|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2005 : 19:06:05 [Permalink]
|
Oops. I realize that I kind of screwed-up my last post by leaving out details (I try to keep them short) and it was misleading. I think IQ-based "filtering" is bullshit as other than possibly in an economic sense (overall they tend to make more cash) IQ doesn't make a good parent- but Shockley's proposals weren't nearly as "bad" as they sounded when the DETAILS were examined (if I can make him sound like a goose-stepping Nazi/ "Dr. Strangelove" ACCIDENTALLY by leaving out details, imagine what a sensationalist press wanting to stir up controversy could do deliberately- they clobbered him.) Actually, it was rather humanitarian in a lot of ways.
1. The idea wasn't to keep people from having kids- just more than they and/or the welfare system could afford to properly take care of, say 10 or 12... having 2 kids was fine, and still qualified them for the cash incentives.
2. The cash sum was considerable- maybe 20K or more in 1980 dollars (I can't remember the scale exactly, but it was quite a bit) and according to his stats, it paid for itself many times over in following decades. Consider that (rule of thumb) costs double every 12 years- that's enough money to make 1 or 2 kids lives much better if applied properly (better schooling, better home environment for instance.) The results could be 2 kids raised right with bright future prospects instead of 12 kids raised in a ghetto with everything that entails. It occured to me that it wouldn't be a bad idea to include a series of advisary sessions with the cash sum to explain how parents could spend the cash to benefit their kids, as opposed to squandering it (which a lot would do anyway, of course, but some wouldn't.)
3. This was around 1980- the US military, economic, and demographic outlooks were different- there are bigger problems to sweat over now. Suggesting the same would now be out of context.
I doubt paying people not to have kids could be applied to bad parents (the IQ bit doesn't hold water, in my opinion, and would never fly- I doubt screening criteria are possible) but it might be a way to keep irresponsible people from having far more kids than they can possibly care for properly.
|
Ron White |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 21:58:27 [Permalink]
|
I wrote: Are you fond of China's method for eliminating pregnancies that the state considers to be a burden, regardless of the privacy and freedom of the individual?
Then Dude wrote: Are you familliar with the concept of massive overpopulation, famine, and disease that comes with it?
Do you think it is better to just allow people to breed themselves to death?
You just shifted the topic and avoided dealing with my point. We weren't discussing the problem of overpopulation in America. We were discussing the problem of poor parenting. And you posed, as a solution, making it illegal for someone under 21 to have a baby. So my reference to forced abortions in China was to point out that, IMHO, the consequences of making it illegal would be worse than the problem we'd be trying to solve.
Do you think poor parenting is such a huge problem in this country that having state enforced mandatory abortions and sterilizations is an appropriate solution? And if not, how could we possibly enforce a law about no having children before 21?
I am not absolutely against restrictions on reproduction. But I consider restrictions on reproduction to be such an extreme action, a violation of what are commonly accepted as basic human rights, and so difficult to enforce, that it should only be done to solve a very extreme problem. China may have had a lot of success slowly down population growth with their policies, but they have also created a whole bunch of new problems (such as the fact that there will be a surplus of 4 million men by 2030), not to mention causing great pain and suffering for many people.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/21/2005 22:00:53 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2005 : 22:42:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You just shifted the topic and avoided dealing with my point. We weren't discussing the problem of overpopulation in America. We were discussing the problem of poor parenting. And you posed, as a solution, making it illegal for someone under 21 to have a baby. So my reference to forced abortions in China was to point out that, IMHO, the consequences of making it illegal would be worse than the problem we'd be trying to solve.
You brought up China. As it has no relevece to this discussion, I would have just ignored it as superfulous raving, but you insisted I respond to it.
My response is simple. What is a better option? Control the birth rate or allow people to breed themselves into a state of human suffering that we here in the US can't even comprehend. If every woman in china were allowed to freely breed the population there would become unsustainable within a VERY short period of time.
Do I like their solution? No. Do you have a better idea for them?
quote:
Do you think poor parenting is such a huge problem in this country that having state enforced mandatory abortions and sterilizations is an appropriate solution? And if not, how could we possibly enforce a law about no having children before 21?
You haven't actually read my posts in this thread, that's fairly clear now.
Feel free to backtrack and actually read them.
Actually, let me quote myself for you:
quote:
Posted by DudeThere is no way to actually enforce any such thing in a society that respects the rights of individuals, short of removal of the right to reproduce, make it a privelage. And most would see that as wrong, because then you have to decide who gets the privelage.
And anything you do to encourage people to wait to breed will also be called ethically questionable.
There is no good solution to the problem of irresponsible parenting.
Short of shifting the societal norm, and that isn't anything we can exert specific influence on.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 15:25:51 [Permalink]
|
You haven't actually read my posts in this thread, that's fairly clear now.
Dude, I didn't not read your posts. In fact, when I first read your proposal to restrict childbirth before the age of 21, I assumed you were making a "modest proposal". But for the sake of the overall conversation I decided to drag the issue out and show the extremes of restrictions on childbirth. You say what has happened in China has no relevance to this discussion. But that's bull. What has happened in China started as a brainstorm over how to fix a social problem involving children that are a social burden. That is what we started doing here. Bringing up forced abortions and sterilization is perfectly appropriate. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 17:25:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You say what has happened in China has no relevance to this discussion. But that's bull. What has happened in China started as a brainstorm over how to fix a social problem involving children that are a social burden. That is what we started doing here. Bringing up forced abortions and sterilization is perfectly appropriate.
We were discussing irresponsible parenting. You are the one who brought up forced abortion for population control.
