Mandatory training/certification to have children?

[kaywholed]

No.

I look at government, I look at the people who work in in it and the kind of people they work for, and I look at the attitudes embodied in those elected to serve in it (if they're elected at all), and realize that they are not fit to make such a decision.

Yes, some people are raised badly, and turn into godless miscreants. Some people are born and raised well, but still turn into godless miscreants. Many, if not most of us were born flying blind--no college fund accruing interest, no schedule of after-school activities planned from kindergarten through high school, no knowledge of what diseases we'd be heir to or what odd twists of fate would lead us down one path or another--yet this world, even with all its imperfections, cannot be called insufferable as a result of it.

In sum, plenty of well-educated, affluent people regularly make the world a worse place, and plenty of lower-class people try to make it a better one. Between extremes like these is a spectrum that will never fit on a wallet-sized rectangle of paper and ink, nor should it, IMO. I can't speak for others, but I don't want the Rand Pauls, Pawlentys, or Kuciniches of the world telling people who is or isn't qualified to reproduce, not when their shit still stinks. We can talk about fairness all we want, but let's face it: in practice, this would be a "Relax, if your kid was born in the Hamptons or Orange County" policy.

So kill all the people that impede government working effectively or outsource the killing of the targeted undesirables to an efficient corporation.

 

[sssssssssss]

dont agree with some of my posts.

 

[P A]

Eugenics is a pretty nefarious idea. Looks nice on paper, but in practice, people like Stephen Hawking would have been euthanized at birth or before, and what a shame that would have been!

Detractions like these positively reek of bad thinking. In practice, the average incidence of so-called 'genii' would likely rise steadily in a society dedicated to the genetic cultivation of traits known to contribute to the phenomenon. This is not to say that I would ever be in support of such a detestable policy.

If these are your genuine opinions, you should know that Eugenics has been thoroughly discredited in the Social Sciences.

Oh noes! I wasn't aware that my sociopolitical views were frowned upon by the mighty gatekeepers of human wisdom. I will promptly revise my misguided opinions and report back to the Ivory Tower for another assessment, so that I might gain the much-needed approval of those gifted few among the collegiate ranks.

And the shining example of Eugenics in the last century was during c.1930-1945 in a Nazi controlled Europe - didn't turn out too well.

Oh dear me, a Godwin? Channeling the spirit of Glenn Beck's dead show doesn't do as much justice to your polarizing diatribe as you might think.

That all talk of eugenics must be relegated to the ceaseless bickering of diametric extremity and dystopian science fiction imagery is distressing to me, both as a tentative enthusiast of the subject of modern eugenics and of the biological sciences that spurned its initial popularity. In specific, I'm highly enthusiastic about the forced sterilization of violent criminals (particularly those are either extreme or repetitious in their behavior) and first-time convicted sex offenders (most often pedophiles and certain varieties of rapists, not so much voyeurs, enthusiasts of atypical forms of pornography, or other non-violent offenders of that sort). I think that the merits of such a program are self-explanatory. The only perceivable pitfalls are the obvious ambiguity of my terms (which could be easily remedied were they to be expounded within more stringently formalized legal contexts) and the error-prone nature of the predominating Western criminal justice system. On the whole, though, I would foresee a conservative and judicious eugenics program such as the one mentioned above eliciting a considerable social effect - one that would, I think, be near-wholly positive in ultimate outcome.

However, I must make it known that my opinions bear certain societal and personal biases: I have never considered sterilization to be the penal equivalent of imprisonment or a death sentence. Indeed, I fathom it to be so much farther down the totem pole that it looks almost insignificant by comparison in my reckoning. Thus, in the case of convict sterilization, I would shed no tears nor bat any eyelashes for the one innocent individual per ten heinously guilty psychopaths that is irrevocably stripped of their capacity to reproduce, given the immensely greater good (yes, yes) brought about by my putative policy. Perhaps this is reflective of a certain prejudice on my part. Whatever the case, so be it.

More to the point of the original topic: I can't envision the OP's mandatory version of planned parenthood as anything other than a dismal failure in praxis, a significant drain of potentially valuable resources, and a blatant misapplication of contemporary social science.

 

[sssssssssss]

dont agree with some of my posts.

 

[Jamshyd]

DOB, CD, and SSS: I've been lenient so far. Don't stretch it.

 

[Joeof1]

A license is to allow something that which is normally illegal permit to be done under the guise of the law.

The day people start saying you have no liberty to have children by your own choice is the day that the human race has surrendered into slavery.

 

[DOB]

Oops I dribbled again!

