Originally posted by eagles54Well I think there could be a general consensus as to what some basic qualifications would be. I know it would never truly work but it's a nice dream. To longer have unwanted children being abandoned and neglected. To no longer have children suffering the effects of addiction due to addicted parents. I think everyone on some level would agree there are people out there having children who should not be having them. And ultimately it's society as a whole that suffers. Who makes the standards for passing a drivers exam? What are the qualifications to become a doctor or a lawyer? In every other aspect of life there are set standards and requirements needed to obtain certain priviliges and rights. Yet anyone is able to bring forth new life. It just seems all a bit arse backwards to me.
And who should make that determination? I don't see how we can ever live in a society where some agent determines who and who is not fit for parenthood.
I dont know about an 'absolute right' whatever that is, but we have a natural responsibility to reproduce. I dont think that should be interfered with.
Besides, unless you believe yourself omnipotent you can never know what works in the long run so how would you decide the criteria, and who would decide - the Government, Church, Business......?
Leave it alone.
Originally posted by sasquatch672The problem with that philosophy is often the criminal mind is
Geez...me and Adolf...I'd kick his ass.
Don't you have a goddamn obligation to society to raise a responsible, productive member of society though? And to be one? I'm not talking about handicapped people. I'm talking about criminals, crack whores, people who abuse their kids, etc.
very advanced and the kids of the crims would statistically be above
average and law abiding citizens. Just doing genetic engineering
based on ones behavior can produce negative results as well as
positive, especially since we are only in the barest beginnigs of
understanding what gene does what, maybe in a hundred years
we might have a better handle on it, eliminating mental disorders,
etc., violent behavior, and so forth but to do it at this time with just
castrating violent crims would not get the result you want.
Besides taking about 4,000 years of constant diddling to show
results.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt wouldn't take that long. Animal breeders get results in much less time from what I understand.
The problem with that philosophy is often the criminal mind is
very advanced and the kids of the crims would statistically be above
average and law abiding citizens. Just doing genetic engineering
based on ones behavior can produce negative results as well as
positive, especially since we are only in the barest beginnigs of
understanding what gene doe ...[text shortened]... t the result you want.
Besides taking about 4,000 years of constant diddling to show
results.
basing approval of a licence to reproduce on someone's genetics, education, level, race, sexual preference or any other criteria is bound to be met with disaster as it is inherently racist, sexist, classist, or whatever 'ist' fits. any control of population has to be based equitably, or it won't be accepted. So does this mean that low income families that will have a difficult time caring for a child should have the same chance of reproducing as more affluent couples/singles? Yes, otherwise the system would fail from lack of public support. Even passing a law requiring licensure based on a lottery wouldn't pass, yet. However, there is no question that if we don't institute some definitive form of population control, the population will limit itself, in ways more abhorrent than any governmental policy: starvation, war and disease. The planet simply cannot support unlimited population growth. Populations grow exponentially whereas food production only grows arithmetically (Malthus). This means that no matter what technologies we derive to increase food production, it's mathmatically impossible to feed everyone forever. Genetic engineering holds great promise for increasing crop yields, reducing pesiticide use, preventing food rot etc, but you simply can't keep up with exponential growth.
It is pertinent to point out in this connection that the drop in crime in the U.S. found in the 1990s can reasonably be traced to the increased availability of abortion after the infamous Roe versus Wade legal decision.
Basically, parents were freer not to have kids that they didn't want; and either because the sorts of people who tended to put themselves in that situation passed on their genes less (nature), or because they ended up not producing children who they later would have loved less or exposed to more adverse circumstance (nurture), the number of criminals in the population decreased, and fewer people were accordingly killed, injured, or otherwise offended against.
So, it seems that, even if people are permitted to make a decision about whether nor not to bring an unborn child to term, they make decisions that, in the aggregate, tend to benefit society, in at least one important respect. So, perhaps before making reproduction impossible for some people, we should make abortion a lot more possible for them.
Originally posted by sasquatch672again though you are back to:
I'm not an abortion guy. I'd much rather the life not be created in the first place than have a viable fetus chopped up inside the mother's womb in the third trimester. (I have the same squeamishness with meat - I eat it, but always with the awareness that an animal died for my meal.) So I'd prefer that yeah - sure - all girls at age ten or somet ...[text shortened]... ck, white, green...you don't get unsterilized, point blank. There it is and there you have it.
whats the criteria?
who judges?
what would be your criteria with regards worthiness?
And what do you do if since granting the right to birth they fall below this criteria?
Originally posted by sasquatch672Well how about start with a credit report and a background check?
Well, this is getting a bit into the logistical part I had hoped to avoid, but it still deals with the ethics issue. You tell me - what would you think is reasonable, or do you think my premise is flawed?
I think more importantly a phycological test over money. It doesn't take money to raise a child effectively and truth be told money often leads to the corruption of many children. As it's been stated many children grow up less than afluent yet succeed beyond their wildest dream. Life is NOT about money. The ability to budget and plan for a future in which you can provide basic needs for a child is also a must. This doesn't mean providing every want on a whim either.
Give anyone wanting a baby one of those preprogrammed, crying and peeing dolls for a year. That should fix most peoples want to reproduce anyway.
What exactly do you mean by 'right'?
It's a word that gets thrown around a lot without enough thought as to the content. When someone talks about a right, I get worried that I haven't thought about how far that right might extend. Somewhere in my possessions I have a book/article on human rights that argues the word 'right' is used for at least four distinct kinds of legal situation.
I'm pretty sure I don't have an ABSOLUTE right to reproduce. I can't force people to help me do it. I can't demand that some poor woman carry my baby.
Originally posted by hurricane177Good point but Tracy Emin's achievements is debatable.
But there are people who have come from violent etc backgrounds, and then gone on to achieve many things. For example Tracy Emins.
In some cases coming from a worse background gives you a greater incentive to work and get away from it all
Originally posted by invigorateI don't know whether you are being sarcastic or not, but basically I agree with you.
Basically when a woman collects her welfare she should get a shot of contraceptive injected into her until she gets off her fat bottom a contributes to society.
We could take the Chinese approach: one child per family. This should limit the problem.
We could penalise bad parents for the sins of their children. In the UK you can be sent to jail if your child fails to attend school.
Except for the one child thing.
If underage, non-working females are not reproducing, there will be plenty of need for nice, well brought up children from hard-working families.
Originally posted by hurricane177What has Tracey Emin acheived?
But there are people who have come from violent etc backgrounds, and then gone on to achieve many things. For example Tracy Emins.
In some cases coming from a worse background gives you a greater incentive to work and get away from it all
EDIT: SHould have read Lausey's post first. Good one!