary. Your forefathers had no RIGHT to immigrate either, according to you. I for one think everyone has the right to emmigrate and immigrate.

Oh? In that case, back to Europe with you!


God predestinated Europeans to settle America. Part of the covenant He made with His people.

Similar experiences can be found in South Africa (I am quite certain I have relatives there, going back about four centuries probably).

A covenant was formed and the land predestinated to the settlers, to tame the wilderness and build their houses and farms in the once empty areas. Cape Town was basically void of anything prior to the arrival of the Boer.


The Americas, were largely empty by the time the real settlement began. God had smote down the squatters with various disease and warfare (He made the tribes fight amongst themselves).

And yes, I believe the American Indians were squatting on the promised land, God ordained the Purtians to gain domain over what would later become the USA.

you should do what is right to the kids, you want kids, good 4 you, many people do.. but they should take into consideration what is best for them(the children) now in your life, living in very poor and unhealthy conditions may be fine for you, your life is spent, but your childs life is just starting out, if that is all they face, its no way to live...
you are no longer your own person, you are someone elses as well...

God predestinated Europeans to settle America. Part of the covenant He made with His people.

Similar experiences can be found in South Africa (I am quite certain I have relatives there, going back about four centuries probably).

A covenant was formed and the land predestinated to the settlers, to tame the wilderness and build their houses and farms in the once empty areas. Cape Town was basically void of anything prior to the arrival of the Boer.


The Americas, were largely empty by the time the real settlement began. God had smote down the squatters with various disease and warfare (He made the tribes fight amongst themselves).

And yes, I believe the American Indians were squatting on the promised land, God ordained the Purtians to gain domain over what would later become the USA.

Oh, sorry, I thought I was talking to a sane person. Forget I spoke.

My family has been in the USA for over four centuries, it is our land, and we're not leaving anytime soon. The natives couldn't manage it well enough, so here we are. Anyway, it was our land, they were just on it before we got here. I believe that America was the promised land to the Puritans, a covenant was formed with God.
That's your opinion, based nothing at all on fact (other than whatever facts you will choose to make up, or present on the behalf of other racists to back yourself up).

Perhaps the Sudanese don't think you are 'managing the land' well enough, and shall come to kill you all, enslave those that survive or push them onto reservations, and go on to live there for four generations, which is apparently the point when a country suddenly BELONGS to someone.

Anyway, getting off topic. Let's not focus on your bigotry, but rather the question at hand.

You only believe in cultural imperialism (under your skewed definition of such) when it benefits you then? Go back to your country of origin then. Who drew the line and said "Every who arrived before this time can stay, the rest must go"? Pretty arbitrary. Your forefathers had no RIGHT to immigrate either, according to you. I for one think everyone has the right to emmigrate and immigrate.


Okay, well you get all the arabs out of the Netherlands, all the Turks out of Germany, and all the Africans out of Italy, then I'll pick one of the three country I ought to "Go back to". Or you get all the Zulu and Xhosa out of South Africa and I'll consider going there, since it was an empty land before it was settled by the God fearing Calvinists who were fleeing Catholic persecutions in Europe.

The Americas, were largely empty by the time the real settlement began. God had smote down the squatters with various disease and warfare (He made the tribes fight amongst themselves).

I see you're as up on your history as you are on other subjects (such as, for example, the use of the comma).

Glitz, why did you even validate this with a response?

Because I'm crazy and think that maybe people aren't as bad as they seem, that maybe they could open their minds. Don't worry, I saw his/her reply and decided it was a doomed task to bother trying to even think about discussing it rationally.

Eugenics was quite common everywhere until the holocaust, and not only that but people should not be allowed to have children if they are unable to take care of them. these people are not being permanently kep from having children through surgeries but are being given contraception
in a way that is permanently keeping the couple from having a child, if they are never allowed then they are never allowed. besides who is to say what is best for the child, this is all based on perception. Hitler thought that the holocaust was progress, and best for society namely his, but was it? just because the government thinks that some one is unfit to raise a child does not mean it is true. like wise just because the government thinks that some one is fit to raise a child does not mean its true. this is a situation with an infinite amount of variables and thus should not be contorled. giving birth is a right a right that the government has no right to control.

In any case, I think we run into serious problems when we start thinking of taking away the right to reproduce. Who decides what criteria are used to make such a decision? What cultural biases will affect such criteria? For example, traditionally my people (plains Cree) though that people with mental illnesses were touched by the Creator with special sight. Were they wrong? According to modern medicine, yes, but things change...one psychologist said (and I forget his name) that psychosis is actually a coping strategy for someone trying to adapt to inadaptable circumstances. Autistic children often have acute hearing, and can't 'turn off' that sense to differentiate between talking, rustling of papers or a bird chirping outside...I know that would drive me to distraction...perhaps the mentally ill are also trying to cope with senses we don't have or that are muted in 'normal' people...anyway, straying again.

Point being, in native culture, these people were taken care of by the community, and encouraged to have children so their gifts would be passed on. Perhaps you find that superstitious, but that is how it was. Would you tell us back then that those people should be prevented from reproducing? We would have laughed at you. Cultural differences. Once culture may choose to sterilise the mentally ill. Another may choose to sterilise alcoholics. Another may choose to sterilise the poor. Who is right and who is wrong?

Let's just keep our hands off our reproductive parts...well, in terms of sterilisation anyway, otherwise it's kind of nice! :D

giving birth is a right a right that the government has no right to control.

Rights are defined by society, and therefore entirely under the control of some authority, whether it be a national government or global organisation like the UN.

