Author Topic: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances  (Read 826 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« on: January 21, 2016, 12:48:57 PM »
I really like this topic and it's completely derailed the 2016 election thread. We'll start where we're left off in the other discussion.

A male has more than dozen children and can't afford to support any of them and is on welfare himself. We restrict freedoms for other things the constitution grants us, could we take away someone's ability to procreate?

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10207
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2016, 01:02:38 PM »
I'm stuck in the middle. I don't think we can take away someone's rights just because they are irresponsible....but on the other hand when that individuals irresponsibility affects society as a whole (caring for offspring)...I think society has a right to limit their forced obligation.

As bad as it sounds.....when 'poor' people (of any race/creed) start reaching 5, 6 kids....I think there has to be a limit set on the number of kids they can have. It's unfair to the kid being born and it's unfair to society who is going to be essentially taking care of those kids. You then enter the point that Stadler was making in the other thread though...you can't just pick and choose when and where you're gonna take away rights.

But, is having a kid a 'right'? I think Tempus said (in one of these threads) it's part of the 'Pursuit of Happiness' we are guaranteed in America.

This really is a touchy...difficult subject because I could easily throw my support either way.

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2016, 01:03:32 PM »
Not sure what the discussion has been since I ducked out of the election thread, but I'm going to have to say no to your example. As annoying as it is, I'm not sure what there really is that can be done about it creating terrifying precedents.

Moreover, I think extraneous circumstances is a bit concerning, though I'm not sure how you're using it. Extraneous to me sounds like it applies to extreme examples, outside the pale of what the law generally encompasses. The law has to be the same for everybody.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2016, 01:08:33 PM »
I'm stuck in the middle. I don't think we can take away someone's rights just because they are irresponsible....but on the other hand when that individuals irresponsibility affects society as a whole (caring for offspring)...I think society has a right to limit their forced obligation.

We do that for certain things already. We see people that after killing someone via drunk driving given an ankle bracelet that detects whether or not they've been drinking. If they drink, the bracelet detects it and they go to jail. There are people who after abusing animals are no longer legally allowed to own them. We don't allow sex offenders to live within certain distances of parks or playgrounds.


A more related scenario, we take children away from parents all the time. If we can take children away and say "you're not fit to be a parent", why couldn't we take a preventative measure and prevent that birth, or more births, from happening?

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10207
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2016, 01:10:30 PM »
Not sure what the discussion has been since I ducked out of the election thread, but I'm going to have to say no to your example. As annoying as it is, I'm not sure what there really is that can be done about it creating terrifying precedents.

Moreover, I think extraneous circumstances is a bit concerning, though I'm not sure how you're using it. Extraneous to me sounds like it applies to extreme examples, outside the pale of what the law generally encompasses. The law has to be the same for everybody.

I agree. That's why I said I'm stuck in the middle because any 'law' or action to control is terrifying. But there seems to be something that could be done to protect society from being obligated to raise and care for unwanted..un-cared for kids? I don't know...I'm with your sentiment EB but there is a part of me that thinks there's a point where something should be done.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15666
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2016, 01:12:59 PM »
As much as I would like to snip the tubes for people who cannot support their children, I am not sure I deep down agree with limiting rights in general, let alone procreation rights.  I'd probably rather have freedoms than force people to have a minor surgery to sterilize them.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2016, 01:16:39 PM »
I'm stuck in the middle. I don't think we can take away someone's rights just because they are irresponsible....but on the other hand when that individuals irresponsibility affects society as a whole (caring for offspring)...I think society has a right to limit their forced obligation.

We do that for certain things already. We see people that after killing someone via drunk driving given an ankle bracelet that detects whether or not they've been drinking. If they drink, the bracelet detects it and they go to jail. There are people who after abusing animals are no longer legally allowed to own them. We don't allow sex offenders to live within certain distances of parks or playgrounds.
We don't consider driving and pet ownership inalienable rights. The sex offender thing is counterproductive political fear mongering (which is actually a big part of the problem with opening the door you've [hypothetically] opened).


Quote
A more related scenario, we take children away from parents all the time. If we can take children away and say "you're not fit to be a parent", why couldn't we take a preventative measure and prevent that birth, or more births, from happening?
Because people should be afforded to get their shit together. Taking kids away because a parent is unable to care for it is reasonable, but it's also impermanent.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16587
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2016, 01:20:56 PM »
I'm stuck in the middle. I don't think we can take away someone's rights just because they are irresponsible....but on the other hand when that individuals irresponsibility affects society as a whole (caring for offspring)...I think society has a right to limit their forced obligation.

