Happy Atheist Forum

I cam to consider this when I heard news of a program where drug addicts were offered money in order to submit to sterilisation (a discussion worthy of another thread perhaps). There were several conflicting viewpoints, some raising the point that having children is a right, and that  denying these people this right was cruel (their contention being that these people were unable to make an informed choice).

So, I ask HAF, do you think having children is a right?

My own thoughts on the matter, lead me to conclude that children are not a right. For starters, there are more people involved than just the parents, the child and the society it is born into. I believe that the parents, are effectively obliging the child to exist (an odd sounding concept I admit, and one with some interesting corollaries), and as such, are responsible for making sure the child is well cared for etc. If this is not the case, then I believe having a child, is tantamount to forcing the child to live in an unsuitable environment. There is already a precedent in this matter, for if people neglect children, they are taken away, and in the case of foster or adoptive parents, very strict conditions indeed are placed on them before they are allowed children (it would appear that foster kids are not a universal right at all).

Secondly, since we live in a society (in the UK at least), which will provide assistance if a child needs it, in various forms, by having a child, and then failing to care for it, then society is obliged to step in, which is unfair on them (avoiding the more unsavoury option of letting a child live in unsuitable conditions).

I think that since the child deserves a loving, stable home, and since society should not have to step in and clear up a mess you made in order to spare the pain of an innocent child, having a child has all sorts of conditions and responsibilities attached. I think this turns it from a right into a privilege.

Your thoughts?

Children ought to ethically be considered a privileged by anyone who is able to have children but since denying the ability to have children treads on one's right to do as they wish with their own body I think I can only logically go with saying it is a right.

Privilege.
Abortion has become a bad word.  The women/couples who choose to go through it are vilified by society at large, and are forced to feel shame.  It's amazing how much we care about unborn children, yet once they are born, the caring seems to go down 1000%. Once they are 18 and might actually be of some use to society we throw away lives in wars and dangerous professions.  The more children we bring into this world in awful living conditions, the more suffering there will be, the more society will have to take care of them.  I know it seems Orwellian, but I think you should have to apply to have children, much like a home loan.  You would need to prove that you could meet certain minimum requirements for raising a child.  Think about what having a child at age 14 does to women and the families involved.  I grew up in an especially rough neighborhood, and by 6th grade, there were three pregnant girls in my class.  In 7th grade there were six. Not one of them has gotten by without some form of social assistance.  I know this because I worked at the local grocer as a teen, and they each kept popping out kids and getting more money from the man.

Certainly this will offend some people...because they know someone who made it just fine, and everything is cool.  Well, that's not the norm, and generally, teen pregnancies leave nuclear damage paths around every life they touch.

On the other side of the spectrum...you have the people who might be able to afford children, but should not be allowed to have them.  The people who are married to their jobs, who work 70 hours a week because they want to.  This is the category my mom and dad fit into.  My mom does her job very well, and that's it.  She told my sister recently that she never even wanted kids, but did so to appease my dad...that it might make him stop fucking other women.  His job required him to go all over the world for most of the year.  So by my standards, I should not exist.  And I'm fine with that because I am a mess of an adult.  I'm so angry at any form of authority it is very hard for me to keep the jobs I have.  I've been lucky so far to keep my current job for the last 3 years because I'm a great liar...learned from the best.

Quote from: "Whitney"Children ought to ethically be considered a privileged by anyone who is able to have children but since denying the ability to have children treads on one's right to do as they wish with their own body I think I can only logically go with saying it is a right.

I think it would be fine if the women just went through pregnancy (ie, what you do with your own body), but the fact that it creates a child is the difficult bit. A child is brought into being here, which makes it different, as the child is a consequence, along with the subsequent life of the child as well, both of which extend beyond the remit of doing as you wish with your own body.

Would you still think it a right if all the parent had to do was spit in a bucket and keep it in the freezer overnight to make a baby?


I broadly agree with DropLogic.

Definately agree with you. There are other factors to consider here. Overpopulation and scarcity of resources are a serious threat to everyones standard of living. We are driven by our instincts to produce as many healthy offspring as possible(Of course most people don't let this drive completly control their actions). Enlightened self interest might argue for a reasonable number of offspring per person so as not to overtax available resources and space. I'd say 2-3 per couple would be enough to maintain current populations. Of course many people have more than this. I know a guy who can't even keep his bills payed who has over 10 kids and has another on the way. It seems that often our drive to procreate and pass on our genes as much as possible wins out over common sense.

Considering that we have evolved to better pass on these genes and that this seems to be our goal(at least as a species if not as individuals) it doesn't make much sense for those who are least valueable to society to contribute disproportionately to the gene pool. Anyone here seen idiocrasy? I think that's where we're headed.

I think that as our rising population becomes more of a threat to social stability(Perhaps a few centuries from now) governments will be forced to regulate births. Sort of a slap in the face to the personal freedom we Americans hold dear but experience has shown us that as a species we are not capable of managing this problem any other way.

I'd suggest a "flat birth rate" to ensure fairness. More technology would be needed for this to work. After an individual contributes to their allotment of offspring, they would be court ordered to recieve sterilization unless some preferable method were available.

Adoption seems very strange to me. It kind of makes sense for an intelligent, consciencious person to adopt rather than to have children of their own if their community is overpopulated. It seems to make the most sense for the community. Of course it makes the most sense for the individual to want to only use his/her resources toward their own offspring. I'm considering adoption once I get to that point in my life but I will definately want to have some children of my own. Its a strange case indeed to see where instinctual self interest clashes with "Enlightened self interest". I think that this competitive breeding still to make the most sense for the species as a whole. Otherwise the gene pool will surely stagnate and we might be left with ugly, idiots who can't walk to the fridge without sitting down for 2 or 3 breaks. Don't believe me, visit the bible belt, we're 2/3's of the way there already.

It's a right, to my mind; but legal sanctions ought to be much steeper for those who fail to carry out the concomitant responsibilities.

Also, I don't think that hours worked should be factored in so much, otherwise you will leave the right to give birth solely to the rich.  Poor folk often have to work 60 or 70 hours a week just to make ends meet, at least here in SoCal.

Droplogic, you may very well be a psychopath. You sound like a textbook example from what I'm hearing. I have a few in my family but they no longer refer to them that way.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It's a right, to my mind; but legal sanctions ought to be much steeper for those who fail to carry out the concomitant responsibilities.

Also, I don't think that hours worked should be factored in so much, otherwise you will leave the right to give birth solely to the rich.  Poor folk often have to work 60 or 70 hours a week just to make ends meet, at least here in SoCal.

Why do you think it's a right?

I think hours worked are certainly a valid thing to consider when having kids, that's why so many people give up some/all work on becoming parents.

Quote from: "Prometheus"Droplogic, you may very well be a psychopath. You sound like a textbook example from what I'm hearing. I have a few in my family but they no longer refer to them that way.

I feel guilt when I do wrong, remorse when friends die.  I've never cheated on a gf or my wife for instance.  The sight of animals being harmed makes my stomach turn.  I am hardly a psychopath, no matter how much I loathe humanity.

What exactly about my response gave you this impression?  Apathy toward the unborn?

QuoteAnd I'm fine with that because I am a mess of an adult. I'm so angry at any form of authority it is very hard for me to keep the jobs I have. I've been lucky so far to keep my current job for the last 3 years because I'm a great liar...learned from the best.

These traits:

Difficulty with authority figures

trouble controling actions(Impulsiveness)

Trouble keeping jobs

Pathological lying

superficial charm

Grandiose sense of self-worth

Easily bored. (The fact that you post here)

I'm not insulting you, I actually have more markers for this than you do it seems. I'm just saying it might be worth looking into as it seems to be  a threat to your ability to function in society. A person should know himself and be comfortable with is "shadow". We all have one.

Also, why are your friends dying? This sounds a bit suspicious to me.  

Quote from: "Prometheus"

QuoteAnd I'm fine with that because I am a mess of an adult. I'm so angry at any form of authority it is very hard for me to keep the jobs I have. I've been lucky so far to keep my current job for the last 3 years because I'm a great liar...learned from the best.

These traits:

Difficulty with authority figures

trouble controling actions(Impulsiveness)

Trouble keeping jobs

Pathological lying

superficial charm

Grandiose sense of self-worth

Easily bored. (The fact that you post here)

I'm not insulting you, I actually have more markers for this than you do it seems. I'm just saying it might be worth looking into as it seems to be  a threat to your ability to function in society. A person should know himself and be comfortable with is "shadow". We all have one.

I know you're not insulting me.  I do fit all of those above...There is no treatment for psychopathy, and its quite difficult to actually diagnose.  Look at what wikipedia lists as factors for the second type of psychopathy.

Socially deviant lifestyle
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavioral problems
Revocation of conditional release

Does this list not describe the 20-25 year old male, and sometimes female?  I personally have 3 or 4 friends who fall into that category.