My opionion, as it always has been, and always will be, is that people should have to get a license to have a child. Somthing about as difficult as a drivers license, cost $20, take maybe an hour to do. Just a basic check to see if you can take care of a kid, afford to feed and clothe them, and basically, be a fit parent.
This stems from my first job at college, there was this 40 year old guy working there, who beleived it was his right to have as many kids as possible, he had 7 kids, and worked part time making $6.50 an hour, and he wasnt even worth that. He lived(lives) off welfare, using those kids as an excuse to leech more off the system.
Having a simple little test, would take such a load off our welfare system, that the goverment might auctually be able to function, and taxes could drop to a reasonable level.

My opionion, as it always has been, and always will be, is that people should have to get a license to have a child. Somthing about as difficult as a drivers license, cost $20, take maybe an hour to do. Just a basic check to see if you can take care of a kid, afford to feed and clothe them, and basically, be a fit parent.
This stems from my first job at college, there was this 40 year old guy working there, who beleived it was his right to have as many kids as possible, he had 7 kids, and worked part time making $6.50 an hour, and he wasnt even worth that. He lived(lives) off welfare, using those kids as an excuse to leech more off the system.
Having a simple little test, would take such a load off our welfare system, that the goverment might auctually be able to function, and taxes could drop to a reasonable level.
What exactly would you be testing for? Would you factor in ability to earn money? At what point would you say this person can't earn enough for X number of kids? Would you test literacy? Would you do genetic testing to see if this person was going to live long enough to raise these kids? Would you test IQ?

How could you possibly construct a test to see if someone is a 'good enough' parent? What would your criteria be? I understand the feeling that people should take this responsibility seriously, but how would a test accomplish this?

In the UK, we are not allowed to have sex until we are 16. Why? Because before this age, you will be unable to care for a child, and be responcible (well most people at least.). Now, if you prevent people of a certain age from having sex because they will be unable to care for the child on thier own, the same line of thinking may apply to those with disabilities.

Although, I am talking about disabilities which trully affect judgement etc. A parent with the mental age of five should not have children. Someone who suffers from something less major, may be allowed them. I think you must be relative with such issues, each case is different.

Having a simple little test, would take such a load off our welfare system, that the goverment might auctually be able to function, and taxes could drop to a reasonable level.

Well, except that the expense of the bureaucracy required to administer all the child-license tests and keep track of it would probably outweigh any potential saving.

Hey, in light of all the "_____ Appreciation Threads" lately, do you think it would be out of line or somehow construed as trolling or flamebait to start a "VoteEarly Appreciation Thread"? I don't mean a nasty-spirited thread, just a place where we can collect the quotes and excerpts, in or out of context, that showcase the glorious elected enigma that is VE. Is it high satire? Is it low intelligence? Who can say for sure. I propose a thread dedicated to the objective and scientific study of this great puzzle.

In the UK, we are not allowed to have sex until we are 16. Why? Because before this age, you will be unable to care for a child, and be responcible (well most people at least.).
Not allowed? As in it's illegal? What are the penalties? Has anyone been convicted of illegal sex?

"What are you in for?"
"Illegal sex."
"Sounds kinky...what did you do?"
"Um, had sex."
"Wow..that's kind of boring isn't it?"
"Yeah, it wasn't really that great."
"Well, let's commense with the stereotypical prison sexual abuse now...it ain't illegal here!"

Hey, in light of all the "_____ Appreciation Threads" lately, do you think it would be out of line or somehow construed as trolling or flamebait to start a "VoteEarly Appreciation Thread"? I don't mean a nasty-spirited thread, just a place where we can collect the quotes and excerpts, in or out of context, that showcase the glorious elected enigma that is VE. Is it high satire? Is it low intelligence? Who can say for sure. I propose a thread dedicated to the objective and scientific study of this great puzzle.
It is definately flame bait. I tried something similar yesterday...naming the neo-nazis and trolls, and got locked. Don't bother:(.

In the UK, we are not allowed to have sex until we are 16. Why? Because before this age, you will be unable to care for a child, and be responcible (well most people at least.). Now, if you prevent people of a certain age from having sex because they will be unable to care for the child on thier own, the same line of thinking may apply to those with disabilities.

Since when did simply making sexual congress between people younger than 16 illegal prevent it? It's illegal under 16 in Sweden as well, though no one gives a flying fcku, I sure didn't back in the day when I was 15 anyway. Making it illegal for people with disabilities would be pretty stupid - in fact, making it illegal for anyone is stupid. As for pedophilia, I think the restrictions should be: No one over 20 can have sex with anyone under 15. If someone is 15 and the other 19 in a relationship, it shouldn't be a friggin problem.

Well, except that the expense of the bureaucracy required to administer all the child-license tests and keep track of it would probably outweigh any potential saving.

Child Services, would be a thing of the past, welfare, would be a fraction of what it is, abortion, would be gone, adoption and foster programs, minimal. Hell even crime would plummet. A simple shot a couple times a year, and an extra office tacked onto a DMV building, would be a fraction of what would be saved.

No crazy criteria to have a child, basic cost of living in an area is X, so you have to make X + Y per child for each child you want. Say the basic cost of living for a couple in an area is 18,000 a year, so an extra 5000 a year per child would work out, you need to make 23,000 to have one, 28,000 to have two, and so on. Adjusted to the area the person lives in.
The test would be somthing like

"You find your child in the kitchen drinking bleach, what do you do?"
A. Ignore it, the chemical will just pass through his/her system
B. Induce vomiting
C. Call poison control, and find the best way to deal with the problem.