We do that for certain things already. We see people that after killing someone via drunk driving given an ankle bracelet that detects whether or not they've been drinking. If they drink, the bracelet detects it and they go to jail. There are people who after abusing animals are no longer legally allowed to own them. We don't allow sex offenders to live within certain distances of parks or playgrounds.


A more related scenario, we take children away from parents all the time. If we can take children away and say "you're not fit to be a parent", why couldn't we take a preventative measure and prevent that birth, or more births, from happening?

When you say it like that, it seems like a completely rational suggestion. I feel like it's medieval to forcibly sterilize someone but I've always been for medieval forms of punishment. It's an ethical conundrum because I'm all for freedom and liberty and being able to make your own decisions, but are the results of capriciously having more children that you can't support worse than violating someone's right to procreate?

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10207
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2016, 01:24:09 PM »
How about offer a cash reward (once they've reached a point) for every year they DON'T have a kid. Make it a year....$2000, or whatever? That has to be less than what we'd spend supporting them and their kid(s) for that year?

Only applicable for people who are on welfare and collecting any type of benefit to help them with their out of control breeding....
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2016, 01:28:12 PM »
How about offer a cash reward (once they've reached a point) for every year they DON'T have a kid. Make it a year....$2000, or whatever? That has to be less than what we'd spend supporting them and their kid(s) for that year?

Only applicable for people who are on welfare and collecting any type of benefit to help them with their out of control breeding....

I think that'd be viewed as population control specifically trying to keep the number of blacks in check.

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15666
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2016, 01:30:28 PM »
I've always been for medieval forms of punishment

 :lol

How about offer a cash reward (once they've reached a point) for every year they DON'T have a kid. Make it a year....$2000, or whatever? That has to be less than what we'd spend supporting them and their kid(s) for that year?

Only applicable for people who are on welfare and collecting any type of benefit to help them with their out of control breeding....

I think that'd be viewed as population control specifically trying to keep the number of blacks in check.

I think any type of limiting rights to procreation could be spun as population control

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16587
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2016, 01:34:59 PM »
I've always been for medieval forms of punishment

 :lol


You didn't know that about me, did you?   ;)

How about offer a cash reward (once they've reached a point) for every year they DON'T have a kid. Make it a year....$2000, or whatever? That has to be less than what we'd spend supporting them and their kid(s) for that year?

Only applicable for people who are on welfare and collecting any type of benefit to help them with their out of control breeding....

I think that'd be viewed as population control specifically trying to keep the number of blacks in check.

I think any type of limiting rights to procreation could be spun as population control

Except, white people wouldn't cry racism over it.

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10207
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2016, 01:35:25 PM »
I think that'd be viewed as population control

I think population control is something our species is going to have to address at some point in the not to distant future anyway. I don't think this planet can handle another 2 or 3 billion people.....it's already passed the point of being able to 'handle' what we have.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2016, 01:43:10 PM »
I think that'd be viewed as population control

I think population control is something our species is going to have to address at some point in the not to distant future anyway. I don't think this planet can handle another 2 or 3 billion people.....it's already passed the point of being able to 'handle' what we have.

I agree. Honestly, I wish the conversation happened a decade ago, but I think it'd pretty much be political suicide for any politician that dare bring it up.

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 1881
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2016, 01:44:56 PM »
I think that'd be viewed as population control

I think population control is something our species is going to have to address at some point in the not to distant future anyway. I don't think this planet can handle another 2 or 3 billion people.....it's already passed the point of being able to 'handle' what we have.

This. As uncomfortable of a conversation it will be, something has to be done or mother nature will take care of the problem her self.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2016, 01:49:26 PM »
I think that'd be viewed as population control

I think population control is something our species is going to have to address at some point in the not to distant future anyway. I don't think this planet can handle another 2 or 3 billion people.....it's already passed the point of being able to 'handle' what we have.

This. As uncomfortable of a conversation it will be, something has to be done or mother nature will take care of the problem her self.

I don't understand what's uncomfortable about it. I really don't.

