We were having a discussion at work. I am from Calgary, Alberta. This is Winnipeg, Manitoba. I might as well have a gun rack and a silver belt buckle; compared to the ultra-socialist views of this province, I am a raging redneck. I'm all for things like businesses being open on Sundays whenever they want, low taxes and capital punishment. But I digress. One of the people I work with was in the Chilean Secret Service when the coup happened in Chile; he was overnight 'the enemy,' interred in a concentration camp and has in general lived a tougher life than I will ever know. He is, of course, socialist in his views. The debate began when he was complaining about what our government is doing to education, and how there should be better access to it. I'll spare you the details, but it lead to me saying, "You should only have the number of children you can afford. You can't expect the state to pay for their upbringing." I don't know if this thread has legs, but I was thinking the focus might be... Focus: Are children a privilege or a right? Should you be allowed to have children, regardless of your ability to financially provide for them? How much of a child's care should be borne by the parents?
I say let people have as many as they want if only to avoid the epic shitstorm (both politically and financially) that would be created by means testing potential parents.
So if my financial/life situation changes after I have had them I lose them? While many undereducated/underprivileged people are the target of this conversation, what about everyone else? I have done well for myself, yet have had times where I needed help. Do I not deserve to keep my children?
I'm more inclined to call children a privilage; no one is entitled to pass along their genetic legacy. It's not a matter of fiscal responsibility in each individual case, but rather a matter of the long-term survival of our species, and eventual adaptation to space colonization. (I'll admit it publicaly, I'm a huge supporter of the theory of eugenics.) To me raising a child is a matter of survival of the fittest; good physical health and general mental stability are the best things a parent can pass along to their children. No reasonable person wants a child with a severe risk of developing schizophrenia or cerebral palsy for example. Besides the issue of the quality of life for a child with severe medical issues from birth; it's a detriment to the society in which the child is born. With the exception of the wealthy, most people simply can't afford life-long medical care without the government chipping in. That's the biggest issue in my eyes. Every dime spent on social welfare for a person that cannot contribute back to society; (i.e. a person who spends a majority of their life in medical institutions) is a dime that could be used towards industrial infastructure, or research into sustainable sources of energy. The sterilization of certain segments of society isn't the correct approach, ethically speaking; look at North Carolina's sterilization program. It was too narrow for the scope of the problem. The better approach to this issue would be mandatory birth control shots, given at the age of 10, and effective til the age of 50. Under that situation, two individuals after genetic screening, would be given fertility drugs to counteract the shots and thus allowing conception. Not a perfect solution but an adequate one.
You do, and people should get help when they need it in the form of unemployment benefits, etc. It's the pattern of people permanently on welfare that most have a problem with. Children are a right, in that the government cannot tell you what you can and can't do regarding procreation. However, you don't (or shouldnt) have a right to welfare, free school lunch programs, free birth control, etc. That's the parents job. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and if you need help because you got laid off, fine; shit happens. If you're on welfare and pumping out kids to collect more benefits, then there's a big problem and you shouldn't get to keep them. Its also why school lunch programs are a ruse. How bad is the home life if the parents can't provide 3 meals for their kid? Having kids is your right, it's afterwards that matters.
A group of friends and I were having this exact discussion last night. The idea being that educated quality parents are having less children than folks who don't give the ramifications of children a second thought. The only way for there to be any kind of positive impact is for a sweeping societal change in how "children" are viewed, seeing them as a privilege rather than a right. Something that is a privilege is usually more important to you than something you just get because it's your right to have it. Its too late to tell today's breeders that they shouldn't have 8 kids because they can't afford them, won't care for them, etc. The problem is impacting children that need help/care/saving the most. When should children be taken away from a family that can't support and care for them? I don't know. It's become the state's job here in the US to step in but it's usually a late effort with limited results. I'm a huge believer of nurture over nature so I think unfit parents should lose their kids pretty quick. That way the kids actually have a chance. And there are a lot of people adopting because they waited too long to have kids of their own too. The idea being that these children that are taken away will grow into educated/fit parents rather than perpetuating the existence of their biological parents.