Just a basic check to make sure the prospective parents arnt idiots.

Since when did simply making sexual congress between people younger than 16 illegal prevent it? It's illegal under 16 in Sweden as well, though no one gives a flying fcku, I sure didn't back in the day when I was 15 anyway. Making it illegal for people with disabilities would be pretty stupid - in fact, making it illegal for anyone is stupid. As for pedophilia, I think the restrictions should be: No one over 20 can have sex with anyone under 15. If someone is 15 and the other 19 in a relationship, it shouldn't be a friggin problem.

Even in the U.S., I think age-of-consent laws are more aimed at preventing exploitation of the young by the old than illegalizing sex under a certain age. This is to say, in the newspapers and police blotters, you see countless scandals where a 30-year-old molests a 15-year-old or a teacher pressuring a student into sex, but you never, ever see reports of a 16-year-old couple arrested for playing doctor.

Even in the U.S., I think age-of-consent laws are more aimed at preventing exploitation of the young by the old than illegalizing sex under a certain age. This is to say, in the newspapers and police blotters, you see countless scandals where a 30-year-old molests a 15-year-old or a teacher pressuring a student into sex, but you never, ever see reports of a 16-year-old couple arrested for playing doctor.


In Ohio, the laws are such, anybody between 13-17 may have sex with anybody between 13-17, and it's legal.

Child Services, would be a thing of the past, welfare, would be a fraction of what it is, abortion, would be gone, adoption and foster programs, minimal. Hell even crime would plummet. A simple shot a couple times a year, and an extra office tacked onto a DMV building, would be a fraction of what would be saved.
And cost saving is worth violating people's rights and beliefs? Careful...

No crazy criteria to have a child, basic cost of living in an area is X, so you have to make X + Y per child for each child you want. Say the basic cost of living for a couple in an area is 18,000 a year, so an extra 5000 a year per child would work out, you need to make 23,000 to have one, 28,000 to have two, and so on. Adjusted to the area the person lives in.
The test would be somthing like

"You find your child in the kitchen drinking bleach, what do you do?"
A. Ignore it, the chemical will just pass through his/her system
B. Induce vomiting
C. Call poison control, and find the best way to deal with the problem.

Just a basic check to make sure the prospective parents arnt idiots.
That doesn't test much. Just whether or not someone can choose a correct answer. It doesn't mean that would translate into real life. And what about someone who loses their job and can no longer (for a time) 'afford' their children? Will they be taken away? Ah, but you have gotten rid of Children's Services, so there are no options in this case. And what of the parents who pass the test, but still aren't good parents, or who develop drug addiction, or start abusing their children? What will happen to those people who go ahead and have children anyway...will you jail them? And where will the children go?

"You find your child in the kitchen drinking bleach, what do you do?"
A. Ignore it, the chemical will just pass through his/her system
B. Induce vomiting
C. Call poison control, and find the best way to deal with the problem.

Just a basic check to make sure the prospective parents arnt idiots.


I would have to go with D) Never will be in said situation, bleach will be stored in a locked room and not in a room with food, that is for sure. Anyway, I was taught as a kid what was to be consumed and what was poison and to be shunned.

are you suggesting it only happened to three people or something?

i said it was common, and it was. it wasnt jsut nazi germany doing it.


My point though is that in the sweep of human history, a couple of countries doing this within a, what, three hundred year period? not all at the same time? and not the whole of humanity involved? means it was not commonplace. It was limited to a few cultures for short periods of time.

And cost saving is worth violating people's rights and beliefs? Careful...


That doesn't test much. Just whether or not someone can choose a correct answer. It doesn't mean that would translate into real life. And what about someone who loses their job and can no longer (for a time) 'afford' their children? Will they be taken away? Ah, but you have gotten rid of Children's Services, so there are no options in this case. And what of the parents who pass the test, but still aren't good parents, or who develop drug addiction, or start abusing their children? What will happen to those people who go ahead and have children anyway...will you jail them? And where will the children go?

Dont forget, those people would have had children anyway, the system wouldnt be perfect, systems are never perfect, but it's a lot better then what we have now. A giant load would be taken off the foster and adoption programs, so it would be a LOT easier to find good homes for the unwanted children, and those who's parents turn out to be unfit. I diddnt mean get rid of child servies completely, it would just require a much smaller budget. Theres also the problem that, under such a system, the population could start to shrink. It all has to be done right, with some stipulations, and contingency plans.
Peoples rights and beliefs are all well and good, but having a child and pushing the load of raising off onto tax payers, is also a violation of peoples rights. Getting knocked and, and having the tax payers pay to have it aborted, is a violation of thier rights. Sending your children off, to be raised under a foster care program, is a violation of tax payers rights.

God predestinated Europeans to settle America. Part of the covenant He made with His people..

Um, that's a heck of a large leap to make -- I don't remember anything in the Bible about EUROPE, or AMERICA. Show me?