This is Earth. Earth has a limited number of resources and space. These are humans. Humans require resources and space. This is math. Math shows us that in the near future humans' need for resources will exceed the amount that the Earth can provide. We need to make sure that doesn't happen or lots or people and ecosystems will die. The end.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2016, 02:01:43 PM »
Just thinking aloud, but I wonder which is greater: the number of children born for welfare cheques or the number born to be future ideological zealots. I suspect the number of welfare mommas is greater (though exaggerated), but the Duggars of the world crank out two or three times the number of spawn.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2016, 02:03:21 PM »
Just thinking aloud, but I wonder which is greater: the number of children born for welfare cheques or the number born to be future ideological zealots. I suspect the number of welfare mommas is greater (though exaggerated), but the Duggars of the world crank out two or three times the number of spawn.

In the US specifically, I'd say the welfare children greatly out number the ideology born ones, but worldwide, religion wins no doubt.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2016, 02:25:48 PM »
Just thinking aloud, but I wonder which is greater: the number of children born for welfare cheques or the number born to be future ideological zealots. I suspect the number of welfare mommas is greater (though exaggerated), but the Duggars of the world crank out two or three times the number of spawn.

In the US specifically, I'd say the welfare children greatly out number the ideology born ones, but worldwide, religion wins no doubt.
Not so sure about either part of that. You can't conflate being on welfare with being born because of the welfare. While there might be some apathy about unwanted pregnancies, "oh well, more welfare duckies," I don't think there are that many women who want to get knocked up specifically because of it, which is what the argument seems to be. As for the worldwide part, while religion might well prompt plenty of people to want to procreate, the notion that people need to breed armies seems to be mostly an American Christian thing.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2016, 02:26:17 PM »
I think that'd be viewed as population control

I think population control is something our species is going to have to address at some point in the not to distant future anyway. I don't think this planet can handle another 2 or 3 billion people.....it's already passed the point of being able to 'handle' what we have.

It can't handle another 2 or 3 billion people, but the problem is that developed countries are not the issue when it comes to population control.  As grumpy as any of us might get when people who have no business having children continue to, we're not the problem when it comes to overpopulation.  Developed countries have a clear path: birth rates go down until suddenly there are not nearly enough people being born in the country.  That's the problem Japan is having now.

The US isn't where you start to tackle the problem of overpopulation -- so any legislation you try to introduce in America to combat the issue makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about.  The efforts need to be directed toward the 3rd world.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2016, 02:31:02 PM »
I might be mistaken, but aren't we at the beginning stages of what's happening in Japan? I thought the birth rate in this country was declining as more people opt not to become breeders.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2016, 02:31:55 PM »
But surely you all know that we are sort of dancing around the issues in a cosmic square dance.   

Sterilization is not the same as preventing someone from having alcohol.  The closest analogue would be a vaccination.  It's an invasive procedure that materially changes the bodily makeup. 

We can put parameters around an individuals choices, and we can put restrictions on how certain rights can be executed.   But we've been reluctant to REMOVE those choices outright, and we've been reluctant to make the restriction BE the execution of that right. 

I'm not a Supreme Court Justice and I've never played one on TV (though I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night) but I think that any tenable solution would involve there being a reasonable and enforceable consequence for having children you're not supporting, or conversely, an incentive for not having children.   We have the so-called "marriage penalty" for taxes; why not something like that?  We have a tax penalty for failure to evidence proper minimum healthcare coverages; why not something like that? 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2016, 02:38:16 PM »
Monetary penalties aren't reasonable when the problem itself is an inability to support the kids you're having. If the babydaddy in question is making tons of money and not supporting them then there is a mechanism in place to string him up by his nuts, but if he's flipping burgers he can't afford the kids or the tax penalty.

But you know this, so I'm not sure I'm addressing the right point here.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2016, 02:53:10 PM »
I think we should offer $2000 for vasectomies or the female equivalent for anyone after they've had one child. I'd be fine limiting it to people on welfare or who make under a certain dollar amount.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2016, 03:09:53 PM »
I think we should offer $2000 for vasectomies or the female equivalent for anyone after they've had one child. I'd be fine limiting it to people on welfare or who make under a certain dollar amount.


I think that'd be viewed as population control specifically trying to keep the number of blacks in check.

I think it would be, but in a bizarre irony if I explained why that is I'd be the racist asshole.  :rollin
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5179
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2016, 09:06:03 PM »
Okay so for all of you who are in favor of physically restricting the poor welfare dude from spreading his seed, let's change the scenario shall we. Let's say, YOU are a carrier of a specific genetic marker that can possibly, possibly lead to a severe, debilitating, and vastly economic draining disease on your offspring. A disease that's so chronically, financially draining that you will never be able to cover the treatments on your own, and is guaranteed to lifetime max out your insurance. They do exist. Everyday it happens. Wouldn't the people, society, have the same right to tell you that you can't have that child?

