Ethics of child bearing

Quire · February 20, 2007, 02:15:32 PM

Quote from: apparition13**(Caveat: this is analogy, not teleology.)

You're not fucking wrong there, are you?

Caveat: I'm gonna talk the most tremendous bullshit I can come up with from so far right-of-field I met myself coming back, but as long as I'm making stuff up I'll post it.

GOOD. FUCKING. GRIEF.

- Q

flyingmice · February 20, 2007, 02:23:24 PM

I take it by "child bearing" you don't mean throwing a child in a pit full of bears?

Am I in the wrong thread?

-clash

Quire · February 20, 2007, 02:29:01 PM

Quote from: flyingmiceI take it by "child bearing" you don't mean throwing a child in a pit full of bears?

Am I in the wrong thread?

-clash

Now THAT would take care of the 'population problems'.

- Q

James McMurray · February 20, 2007, 02:30:05 PM

It would seem that you are indeed in the wrong thread.

Besides, it's the mountain lions you gotta worry about. Well, some of them anyway.

Zalmoxis · February 20, 2007, 08:42:05 PM

Reproduction is the most basic right of any species.

flyingmice · February 20, 2007, 09:15:58 PM

Quote from: James McMurrayIt would seem that you are indeed in the wrong thread.

Besides, it's the mountain lions you gotta worry about. Well, some of them anyway.

Well, they don't have a population problem...

:O

-clash

James McMurray · February 20, 2007, 09:41:32 PM

Quote from: ZalmoxisReproduction is the most basic right of any species.

Species, yes. Individual? I don't think so. Or perhaps more specifically, reproduce all you want, but if you don't merit it, I don't think you should be allowed to raise those children, and I'd rather you not burden society with your kids.

James McMurray · February 20, 2007, 09:42:30 PM

Quote from: flyingmiceWell, they don't have a population problem...

:O

-clash

You'd think, but that population seems to be growing in other species. Most likely as part of a genetics experience on behalf of that portion of the ML scourge.

Zalmoxis · February 20, 2007, 09:45:42 PM

Quote from: James McMurraySpecies, yes. Individual? I don't think so. Or perhaps more specifically, reproduce all you want, but if you don't merit it, I don't think you should be allowed to raise those children, and I'd rather you not burden society with your kids.

Who determines who is fit and who is unfit? Is it economic? Is it based on genetic and medical criterion? How do you plan to police such an action? Where will the money come from to pay for the inevitable bureaucracy and enforcement?

apparition13 · February 20, 2007, 10:14:48 PM

Quote from: SpikeI had to base my objections based on what you posted, not what you meant. You posted that women got chits (fine so far) and picked out the man they would breed with (not so good. Implies men have no say in the matter).

A generational HALVING of population is pretty fucking dramatic. Personally, i'm all for it for a generation or two... sadly the places that need it most are not exactly complicit with our laws, morals or culture. If the US and Europe undertook this (needlessly, given the already declining native populations) then the... and pardon the clumsy term, Third World nations that already have insane population pressures will simply fill in the empty spaces as they continue to produce 9 fucking children per couple. There is a reason violence is so endemic to certain regions: population pressure.

I'd rather see a stable population with a mild, controllable decline... as long as it's universal, rather than one population group (us, for lack of a better term) while another population group does not have similar constraints (them).

I don't recall limiting the program to one section of the world. It would have to be universal, or it would be pointless.

Quote from: QuireYou're not fucking wrong there, are you?

Caveat: I'm gonna talk the most tremendous bullshit I can come up with from so far right-of-field I met myself coming back, but as long as I'm making stuff up I'll post it.

GOOD. FUCKING. GRIEF.

- Q

You don't think getting intelligence off-planet is a worthwhile goal? Or were you objecting to something else.

James McMurray · February 20, 2007, 11:01:25 PM

Quote from: ZalmoxisWho determines who is fit and who is unfit? Is it economic? Is it based on genetic and medical criterion? How do you plan to police such an action? Where will the money come from to pay for the inevitable bureaucracy and enforcement?

The only answers I have to those is "I don't know." I'm discussing an idea, because I don't have the smarts to come up with an actual plan. If something like this were to ever get the go ahead I'd want people with a lot more expertise than me calling the shots.

Zalmoxis · February 20, 2007, 11:10:00 PM

Quote from: James McMurrayThe only answers I have to those is "I don't know." I'm discussing an idea, because I don't have the smarts to come up with an actual plan. If something like this were to ever get the go ahead I'd want people with a lot more expertise than me calling the shots.

I think the problem with your idea is that at it's base level, it's unethical. I say a lot of things like that when I'm hammered.

Aos · February 21, 2007, 12:39:58 AM

I read the first couple of pages, and it looks like eugenics in sheep's clothing to me. BTW, neither of my parents was fit to raise children; I am glad that no one stopped them.

Garry G · February 21, 2007, 08:06:35 AM

I was thinking about this and the problem lies in the idea that reproduction is a right. Reproduction isn't a right it's an innate biological process. When we talk about whether a government can stop reproducing we're discussing whether the government can perform a possibly invasive medical procedure on a person without their consent based on a problem that does not exist at that point in time and may or may not ever exist.

Hastur T. Fannon · February 21, 2007, 08:16:51 AM

Quote from: Garry GReproduction isn't a right it's an innate biological process.

And it's a right

Article 16

Or, if you live in Europe, Article 12