Dont forget, those people would have had children anyway, the system wouldnt be perfect, systems are never perfect, but it's a lot better then what we have now. A giant load would be taken off the foster and adoption programs, so it would be a LOT easier to find good homes for the unwanted children, and those who's parents turn out to be unfit. I diddnt mean get rid of child servies completely, it would just require a much smaller budget. Theres also the problem that, under such a system, the population could start to shrink. It all has to be done right, with some stipulations, and contingency plans.
Peoples rights and beliefs are all well and good, but having a child and pushing the load of raising off onto tax payers, is also a violation of peoples rights. Getting knocked and, and having the tax payers pay to have it aborted, is a violation of thier rights. Sending your children off, to be raised under a foster care program, is a violation of tax payers rights.
It could be argued then that smoking and drinking and the associated health effects and necessary medical care are a violation of taxpayer rights. So then would be kids with special needs who have extra (paid) help in the classroom (such as an aid who takes notes for them, or reads assignments out loud) be a violation of taxpayer rights. In fact, almost anything could be construed as a violation of taxpayer rights, including the taxes themselves. Until you define what taxpayer rights are, we can't really get into this discussion.

I'm not being purposely obtuse here...but you have an idea that has not really been thought out yet. You aren't sure how it would work, and you really don't have any examples to base possible outcomes on. That isn't your fault, but I would suggest you flesh out your idea more and consider all the possible ramifications. You THINK this system would be better...but to what extent are you willing to let an experiment like this happen in your society? Are you sure that corruption will not turn it away from its original noble ideals? How can you guarantee that? Perhaps you could start with a better description of how you could adequately test a parent. First you need to define a good parent, again specifically, and then determine what questions or tasks would be used to determine whether your criteria has been met satisfactorily. Assessment is a much more difficult process that a paper and pencil quiz. That is, if you want the assessment to be meaningful in any way. Think about it:).

In fact, Teradoc, if you are interested, we could start a thread and actually address some of these questions (though I don't agree with licensing parents, I could certainly involve myself in the process of how it could be possible). We could begin, as I said with the definition of a good or capable parent.....

I would have to go with D) Never will be in said situation, bleach will be stored in a locked room and not in a room with food, that is for sure. Anyway, I was taught as a kid what was to be consumed and what was poison and to be shunned.

Kids are suicidal geniuses, they will find a way, no matter what, to get themselves into a situation such as that. My accidents when I was young were because, when my parents turned thier backs for a second, I would climb somthing. Up a tree, onto the roof, onto a refridgerator, hell I even climbed door jams :p Worst injury though, was either when I jumped off a cliff, and destroyed my ankle, or fell off a dam and lost a lot of skin :p

Not to mention those people who would, if they could, force every couple who became pregnant to carry the child to term whether or not it was good for child or potential parents....

I think it is a choice; however, in the case of 'special needs' parents, there needs to be a 'safety valve' -- someone they can call, be it family, community, or otherwise when they are in danger of losing it.
This is ridiculous. if a parent has already killed one baby by shaking it to death, then obviously they are not capable of taking care of their children.

Not to mention that the mother's right to 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of child rearing does not in any way, shape, or form supercede the child's right to NOT live it if will be born mentally handicapped, and have to spend the next 50 or 60 years of its life unable to speak coherently or think normally. If reproduction is for the survival of the species, then how does allowing parents who kill their young, or produce damaged offspring help our species.

It's not the governments place to say who can and can't have children.

if you want kids fine, its up to you if you can control them or not, personally I don't want children, you have to feed them almost everyday or something, and take them on walks, too much work for me, but for those that do have children they should have consequences whether "handicapped" or not, such and those people being shaken to death, or shot, or burned, or hang, or elec...enough said

In fact, Teradoc, if you are interested, we could start a thread and actually address some of these questions (though I don't agree with licensing parents, I could certainly involve myself in the process of how it could be possible). We could begin, as I said with the definition of a good or capable parent.....

Gah, thats too much effort. I perfer to spout half baked ideas, then not post for a few months, and come back and spout for a day again :p Your trying to make me put effort into somthing, thats not my style!!!!! Blarrrg!!

Sure if you want, we can auctually discuss it, but remember, I'm lazy, it might take me awhile to reply, if I reply at all :p

Its terribly complex issue and i cant see how to reconcile my liberalism with my thoughts, that "mentally less abled" and abusive or addicted persons, shouldnt be able to have children.

The problem with stupid people making more stupid people is that we live in a democracy, and so long as they keep making stupid people, they can run the fricking country.

Fairness can be annoying sometimes.

Having children should not be a right... Some people are just not capable of it... I think all prospective parents should have to take a written and a genetic test before they are allowed to have kids... and if the former is failed then they should be required to take parenting classes until they pass it...

I have met so many bad parents and people who would not make a good parent that this just makes to much sense...

Tell me, should an alcoholic or a drug addict have babies...? Should the child be forced to live in a life like that..? Or what about those stupid little crack whores who screw anything for a rock... Should they retain there right to have babies even though the kid will be mentally and proly physically messed up..?

Not to mention people should only be allowed to have 2 or 3 children per family... Just cause some idiot thinks having 10 kids sounds fun or cant figure out what a condom is, doesn’t change the fact that this planet is already overpopulated and becoming more and more messed up... Face it folks there is no way 2 people can come up with the time for jobs enough to feed and shelter loads of kids and the kids get neglected emotionally...

Of course this is a very slippery subject... I do not profess to know the exact solution to this one but I do know that some people SHOULD NOT have kids...


1 more thing on the right to have kids... If having children is a right and not a privlage then no one should get all indignant every time a 14 year old has a baby... Its there right isnt it...? if they can do it phisicaly then I guess its a right... according to some... I say cut em all and when they are ready, give them the power to make babies...

Note to readers~ did not read all post befor posting mine... So many post it takes a while to catch up on all these great topics...

Rights are defined by society, and therefore entirely under the control of some authority, whether it be a national government or global organisation like the UN.

"Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" is a second opinion.