Because with genetic testing, that debate...it's coming whether we like it or not.
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2016, 05:40:02 AM »
Okay so for all of you who are in favor of physically restricting the poor welfare dude from spreading his seed, let's change the scenario shall we. Let's say, YOU are a carrier of a specific genetic marker that can possibly, possibly lead to a severe, debilitating, and vastly economic draining disease on your offspring. A disease that's so chronically, financially draining that you will never be able to cover the treatments on your own, and is guaranteed to lifetime max out your insurance. They do exist. Everyday it happens. Wouldn't the people, society, have the same right to tell you that you can't have that child?

Because with genetic testing, that debate...it's coming whether we like it or not.

In that scenario, unless the offspring is somehow contagious and an actual risk to humanities well being health wise, I'd say let them have the child. I have two main reasons for why I say that. 1) This might be an incorrect assumption and a stereo type, but the offspring of the poor (irresponsible) welfare dude are very likely to end up on the system themselves, having more children who will be on the system, and further perpetuating the problem, possibly exponentially as time goes on. 2) The sick child will be a one time drain on the tax payer, and only a possible one at that, and there are benefits to that child being born. It helps keep compassion in society, which I think is important. Also, allowing such people to be born allows us to study rare illnesses on a human subject and not some lab rat. Such studies can lead to further medical breakthroughs which will benefit humanity for as long as we're practicing medicine.

I think the only argument for restricting a genetically defected mother from bearing an offspring would be due to ethical reasons, not financial ones. If you were going to be giving birth to a child that was 100% guaranteed to have short life span and be in physical pain from the moment of birth until death, you might have an argument. For the sake of the child, not the tax payer, you prevent that birth from happening.

With the welfare dude, he's proven a number of times that he's irresponsible and not fit to be a parent. With the genetically defected mother, there's still a chance she has a perfectly normal, healthy baby, and won't need assistance of any kind from the tax payer.

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 1881
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2016, 06:51:28 AM »
One of the primary reasons why I only want to have two kids is so that there is someone to replace myself and my wife. I don't want to add anyone else to the planet. A two kid limit per person would be okay for me. It shouldn't be an uncomfortable conversation since something is going to have to be done if the human species wants to continue to exist on Earth but political correctness will shut it down.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2016, 07:37:38 AM »
Monetary penalties aren't reasonable when the problem itself is an inability to support the kids you're having. If the babydaddy in question is making tons of money and not supporting them then there is a mechanism in place to string him up by his nuts, but if he's flipping burgers he can't afford the kids or the tax penalty.

But you know this, so I'm not sure I'm addressing the right point here.

I do, but I'm jumping ahead one step, and assuming that we need to assess the monetary penalty FIRST, to give the opportunity to avoid harsher penalties, and if they can't pay THEN they have consequences like prison. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2016, 07:46:34 AM »
Okay so for all of you who are in favor of physically restricting the poor welfare dude from spreading his seed, let's change the scenario shall we. Let's say, YOU are a carrier of a specific genetic marker that can possibly, possibly lead to a severe, debilitating, and vastly economic draining disease on your offspring. A disease that's so chronically, financially draining that you will never be able to cover the treatments on your own, and is guaranteed to lifetime max out your insurance. They do exist. Everyday it happens. Wouldn't the people, society, have the same right to tell you that you can't have that child?

Because with genetic testing, that debate...it's coming whether we like it or not.

I think that is sort of a strawman, though, and isn't that different than the other scenario except in terms of threshold and dollar values.   

I think when we try to have laws that cover every possible scenario is when we get in trouble.  "Laws" are not the same as "morals" or "ethics", and generally - implicitly or explicitly - we do the balance between "where do we WANT our people to be, and where can we DEMAND our people to be?"

This is the argument I am sort of making to Genowyn in the "Pissed Off" thread.  We can DEMAND our people not wantonly and without compelling reason, KILL someone else.   We cannot DEMAND, though we may WANT, that our people treat others with respect.   I think the difference in the scenarios is one of quality of life.  We are not - here, anyway - guaranteeing a quality of life; we are trying to guarantee that there is a life to begin with.   I think the line should be "can you, without assistance, provide the basic tenets of survival: food, clothing, shelter".   I don't think the line should be "can you, without assistance, provide state of the art medical care and guarantee the highest possible quality of life". 