That is called a change of subject... aka red-herring.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 20:27:21 [Permalink]
|
As I see the posts, the "21" stuff was intended to cite a parallel, which is a valid one, and not to be taken literally as all agree it's not possible to enforce such a criteria. All agree that bad parenting is unfortunately, is hard to deal with. As for overpopulation, why not pay people not to have too many kids? I agree the IQ stuff Shockley suggested was bunk, but why not figure out some conditions that would fly- since we can't coerce people not to have too many kids, the carrot approach in some form seems the only thing left.
Maybe 5 or 10 years ago it might have been more financially pallatable/feasible, but now with Katrina, Iraq etc. etc. who knows. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2005 : 23:19:23 [Permalink]
|
We were discussing irresponsible parenting. You are the one who brought up forced abortion for population control.
That is called a change of subject... aka red-herring.
Red herring for what? What is it deceptively taking attention away from?
Whether you were serious about it or not, you brought up making it illegal to have a child under certain circumstances. If someone proposes that something be against the law, it makes sense to consider how it might be enforced. Forced abortions and sterilizations are the most effective way to enforce such a law, so it is totally logical to simply bring them up.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/22/2005 23:20:12 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2005 : 00:57:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
We were discussing irresponsible parenting. You are the one who brought up forced abortion for population control.
That is called a change of subject... aka red-herring.
Red herring for what? What is it deceptively taking attention away from?
Whether you were serious about it or not, you brought up making it illegal to have a child under certain circumstances. If someone proposes that something be against the law, it makes sense to consider how it might be enforced. Forced abortions and sterilizations are the most effective way to enforce such a law, so it is totally logical to simply bring them up.
Now children...
So just point out the missed communication without all the pissy stuff.
For example, "Sure, I understand the problem of overpopulation but there might be better ways to achieve a reduction and anyway, I was talking about your suggestion of prohibiting childbearing until the age of 21 and how impractical it'd be to enforce such a policy. I wasn't commenting on China's choice of ruthless measures. That's a different issue."
"Oh yes, I see your point." |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 05:59:24 [Permalink]
|
I would have to insist that removing someone's right to have children is ethically wrong at whatever stage of life.
Further I would claim that paying someone to waive one of their fundamental rights is equally wrong; although I'd be hard pressed to provide an argument for it...
Frankly I don't see the problem with sterilising people at birth though, assuming a convenient (by which I mean quick, cheap, safe and entirely reversible) method is found. As a general rule people who want children make better parents (I have no studies to back this up but I would be extremely suprised if this was not the case). If everyone is initially sterilized, then only those who want children will have them.
Even the anti-contraception people should be content with this as it would only constitute contraception if the individual has sexual intercourse before reversing the procedure.
In short: everyone would be much happier and peace and prosperity would be available in limitless amounts to all. Hallelujah! |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 11:07:36 [Permalink]
|
Even the anti-contraception people should be content with this as it would only constitute contraception if the individual has sexual intercourse before reversing the procedure.
No offense, but I think this opinion shows a lack of understanding about Catholicism's stance on birth control. Though they won't say this, the whole point of the rule is to encourage having more children whether you want them or not. And secondly, the reasoning they often use to defend their insane stance on birth control involves rules against changes the natural functions of our bodies. They aren't going to go for being sterilized at birth.
And honestly, neither are most people unless we live in such a stable and at peace society that people are totally convinced that the system will continue on in that fashion. Because otherwise, what if you let the government sterilize your baby, and twenty years later the system and economics have changed and you can't get the process undone?
Theoretically it's a good idea. A lot of people would agree with you. But so many huge changes would have to happen not only technological (to make it safe and cheap) and culturally (for people to accept it). It's just a really out there suggestion is all I'm saying. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 11:30:11 [Permalink]
|
| Interesting that Catholics ban birth control seeming to find some Biblical source for the stand. Yet the last Pope changed the official Catholic stand on evolution. I wonder what Biblical source they found to justify that modification? |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 13:14:30 [Permalink]
|
Catholics really don't rely on the Bible. They rely on the authorities to interpret the Bible, and the authorities interpret it in a way that they hope will help the Church. They oppose birth control because it is a good way to make more Catholics. They oppose priests getting married originally because priests don't take an oath of poverty, but if they had legitimate children, when they die, their wealth would go to the heirs, not the Church.
Catholics also admit that a lot in the Bible is not literal, which is how they get around evolution.
It's a complex religion, and really, one of the most anti-freethought in makeup, because the authorities really do want the adherents to follow them blindly. They even encourage the followers to read official interpretations of the Bible, rather than the Bible itself, because it is too easy to "misinterpret" the Bible. And, gee, they need only point to Protestant Bible study groups that sit around naively interpreting the Bible without any historical or linguistic background, and the Catholic point is made. The Catholic authorities basically say, "Look, we know you don't have the time or interest to learn arabic and hebrew and history, etc., so you can understand the Bible for yourself. Let us do that hard work and let you know what we find."
The reason I have defended Catholicism in the past is because, despite being heavily anti-freethought in history and dogmatic structure, educated Catholics in the first world DO usually think for themselves when it comes to real-life practical issues. Most Catholics do use birth control. Many vote pro-choice, even if they are pro-life according to their personal morality. And many are pro-gay rights. Hell, most educated Catholics (while educated in worldly matters) are so uneducated about their own religion that they don't even know Catholic dogma. They don't even know that they are not supposed to criticize the centralized church, so they do. They are so used to living in a democracy and criticizing political leaders that they start treating their religion like a democracy and feel free to criticize bishops, cardinals and even the Pope.
Tee hee.
However, it seems the Church is really not giving in (though it seemed it might in the 60's and 70's) and it would rather lose those freethinking members rather than change in ways that would, you know, actually benefit society. So fuck 'em. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/25/2005 13:19:09 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