Fail: Warnt! - Jamshyd

 

[DOB]

sobody shoudl make this a poll so we can vote and see who would win

 

[P A]

the more choices you take from people the more extreme and violent they will become

I heartily disagree. It is the manner in which the expression of individual freedom* is subjugated and suppressed, and not the facts of the matter, that prove key here. For a more proximal example, see drug prohibition, a policy for which the majority appears to maintain political support. Their are no notable civil riots in response to this toxic piece of legislation, no cataclysmic political upheavals in response to continued inaction (or sluggish action, whichever you prefer) to reverse its consequences. Prohibition is a slow death, both in its pervasive social impact and its reluctance to exit contemporary public policy. [An aside: Though drug addicts themselves often commit acts of violence in order to obtain the requisite cash for their next dose, I hardly see how that singular desperation would suddenly change if Prohibition were lifted, nor is this circumstance strictly adherent to the key point of common good. True, the prevalence of desperate acts among addicts would likely take a sharp dive pending reversal of the current legislation and the subsequent rise in the ease of access, but the drugs would still cost money.]

Furthermore, in the specific case of penal sterilization (no pun intended), could you suggest what acts of desperation could possibly arise? Brutal reverse vasectomoies? Lulz.

anyone can do anything that these people are locked up in jail for

Yes. But they did it. Not someone else, in another environment, with a different brain, penis, or whatever other variable you can drum up to convince others to sing your strident blues for the poor, poor sex offenders.

its just a matter of how much youve been conditioned/worn from social injustice and limitations.
everyone thinks theyre a good person, until they have been conditioned into thinking they arent, isnt that what prison is for?
youre the only one to blame because no other factors affect any of your actions right? how many times did society tell you that before you started believing it? ive never seen anything so black and white.

Dear lord, have mercy. Am I reading a moral* apology for child molestation and violent rape couched within the hazy fog of cultural relativism? Sorry, kid. You don't just get to undermine personal accountability for suffering incurred by conscious acts of will by pulling the psychological equivalent to the race card. "You just don't understand, it was their environment mannnn. You don't even know! I've seen shit dood! Your just seeing the world in black and white, you close-minded bigot! (I wonder if there was a pun hidden somewhere in there - I am white, after all)," doesn't even begin to sound convincing to anyone seriously interested in furthering the public good through common law. Are you really politically/ethically opposed to the legal sanction and containment of serial rapists and child molesters...all because they grew up in a shady neighborhood? Do you derive such striking moral insight from the murky shades of grey to which you so pompously alluded in your post? Do you even know what sterilization is? Are you aware that Iowa, Florida, Louisiana, and California (along with a handful of other American states in the past) have long been dabbling with 'chemical castration' - not sterilization per se, but still applicable - as a means to prevent further sex crime?

Last I checked, the deprivation of criminal psychopaths and pedophiles from their ability to procreate is not an infraction of any common ethical precept of which I'm aware. And despite your sniveling adolescent invective, I still have yet to see what practical terror could come of such policies (other than, as mentioned previously, the very real potentiality of wrongful conviction). Care to share more?

[*Though I occasionally make mention of them, I put no stock in didactic moral principles, and have none myself. I only use them for conceptual clarity, most often within the usual context of the 'common good.' This is to say that I care little for moral discursions; it is the actual consequences or effects of common law that interest me greatly.]

just form first impressions i initially assume you havent struggled through much in your life

By your very own loftier-than-thou relativistic token, with what have you ever struggled? Did society/The Man let you know what 'true struggle' is, or have you invented your own definition of the word all by your little self? If by 'struggle' you refer to the dregs of poverty, then my answer is "no." If by 'struggle' you refer to perversity of abusive relationships, then my response is still in the negative. But this is needless to say that both forms of hardship are among many examples of what I consider to precipitate significant impediment and suffering, and thereby, struggle. How you conceive of struggle is not for me to decide, but unlike you, I'm not fool enough to attempt persuasion by appealing to the old 'Shutcha mouf, ah seent you ain't seen...shit that can't be unseen, bitch.' Yawn.

 

[ControlDenied]

DOB, CD, and SSS: I've been lenient so far. Don't stretch it.

I haven't said anything remotely offensive in this thread.

You have a chip on your shoulder and you're taking it out on me.

Keep doing this and I will file a formal complaint with the BL admin.

 

[Pythagoras]

Oh dear me, a Godwin? Channeling the spirit of Glenn Beck's dead show doesn't do as much justice to your polarizing diatribe as you might think.

.

I beg to differ. In a discussion on eugenics in the 20th century, it's fall from favour was in large part due to the nefarious eugenics programmes of Nazi Germany. So no, not really a Godwin. As for a polarising diatribe, you met like with like. Polarise away.