I did take offense to the accusation however...so maybe that just proves it further, I'm not sure.  What is "normal" behavior anyway?  Isn't normal just relative to the observer?

In Australia the government pays a baby bonus to encourage people to have babies.
I don't agree with it.

QuoteYou will get a cash gift of up to $4,000 each for your 1st and 2nd child and $6,000 each for your 3rd and 4th child.

As for the right/privilege option, I would say bringing a child into the world is a right.
Society can place conditions on this, reasonable or not.
I have misgivings for both the poverty perpetuated by large families and draconian actions to control them.
Enlightened people seem to advocate education, they say it works.

The practice of taking the children of young unmarried mothers used to be common, it's no longer considered a civilised thing to do.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 042758.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/19/3042758.htm)

Quote"The trauma is so deep, so complex that over 40 per cent of us never risked having another child. Children have suffered believing their own mothers callously gave them away," she said.
"Hearts have been shattered. Lives have been taken."
Sue said the rights of mothers were ignored.
"Single, unsupported mothers were treated like breeders, denigrated, dehumanised and de-babied," she said.
"Until a trauma is acknowledged and validated it can't begin to heal."

The West Australian Government apologised today for the practice.

I've long considered this a privilege. In fact, I wrote a paper, and read it in front of my class in college, which outlined a plan to effectively license people to have children. The class was Socioeconomics and Children for my Early Childhood Education degree (which I don't use, but hangs on my wall). I proposed that a program be offered which if completed would offer hefty tax incentives to those who had children. A refresher would be required every 2 years. The program would consist of classes alerting expectant parents of issues with pregnancy and infancy. The refresher 2 years hence would cover toddlerhood. Two more years, early childhood; later on, pre-teen, etc.

Make no mistake, I was in no way wishing to take rights away from anyone to procreate. I merely outlined a plan to educate and provide breaks to those that wished to enroll. I was raked over the coals for my opinion. It may have been my paper, it may have been my opinions, it may have been the fact that I was literally the only male in the class, but whatever it was, it was me against everyone else in trying have a discussion.

To this point:

Quote from: "SSY"a program where drug addicts were offered money in order to submit to sterilisation

I think this is brilliant. I think you could make the case to provide money for voluntary sterilization to anyone, and mandatory sterilization for many things, including severe mental illness, mental retardation, low IQ, inheritable diseases, etc.

In a somewhat related story, I used to work in the mental health field, with adolescents. There was a certain medicine that the physician prescribed to almost all of the kids- and anti seizure drug called depakote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valproic_acid) or valproic acid, and it worked really well for its mood stabilizing effects. There was a concern brought up by a lawsuit somewhere that it could cause sterility, and as a knee jerk reaction she (the Dr.) titrated all the kids off the med as soon as possible. There has never been (to my knowledge) a confirmed documented case of it. The period of adjustment to the new mood stabilizers was rough in the facility in which I worked. The new meds didn't help as much as the depakote.

Quote from: "SSY"Why do you think it's a right?

Because I hold as axiomatic the right of the individual to manage his or her own body.  I regard governmental control of a person's bodily functions, in the absence of a conviction for a crime, to be repulsive.  I don't believe that society has any right to demand that the needs of the society take precedence over the desires of the individual in the absence of a criminal act.

QuoteI think hours worked are certainly a valid thing to consider when having kids, that's why so many people give up some/all work on becoming parents.

Those who are well-off enough to afford this, you should say.  You haven't addressed my point that this idea of yours would strip many working poor of the chance to know the love of a child.  Do you honestly think such a class-based discriminatory system (be it intended or accidental, that may well be its result) would result in a stable society?  Do you honestly think that people will voluntarily forgo children?

Look at China.  If you're comfortable with such an intrusive government, have at it.  Just please leave it in the UK.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "SSY"Why do you think it's a right?

Because I hold as axiomatic the right of the individual to manage his or her own body.  I regard governmental control of a person's bodily functions, in the absence of a conviction for a crime, to be repulsive.  I don't believe that society has any right to demand that the needs of the society take precedence over the desires of the individual in the absence of a criminal act.

QuoteI think hours worked are certainly a valid thing to consider when having kids, that's why so many people give up some/all work on becoming parents.

Those who are well-off enough to afford this, you should say.  You haven't addressed my point that this idea of yours would strip many working poor of the chance to know the love of a child.  Do you honestly think such a class-based discriminatory system (be it intended or accidental, that may well be its result) would result in a stable society?  Do you honestly think that people will voluntarily forgo children?

Look at China.  If you're comfortable with such an intrusive government, have at it.  Just please leave it in the UK.

Psst.  Uh..China is kind of poised to take over the world right now.  Every industrialized nation owes them lots of money, especially the US.  If they were to cease artificial devaluing of their currency...it would effectively make theirs the only workable economy in the world.

IMO, we had our chance to prove that we could multiply unchecked...and we blew it.  Future generations will be better served if we limit how many are born.

Quote from: "SSY"Would you still think it a right if all the parent had to do was spit in a bucket and keep it in the freezer overnight to make a baby?

No, my concern is strictly with keeping medical decisions between the doctor and the patient without intervention from the government or other regulatory agencys.  The right to decide what is done or not done to our bodies is way too important to be cut into in the name of controlling who can have a baby.  

I think there is also reason to be concerned about who would get to decide who is ready for a child...what keeps them from selecting for green eye'd red headed Irish catholics for instance?

Quote from: "DropLogic"Psst.  Uh..China is kind of poised to take over the world right now.  Every industrialized nation owes them lots of money, especially the US.  If they were to cease artificial devaluing of their currency...it would effectively make theirs the only workable economy in the world.

Psst ... we're not talking about geopolitics, but rather individual freedom.  To argue that the success of a system justifies its methodology is short-sighted at least, and amoral.  Or do you actually believe that ends justify means?  Or do you argue that economic success is more important than personal happiness?

Also, centrally-imposed limitations on family size imply either blind law steamrolling everyone, or government officials deciding who gets to have kids and who doesn't.  What is your preference?

QuoteIMO, we had our chance to prove that we could multiply unchecked...and we blew it.  Future generations will be better served if we limit how many are born.

I'm not arguing that we should mulitply unchecked, so you can discard that strawman.  I am, however, arguing that it is an invasion of personal liberty to inject the government into the decision to have children.

I brought up China not as a reproductive success, but as a political nightmare.  Perhaps you might address my point: when you grant the government such intrusive powers, how do you subsequently limit those powers?  Would you, or any other reader of this post, for instance, consent to be sterilized?  Would you consent to a forcible-sterilization law?  If such a law were passed over your objection, would you bow to it?  Who would decide who gets sterilized?  On what basis would such a decision be made?

I submit that placing power over reproduction in the hands of the government is an open invitation to the abuse of power, for the sake of extending and consolidating those in power.  When have you known humans not to abuse such power?  What makes you think it would not be so abused in this case?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Because I hold as axiomatic the right of the individual to manage his or her own body.  I regard governmental control of a person's bodily functions, in the absence of a conviction for a crime, to be repulsive.  I don't believe that society has any right to demand that the needs of the society take precedence over the desires of the individual in the absence of a criminal act.

I'm surprised people are willing to give up on this principle so quickly.
It seems many of us want a quick and easy answer to a difficult problem.

There will be people down here happy to here of the new paradigm.
Taking the children from indigenous people wasn't wrong after all.

But now we are embracing authoritarian government why not mandatory daily blood tests?
More surveillance cameras, in the home and in the street.  If you do no wrong, there's nothing to fear.

With our new surveillance system we'll need to recruit a force to enforce order.
There will be many former drugoes available, give em a black suit and a stick, they'll work cheap.

And what is the cause of all this degenerate behaviour anyway?
Lack of faith obviously, so I better see you all in church.

It should be a privilege because the kid should come first, however, realistically I don't think there's not much within reason the government can do about it. If someone wishes to adopt they must go through a rather great deal of investigation to see if they're fit to be a parent, yet John and Jane Doe get to have a kid and you don't know the first thing about them.

On the other hand, if the person has AIDS or a condition that will be inevitably be passed on to the child, then I say yes, the government should do something to prevent it. Does that make it a privilege versus a right? I guess so.

Quote from: "Sophus"It should be a privilege because the kid should come first, however, realistically I don't think there's not much within reason the government can do about it. If someone wishes to adopt they must go through a rather great deal of investigation to see if they're fit to be a parent, yet John and Jane Doe get to have a kid and you don't know the first thing about them.

I agree that when a pregnancy is diagnosed, classes should be mandatory.

QuoteOn the other hand, if the person has AIDS or a condition that will be inevitably be passed on to the child, then I say yes, the government should do something to prevent it. Does that make it a privilege versus a right? I guess so.