I'm not big on the whole creator thing, but do believe that we can give up or have taken away certain rights; but that we invent society and give it power - not vice versa.

In the UK, we are not allowed to have sex until we are 16. Why? Because before this age, you will be unable to care for a child, and be responcible (well most people at least.). Now, if you prevent people of a certain age from having sex because they will be unable to care for the child on thier own, the same line of thinking may apply to those with disabilities.

Out of curiosity, are all British 16 year olds virgins?

I hope this has been said already.

Having children is a responsibility, not a right. People who cannot properly care for their children should not have a child. It's pretty clear that Western society supports this view too -- otherwise social workers would not be permitted to remove children from a home if they are being neglected and abused.

To me, this is locking the barn door after the horse had already escaped. We need to do more to ensure that children are not harmed at all, not remove them from harm after the damage had already been done.

Our communities need to be more proactive to ensure that prospective parents get the training and support they need to be good parents. Many churches require couples to have counselling before marriage - I propose parent education before pregnancy, or during pregnancy. There are already voluntary prenatal classes - these need to become mandatory and their scope needs to be expanded.

Parents need support groups to help them deal with troubled children. Sometimes they need respite. Sometimes they just need new ideas, or help from another authority figure. Some parents, such as mentally disabled ones, may need 24 hour assistance. You know, like those nannies rich people hire.

We also need to recognize other factors that frequently lead to the neglect or abuse of children. Poverty. Health issues. Drug and alcohol abuse. Emotional and mental issues. Depression. I'm not advocating the automatic removal of children from these sorts of homes -- I'm advocating that people get the support they need to cope. It's only the recalcitrant ones who have problems and refuse help or neglect and abuse despite help that should have their children taken away.

I'm not talking about eugenics here, but let's make this clear. If you are unwilling to properly care for a child or are too proud to accept the help you need to care for your child, you should not be raising that child.

If you have health issues or drug addictions that will harm the child before it is born, if you are having a child because you think that a child is like a doll or a pet that will automatically love you forever, just walk away. Don't do it. If you could pass on some horrible genetic condition or you are so old that your doctor has warned you that the child is at a high risk of being disabled, ADOPT! There are lots of kids out there who need loving, stable homes.

No crazy criteria to have a child, basic cost of living in an area is X, so you have to make X + Y per child for each child you want. Say the basic cost of living for a couple in an area is 18,000 a year, so an extra 5000 a year per child would work out, you need to make 23,000 to have one, 28,000 to have two, and so on. Adjusted to the area the person lives in.


Awesome, rich people can have all the children they want, poor people can't reproduce.

Say - if I make enough money, can I buy your wife and knock her up too?

I hope this has been said already.

Having children is a responsibility, not a right. People who cannot properly care for their children should not have a child. It's pretty clear that Western society supports this view too -- otherwise social workers would not be permitted to remove children from a home if they are being neglected and abused.



I agree with most of this - but I think the slippery slope begins when "categories" are proposed to determine who can properly care for a child. No system based on stereotypes can possibly be fair.

I would argue for better assessment post-birth and more investment in the various support mechanisms and programs that others have suggested. The observable situation of the child should be the criteria for whether intervention is needed - not a predetermined list of 'desirable characteristics' in a parent.

So, everyone can reproduce, but being able to keep the child depends on ongoing demonstration of effective parenting

I agree with most of this - but I think the slippery slope begins when "categories" are proposed to determine who can properly care for a child. No system based on stereotypes can possibly be fair.

I would argue for better assessment post-birth and more investment in the various support mechanisms and programs that others have suggested. The observable situation of the child should be the criteria for whether intervention is needed - not a predetermined list of 'desirable characteristics' in a parent.

So, everyone can reproduce, but being able to keep the child depends on ongoing demonstration of effective parenting

But that's exactly what I said. I didn't categorize anyone, beyond making suggestions regarding the sort of support various people in various situations would need.

Edit: Admittedly, I said, and do believe, that if the very act of pregnancy is going to harm the fetus (like alcholic or glue sniffing mothers, for instance) or you have a genetic or health condition with a very high risk of harming the fetus, you shouldn't be having a child. That's like signing a little certificate that says "I care way more about me than I do about you. I knew that I was harming you, but I did it anyway." and handing it to the child at birth.

But that's exactly what I said. I didn't categorize anyone, beyond making suggestions regarding the sort of support various people in various situations would need.
sorry - wasn't necessarily referring to your post with the stereotypes stuff.

Your post was the closest to what I'd been thinking, but it followed a lot of "pre-testing" ones. I absolutely support all your suggestions about good follow up support

sorry - wasn't necessarily referring to your post with the stereotypes stuff.

Your post was the closest to what I'd been thinking, but it followed a lot of "pre-testing" ones. I absolutely support all your suggestions about good follow up support

Okay, sorry. It was just that you quoted me and then said the unrelated stuff. I couldn't figure out the relation.

Whew!

Awesome, rich people can have all the children they want, poor people can't reproduce.

Say - if I make enough money, can I buy your wife and knock her up too?
If $28,000 a year is rich to you, well, I sorta feel sorry for you.

it should be a right, because if the child dies or something doesn't live to reproduce it helps the gene pool

Hmmm.. most opinions sofar can be put in one of two categories here.. which unfortunately contradict eachother :(

A. Having children is a right. If you cannot provide for them on your own help should be given. Few said who should actually provide this help, but the state was mentioned. This does lead to the questions 'how much children does one have the right to have' (which all need to get that support) and 'is this truly in the best interest of the child'. After all, having your parents being monitored 24/7 or being more 'adult' than them at age 10 could be detrimental...

B. Having children is a privilige - one should be able to take care of one.
The problem here is how to decide who is fit to have children and who isn't.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You need a license to marry, a license to drive a car, you even need a license to catch a fish...yet anyone with a working set of genitalia and a partner can crank out as many children as they please without regard. Why is it that most people see absolutely no problem with this?

My plan: Institute nation-wide birth control. When a person/couple reaches the age of 23, they can apply for a license. After drug tests, personal interviews with family and friends, and a quick battery of psychological tests, they can be issued their breeding license, restricted to a number of children dependant upon their annual income. This child limit can be raised by applying for a license review with subsequent proof of financial viability.

It's not a right. If someone abuses/neglects their kids (or, say, has a history of child molestation) they ought to be neutered/spayed.

Reproduction is one of the most basic rights. Trying to decide who should be able to reproduce is a slippery slope if ever there was one!

OMG we agree. :eek:

However, I do believe that all parents should be required to take parenting lessons/classes. I didn't have to, but I did, because I wanted to be the best parent I could be. I think that's a fair compromise.

OMG we agree. :eek:

However, I do believe that all parents should be required to take parenting lessons/classes. I didn't have to, but I did, because I wanted to be the best parent I could be. I think that's a fair compromise.
There you go...that's reasonable, and better than stepping in with draconian measures...

Sources, please? Because honestly, this sounds very unlikely to me.

Eugenics is very common in asian countries like India, pakistan... throughout AFrica .. usually developing countries. Usually because males are prefered over females. Even today it happens.. but it was bigger back then.. Not in western nations though... more education and different cultural values make it almost non existant

Eugenics is very common in asian countries like India, pakistan... throughout AFrica .. usually developing countries. Usually because males are prefered over females. Even today it happens.. but it was bigger back then.. Not in western nations though... more education and different cultural values make it almost non existant

You are correct.

Note: this is a real life issue.

History: Naomi was a 10-week old baby of a 'mentally less-gifted' couple, aged 20 and 22, who died due to 'shaken baby syndrome'. Basicly one of the parents could not cope with her crying and shook her till she died. Both are devasted and never intended this to happen.
Following this a Dutch politician has now proposed that couples with a mental handicap (or otherwise expected not going to be able to raise a child) should not be allowed to have children, to be ensured through regular injections with a contraceptive (a 'prickpill'). The idea is that the welfare of children supercedes the right to actually have them - and some even go as far as to say that such a right does not exist.

What does the NS population think of this ?

Great idea. And it's not like the child would have been a sentient creature either. Shaking babies? They should just stick to bagging groceries and keeping their private parts away from electrical outlets.

But seriously, I know how it feels to be the child of someone who is "mentally handicapped" --- crazy, if you will. It'd be even worse, though, if I was the son of dumb and dumber. Simply put, some people shouldn't have children.

There are already too many people in the world (duh), and retarded people are the first who have their rights waived for having children. We're already being nice in not killing them or letting them kill themselves due to their own inability to live.

It sounds insensitive, but it's logical and natural. Live by nature. Not by invisible deities, falsely altruistic morals, or uneducated well wishes.

You are correct.

You're back!

And you're wrong. Educated people don't intervene in nature's sick and depraved course.

2.3 net births per second, how strongly can I emphasize this fact?!

The retards can go play with dolls and monopoly bills.

I'm leaving this topic before people bring their subjective complaints before me.

Great idea. And it's not like the child would have been a sentient creature either. Shaking babies? They should just stick to bagging groceries and keeping their private parts away from electrical outlets.

But seriously, I know how it feels to be the child of someone who is "mentally handicapped" --- crazy, if you will. It'd be even worse, though, if I was the son of dumb and dumber. Simply put, some people shouldn't have children.

There are already too many people in the world (duh), and retarded people are the first who have their rights waived for having children. We're already being nice in not killing them or letting them kill themselves due to their own inability to live.

It sounds insensitive, but it's logical and natural. Live by nature. Not by invisible deities, falsely altruistic morals, or uneducated well wishes.


Good lord Saipea! Thats a bit much dont you think?

You're back!

And you're wrong

I was only agreeing that in some cultures having a boy is considered better than having a girl.. slow down there cowboy..lol

I was only agreeing that in some cultures having a boy is considered better than having a girl.. slow down there cowboy..lol

Oh. Ok. I'm sorry. I'm just claustrophobic.

But seriously. Too many people.

If there were a fair, accurate and unbiased way to determine who would be a good parent I'd be all for it. But looking at my government works, I'm sure not trusting them to decide who should reproduce is a good idea. Everybody has a different idea who would be the best parents. Just give those at a higher risk of poor parenting more help and supervision. If someone has already proven that they are not capable of being a responsible parent, then perhaps that right should be taken away. So I do believe it's a right, but like all of them, it can removed if it's abused.

That said, if someone asked me who shouldn't be able to breed, I might pick people like VoteEarly or JesusSAves. :p

Good lord Saipea! Thats a bit much dont you think?

Uh. No. The animals that can't fend for themselves... die.

It's lucky enough that crazy and retarded people have other people looking out for them, even without them contributing anything to society but a drain on food, money, effort, and time.

The last thing in the world you want is one of them having a child. Ask anyone who is the child of someone with mental problems --- it's hell.

And once again, you let your emotions get in the way.