Offline j

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2016, 01:34:14 PM »
IMO, Lordxizor's idea is the most pragmatic in the thread so far.  Taxpayer-funded allotment for *elective* tubal ligation/vasectomy offered to parents after child #1.  It's non-discriminatory, doesn't put the power to determine who to sterilize in the wrong hands (that is, anyone's), doesn't force a person to undergo an invasive procedure against their will, is potentially reversible, etc.

Most of the other hypotheticals sound appealing right after you get home from McDonald's where some lady's 6 screaming kids sprayed ketchup all over you while she sexted with her next prospective baby daddy, but as others have noted, they set frightening precedents.

But in the interest of discussion, I'm surprised it hasn't been approached another way: mandatory sterilization for everyone at birth, then potential reversal in adulthood after meeting a series of requirements that demonstrate your readiness for parenthood.  You know, multiple choice standardized tests, caring for that fake baby they used to use in home ec classes, showing paycheck stubs, etc. :lol

-J

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10207
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2016, 01:53:22 PM »
But in the interest of discussion, I'm surprised it hasn't been approached another way: mandatory sterilization for everyone at birth, then potential reversal in adulthood after meeting a series of requirements that demonstrate your readiness for parenthood.  You know, multiple choice standardized tests, caring for that fake baby they used to use in home ec classes, showing paycheck stubs, etc. :lol

-J

I could see this being a legitimate option as our species continues to 'evolve'....
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2016, 02:29:01 PM »
IMO, Lordxizor's idea is the most pragmatic in the thread so far.  Taxpayer-funded allotment for *elective* tubal ligation/vasectomy offered to parents after child #1.  It's non-discriminatory, doesn't put the power to determine who to sterilize in the wrong hands (that is, anyone's), doesn't force a person to undergo an invasive procedure against their will, is potentially reversible, etc.
Don't you think that might effect once segment of society far greater than another? Like, maybe, the poor and under-educated? There's also the whole problem with those pesky Catholics, who won't be able to avail themselves of that option. Any way you slice it there's definitely significant racial implications.

And if we're going to start paying people to undergo surgery for the benefit of society, can we start allowing people to sell kidneys and chunks of liver?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline j

  • Posts: 2793
  • Gender: Male
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2016, 04:44:58 PM »
IMO, Lordxizor's idea is the most pragmatic in the thread so far.  Taxpayer-funded allotment for *elective* tubal ligation/vasectomy offered to parents after child #1.  It's non-discriminatory, doesn't put the power to determine who to sterilize in the wrong hands (that is, anyone's), doesn't force a person to undergo an invasive procedure against their will, is potentially reversible, etc.
Don't you think that might effect once segment of society far greater than another? Like, maybe, the poor and under-educated? There's also the whole problem with those pesky Catholics, who won't be able to avail themselves of that option. Any way you slice it there's definitely significant racial implications.

The point is it would be an ELECTIVE option that is offered to everyone who delivers a child in the hospital.  Catholics would be free to decline, as is anyone who simply thinks they might want another kid or would prefer to use another method of birth control, or any other reason.

I'm not sure how to guarantee the *outcome*, i.e. that it affects all socioeconomic and ethnic groups with the same magnitude, but then again, it's not like all socioeconomic and ethnic groups are currently reproducing at exactly the same rate either.  Or am I misunderstanding your objection?  No one is being coerced into anything, the same guidelines for obtaining informed consent would remain.

To me, the more obvious first step is to publicly fund birth control period in some form.  I'd happily shell out for that.

-J

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Restricting Someone's Rights Under Extraneous Circumstances
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2016, 05:26:46 PM »
My concern isn't coercion. Though it is voluntary, I think it very likely to be an option utilized disproportionately by blacks (and avoided by Hispanics).

Since it's always easier to discuss things without having to get into the racial aspect, howabout maturity? Seems to me that the people best targeted for such a program are the people not really mature enough to make long term decisions such as this to begin with. If I'm not mistaken, most doctors don't even want to discuss sterilization with anybody under 30. Do we really want to start rewarding tubal ligation for 20 year olds? I know that a big part of the appeal here is to prevent the immature from spawning in the first place, but this is an inappropriate cure to the problem.

And while it wasn't directed at you, I'm serious about the kidney thing, which I consider a very related tangent, and I always value your takes on medical ethics.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson