Pay for your children, or get mandatory birth control!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Pay for your children, or get mandatory birth control!

Post by rjaypeters »

For those of you who wish to further discuss this topic, please use this thread. You have already used "Calling All Fiscal Conservatives" as a starting point, but I ask you to consider the six main questions: Who, What, When, Why, How and Where.

You've mostly answered the first three or four, but haven't done so much with the last two.

Further, you may wish to also consider the effects after the involuntary sterilization program begins. For instance: Who will perform these involuntary sterilizations? Who will drag the involuntary subjects to the surgery? How will these active participants feel about forcing people to undergo surgery? Et cetera.
Last edited by rjaypeters on Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Stoney3K
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:24 pm

Post by Stoney3K »

The question I have at this is how to determine the 'incapable' part.

Does it mean a physical or mental disability? Does it constitute the lack of intelligence or knowledge to be able to raise your spawn in a responsible manner?

For example, I have a mild form of high functioning autism (Asperger's) myself, however, I am a very capable person in handing myself and contributing to society. Does the label mean I am, by definition, an incapable parent because I have a disability?

This is going to be serious slippery-slope territory, if you also consider the dumb-a$$es who get to raise children (or don't) and get away with it.

As an alternative solution, I can propose this:

Anticonception is mandatory for people who have yet to prove they have the skills and knowledge to raise a child. Since this is a temporary measure, nobody is harmed when an improper decision is made about it.
Because we can.

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

Who: Parents who cannot pay for their own child's birth, and thus leave the bill unpaid (a societal cost) or use public welfare benefits to pay for the birth

What: semi-reversible sterilization procedures, easily performed as outpatient surgery

When: As soon as possible, during or after the birth.

Why: to reduce the number of children living in poverty as humanely as possible; to obviate any accidental repeat of the expense to society

How: by law and courts, if not peaceably

Where: Either in the hospital performing the birth, or later, in the jail clinic.

Morality argument: By choosing to steal resources from me and other productive people, you have violated my property rights. In respect for the distinct possibility that you will repeat this, in fact, statistically, will continue in poverty, and will continue in production of children, we, in order to reduce costs, nip the problem in the bud, as it were.
Theft, whether by fraud or by force, is still theft. A minor procedure which can keep you from repeating the theft is neither cruel nor unusual.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

Stoney3K wrote:This is going to be serious slippery-slope territory, if you also consider the dumb-a$$es who get to raise children (or don't) and get away with it.

As an alternative solution, I can propose this:

Anticonception is mandatory for people who have yet to prove they have the skills and knowledge to raise a child.
In the other thread, financial incapacity has been the decider. It's simpler, anyway.

For adoption, my spouse and I answered extensive and intimate questions (but not as bad as trying to give blood!) I'm pretty sure any serious couple would answer to have a child.
Stoney3K wrote:Since this is a temporary measure, nobody is harmed when an improper decision is made about it.
I see advantages to your proposal, including humanity, but the rub is fertility declines with age.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Stoney3K wrote:For example, I have a mild form of high functioning autism (Asperger's) myself, however, I am a very capable person in handing myself and contributing to society. Does the label mean I am, by definition, an incapable parent because I have a disability?
It is the 'neuro-typicals' that are the disabled ones - they are disabled by their lack of focus on individual tasks, by their predisposition towards 'feeling emotionally' about something, and because they are so confused by the world around them that they actually dare to suggest to Autistic/Aspergers folks that the world is an ordered place and doesn't need our clarity of thinking to get things ordered!

I've come to realise this, that neutro-typicals seem to relish the dis-order and actually seek to increase the disorder by implementing wholly confusing and disruptive procedures/policies/laws/&c..

But this is an absolutely bizarre thread to be raising what I thing is a serious point.

This thread has no place. At some point I really can see that some folks are going to begin discussing the benefits and defecits of particular genetic, thus racial, traits. Now, eugenics is an interesting topic and very much one of the 'last taboos' that western society doesn't discuss, but the vicious and disgusting turn of opinion here has made me come to understand that if I were to argue for some of the legitimate aspects of eugenics that it is just going to get out of hand very quickly.

You guys have actually managed to change my mind on something!!! I used to think discussing eugenics was a legitimate area of science that was simply being ignored by hand-wringing liberals. But, no, you have helped me see the light! It promotes a vicious, callous and thoughtless turn of thinking from people that actually seemed quite reasonable when they talked about other things.

This is disgusting. Really disgusting. At the very very very least you need to start with who, in society, needs help and protection and work backwards. Not that I am actually advoating you discuss it, but at least that is a start. But, no, you are talking about rounding up people, according to some generalised categories, into a field for destruction, and then letting them out by exception. It really is disgusting. Please stop it.

Moderator...please consider how to control this...

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

I don't expect there'll be much if any censorship because those couple of guys are offensive or disgusting to some. I'd definitely agree they're way out of line if this forum wants to be taken seriously as a reasonable Polywell/Fusion discussion forum.


The only good aspect to WizWom's proposal is that he seems to consider it a tragedy that kids are born into squalor from parents who ought to know better. And that those kids can't be let down by the rest of society, e.g. left to starve under those parents.
But the justification that those parents "stole" WizWom's money is rubbish. Why is it stealing then but not when the money's put to good use? Why does govt bear no guilt for its irresponsible funding of those people in the first place? Why is the voting population not considered responsible for its allowing govt to have such irresponsible policies that those people are getting govt help they shouldn't?
I'm not looking for Diogenes' answers.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

A basic problem with the involuntary sterilization proposals is "you can't get there from here." Maybe that's not a problem.