Not allowing children = abstinence = condoms = abortion = death = end

It's all the same in the end, one way or another. You never existed. You are dying as we speak, and you die quicker and unhappier because of the vast amount of people in the world. Why would you want more people, let alone retarded ones that can't due anything besides be used as crash test dummies (hey! There's an idea!).

And yes, I'm quiet serious. If you eat peanut butter but are allergic to peanuts, don't expect any help. If you're so retarded you shake your children *cough* Michael Jackson *cough* or are willing to act as a crash test dummy, die already.

If there were a fair, accurate and unbiased way to determine who would be a good parent I'd be all for it. But looking at my government works, I'm sure not trusting them to decide who should reproduce is a good idea. Everybody has a different idea who would be the best parents. Just give those at a higher risk of poor parenting more help and supervision. If someone has already proven that they are not capable of being a responsible parent, then perhaps that right should be taken away. So I do believe it's a right, but like all of them, it can removed if it's abused.

That said, if someone asked me who shouldn't be able to breed, I might pick people like VoteEarly or JesusSAves. :p

Test:
1. Can you put the peg in the hole and have an IQ above 100?
2. Do you have any terminal disease?
3. Can you afford to have children?
4. Do you already have 2 children?
5. Are you insane, devoutly religious, and/or bigoted?

Easy.

Uh. No. The animals that can't fend for themselves... die.

It's lucky enough that crazy and retarded people have other people looking out for them, even without them contributing anything to society but a drain on food, money, effort, and time.

The last thing in the world you want is one of them having a child. Ask anyone who is the child of someone with mental problems --- it's hell.

And once again, you let your emotions get in the way.

Not allowing children = abstinence = condoms = abortion = death = end

It's all the same in the end, one way or another. You never existed. You are dying as we speak, and you die quicker and unhappier because of the vast amount of people in the world. Why would you want more people, let alone retarded ones that can't due anything besides be used as crash test dummies (hey! There's an idea!).

And yes, I'm quiet serious. If you eat peanut butter but are allergic to peanuts, don't expect any help. If you're so retarded you shake your children *cough* Michael Jackson *cough* or are willing to act as a crash test dummy, die already.

You know you dont want to argue with me again Saip. I didnt even state an opinion about if they should or should not have kids. My comment was about your mean words.

Perhaps people born to retarded people have a harder life than others, but they have a life. Would you deny them any life at all simply because their life would be harder? I enjoy life. If my life sucked, I would rather continue living it, attempting to fix it, because I believe that this is all there is for me. With some life, I have at least some chance to succeed. Without a chance at life, I have no oppotunity at all. Maybe you should let these people, whom you would eliminate before conception , decide for themselves whether life is worth living or not.
My life is my own life. I will decide whether to continue it or not. If you now take control over the most important decision in a person's history (whether or not they ARE), what prevents you from controlling what occurs between this beginning and their end? I see a bad precedent forming, and I don't like it at all.

The Supreme Court has stated that certain things are unviolable fundamental rights that the government has no right to interfere in. Among these is marriage, certain family relationships and the ability to reproduce/procreate [or not].

Meyer v. Nebraska protected one's ability to educate/indoctrinate one's children in a reasonable manner of the parent's choosing. This particular case involved a man in Nebraska teaching his son German; this was during WWI, and Nebraska had made such an act illegal. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction that Meyer received.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a case in which Oregon law required all children to attend public school, was a case in which the Supreme Court once again safeguarded one's ability to decide how one's child will be educated - in this case, in private or home school if you choose.

An interesting example of EUGENICS GONE WILD!, Skinner v. Oklahoma resulted in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the ability to procreate. Oklahoma had created a law in which any man convicted of a felony three times would be sterilized [castrated, I guess?]. The Supreme Court stated that the ability to procreate was a fundamental right and essential to the survival of our race and nation.

Griswold v. Connecticut safeguarded the ability to use contraceptives. So did Einstadt v. Baird. And then, of course, Roe v. Wade made it so that you can also abort the pregnancy.

What's all of that mean? Legally speaking, in the U.S., a parent has the right to have a child and to raise it in a manner of his or her choosing, so long as it is reasonable. The right to procreate is very much sancrosact.

This has been slightly abridged in certain state and federal courts, but the highest court in our country has taken a very firm [and legally precedented] stand on procreation.

Eugenics is very common in asian countries like India, pakistan... throughout AFrica .. usually developing countries. Usually because males are prefered over females. Even today it happens.. but it was bigger back then.. Not in western nations though... more education and different cultural values make it almost non existant

Yes... and as a result, places like China are in deep trouble. From what I understand, the preference for males over females, coupled with the limit on how many children one could have, means that there literally are not enough women to sustain the population after this generation.

The Supreme Court has stated that certain things are unviolable fundamental rights that the government has no right to interfere in. Among these is marriage, certain family relationships and the ability to reproduce/procreate [or not].

Meyer v. Nebraska protected one's ability to educate/indoctrinate one's children in a reasonable manner of the parent's choosing. This particular case involved a man in Nebraska teaching his son German; this was during WWI, and Nebraska had made such an act illegal. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction that Meyer received.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a case in which Oregon law required all children to attend public school, was a case in which the Supreme Court once again safeguarded one's ability to decide how one's child will be educated - in this case, in private or home school if you choose.

An interesting example of EUGENICS GONE WILD!, Skinner v. Oklahoma resulted in the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the ability to procreate. Oklahoma had created a law in which any man convicted of a felony three times would be sterilized [castrated, I guess?]. The Supreme Court stated that the ability to procreate was a fundamental right and essential to the survival of our race and nation.