What would you have the government do?  What other conditions do you have in mind?  What of genetic conditions which, unpredicatably, may or may not be expressed phenotypically?  Cancer killed 7 of my maternal grandmother's 8 siblings; her and my great-uncle Bert both beat it at least twice.  Obviously it's running in our family (my mother, too, has beaten it twice, as well as her sister) and I should be expected to get it sooner or later.  Ought I have been aborted?

eta:  PoopShoot, stfu.  

A child is a miniature person, thus neithe right nor privilege.

Having children should be a privilege though. A well-controlled one, seeing how far too many are complete failures as parents. And that not even mentioning overpopulation.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"What would you have the government do?  What other conditions do you have in mind?  What of genetic conditions which, unpredicatably, may or may not be expressed phenotypically?  Cancer killed 7 of my maternal grandmother's 8 siblings; her and my great-uncle Bert both beat it at least twice.  Obviously it's running in our family (my mother, too, has beaten it twice, as well as her sister) and I should be expected to get it sooner or later.  Ought I have been aborted?

eta:  PoopShoot, stfu.  

A genetic risk for cancer? No. A life long disease like AIDS that will compromise the child's life so they don't spread it to others? I think so.

QuoteA child is a miniature person, thus neithe right nor privilege.

Having children should be a privilege though. A well-controlled one, seeing how far too many are complete failures as parents. And that not even mentioning overpopulation.

There are a lot of people who should never be parents, but usually they don't prove this until they're parents. That's why I find preventative measures from the government too risky.

State interference in reproduction? Yes, let's get started on that as soon as we are happy with state interference in religious practice.

I understand the desire to make the world a better place. But fascist solutions to social problems are about the last thing I would have expected to hear from atheists. Like any oppressed minority, we have a huge interest in minimizing state power to dictate personal thoughts, decisions, and actions.

Yes, let's help end non-sustainable consumption. Yes, let's help ensure that children are raised by loving parents. (We have very practical reasons to do so, which I imagine I do not need to elaborate on.) Let's educate; let's influence. But not at the cost of liberty.

Cheers,

MetaEd

I think that the question is a good one and one which ought to be put to all potential parents before they have children.  But, I don't think it is the question government and society should focus on.

In my opinion, it's all about education.  When people are better educated they tend to, as a society, have fewer children and take better care of the ones they have.  I think that mandatory reproductive education (beginning in grade school) for all which includes education on birth control and education on the effects of having children, both personal and global, would do a lot to help fix the current situation.  I also think that some form of tolerance education should be mandatory.  Bigotry is responsible for a lot of child abuse.

Quote from: "metaed"But fascist solutions to social problems are about the last thing I would have expected to hear from atheists.

Does fascism dictate on individual basis who should and shouldn't have children?

That said, China seems to manage quite well with their one child policy thing. Oh, sure, there are a lot of kids being tossed in a river, with varying degrees of figurativity, but overall, it's not an ineffective measure of population control.

I am somewhat surprised by the number of people who, on seeing this discussion, immediately froth at the mouth about fascism, government invasion and the like.

QuoteNo, my concern is strictly with keeping medical decisions between the doctor and the patient without intervention from the government or other regulatory agencys. The right to decide what is done or not done to our bodies is way too important to be cut into in the name of controlling who can have a baby.

I think there is also reason to be concerned about who would get to decide who is ready for a child...what keeps them from selecting for green eye'd red headed Irish catholics for instance?

Does the government not already interfere with what is permissible to do with owns body? Injecting drugs, though only affecting one's self, is illegal, be they narcotics or (in your country) steroids. Do you also disagree with this form of governmental control?

Of course, deciding the conditions that should be met for parenthood would be tricky, and undoubtedly divisive, but already have people who decide how much we are taxed, what laws we obey, the punishments associated with these laws, which medical treatments are allowed, how our tax money is spent etc etc, I don't this issue has being significantly more prickly than all of those.

Edit, not imply that you have been frothing at the mouth

I have a problem with the framing of the question and, after thinking about it for a couple of days, I have to say neither. They're a responsibility.

Quote from: "hackenslash"I have a problem with the framing of the question and, after thinking about it for a couple of days, I have to say neither. They're a responsibility.

I agree with you and am a little weirded out by the fact that it took until the second page of comments for this to even come up.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "hackenslash"I have a problem with the framing of the question and, after thinking about it for a couple of days, I have to say neither. They're a responsibility.

I agree with you and am a little weirded out by the fact that it took until the second page of comments for this to even come up.

It is indeed a bit weird... Even I thought of that, and I genuinely dislike kids. Especially babies.  

Quote from: "metaed"State interference in reproduction? Yes, let's get started on that as soon as we are happy with state interference in religious practice.

I understand the desire to make the world a better place. But fascist solutions to social problems are about the last thing I would have expected to hear from atheists. Like any oppressed minority, we have a huge interest in minimizing state power to dictate personal thoughts, decisions, and actions.

Yes, let's help end non-sustainable consumption. Yes, let's help ensure that children are raised by loving parents. (We have very practical reasons to do so, which I imagine I do not need to elaborate on.) Let's educate; let's influence. But not at the cost of liberty.

Cheers,

MetaEd

Welcome metaed, a sulphur crested cocky on the forum, I bare a scar, but no grudge, rarrk.
Oh and your post makes sense to me.
For society to implement something like this, it would have to have changed greatly.
I hate to think what else such a society would think reasonable.

Quote from: "SSY"I cam to consider this when I heard news of a program where drug addicts were offered money in order to submit to sterilisation (a discussion worthy of another thread perhaps). There were several conflicting viewpoints, some raising the point that having children is a right, and that  denying these people this right was cruel (their contention being that these people were unable to make an informed choice).

So, I ask HAF, do you think having children is a right?

My own thoughts on the matter, lead me to conclude that children are not a right. For starters, there are more people involved than just the parents, the child and the society it is born into. I believe that the parents, are effectively obliging the child to exist (an odd sounding concept I admit, and one with some interesting corollaries), and as such, are responsible for making sure the child is well cared for etc. If this is not the case, then I believe having a child, is tantamount to forcing the child to live in an unsuitable environment. There is already a precedent in this matter, for if people neglect children, they are taken away, and in the case of foster or adoptive parents, very strict conditions indeed are placed on them before they are allowed children (it would appear that foster kids are not a universal right at all).

Secondly, since we live in a society (in the UK at least), which will provide assistance if a child needs it, in various forms, by having a child, and then failing to care for it, then society is obliged to step in, which is unfair on them (avoiding the more unsavoury option of letting a child live in unsuitable conditions).

I think that since the child deserves a loving, stable home, and since society should not have to step in and clear up a mess you made in order to spare the pain of an innocent child, having a child has all sorts of conditions and responsibilities attached. I think this turns it from a right into a privilege.

Your thoughts?

A 'right' is a  human intellectual construct. Reproduction is an inherent property of all organisms. It is fundamentally flawed to conflate the two conditions. It's like saying 'I don't like that shade of blue.', has no meaning with regard to the nature of the photons that we interpret as 'blue'. You can't take away the 'right' of a particular photon to be blue as it's a human intellectual construct.

The correct question is, should adults consider not reproducing for the benefit of themselves, others and the potential offspring? This may appear to be a very similar point but it isn't. Once we assign a 'right' to an activity we assign an ability to deny that 'right' to somebody. Unless we are going to forcibly sterilise people then the only thing we are ethically and morally allowed to do is to lay out our arguments to a person(s) why they should not use an inherent biological capability.

Having children is not a 'right' but an entirely natural process that we have evolved to do. Some would say it is the only point of existance and the only reason we exist in the first place. Reproduction is not a 'right' it is the function of life.

Quote from: "hackenslash"I have a problem with the framing of the question and, after thinking about it for a couple of days, I have to say neither. They're a responsibility.

I took the framing to indicate this being considered from a philosophical and not practical angle.  Of course you're right in the above statement.

Rights are only things upon which a society can agree and enforce as rights. Most societies have chosen to, perhaps without thinking about it, provide the right to reproduction.

Personally, I do believe in the right to free reproduction so long as it's accompanied by incentives not to procreate. Because we're living in a clearly overpopulated world with quickly-diminishing resources, free reproduction is ultimately a negative. What's more negative, however, would be regulated reproduction. Just as I believe the state has no business regulating abortion, similarly the state has no business regulating reproduction. What the state can do, however, is provide incentives for not reproducing or for adopting.

if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

Quote from: "TheWilliam"if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

Quit being a fascist Will!
:p

Quote from: "TheWilliam"if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

:hail:  :hail:

Quote from: "TheWilliam"if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but do you have any proof to back up the statement:

Quote from: "TheWilliam"and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

You're definitely right that some people do this, but most?  Really?  I don't think so, but I'd love to see the data that proves me wrong.  

