Quote from: James McMurrayNo. It's a quest to avoid having people give birth to children they can't afford.

What is the difference there except for words that are put in a slightly different manner?

How do you think we have grown as a species? What do you think is necessary to bring up a child? Is it only money?

QuoteIf you knew that a kid was going to grow up poor and deprived, but even so he'd be happy and contribute to society (a situation well known to each of the waves of immigrants who have successively poured into our country) would that knowledge make a difference in terms of whether it was virtuous to bear that child?

Of course it would. And as soon as I become omniscient that'll matter.

QuoteI'me going to need you to identify who these better qualified people are, why they are better qualified otherwise I can't place any trust in them.

I can't identify them. I said I'm sure they're out there, not that I know who they are. If this idea ever came close to becoming a reality I'd concern myself with finding these people.

QuoteWhat is the difference there except for words that are put in a slightly different manner?

The difference is that saying I want to eradicate poor people completely misses the point of the topic. Stopping procreation in certain instances won't eradicate poor people, it'll just stop some of them from having children.

QuoteIs it only money?

If I did I wouldn't have said "These are people who cannot psychologically or physically care forr children and they become drains on society which usually grow up to give birth to another generation of drains."

The U.S. government and many others already have systems in place that will take children away from unfit parents. I'm just advocating a more proactive system that checks for fitness before the kids are neglected, abused, or worse.

Hell, if you can show me that poor peoples' children being a drain on society is a good thing I'll even drop the monetary prereqs and screen only for psychological acceptability.

Quote from: James McMurrayOf course it would. And as soon as I become omniscient that'll matter.

Yep.  It's a gamble, and nobody knows how it's going to come out.  So all this talk about preventing people from having children they can't afford only makes sense on the statistical level:  It's obvious nonsense on the individual level.  Every child has a chance to grow up happy, healthy and productive no matter what their starting circumstances.  The chance may be vanishingly slim, but it's a chance.

The question becomes (at least to my mind):  Is it okay to take away people's right to take that risk on behalf of their children and themselves?  Is it okay to take away their dream that if they had a child they'd somehow kick that drug habit, get a good job, make ends meet ... they'd do all that for their child?

Because, y'know, some people do.  Some people are redeemed by the act of having a child.  And if there's any chance that can happen, I think it's awfully hard to justify taking the right to take that chance away from a person.

Quote from: James McMurrayNo. It's a quest to avoid having people give birth to children they can't afford.

I'll re-quote this then. By your definition, large proportions of the populations of 1st world countries, let alone African or Asian populations, shouldn't have children. Afford is the key word here.

Do you, by any chance have children? What is the cut-off point as to what constitutes a couple able to afford children? Who decides it?

Do you even understand what you are saying? Were you born to a professional couple or were they labourers, cotton pickers, farmers? Do you even understand the consequences of poverty?

Should i exist?

Quote from: TonyLBYep.  It's a gamble, and nobody knows how it's going to come out.  So all this talk about preventing people from having children they can't afford only makes sense on the statistical level:  It's obvious nonsense on the individual level.

Governments work on the statistical level.

QuoteThe question becomes (at least to my mind):  Is it okay to take away people's right to take that risk on behalf of their children and themselves?  Is it okay to take away their dream that if they had a child they'd somehow kick that drug habit, get a good job, make ends meet ... they'd do all that for their child?

Yes it is. If they really want a child they can do what it takes to become worthy of the privilege.

QuoteBecause, y'know, some people do.  Some people are redeemed by the act of having a child.

Yep, and most aren't. Most drug addicted parents raise drug addicted children.

QuoteBy your definition, large proportions of the populations of 1st world countries, let alone African or Asian populations, shouldn't have children.

That depends. If they can raise them some other way (agriculture for instance) then fine.

QuoteDo you, by any chance have children?

I have three children. My oldest daughter was born when I was 17 and her mom 18. Her mom now also has 3 other children and is on welfare (has been for 14 years).

My other two children my wife and I waited to have until I'd graduated college so we could afford them. We were also in our late twenties at the time and much more mature and child ready.

QuoteWhat is the cut-off point as to what constitutes a couple able to afford children? Who decides it?

I have no idea what the cutoff point is. I'd leave the exact numbers up to people with experience in those areas. My guess is that if you're already on welfare or having a child will force you to be, then you'll have to wait until your situations improves.

QuoteWere you born to a professional couple or were they labourers, cotton pickers, farmers?

My mom and dad were both poor and divorced. My dad worked tons of different jobs to support us kids when he had us. My mom has been a bartender and a bar manager all her life, working hard to support us when she had us. They most definitely deserved to have children.

QuoteDo you even understand the consequences of poverty?

I grew up in a neighborhood with more illegal immigrants than ants. I've been homeless. I've been a drug addict and I've been an alcoholic. I know pretty well the perils of poverty.

QuoteShould i exist?

I have no idea. Outside of a few posts on the internet I have no idea who you are. You seem like a nice enough guy, so my tentative answer would be yes, but if you turn out to be a drug fiending child rapist I'll of course change my mind.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy mom and dad were both poor and divorced. My dad worked tons of different jobs to support us kids when he had us. My mom has been a bartender and a bar manager all her life, working hard to support us when she had us. They most definitely deserved to have children.

I grew up in a neighborhood with more illegal immigrants than ants. I've been homeless. I've been a drug addict and I've been an alcoholic. I know pretty well the perils of poverty.

I guess we have more in common than i thought. :cool:

I still can't agree with your point of view though. Maybe we both would not have existed if there was some monetary measurement by which prospective parents were judged by.