I think this is the fact across the board with the exception of China when it comes to less education = more children. Is it possible that the less educated women have children in an effort to be needed? Without skills or education they are useless, but if there are kids to take care of, they are needed. A clever way to create their own jobs sort of speak.
I'm sorry, but if you believe there is anything "adequate" that, then you're falling into the "too dumb to breed" category. Frankly, the population growth is completely unsustainable and there are hundreds of reasons why people should not be having kids. There are financial reasons, health reasons, economic reasons and moral reasons. However, it's simply impossible to try and enforce some kind of "license to breed" while respecting any kind of reasonable civil rights, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply ignorant to the scope of the problem. Even putting aside the question of civil rights, genetics are all about probabilities. Where do you draw the line? At a certain percentage? Certain diseases? A combination? Is it okay to have a kid if there's a 20% chance of Autism? What about a 20% chance of Cystic Fibrosis? I mean, in the former case the kid is a lifelong burden on society, but of course there are all kinds of levels of autism and some of them may be highly functional. In the latter, it's a fatal diagnosis, but lifespans are getting longer and longer for those affected so you might have 30+ years of societal contribution. I would be more inclined to buy into a limit on the number of kids you can have, irrespective of financial means or other qualifications. No preferential treatment. No grey areas. Each person is allowed to have a maximum of 2 kids. Of course, if you were to propose something like this to the population, you may as well suggest everyone get a mandatory swastika brand on their forehead. It'd be a crucifixion.
You're kidding, right? The problem with eugenics that none of its supporters seem to realize is that eventually, you will be selected as the next one to go. Let's be honest: If eugenics is ever implemented in the U.S., we're starting in West Virginia. Does that change your opinion at all? Based on your other posts, you're hardly the person to support eugenics, forced sterilization or genetic testing.
Its most definitely a privelege, like driving. When a couple (or trendy single) decide they are ready for a child they wait until their counties' "sowing season", run down to the local planned parenthood and a frozen egg is placed in her poon. Intercourse follows and shes required to have round-the-clock prenatal monitoring until the licensed child is delivered.
As for the genetic probabiltity of developing certain conditions, I'd draw the line at anything over 60% odds. Practically speaking you're not going to eliminate all undesirable genetic traits without tanking the birth rate. The most you can really hope for is to cull some of the more severe conditions from being passed down to future generations. I can't list the conditions that would have to be culled from our species; I lack the medical background. I just know a good solution to what will eventually be a serious problem. Proposing anything of this nature is a massive shitstorm; but nothing worthwhile comes without some degree of sacrifice.
The will to dominate the lives of others in this thread is disturbing. Speaking of the lives of others, check out that movie. Then look in the mirror when you want to determine who does and doesn't get to have children, and how many. Spoken like a true Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Wilson, but I guess that's to be expected from someone named after Satan in a novel. Some of the rest of you, I dunno what you're thinking.
Wait, but I thought having children was the only right women were supposed to have? If you're talking about places like Africa, then no, not usually. What Chater said is right, at least from how I've learned it time and time again. They have a lot of shit to do, so they have kids to help. Or, they don't have birth control. Or they're raised with the belief that their main/only purpose in life is baby-making. Or a combination. I'm pretty sure the main reason for having a child just to feel wanted and needed is reserved for wealthy countries. If you're talking about an uneducated woman in a wealthier country, then yeah, I think that's a common reason why women of any education-level in these countries have kids. I think it's a privilege, and there are many people on Earth who aren't fit to be parents and shouldn't have kids. But, I don't think there should be any government-mandated restrictions on who gets to have children and how many.
I don't think it's a will to dominate lives of others. It's a general feeling of hopelessness when you see a single fat pregnant woman who is completely incapable of taking care of the 3 other kids she has running around.. and then you realize this scene replays itself millions of times a day across the country. The kids didn't choose to be born into subpar conditions with idiot parents, and it's not fair to them.