It seems to me that any group of people are going to look pretty terrible if you choose to only focus on the worst of that particular group, which is what this post seems to exemplify.

Though people who have kids for welfare are horrible.  I'd just like to know how common that practice actually is.  I think there is an important difference between a poor person who has a kid and is on welfare and a person who has a kid to get welfare.

Quote from: "TheWilliam"if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

Your right.... You do it to buy your next joint.  *points at your "worlview"*
 

I notice his worldview has changed.

It would be nice to conduct a study on what percentage of recipients are using ALL of the food stamps for food and not selling any, but I don't think people would put themselves out there to let everyone know they are doing this, as it would have the average tax payer mad as shit to find this out, and sure enough, next voting season it would be on the ballot and food stamps would be gone.

^^^^(talk about a run-on sentence)

       So it's just a combination of 1. not being naive.  2. going by what I've seen.

since the age of ten in 1993, anybody I've interacted with who's family received food stamps always sold a lot of them to people who didn't really need them but appreciated them more.

.....I know it will never end, at least not in my lifetime, because my species, loves to breed, and loves to bullshit even more.

well, I didn't mean to make this dragged out post this morning, but I didn't think anybody would actually read my first post,

It's almost 4am and I need to exercise and get to work,
If I don't then I'll get fat and somebody else won't be able to get those new sneakers
(and don't trip, I'm not mad, at least I have my joint for the games this sunday)

Peace

-William-

When I was homeless and couldn't get food stamps, I bought them at 50 cents on the dollar or less.  That was twenty ish years ago.  However, I don't think people can easily sell them now because food benefits come on debit cards that get refilled each month.  If you think most people on food stamps in this economy are selling them I think you are wrong.

It's shocking to see money wasted on food stamps.
Particularly when needy financiers need funding and more bombs must be bought.

QuoteI don't disagree with you necessarily, but do you have any proof to back up the statement:

TheWilliam wrote:
and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

You're definitely right that some people do this, but most? Really? I don't think so, but I'd love to see the data that proves me wrong.

I'll back up will's statement. I grew up in a low income neighborhood. Literally 3 out of 5 working age adults where i lived had no real job. Most of them drew welfare and made money dealing drugs(The older folks sell their meds). Others grow pot(Some of it is found every year on my families land. We just recently finished combing our 15 acres for it so we could destroy the plants before they were harvested. Found 7 preharvest plants and took the scissors to them. Will's probaply crying now . Theres no telling how many we missed tho. Damn potheads.) and meth was big when i was a kid. 11 trailers burnt down in my neighborhood in 5 years and the cops never put two and two together. In all these families you have developing children(Myself included because i visited friends whos parents cooked.) being exposed to dangerous byproducts. I saw firsthand these kids barely getting enough food to get by on. If it weren't for free lunches at school and a few compassionate neighbors they might have starved. And Will is right, most of the stamps were sold at 50 cents on the dollar. They use the money to buy cigarettes, alcohol, and the stuff they use to make meth. They often offered to sell these stamps to my family. Every welfare family i know sold their stamps. What really sucks is when income tax comes around. Every year they get a few thousand dollars each(of our money) for sitting on their asses. Most of it is blown on the usual substances.

Someone said they thought this selling of stamps was hard. rofl! Naive. All they have to do is give the stamp recipient a grocery list. The recipient goes and buys the items, say 200's worth of groceries. Then the buyer pays 100 dollars for the items.

Birth rate regulation aside, does it really make sense to reward people for having kids they can't afford?
I think that if they can't feed the kids on their own the state should take them, if they aren't responsible enough to hold down a job(And aren't disabled) they likely aren't responsible enough to raise children .

Quote from: "Prometheus"I think that if they can't feed the kids on their own the state should take them, if they aren't responsible enough to hold down a job(And aren't disabled) they likely aren't responsible enough to raise children .

I hope where you are the state is better at taking care of the children than they are here.
It may seem like the right thing to do, but taking children shouldn't be done lightly.

http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_s ... int_modo=1 (http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=38761&int_modo=1)

QuoteFrom 1860 until the 1960s migration schemes saw youngsters and teenagers separated from families and sent to the ends of the earth to begin new lives.

Many were orphaned or had come from poor families who could no longer look after them and it was felt Australia and Canada provided better opportunities and a standard of life.

QuoteIn November 2009 the Australian Government issued an apology to children who suffered in institutional care. The British Government also apologised to former child migrants in 2010.

In generations past, wise folk saw the indigenous people weren't doing a good job with their children, so they took them.
Some people defend the motivation for this, very few defend the outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations)

QuoteMost notably, the study indicated that removed Aboriginal people were actually less likely to have completed a secondary education, three times as likely to have acquired a police record and were twice as likely to use illicit drugs.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"When I was homeless and couldn't get food stamps, I bought them at 50 cents on the dollar or less.  That was twenty ish years ago.  However, I don't think people can easily sell them now because food benefits come on debit cards that get refilled each month.  If you think most people on food stamps in this economy are selling them I think you are wrong.

The debit-card system only fuels a side-market.  My neighbors regularly offer to buy groceries on their card for me for an up-front payment.  While I disagree with TWs premise, I can say that at least here some of his facts are straight.

QuoteThumpalumpacus: It's a right, to my mind; but legal sanctions ought to be much steeper for those who fail to carry out the concomitant responsibilities.

QuoteTank: Having children is not a 'right' but an entirely natural process that we have evolved to do. Some would say it is the only point of existance and the only reason we exist in the first place. Reproduction is not a 'right' it is the function of life.

These two quotes more-or-less sum up my position on it.  Innocent until proven guilty applies here, I think.  Breeding is fundamental to the human condition, just as freedom of thought, action and association are, and as such is recognized by human society as a 'right'.  However, like action and association, breeding can be used to the detriment of others.  In such cases sanctions can reasonably be applied.  

Just as those who abuse the freedom of action to devastate the lives of others are denied further access to that freedom (by being locked in a small room made largely of concrete and steel), so those who misuse the right to breed should be denied further right to breed.  The right should be denied when to do so constitutes the lesser harm.  To my mind that's actually a fairly low threshold, since it doesn't restrict behaviour, only the outcome of a small subset of behaviours.  Ultimately of course, where the line lies, is an arbitrary decision, but that's what we have judges for.

Quote from: "Explorer"Just as those who abuse the freedom of action to devastate the lives of others are denied further access to that freedom (by being locked in a small room made largely of concrete and steel), so those who misuse the right to breed should be denied further right to breed.  The right should be denied when to do so constitutes the lesser harm.  To my mind that's actually a fairly low threshold, since it doesn't restrict behaviour, only the outcome of a small subset of behaviours.  Ultimately of course, where the line lies, is an arbitrary decision, but that's what we have judges for.

I like this position actually.  It makes sense because I have known some people to snap out of their awful habits once a kid came along, and they are now great parents.  So innocent until proven guilty makes sense in this application.

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "Explorer"Just as those who abuse the freedom of action to devastate the lives of others are denied further access to that freedom (by being locked in a small room made largely of concrete and steel), so those who misuse the right to breed should be denied further right to breed.  The right should be denied when to do so constitutes the lesser harm.  To my mind that's actually a fairly low threshold, since it doesn't restrict behaviour, only the outcome of a small subset of behaviours.  Ultimately of course, where the line lies, is an arbitrary decision, but that's what we have judges for.

I like this position actually.  It makes sense because I have known some people to snap out of their awful habits once a kid came along, and they are now great parents.  So innocent until proven guilty makes sense in this application.

Yes, he stated my position much better than I myself did.

It is certainly a Catch 22.

On one hand, it is wrong for the state to force people, at their will, not to have children.

On the other hand, it is wrong that an irresponsible parent can create a child and allow them to suffer.

Quote from: "jduster"It is certainly a Catch 22.

On one hand, it is wrong for the state to force people, at their will, not to have children.

On the other hand, it is wrong that an irresponsible parent can create a child and allow them to suffer.

Would one rather be alive and suffering with the potential not to suffer or never to have lived?

Personally I would contend the potential suffering of a child, provided there is no significant mental or physical congenital condition, is not a reason not to have a child from the child's perspective because while there is life there is hope. IMO limiting population is a selfish necessity for those already alive, those yet to be born and the environment they will inherit.

Quote from: "SSY"Are children a right or a privilege?

Curse.

Quote from: "theantithesis"

Quote from: "SSY"Are children a right or a privilege?

Curse.

That's not completely fair  

It's always interesting to see how quickly anecdotal evidence is accepted instead of rejected when the conversation among atheists has to do with anything but religion.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"It's always interesting to see how quickly anecdotal evidence is accepted instead of rejected when the conversation among atheists has to do with anything but religion.  