Griswold v. Connecticut safeguarded the ability to use contraceptives. So did Einstadt v. Baird. And then, of course, Roe v. Wade made it so that you can also abort the pregnancy.

What's all of that mean? Legally speaking, in the U.S., a parent has the right to have a child and to raise it in a manner of his or her choosing, so long as it is reasonable. The right to procreate is very much sancrosact.

This has been slightly abridged in certain state and federal courts, but the highest court in our country has taken a very firm [and legally precedented] stand on procreation.

Skinner v Oklahoma held in Skinner's favor due to the nature of the law: sterilization was only performed on people performing crimes of "moral terpitude" and Griswold v Connecticutt doesnt even really apply to this case in that it was about the banning of contraception BECAUSE contraception stopped procreation, very closely related to Eisendstat v Baird. Contraceptives were banned because they prevented procreation, your attempt to relate them to the right to reproduce is bad at best.

what is this crap?

We have 6.2 billion people in the world and 250 million people in America alone. The net population increases at 2.3 people per second currently, but that number is only growing. We need more people like we need the black plague.

People need to die. Plain and simple. It's either that, or we restrict the number of children people can have. It's an either-or, black and white sort of thing. No colonization of Mars or mass production of food can save mankind from the inevitable. Social strife and inaccessability to proper education and health benefits et al is only the begining. These "patriots" with their 3 children or those retards that can't handle a child are doing a disservice to the country --- actually, the latter are doing a wonderful job of demonstrating why voting rights (hell, any rights of a sentient creature) should be restricted.

Contraceptives were banned because they prevented procreation, your attempt to relate them to the right to reproduce is bad at best.

I interpreted the Supreme Court's decision to allow the use of contraceptives as indicative of protecting the choice of individual human beings to procreate or not procreate. My logic was that since you can choose whether or not to procreate, that the government or any other authority figure cannot tell you whether or not you can or cannot. In other words, the Supreme Court said that government had no place in your bedroom [who'd want to check for the telltale signs of contraceptive use anyway?!], i.e. no right to tell you whether or not to use contraceptives, or rather, whether or not to procreate [which ultimately leads to children, and then to the raising of children].

With this in mind, I figured that the protection of one's ability to procreate was intimately connected to one's ability to raise a child as well.

Sorry, is this confusing too? Sometimes I write things and they don't make nearly as much sense as they do in my head, like I forget certain parts of my argument.

You still can't relate Skinner v Oklahoma to Griswold v Connecticutt, the former ruled in favor or skinner seeming to me because the punishment was not distributed fairly and the latter was overruled because of the nature of the law: people could not sell, buy, or use contraceptives for contraceptive purposes. That is legislating what all people can and can't do, violation of due process indefinately. AND Skinner v Oklahoma was ruled for in favor of Skinner because of a violation of due process: the jury which his ruling was given to did not decide whether or not he should be castrated but decided whether or not it was detrimental to his health. They decided it was not. The castration was implemented without trial.

If there were a fair, accurate and unbiased way to determine who would be a good parent I'd be all for it.

We don't need a fair way of doing it. We just need an arbitrary way, and then stick to it, like with most other laws. Have an IQ cut-off, declare certain medical conditions to be unsuitable for parents, and then ban anyone who fails from reproducing. So, some people will be unhappy. Tough; you can't always get what you want, and children aren't toys.

Then, after a few generations, when all the malcontents have died off, it will seem as natural as any other law!

Yes... and as a result, places like China are in deep trouble. From what I understand, the preference for males over females, coupled with the limit on how many children one could have, means that there literally are not enough women to sustain the population after this generation.

Social evolution.

The few families smart enough to keep female children will have offspring, while the only idiots to have offspring will be the lucky idiots who happen to marry their kids off to women.

That or the Chinese women will all have massive harems.

Note: this is a real life issue.

History: Naomi was a 10-week old baby of a 'mentally less-gifted' couple, aged 20 and 22, who died due to 'shaken baby syndrome'. Basicly one of the parents could not cope with her crying and shook her till she died. Both are devasted and never intended this to happen.
Following this a Dutch politician has now proposed that couples with a mental handicap (or otherwise expected not going to be able to raise a child) should not be allowed to have children, to be ensured through regular injections with a contraceptive (a 'prickpill'). The idea is that the welfare of children supercedes the right to actually have them - and some even go as far as to say that such a right does not exist.

What does the NS population think of this ?

And who decides who gets to procreate? I see possible issues here. Who's to say that people of certain ethnic groups get banned from having kids? Or certain religions? Bad idea all around.

Many, if not most, people see reproduction as a right. I do not. Taking care of another human who is helpless is too great a responsibility for some. The rights of the child to have decent parents should outweigh the rights of the parents to pass their genes on.

People who are severely mentally ill, mentally retarded, or who have abused children in the past shouldn't be allowed to have children.

I agree, Honest, no argument.

To expand the issue, should we be allowed to be selective about the children, I've not put that clearly, I am thinking of the Deaf couple who wanted only deaf children by selecting the embros that showed that trait.

Social evolution.

The few families smart enough to keep female children will have offspring, while the only idiots to have offspring will be the lucky idiots who happen to marry their kids off to women.

That or the Chinese women will all have massive harems.

WOO-HOO! for all-male harems! ;)

<troll>
Is breathing a right?
</troll>

Yes, duh.

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." - Alexander Hamilton

Rapists shouldnt be allowed to reproduce - they should be castrated on conviction.