Are children a right or a privilege?

[hackenslash]

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.

[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

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

The 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.

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.

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.

[hackenslash]

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.

[metaed]

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.

[The Magic Pudding]

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.

[DropLogic]

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?

[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.

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.

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). 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.  

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). 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.

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.

Again, fair enough.

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.

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

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.

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.

Laws 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.

I 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.

Hackenslash 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.

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.

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?

[Islador]

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed.

[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.

[DropLogic]

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.

[WillyBeamish]

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.