The OP was posed as a "what do you think about blank?" question.  What evidence would you offer to answer this question?  This issue isn't so black and white as religion is.

I'm glad you guys answered the debit card question for me.

that one was a little too simple.

It's really easy to just go to the grocery, show the receipt and pay 50 percent of that in cash.

my niece's mother (by marriage, i'm not related to this broad) does that every month.  so did my old boss.

in the end I say if they are gonna keep spitting out kids. they have to come up with their own money to raise them. and not just take my money or your money or the dude down the street.

it's their problem. NOT MINE.

if the kids go hungry. TOO DAMN BAD.

It wasn't my choice for them to be allowed to breed the species.

Just a moment while I adjust my halo...

If you don't feed them they will steal, or steal more.
If they steal they get what? ten cents in the dollar and probably break a car window, so the percentage is maybe 5%.
This is an inefficient way to feed the hungry, and you'll have to pay more cops as well.

I think the police in South America had their own way of dealing with this sort of thing, but it's not pretty.

Have attempts to lift the poor from their squalor been tried, failed and rejected?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"{snip}
Have attempts to lift the poor from their squalor been tried, failed and rejected?

The Victorian phrase was 'the residuam'. That group of society that was beyond help but would always require help. Those people who simply would not or could not contribute to society. Ignoring the residuam will not make it go away, in all probability it will cause more damage to society than it costs to manage it. Which I think is the point you were making.

Unless one wants to take positive steps to eradicate the residuam one's only real option is to manage it.

Quote from: "Tank"Unless one wants to take positive steps to eradicate the residuam one's only real option is to manage it.

So have some societies (let's not say eradicate) done a better job improving the lot of their residuam?
What happens when there is a pool of residuam ready to flow across borders?

The problem with the position of "if they're going to keep spitting out kids, let them pay for them" is that it's the innocent kid who ends up being the real victim.  Not caring about the welfare of the helpless seems monstrous to me.

Also, I still in no way believe that "most" people on food stamps sell them for 50 cents on the dollar for booze and smokes and drugs.  That is a ridiculous claim to make - regardless of how the shitty people in your life happen to behave.  I would believe that most people on food stamps have at some point used them as a currency to get what other people may consider a luxury item at some point, but why get all pissy about that?  The idea that if there were less people on welfare, you would have a bigger paycheck or somehow have more money yourself is laughably naive.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"The problem with the position of "if they're going to keep spitting out kids, let them pay for them" is that it's the innocent kid who ends up being the real victim.  Not caring about the welfare of the helpless seems monstrous to me.

I completely agree with this. And at the same time I think it would be good to encourage people to not have children they can't afford. It's difficult for me to determine if/when/how the government should really act in taking such preventative measures.

I think sex ed is part of the problem, as in, lack of.  I think kids do what comes natural and explore each other without understanding the consequences.  Certainly you run the risk of planting the seed of curiosity in a young child (that sounded bad..), but I think the benefit outweighs that risk.  In America especially we vilify sexuality, which I think has the opposite effect.

In my opinion the decision on who should and shouldn't be allowed to have children lies with whoever will be ultimately responsible for the welfare of that child. I don't believe that anyone has an right to have children and I also find the emotional blackmail which is used to justify state support for irresponsible parents who had children they couldn't support themselves disguisting.

The current attitude in the UK seems to be "I can have as many children as I want and if the state doesn't give my money to pay for them they'll die and it'll all be the states fault". I'm all for providing assistance to those who through circumstances out of their control are in a position where they are unable to provide adequate support for themselve and their children but I won't accept this system of support being abused.

Of course changing this would require imposing strict control over reproduction should as mandatory sterlisation, putting eggs and sperm into storage and then having to apply for a permit to have a child as there will always be irresponsible parents having children they can't support unless its made physically impossible. Morally controversiall? Yes but I don't see how its any more controversial than letting people breed uncontrollably and then passing responsibilty for their children onto the state.

Quote from: "Islador"The current attitude in the UK seems to be "I can have as many children as I want and if the state doesn't give my money to pay for them they'll die and it'll all be the states fault". I'm all for providing assistance to those who through circumstances out of their control are in a position where they are unable to provide adequate support for themselve and their children but I won't accept this system of support being abused.

How would it be decided that the circumstances were out of the family's control?  There's no good way to attack this issue.  We need to figure out the lesser of two evils.  Kind of like voting for politicians...

On the one hand, we have irresponsible breeding...but again, who gets to decide what irresponsible is defined by?  Should there be a decider?

On the other, we keep it the way it is...which obviously isn't working either.  Def a catch 22.

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "Islador"The current attitude in the UK seems to be "I can have as many children as I want and if the state doesn't give my money to pay for them they'll die and it'll all be the states fault". I'm all for providing assistance to those who through circumstances out of their control are in a position where they are unable to provide adequate support for themselve and their children but I won't accept this system of support being abused.

How would it be decided that the circumstances were out of the family's control?  There's no good way to attack this issue.  We need to figure out the lesser of two evils.  Kind of like voting for politicians...

On the one hand, we have irresponsible breeding...but again, who gets to decide what irresponsible is defined by?  Should there be a decider?

On the other, we keep it the way it is...which obviously isn't working either.  Def a catch 22.

By out of their control I am refering to events such as a partner dying, losing your job or becoming ill/disabled and so on. I would also add that I am only willing to support those who had children or were pregnant before requiring aid from the state and therefore had no intention of being dependent on the state when they had their children.

As I said the people who get to decide are the ones who are going to be ultimately responsible for those children. Its not fair on the taxpayer and the state that individuals can have children without any means of supporting them and then through emotional blackmail force the state and the taxpayer to provide. This is the current situation in the UK and it needs to stop because there are plenty of taxpayers out there who put off having children until they are in a position where they provide for those children and at the same time there are others who just breed without a second thought as to who is going to foot the bill.

If its the taxpayer and the state who are having assume responsibility for providing for a potential child then they have the final say on whether a person can have that child.

Quote from: "Islador"Of course changing this would require imposing strict control over reproduction should as mandatory sterlisation, putting eggs and sperm into storage and then having to apply for a permit to have a child as there will always be irresponsible parents having children they can't support unless its made physically impossible.

And to whom, pray tell, would you entrust such a broad group of powers?

Quote from: "Islador"If its the taxpayer and the state who are having assume responsibility for providing for a potential child then they have the final say on whether a person can have that child.

The problem with this otherwise sensible idea is that it presumes prescience on the part of bureaucrats.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Islador"Of course changing this would require imposing strict control over reproduction should as mandatory sterlisation, putting eggs and sperm into storage and then having to apply for a permit to have a child as there will always be irresponsible parents having children they can't support unless its made physically impossible.

And to whom, pray tell, would you entrust such a broad group of powers?

Private companies can already provide this service via sperm/egg banks. What remains of the civil service can provide the administrative services but its more likely that this will need to be outsourced to the private sector. There is already a pre-existing system inplace for determining whether or not an individual or couple is suitable to be a parent in the adoption agency. This would provide a good starting point.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Islador"If its the taxpayer and the state who are having assume responsibility for providing for a potential child then they have the final say on whether a person can have that child.

The problem with this otherwise sensible idea is that it presumes prescience on the part of bureaucrats.

Not in light of the above. Once sperm and eggs are available for collection they would be collected, checked for quality and the individual sterilised. If this is done at an earlier enough age then the odds of someone getting pregnant without authorisation are very slim indeed.

Quote from: "Islador"Private companies can already provide this service via sperm/egg banks. What remains of the civil service can provide the administrative services but its more likely that this will need to be outsourced to the private sector. There is already a pre-existing system inplace for determining whether or not an individual or couple is suitable to be a parent in the adoption agency. This would provide a good starting point.

Given the extremely spotty record of corporations given responsibility over other deeply personal decisions (cf. healthcare in America), I'd be very skeptical of this solution.  I don't think adoption agencies provide a meaningful analogy because the differences in scale are so vast.  In 1992 (the last year I could find adoption stats for America), 127, 000 adoptions took place.  In that same year, there were 4,084,000 live births.  Assuming the proportion to remain roughly the same, you can easily see that the adoption bureaucracy, already noted for its red tape, would be overwhelmed without a huge increase in the administrative sector, with concomitant increases in inefficiency, unjust decisions, and opportunity for corruption.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Not in light of the above. Once sperm and eggs are available for collection they would be collected, checked for quality and the individual sterilised. If this is done at an earlier enough age then the odds of someone getting pregnant without authorisation are very slim indeed.

Personally, I'd rather die free than live in a Brave New World.  While this is admittedly a personal opinion, it is one that I'm sure most Americans, at any rate, would share, aside from any argumentation based on my points above.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Islador"Private companies can already provide this service via sperm/egg banks. What remains of the civil service can provide the administrative services but its more likely that this will need to be outsourced to the private sector. There is already a pre-existing system inplace for determining whether or not an individual or couple is suitable to be a parent in the adoption agency. This would provide a good starting point.