Involuntary sterilization is part of U.S. history, a part of which we are or should be rightfully ashamed.

Further, once those who choose who gets sterilized start to broaden the scope of who gets selected, expect exponentially increasing resistence to the procedures. I have a variety of characteristics which could be used to select me for sterilization (e.g. I don't think involuntary sterilization is a good idea). I would resist; I would expect anyone who stands on two feet, walks on crutches, sits in a wheelchair, lies in a bed or who has control of any voluntary muscle to resist.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

Whoah there, Diogenes!

Who said anything about any particular group being sterilized (Eugenics)?

If you have the wherewithal to pay, or the goodwill to get someone else to pay, I don't care what race, color, creed or mental state you are in. If you don't have the money, I likewise don't care one whit.

It's all about the rather dismal economics of it. And the rather dismal statistics of it.

But yes, it is unworkable in 2010 in America.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

You need to explain how people are "stealing" your money only when they use it to make babies the way you disapprove of.

Diogenes hasn't posted in here, so you probably mean Chrismb.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Rates of successful tubal ligation reversal is ~ 20-70 percent. Hardly reassuring.

http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/surger ... ersalp.htm

Vasectomy reversals are ~ 50% effective.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vasect ... al/MY00326


These are the two least invasive surgical methods of birth control. Generally safe, there are still deaths and morbidity risks. And reversal is a crap shoot at best. And you recommend this be imposed on select individuals? How will you reimburse those who satisfy some criteria to regain their reproductive privileges if the reversal does not work? How do you reimburse those who who suffer injury or death as a direct consequence of the surgery? How do you pay for those crippled that require lifelong and expensive medical care? Perhaps you could legislate a ban on their 'legal rights' under the law. But, now you are not only harming them surgically, you are also making them a less privileged subclass within society. This is a very slippery path.
Fairly efficient BC with implanted hormones for women are aviable (but what about the men?). But, as with any birth control, there are risks. You might argue that the risks are less than the risks of childbirth, but that is a gray area, depending on the population you are talking about.

There are no convienient, temperary and reverasable BC methods that do not suffer from some risks.

You could take China's approach, and abort unlicenced pregnancies, but then you would have to admit that you were just like the communists. And, I suspect many of those argueing for selective birth privaliges are against abortion- Oh wait, they are a subclass, so it is ok (sarcasm intended).

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

So.... No answer from WizWom which leaves no conclusion but his having no valid justification for his and others' backing of clear human rights violations.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

Not necessarily. WizWom may have other things to do...I assume all of us do. I invite us to practice patience.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

It's been days. One-sentence gist would do, as food for thought till he's had time for a longer reply.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

Betruger wrote:One-sentence gist would do, as food for thought...
Yeah, but that would foreshadowing. Not a good idea in debate.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

chrismb wrote:
Stoney3K wrote:For example, I have a mild form of high functioning autism (Asperger's) myself, however, I am a very capable person in handing myself and contributing to society. Does the label mean I am, by definition, an incapable parent because I have a disability?
It is the 'neuro-typicals' that are the disabled ones - they are disabled by their lack of focus on individual tasks, by their predisposition towards 'feeling emotionally' about something, and because they are so confused by the world around them that they actually dare to suggest to Autistic/Aspergers folks that the world is an ordered place and doesn't need our clarity of thinking to get things ordered!

I've come to realise this, that neutro-typicals seem to relish the dis-order and actually seek to increase the disorder by implementing wholly confusing and disruptive procedures/policies/laws/&c..

But this is an absolutely bizarre thread to be raising what I thing is a serious point.

This thread has no place. At some point I really can see that some folks are going to begin discussing the benefits and defecits of particular genetic, thus racial, traits. Now, eugenics is an interesting topic and very much one of the 'last taboos' that western society doesn't discuss, but the vicious and disgusting turn of opinion here has made me come to understand that if I were to argue for some of the legitimate aspects of eugenics that it is just going to get out of hand very quickly.

You guys have actually managed to change my mind on something!!! I used to think discussing eugenics was a legitimate area of science that was simply being ignored by hand-wringing liberals. But, no, you have helped me see the light! It promotes a vicious, callous and thoughtless turn of thinking from people that actually seemed quite reasonable when they talked about other things.

This is disgusting. Really disgusting. At the very very very least you need to start with who, in society, needs help and protection and work backwards. Not that I am actually advoating you discuss it, but at least that is a start. But, no, you are talking about rounding up people, according to some generalised categories, into a field for destruction, and then letting them out by exception. It really is disgusting. Please stop it.

Moderator...please consider how to control this...

Who brought up eugenics? Only those who wished to link the idea to something ugly as a means of discrediting it.

Everyone here ought to be intelligent enough to comprehend the idea. If the state pays the bill for YOUR child birth and rearing, then you ought to be reversibly sterilized.

Eugenics requires a genetic component. This idea simply requires an action.(that being) Holding your hand out to pay for something YOU ought to pay for. As in people going to prison, the people select themselves. They have free will and can chose to NOT ask the state for money. The point is, nobody is suggesting a genetic test to determine who gets sterilized or not, unless you are arguing that there is a genetic component to being a deadbeat?

I assure you, most deadbeats are white, and if there IS some particular gene running through them that makes them deadbeats, it is certainly not obvious.

Post Reply