Wasn't the Nazi platform based on eugenics? Didn't we agree as a planet that sort of thing wasn't the right way to go about shaping the future? What in the bleeding monkey fuck? <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics</a> Focus: I was under the impression that globally, birth rates were falling. As fewer and fewer people work in food production, they tend to have less children. As people in developing countries abandon the rural lifestyle and move into the cities, they have less children due to space and financial constraints. "Our current population is not sustainable"-we know and we're having fewer kids. We're also producing more food (globally) so there is a surplus. The fact that it's not allocated properly is a social comment not a sustainability problem. Besides, the problem isn't that we have so many kids, the problem is that we are not educating them in anything useful and they know it. Many of the welfare babies don't have a lot of opportunities to contribute to society in any meaningful way, and that is the biggest challenge for our future, IMO. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate</a> It's difficult to separate this discussion from religious pressure. IMO, a lot of the development of Latin America was up-fucked by the Catholic church preaching against birth control, condom use and planned parenthood. In the US, the abstinence-only education I received did a lot of damage to the average student, because by the time they got to sex-ed, they were already having sex and when they heard that a condom is not 100% effective, they said "Well, then why bother?" Cue about 75 members of my senior class being pregnant before I started university. A lot of this discussion centers around where you get your information: medicine or religion. If it's religion, the women in that situation are often little more than a brood mare, and that often leads to them having more children than they would have if they had been planning. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control#Religious_views_on_birth_control" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_cont ... th_control</a> I wouldn't want my government in control of my reproductive rights, I think that's something the average person manages correctly the majority of the time. Keep a sense of perspective: if you are a career-minded person, having a kid is an important decision, but some people have kids first because that's their priority. I know a few (cough cough white trash cough) people who have decided to have 2 kids, be a stay at home mom until they go to school and then start a career. I think it's impossible to make one person convert to the mindset of the other. If you leave abortion, birth control and planned parenthood alone, educate people based on medical and social criteria, not religious, and continue to develop away from a rural, farm-based lifestyle, the "problem" of population sustainability will work itself out.
In the U.S., having children is a right, and one of the most basic. I was going to put this in the 'cause' thread, but it's probably more appropriate here. The major problem arises in the fact that the government (and many people) have completely overstepped their bounds. The basic tenet of any order of freedom is that you can do as you want, so long as it doesn't interfere with others pursuing their free choices. While the foregoing sounds nice, once you involve the government, it becomes much more difficult to see a clear cut line. As others have pointed out, people assume a government will enforce their point of view, only to find out too late that it will strip their rights, one way or the other, once it gets around to them. Children are a great case in point. Regulation of child rearing has not led to great results here in the U.S. I doubt any scheme of regulations will ever be conceived that will ensure a good outcome for the child without trampling the basic human right of people to reproduce and raise their children as they see fit. Obviously committing crimes against children should be criminalized and pursued as with any other citizen. The biggest problem is the government has stepped in, though with good intentions. After a lot of thought, my conclusion is this: The breakdown of the family unit has made it necessary in the minds of liberal/socialist thinkers for the government to step in and prevent further harm to children born to families that can't support them. In the old days, before the government was involved, families lived close together, and there were larger families in general. It was not unusual for aunts/uncles/sisters/brothers to raise children as their own due to the incapacity (in whatever form) of the parent. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Families are spread far apart, both geographically and emotionally, and people within families tend to take a much more hands off approach to their kin than in the past. In short, until some sense of family and responsibility is more prevalent, child rearing will continue to present difficult issues to societies in general. Government intervention has not really helped much, and done more to trample individual rights and fostering the atmosphere present in some posts in this thread - namely 'I pay taxes for your kids, therefore, I should get a say.' While this concept has a passing appeal, like most self righteous quips it leads you down a road where you aren't the one getting the say. You're the one getting told. Children are a right, not a privilege. God help you if that changes.
This is what bothers me, for lots of reasons, but for the context of this discussion, it's usually the same people who are anti-birth control and abortion who are also shitting on welfare programs. So, you don't want people to have protected sex, but you don't want them to have the options to end unplanned pregnancies when they don't think they'd be able to or want to care for the kids, and you don't want people to be single parents, but you don't want any programs in place to help the kids they were forced to have because taxes bad, grumble grumble? That makes so much sense.