Given the extremely spotty record of corporations given responsibility over other deeply personal decisions (cf. healthcare in America), I'd be very skeptical of this solution.  I don't think adoption agencies provide a meaningful analogy because the differences in scale are so vast.  In 1992 (the last year I could find adoption stats for America), 127, 000 adoptions took place.  In that same year, there were 4,084,000 live births.  Assuming the proportion to remain roughly the same, you can easily see that the adoption bureaucracy, already noted for its red tape, would be overwhelmed without a huge increase in the administrative sector, with concomitant increases in inefficiency, unjust decisions, and opportunity for corruption.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Not in light of the above. Once sperm and eggs are available for collection they would be collected, checked for quality and the individual sterilised. If this is done at an earlier enough age then the odds of someone getting pregnant without authorisation are very slim indeed.

Personally, I'd rather die free than live in a Brave New World.  While this is admittedly a personal opinion, it is one that I'm sure most Americans, at any rate, would share, aside from any argumentation based on my points above.

This is the problem when everything is labelled a right. It makes it nigh impossible to made any changes to society regardless of whether or not the change proposed is more morally and ethically acceptable than allowing people to exercise their 'right' without also taking responsibilty afterwards and emotionally blackmailing the state/taxpayer into taking up said responsibilty.

We legislate against flaws in human behaviour all the time because we recognise that absolute personal freedom is not in the best interests of society as a whole. Tell me why irresponsible reproduction should not be controlled or if you accept that there is a need to control reproduction what would your prefered method be?

And would you be willing to submit to sterilisation by the state?

I'm having problems with the use of the word 'right'. I see a right for example as something like the 'right to freedom of expression', the 'right to assembly'. I don't see the act of procreation as anything like as tawdry as this sort of 'right' that is a codification of human behaviour. Reproduction is the bedrock of life, all life, without exception. It is far more innate to existance than a behavioural condition, I simply do not equate it to a 'right'. Humans are obliged to reproduce because they are alive, it comes with the territory whether one likes it or not. Reproduction is not a right or a privilege it is a function of being alive.

That being said unfettered reproduction leads to over exploitation of resources, the destruction of the ecosystem as it becomes lop sided and the ultimate population crash of the dominant spices. Humans are unique in their capability to foresee this demise and to do something positive about it.

The question facing humanity is 'should we try to beat natural selection for the good of myself, others and future members of our species?' It is the thoughtless and selfish that reproduce carelessly and thus that trait will survive all others, it has to or Darwin was wrong.

Quote from: "Islador"This is the problem when everything is labelled a right. It makes it nigh impossible to made any changes to society regardless of whether or not the change proposed is more morally and ethically acceptable than allowing people to exercise their 'right' without also taking responsibilty afterwards and emotionally blackmailing the state/taxpayer into taking up said responsibilty.

So close, and yet so far away.....

Also, you keep waving around subsequent irresponsibility, but you have yet to present cogent answers to my questions about how the state can deem which couple will be good parents and which irresponsible. Criminal record?  That won't work; it's a clear violation of 5th Amendment rights.  History of drug abuse?  If you don't have a conviction, then you are punishing without a trial.  If you do have a conviction the above objection applies.

Also duly noted is your refusal to rebut my point about infrastructure, or even  acknowledge it at all.  I will not let you forget this.  Please explain how you would overcome these difficulties without installing a massive bureaucracy subject to red tape, human error, and corruption undermining its mission.

QuoteWe legislate against flaws in human behaviour all the time because we recognise that absolute personal freedom is not in the best interests of society as a whole.

The only biological imperative we legislate against is defecation, and that only in public.

QuoteTell me why irresponsible reproduction should not be controlled or if you accept that there is a need to control reproduction what would your prefered method be?

I have already done so, but for your benefit I will do so again:  I would rather die free than live in a Brave New World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World).

To answer your last question, I'm comfortable leaving that to natural selection.

Quote from: "hackenslash"And would you be willing to submit to sterilisation by the state?

As long as my sperm was stored at several secure sites for redundancy purposes then yes. It also has the added bonus that myself and my partner can have sex without using a condom to ensure that we don't have any unwanted pregnancy. This doesn't mean that others don't need to use condoms as the STI issue still remains.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Islador"This is the problem when everything is labelled a right. It makes it nigh impossible to made any changes to society regardless of whether or not the change proposed is more morally and ethically acceptable than allowing people to exercise their 'right' without also taking responsibilty afterwards and emotionally blackmailing the state/taxpayer into taking up said responsibilty.

So close, and yet so far away.....

Also, you keep waving around subsequent irresponsibility, but you have yet to present cogent answers to my questions about how the state can deem which couple will be good parents and which irresponsible. Criminal record?  That won't work; it's a clear violation of 5th Amendment rights.  History of drug abuse?  If you don't have a conviction, then you are punishing without a trial.  If you do have a conviction the above objection applies.

Also duly noted is your refusal to rebut my point about infrastructure, or even  acknowledge it at all.  I will not let you forget this.  Please explain how you would overcome these difficulties without installing a massive bureaucracy subject to red tape, human error, and corruption undermining its mission.

You are right and I apologise for failing to address all which you said.

I admit that determining who will make a good parent is a very difficult thing because there are so many factors involved, including those which can be hidden from any assessment or won't become apparant until after the child is born and the parents have assumed responsibility. We're also from different cultural backgrounds as you are apparantly an American and I'm British so I have no grown up with the US constitution and therefore do no think within its frame work.

There are some things which I would want to be part of any assessment such as the households financial situation, their views on education, whether or not there is a work ethic, whether or not either of the parents has any previous convictions and suchlike which are immediately relevent to their wish to have a child. There would also have to be the right to appeal.

I find your attitude towards bureaucracy and its associated problems interesting as it applies equally to the infrastructure currently inplace which manages and delivers state welfare in the UK. For the most part the Welfare system does its job but innevitably there are human and computer mistakes which cause much frustration and upset for those who it affects but that doesn't mean we don't bother providing the most vulnerable of society with welfare because its problematic.

Red tape, human error and all that are a reality of life. Personally I'd rather have that than children being born to irresponsible parents who the state is then obliged to pay for, just as I'd rather there be those things than people having no state welfare safety net to fall back on when times are hard.

Incidently I do have some experience working in such bureacracies and I can assure you that there are departments dedicated to reducing error and ensuring that staff aren't doing anything which they shouldn't be.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteWe legislate against flaws in human behaviour all the time because we recognise that absolute personal freedom is not in the best interests of society as a whole.

The only biological imperative we legislate against is defecation, and that only in public.

Laws exist (Some of them at least) exist to provide an standard to measure individuals behaviour against in order to indentify where it falls short of what is deemed acceptable. It goes a little bit further than just stopping people crapping in public.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteTell me why irresponsible reproduction should not be controlled or if you accept that there is a need to control reproduction what would your prefered method be?

I have already done so, but for your benefit I will do so again:  I would rather die free than live in a Brave New World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World).

To answer your last question, I'm comfortable leaving that to natural selection.

The slippery-slope arguement isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

You do realise that by leaving things to natural selection we would withdraw all welfare support for the most vulnerable in society? This would be a truely despicable act and would cause far more harm than anything I've proposed in this thread.

Quote from: "Islador"The slippery-slope arguement isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

It is when the slope runs such a short distance.

Quote from: "Islador"You do realise that by leaving things to natural selection we would withdraw all welfare support for the most vulnerable in society? This would be a truely despicable act and would cause far more harm than anything I've proposed in this thread.

So you don't understand natural selection either, then? Natural selection doesn't preclude looking after the more vulnerable members of society, it demands it, because it is precisely that behaviour which confers a survival advantage. Your view of natural selection seems to be more like the fuckwittery that is social Darwinism (which had nothing to do with Darwin, BTW) than anything remotely resembling NS as it really is.

I'd be inclined to actually learn something of the topic on which you're holding forth.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "Islador"You do realise that by leaving things to natural selection we would withdraw all welfare support for the most vulnerable in society? This would be a truely despicable act and would cause far more harm than anything I've proposed in this thread.

So you don't understand natural selection either, then? Natural selection doesn't preclude looking after the more vulnerable members of society, it demands it, because it is precisely that behaviour which confers a survival advantage. Your view of natural selection seems to be more like the fuckwittery that is social Darwinism (which had nothing to do with Darwin, BTW) than anything remotely resembling NS as it really is.

I'd be inclined to actually learn something of the topic on which you're holding forth.

Fair enough. I forgot about the role altrurism plays in natural selection and allowed myself to wrongly think in terms of social Darwinism which doesn't reflect the true nature of natural selection and is just used to justify the dog-eat-dog mentality.