PAX

 

[ControlDenied]

Eugenics makes sense; but it still doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't evolution, nature and society take care of the "shaping of genetics" for us? Who has the intelligence, neutrality and power - i.e. god-like omnipotence - to decide what types should exist and what not? The answer is no one, which is why eugenics will never again be practiced [except maybe by some lunatic in a dictator-country!].

{When I said "Kill 'EM All!" I was making fun of eugenics-supporters and referring to Metallica's debut album at the same time. I didn't mean to kill all "scum"; if anything, its the eugenicists who should be "removed" :D}

 

[DOB]

I haven't said anything remotely offensive in this thread.

You have a chip on your shoulder and you're taking it out on me.

Keep doing this and I will file a formal complaint with the BL admin.

UPRISING! Jamshyd is going to end like Gadafi! lolz


forget this complaint,maybe he had bad day like all people sometimes have,people are born to make mistakes,Jamshyd is good person most of the time so lets forget this

 

[Pythagoras]

Eugenics vs Liberal Eugenics

I think a distinction needs to be made between Eugenics, and Liberal Eugenics. The Former being the state sanctioned and controlled management of the nation's 'gene pool', with the aim of amelioration through sterilisation of convicts, the 'weak minded', psychiatric patients etc. and was a form of social Darwinism practiced in the 20th Century in the US, Canada, Australia, Sweden and other countries, most notoriously Nazi Germany.

Liberal Eugenics which has a broad range of supporters today, runs along the lines of Libertarian beliefs in the right to 'extended' procreative rights, strictly controlled by the individual. It looks to gerontology in particular to allow them to choose genetic traits for their offspring that they see as beneficial (hight, blue eyes, intelligence etc) - I think a solid argument against liberal Eugenics has been made by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sandel"]Professor Michael Sandel[/URL] of Harvard.

John Harris explicates liberal Eugenics for a non-academic audience in his book "Enhancing Evolution".

Liberal Eugenics will be limited less by individuals' claims to 'rights' than by bioethical proscription or lack of advancement in Gerontology.

 

[P A]

As for a polarising diatribe, you met like with like. Polarise away.

I wasn't the one who opened the discourse in that fashion. I can hardly be to blame for responding in a consistent manner. Either way, you still have yet to offer anything in the way of actual contention, other than 'the Nazi's really really did it--->Nazis sucked--->eugenics sucks' which, unless accompanied by another salient point derived therefrom, remains an unfortunate Godwin-esque populistic appeal. Sorry. Other than that, I see occasional references to such ideas as 'freedom,' which are neither any more nor any less offensive to my ethical sensibilities than are notions of 'government,' 'law,' or 'eugenics.' If, by mentioning the Nazis, you intend to point out that powerful laws can become dangerous instruments of injustice if placed in unfortunate hands, then I suppose you earn a banana sticker for your conservative truisms. Nevertheless, tautologies like these are not very convincing responses to proposals of powerful legislation (imprisonment of apprehended deviants, arms-bearing law enforcement, taxation, regulation of markets - the list of well-accepted contemporary examples will not soon end).

Similarly, I still have yet to see any real (that is, open and direct) disagreement with my specific proposal of penally enforced eugenesis. It appears that the principled [read: conservative] among us reflexively squirm at the very mention of compulsory sterilization, but have disappointingly little to offer in the way of practical critique.

 

[Pythagoras]

I seem unable to post my response to your post, support are looking into it now

 

[Pythagoras]

^^

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the Godwin, sorry. This Paper on the subject, and similar literature might enlighten our discussion.

As you seem to be a Consequentialist no argument of mine on the framing of procreative rights willl be persuasive, as you have already expressed your dislike for moral discourse.



FIAT LUX

 

[ControlDenied]

UPRISING! Jamshyd is going to end like Gadafi! lolz


forget this complaint,maybe he had bad day like all people sometimes have,people are born to make mistakes,Jamshyd is good person most of the time so lets forget this

true enough.

im just finding sourness is a lot easier to express online. im trying to stop it myself.
when someone's usually nice then starts being cranky, i guess i just notice it more. sorry jamshyd- i love you, whoever you are

 

[sssssssssss]

dont agree with some of my posts.

 

[DOB]

our modern life style effectively disabled natural selection,now everybody can spread their genes even if they are weak and should not have any children

there should be law to simulate natural selection of nature

weak,fragile,people with body defects,genetical predispositions should not have children that will suffer from same bad things,when someone is born,he deserves to have high quality genes from strong and healthy pair of parents becose that way he is going to have better life