You're making a statement then hiding behind vague generalities to hide that it's unworkable.

Quote from: James McMurray... The human race is growing at an amazing race...

Not really.  Populations in most Western countries will actually start declining in the near future due to low rates of childbirth (well under the minimum 'replacement rate' of 2.1 children per couple in most countries in Western Europe).  Even population growth in developing countries is slowing down.  All things being equal, the wealthier a country becomes, the less kids people tend to have.

Based on current demographic trends, the global population should stabilize around 10 billion in 2050 (assuming that lifespans don't increase dramatically by that time).  The planet can easily support that, especially as technology continues to improve and make better use of renewable resources.

Quote from: James McMurrayGovernments work on the statistical level.

When we, as citizens, allow them to ... yes.

Quote from: James McMurrayYes it is. If they really want a child they can do what it takes to become worthy of the privilege.

That's not how it works.  You don't become worthy and then get your second chance.  You get your second chance, and then you try to become worthy of it.  The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven.

Quote from: Garry GYou're making a statement then hiding behind vague generalities to hide that it's unworkable.

I never said I had a fully functioning system ready to be put into place. I asid I'd support such a system but can't design it myself. If that means I'm hiding then I'm fine with that idea.

QuoteBased on current demographic trends, the global population should stabilize around 10 billion in 2050 (assuming that lifespans don't increase dramatically by that time). The planet can easily support that, especially as technology continues to improve and make better use of renewable resources.

Great. Then my idea won't be needed to reduce planetary pressures. It's not like it would be passed anyway.

I'd still be concerned about people not having what it takes to raise kids having those kids, and still want them stopped.

QuoteThat's not how it works. You don't become worthy and then get your second chance. You get your second chance, and then you try to become worthy of it. The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven.

Sure, it's not how it works now, but under my system that's how it would work. I personally think that if someone isn't worthy of having a child they shouldn't have one.

Quote from: James McMurrayIan, did you want to participate, or just play Cassandra?

Both, honestly.  I'm sorry -- it was a bit of a threadcrap to pop in with the first response and predict doom.  However, my experience with such threads is that they get totally derailed by, first, those without children deriding those with childre, then those with deriding those without.

As far as the ethics of bearing children goes, I'm not sure that the ethics differ that greatly from the ethics of doing just about anything else.  You exist, here and now.  You are as entitled to your share of available resources as anyone else (which is to say, not at all), and are responsible to not take away more than what you're entitled to (which, again is to say, none at all).  From that opening statement, each individual is tasked with reconciling their desires and actions with those of their neighbors.

Moving right along, my wife and I made a conscious decision to have no more than two children.  We got lucky -- we had a boy and a girl, one to replace each of us once we pass on.  We figured, ethically, that was all we were entitled to.  Originally, we thought that the preferred ethical decision was to adopt one child for every child we bore ourselves, but that proved economically beyond our means at the time.

Across the street, there's a family of home-schooling, flag-waving, born-again Christians.  They just had their seventh child.  My wife and I both thought that was ethically wrong and selfish of them.  Next door are our friends from Cambodia who had seven children, and we don't have a problem with their decision.  Why?  First, the nextdoor neighbors are our friends -- we don't like the folks across the street too much.  Second, our Cambodian friends made their choice in a place where the social expectations of child bearing were different, and at a time (during the US war in Viet Nam) when they honestly didn't expect all of their children to survive (and it's a miracle that they did -- you should hear the story about the birth of their seventh child!).  Meanwhile, our neighbors across the street are having their children here and now, in a place and in a social climate where we feel they have no need of so many children and that they should know better.  Third, beyond cultural pressures and lack of emphasis on birth control, our Cambodian friends didn't seem to have had any particular motive for having so many kids.  Our neighbors across the street, we're pretty sure, are motivated by religious and political goals to outbreed their competitors.

Is our decision to favor one versus the other right and fair?  Probably not.  We're more forgiving of one because they're our friends and were part of what we consider more forgivable circumstances.  It's also worth noting that, to my knowledge, none of our friends' seven children have borne more than two children themselves, now that they are living in a social climate that de-emphasises the need to procreate prolifically.

!i!

Thanks for coming back. I agree with pretty much everything you said there. I'd prefer tighter guidelines than "we like them" but country of origin and need for children would certainly play a factor. "God told me not to wear a condom" would not.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'd prefer tighter guidelines than "we like them"...

Ethics is a messy business and, sadly, we're selfish beings.

!i!

Which is why so many ethics choices get legistlated.

Quote from: James McMurraySure, it's not how it works now, but under my system that's how it would work. I personally think that if someone isn't worthy of having a child they shouldn't have one.

No, what I'm saying is that that's not how the world works, the same way I'd correct you if you said that two plus two is five.

Mercy that you have to earn isn't mercy, it's justice.   A second chance that you earn isn't a second chance, it's you having succeeded at your first chance.

Governments are very good at being merciless, and at denying people second chances.  Governments deal with figures, rather than people, statistics rather than hope.

Keeping hope alive, even for those furthest gone, is not the job of the government, but it is our job as citizens and human beings.  That is why we choose to rein in the government, to say "Upon this ground you will not tread, for in this plot we hope for unlikely blooms."

Restricting the right of anyone to better themselves is an act of despair.  Advocating such restrictions is a philosophy of despair.  I oppose both in absolute terms.  To feel despair is natural but to act upon it is a failing, and to institutionalize it is a sin.