Natural selection favours that which confers a selective advantage increasing the likelyhood or survival and reproductive success and so passes those characteristics onto the next generation which are inheritable, genetic and behavioural. After thinking about it the welfare state is a form of reciprocal altrurism whereby individuals who pay into the system to provide for others are themselves able to claim help from that system in times of need.

I stand corrected. What I should have said is that alturism has limits and I believe that we are going beyond those limits by supporting irresponsible indivuals who have children that they are not capable of looking after and therefore it would be a sensible precaution to impliment controls on who can have children to ensure that irresponsible individuals don't have them.

Thank you for pointing out my error Hackenslash

Quote from: "Islador"You are right and I apologise for failing to address all which you said.

I admit that determining who will make a good parent is a very difficult thing because there are so many factors involved, including those which can be hidden from any assessment or won't become apparant until after the child is born and the parents have assumed responsibility. We're also from different cultural backgrounds as you are apparantly an American and I'm British so I have no grown up with the US constitution and therefore do no think within its frame work.

I think this is a good point, and I will try to keep in mind our different cultural mores.  It should be pointed out that often it is the case, as the proverb goes, "the child is the father to the man."  Some parents, yes, continue bad habits, or develop them, on the birth of a child.  Yet others grow into  role they never envisioned for themselves.

QuoteThere are some things which I would want to be part of any assessment such as the households financial situation, their views on education, whether or not there is a work ethic, whether or not either of the parents has any previous convictions and suchlike which are immediately relevent to their wish to have a child. There would also have to be the right to appeal.

As I pointed out, previous convictions falls afoul of not only the US Constitution, but the fair implementation of justice.  How long do you propose to punish people for what may be youthful indiscretions?  What "views on education" will be permissible?  University?  Who, then, shall sweep the floors?  Would you permit, say, Mick Jagger to have children?  After all, he has drug convictions, no steady job, and is admittedly lazy.

QuoteI find your attitude towards bureaucracy and its associated problems interesting as it applies equally to the infrastructure currently inplace which manages and delivers state welfare in the UK. For the most part the Welfare system does its job but innevitably there are human and computer mistakes which cause much frustration and upset for those who it affects but that doesn't mean we don't bother providing the most vulnerable of society with welfare because its problematic.

Aiding someone and restricting their freedoms are two drastically different things, and I'm surprised you would attempt to equate them.

QuoteRed tape, human error and all that are a reality of life. Personally I'd rather have that than children being born to irresponsible parents who the state is then obliged to pay for, just as I'd rather there be those things than people having no state welfare safety net to fall back on when times are hard.

What will you do when the deciding official is corrupt and permits criminals/deadbeats/poor people to reproduce upon receipt of a bribe -- or refuses permission to otherwise suitable parents because they cannot afford the bribe?

QuoteIncidently I do have some experience working in such bureacracies and I can assure you that there are departments dedicated to reducing error and ensuring that staff aren't doing anything which they shouldn't be.

Indeed; however, an overworked bureaucracy is almost always behind the curve when it comes to addressing issues.

QuoteLaws exist (Some of them at least) exist to provide an standard to measure individuals behaviour against in order to indentify where it falls short of what is deemed acceptable. It goes a little bit further than just stopping people crapping in public.

Here you're ignoring my point.  You are not proposing to restrict behavior -- sex; you are proposing to restrict a biological imperative: reproduction.  That's a different kettle of fish altogether.

QuoteThe slippery-slope arguement isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

I'm unsurprised.  You seem to, in my admittedly limited estimation, value security more than liberty, while my priorities are the reverse.  Likewise, I think that the sort of thing you propose will have the effect of pitting the people against the government.  Unless sterilization is performed prior to puberty, it will certainly increase the rates of both infanticide and infant abandonment.

QuoteYou do realise that by leaving things to natural selection we would withdraw all welfare support for the most vulnerable in society? This would be a truely despicable act and would cause far more harm than anything I've proposed in this thread.

I'm unsure where you got the impression that I support the abolition of welfare.  Your argument here appears to be reductio ad absurdum, carried to absurd lengths.

I'm sorry, but I find this willingness to hand over such vast powers to government disturbing.  If you're comfortable with the Chinese model, cool.  I'll pass, thanks.

Quote from: "Islador"Thank you for pointing out my error Hackenslash

No problem. It's an easy mistake to make, not least because of the way the idea is pushed by those with an agenda.

The mention of the Victorians reminds me that a common Victorian solution to unwanted children was infanticide. Many foundling's hospitals, run by churches and the government, quietly starved all foundlings to death before the age of 2. So I would have to agree with the earlier poster's point that bureaus can be very efficient. They may also be a little too cold hearted for your comfort.

Quote from: "Islador"The slippery-slope arguement isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

Slippery slope arguments can be annoying, their use in the euthanasia debate pisses me off.
If we reach the point of sterilising the unworthy I think the slope has been slipped, we have reached the level of the Nazis.
China has a billion people and a one child policy, not a no child policy, mostly enforced economically.
What will the proportion be of blacks and whites who receive this treatment?
Is it expected the de-sexed will be more manageable? like a Labrador, I hope they aren't.
I remember the songs of the desperately poor, chained and sent across the sea.
Dehumanising people makes you less human, people have to lifted, not down trodden.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Islador"The slippery-slope arguement isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

Slippery slope arguments can be annoying, their use in the euthanasia debate pisses me off.
If we reach the point of sterilising the unworthy I think the slope has been slipped, we have reached the level of the Nazis.
China has a billion people and a one child policy, not a no child policy, mostly enforced economically.
What will the proportion be of blacks and whites who receive this treatment?
Is it expected the de-sexed will be more manageable? like a Labrador, I hope they aren't.
I remember the songs of the desperately poor, chained and sent across the sea.
Dehumanising people makes you less human, people have to lifted, not down trodden.

The argument here is who should be responsible for lifting people.  Where is the line between helping and enabling?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Islador"You are right and I apologise for failing to address all which you said.

I admit that determining who will make a good parent is a very difficult thing because there are so many factors involved, including those which can be hidden from any assessment or won't become apparant until after the child is born and the parents have assumed responsibility. We're also from different cultural backgrounds as you are apparantly an American and I'm British so I have no grown up with the US constitution and therefore do no think within its frame work.

I think this is a good point, and I will try to keep in mind our different cultural mores.  It should be pointed out that often it is the case, as the proverb goes, "the child is the father to the man."  Some parents, yes, continue bad habits, or develop them, on the birth of a child.  Yet others grow into  role they never envisioned for themselves.

While it is true that some great people have been born into less than ideal circumstances I don't feel that this is justification for continueing to allow children to be born into less than ideal circumstances.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteThere are some things which I would want to be part of any assessment such as the households financial situation, their views on education, whether or not there is a work ethic, whether or not either of the parents has any previous convictions and suchlike which are immediately relevent to their wish to have a child. There would also have to be the right to appeal.

As I pointed out, previous convictions falls afoul of not only the US Constitution, but the fair implementation of justice.  How long do you propose to punish people for what may be youthful indiscretions?  What "views on education" will be permissible?  University?  Who, then, shall sweep the floors?  Would you permit, say, Mick Jagger to have children?  After all, he has drug convictions, no steady job, and is admittedly lazy.

I admit that its difficult to assess. I do not see the need for people to sweep floors as justification for not expecting parents to encourage their children to value education. From a democratic perspective the better educated the electorate the better in my opinion as Neil DeGrasse Tyson states wonderfully in this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gK2EEwzjPQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gK2EEwzjPQ)). I would also place underneath the umbrella of education encourage to take up a trade via apprenterships which is something that is far prevelent that I would like in the UK.

In regards to a person criminal record thats why I included the condition that these be immediately relevent. Depending on the crime commited, the circumstances under which the crime was commited and the time thats passed it may or may not be worth taking into account.

I think I've perhaps protrayed a far too draconic system which is understandable given the methods I propose. I don't to stop anyone with a blemish on their record having children, only those who are likely to give their children a poor standard of life.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteI find your attitude towards bureaucracy and its associated problems interesting as it applies equally to the infrastructure currently inplace which manages and delivers state welfare in the UK. For the most part the Welfare system does its job but innevitably there are human and computer mistakes which cause much frustration and upset for those who it affects but that doesn't mean we don't bother providing the most vulnerable of society with welfare because its problematic.

Aiding someone and restricting their freedoms are two drastically different things, and I'm surprised you would attempt to equate them.

I see your point

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteRed tape, human error and all that are a reality of life. Personally I'd rather have that than children being born to irresponsible parents who the state is then obliged to pay for, just as I'd rather there be those things than people having no state welfare safety net to fall back on when times are hard.

What will you do when the deciding official is corrupt and permits criminals/deadbeats/poor people to reproduce upon receipt of a bribe -- or refuses permission to otherwise suitable parents because they cannot afford the bribe?