Children are a mostly a right AND also a priviledge. It is our right as human beings to spread our bloodline and raise new humans the way we see fit. Children become a priviledge the moment AFTER they are born, because it is our RESPONSIBILITY to not just raise them the way we see fit, but to also raise them the RIGHT way. And those ways include: - Only have a child if you want to. Only have as many children as you WANT to. You do not HAVE to have kids if you don want, it doesn't matter what parents and friends pressure you with because it is YOUR FUCKING LIFE. You should only raise what you are prepared to deal with and guess what kids? Raising a kid is easier than you might dread (usually). - Just because you believe in something that is not in any way evidence-based does not mean you have the right to force it on your child especially if they want no part of it. So Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses or whatever twisted perverted cult you belong to, if your child says "Mom, Dad, I am having strong feelings that there IS no Space-God, that celestial underwear won't make me fire-proof, that black people are NOT the children of Lucifer and that dancing should be permitted" maybe you should try listening to them instead of immedietly disowning or beating them. Maybe they DON'T want to spend their weekends pimping The Watchtower to strangers slamming doors in their face or sitting on wood blocks while reciting things. Maybe they just want to be actual kids. - Don't be your kid's best friend. You have to be the person that raises them, they need friends their own age. You can still be "buddies", but you are hands and they are the steering wheel in life. So many dumb-ass Parents don't raise kids nowadays, they date them. Kids today get drunk with power and out-of-control because parents buy their love, not judge ever them and never, EVER put a big mean ol' red "X" on their test because God forbid if they thought that they got something wrong. This shit breeds horrible boundaries and struture, and this sort of shit is what causes Bullies to sprout. You need to tell your child what is right and what is wrong, not when you get to chaperone the next party because you think you're BFF's. If you're kid is telling YOU what to do, there is a PROBLEM. - Encourage education. There's a reason why people who go to college tend to have better lives than people who don't: it's because those colleges have these things called college professors, who can teach you some pretty important and astonishing shit. Get them to read books without pictures on occasion (yes, they still exists if you believe that), take them to interesting places. TV is still a great thing, but if you're using The Kardashians as a nanny than you should be shot and pissed on. ...Those simple rules should be taught to any parent, and so many stupid ones brush it off like it will make their kid turn gay if they followed them.
Your idea sounds good, but there's no way people are going to go for that, and eventually you're going to foment irresponsibility/dissent by people whose genes were deemed unfit for reproduction. You're going to create a sort of class system that can never be revoked. What if we centralized the entire process, though? The government could ensure proper care for each developing child, as well as that they weren't going to be unhappy with their lot in life. Obviously, some stratification is needed simply for purposes of social balance -- if ditch diggers were as bright and talented as message board posters, the system would fall apart. Luckily, if the process of child birth was centralized, it would be pretty easy to control the number of super intelligent/intelligent/moderately intelligent/dull people, which would ensure that each person got the push they need. We've already seen that people respond pretty well to things like condoms and birth control shots, so really all it would take is the elimination of STD's, and we could divorce sex and babies entirely. I think my plan is better than yours, because: A.) It doesn't strip only certain segment of their rights B.) It helps control the nurture part of the reproductive debate G.) It keeps birth rates static, regardless of health D.) It controls not only the population, but the balance of the population E.) It pretty well controls for the possibility of genetic "sports"
One thing: once a country reaches a certain level of stability and economic prosperity, population growth declines/halts/reverses. For an excellent example, see the non-immigrant population of Western Europe. Population growth if it continues on its current path might be completely unsustainable, but the development of those growing societies will serve as a brake on population growth, and the technological advances wrought by even more human minds working on the problem might give us a longer window of opportunity before reaching "completely unsustainable". As for genetic modifications: everyone likes something different and practically everyone wants to see some element of theirs in their offspring, so I'm not concerned about genetic modification leading to a GATTACA-type situation or resulting in "Aryan-looking" supermen or something. I'd like to cut my potential kid's risks for diabetes, bad eyesight, and other little gifts that skip a generation or only arise when mixed with another carrier of the bad gene. This should be a personal decision made by the parents.