QuoteIncidently I do have some experience working in such bureacracies and I can assure you that there are departments dedicated to reducing error and ensuring that staff aren't doing anything which they shouldn't be.

Indeed; however, an overworked bureaucracy is almost always behind the curve when it comes to addressing issues.

Without going into details the measures which are taken to ensure error and fraud are minimised as fairly comprehensive, especially fraud because by the nature of how they monitor staff you will eventually be caught. Not all anti-fraud systems require a person to run them, many are automated.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteLaws exist (Some of them at least) exist to provide an standard to measure individuals behaviour against in order to indentify where it falls short of what is deemed acceptable. It goes a little bit further than just stopping people crapping in public.

Here you're ignoring my point.  You are not proposing to restrict behavior -- sex; you are proposing to restrict a biological imperative: reproduction.  That's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Laws against rape are restricting a biological imperative. I don't believe that any behaviour, biological imperitive or not, overides the right of a child to be born into a suitable household anymore than it overides the right of an individual to choose their sexual partners.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteThe slippery-slope arguement isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

I'm unsurprised.  You seem to, in my admittedly limited estimation, value security more than liberty, while my priorities are the reverse.  Likewise, I think that the sort of thing you propose will have the effect of pitting the people against the government.  Unless sterilization is performed prior to puberty, it will certainly increase the rates of both infanticide and infant abandonment.

I have nothing against liberty, just uncontrained liberty that leads to more harm than good.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteYou do realise that by leaving things to natural selection we would withdraw all welfare support for the most vulnerable in society? This would be a truely despicable act and would cause far more harm than anything I've proposed in this thread.

I'm unsure where you got the impression that I support the abolition of welfare.  Your argument here appears to be reductio ad absurdum, carried to absurd lengths.

Hackenslash kindly pointed out my error. I apologise for my false accusation.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm sorry, but I find this willingness to hand over such vast powers to government disturbing.  If you're comfortable with the Chinese model, cool.  I'll pass, thanks.

While I don't always agree with China's politics and its methods its good to see a state willing to address the issue of population growth. Education and providing contraception is a great tool to reduce population growth but it relies on voluntary and competent compliance which is too much to ask of most societies.

If we simply sit and leave people to breed without restraint on the basis that we don't like interfering in peoples ability to have children that won't make the problem go away. At best some of us might feel good about protecting peoples ability to have children regardless of their suitability as parents.

A victory for irresponsible parents, a dismal life for many of the children of these parents.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "Islador"Thank you for pointing out my error Hackenslash

No problem. It's an easy mistake to make, not least because of the way the idea is pushed by those with an agenda.

It was slopping thinking. I've read quite a lot of stuff about evolution written by reputable authors and should have thought before I posted. It actually came from one of Richard Dawkins book where he states that while contraception may be unnatural so is the welfare state in that it supports children that would otherwise die without state support and therefore individuals relying on state support should restrict their reproduction.

Quote from: "Islador"While it is true that some great people have been born into less than ideal circumstances I don't feel that this is justification for continueing to allow children to be born into less than ideal circumstances.

I fail to see how growing up to be an adult with little or no freedom, in a system which values the society more than the individual,  make for an "ideal" circumstance.  It appears we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  

QuoteI admit that its difficult to assess. I do not see the need for people to sweep floors as justification for not expecting parents to encourage their children to value education. From a democratic perspective the better educated the electorate the better in my opinion as Neil DeGrasse Tyson states wonderfully in this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gK2EEwzjPQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gK2EEwzjPQ)). I would also place underneath the umbrella of education encourage to take up a trade via apprenterships which is something that is far prevelent that I would like in the UK.

Fair enough.

QuoteIn regards to a person criminal record thats why I included the condition that these be immediately relevent. Depending on the crime commited, the circumstances under which the crime was commited and the time thats passed it may or may not be worth taking into account.

Again, fair enough.

QuoteI think I've perhaps protrayed a far too draconic system which is understandable given the methods I propose. I don't to stop anyone with a blemish on their record having children, only those who are likely to give their children a poor standard of life.

My objection is that the government having this power at all is offensive to individual liberty.

QuoteWithout going into details the measures which are taken to ensure error and fraud are minimised as fairly comprehensive, especially fraud because by the nature of how they monitor staff you will eventually be caught. Not all anti-fraud systems require a person to run them, many are automated.

I'd need to see details before I concede this point.  This answer reads very pat, and I'm unconvinced a computer can outwit a human bent on illicit gain.  "Under the table" is by definition unmonitored, too.

QuoteLaws against rape are restricting a biological imperative.

Nonsense.  Rape is not typically about sexual gratification but rage at one's impotence finding an outlet. It is no more a biological imperative than schizophrenia.  You are making a serious category error here.  The fact that rape can result in pregnancy does not mean that its primary purpose is reproduction, any more than the fact that airplanes sometimes crash means that they were designed as tools of capital punishment.

]quote]I don't believe that any behaviour, biological imperitive or not, overides the right of a child to be born into a suitable household anymore than it overides the right of an individual to choose their sexual partners. [/quote]

Again, being born into a society that devalues you as an individual -- to the point where it bars you from reproducing -- is in itself dehumanizing.  What use is it to be healthy and well-educated when one is unable to choose one's reproduction?  That is the world you're proposing for these children you are bandying about.

QuoteI have nothing against liberty, just uncontrained liberty that leads to more harm than good.

I'm not advocating unconstrained liberty.  I'm advocating a prioritization of individual rights over governmental power.  This is a definitional error on your part.

QuoteHackenslash kindly pointed out my error. I apologise for my false accusation.

No sweat, these things happen.  I don't think it was intentional, for what it's worth.

QuoteWhile I don't always agree with China's politics and its methods its good to see a state willing to address the issue of population growth. Education and providing contraception is a great tool to reduce population growth but it relies on voluntary and competent compliance which is too much to ask of most societies.

If we simply sit and leave people to breed without restraint on the basis that we don't like interfering in peoples ability to have children that won't make the problem go away. At best some of us might feel good about protecting peoples ability to have children regardless of their suitability as parents.

A victory for irresponsible parents, a dismal life for many of the children of these parents.

And in your model of an all-powerful government, a life of material satiety and impinged freedom.  Again, I'll pass.  As a one-time member of ZPG, I'm very aware of and concerned about the population issue; indeed, I regard it as the #1 problem man today faces, because it is at the root of all other problems.

However, that doesn't mean that the solution involves an intrusive government.  Have you ever known a government to voluntarily surrender a power, once granted?  No; they consistently seek to expand those powers.  This is not a slippery slope argument here, but a warning to heed the lessons of history.  What sort of powers would lie beyond this?

So your primary objections are a constraint on liberty and the government being the means of this contraint? I admit that government is flawed although I don't easily subscribe to slippery-slope arguements but who else could adminster such a system? Governments are in my opinion the only organisations capable of adminstering such a system and are, at least in theory, accountable to the electorate.

We'll just have to disagree on our views of personal liberty

Indeed.

I would have to say it's neither one? The urge to procreate is simply a part of all of us, as is the urge to have sexual relations with the opposite sex. This is our natural instinct kicking in.

If you want my outright opinion however.. all human life is meaningless since the meaning of life is held within the mind and brain and is purely illusionary. Therefore, life itself means the same whether it exists or not... nothing. In my own opinionated mind, I cannot justify creating a child that will one day ask me why they exist and what happens when we die... when I can not give the questions an answer with some sort of great meaning and worth. Therefore, I cannot justify the creation of children within my own mind. With no long term afterlife goal, my opinion is we may as well not exist in the first place.

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"I would have to say it's neither one? The urge to procreate is simply a part of all of us, as is the urge to have sexual relations with the opposite sex. This is our natural instinct kicking in.

If you want my outright opinion however.. all human life is meaningless since the meaning of life is held within the mind and brain and is purely illusionary. Therefore, life itself means the same whether it exists or not... nothing. In my own opinionated mind, I cannot justify creating a child that will one day ask me why they exist and what happens when we die... when I can not give the questions an answer with some sort of great meaning and worth. Therefore, I cannot justify the creation of children within my own mind. With no long term afterlife goal, my opinion is we may as well not exist in the first place.

I think it'd be more reasonable to request that we not be aware of our existence, and be able to ponder it.  Animals don't seem to be aware of their existence and they do fine in nature....where actual natural selection takes place.

Exactly!

I can give myself complete panic attacks as I scream in utter turmoil within the horrid confines of my mind. Screaming in fear of the eventual nothingness and end that is a guarantee to come.

It seems so amazing and so odd that we of all the living creatures must live with this wonderful blessing... this curse... of knowledge.

I don't see the point of fearing nonexistence.  As Twain pointed out, we hadn't existed for billions of years before our birth and it didn't seem to bother us.