Regulated human reproduction
 

DISCLAIMER: I recognize that this is science fiction. Please don't explain why this procedure is impossible.

Premise: Science has developed a technique that can safely sterilize human males and females at any age (even newborns). This method simply prevents fertile sperm or eggs from being produced in the patient without interfering with any of the patients' other hormonal, sexual, or developmental functions. It is PERFECT birth control. The method can be temporarily or permanently reversed, during which time the patient has normal reproductive functions. Long-term studies have proven this method to be extremely effective and with no failures, no side effects regardless of the age at which it is administered, and no birth complications in those who have had the procedure reversed. It has been refined and is now a fairly cheap procedure.

The federal government wants to pass a law. If enacted, all children born in the USA after a certain date will be required to be sterilized through this procedure. The procedure will remain optional to all others. Should a citizen, having undergone the procedure at birth, wish to have it temporarily or permanently reversed (presumably for procreation), the citizen must meet only two requirements:

1) He/She must be over the age of 18

2) He/She must be living over the poverty level.

This law proposes to virtually eliminate unwanted childbirth in the US.


AYE or NAY? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

this issued was raised in a post a couple months ago. the constitution would have to be amended. the right to procreate is fundamental. if i recall, the case was skinner v. oklahoma.

(technically such a law could be allowed to stand if it somehow passed the strict scrutiny test, but that hasn't happened since internment, so good luck.)

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

How the [censored] is the vote 2-2?? I guess this is why we have a Constitution...

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

The case for one seems a lot easier then two.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

Duuude.

China bad. USA good.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

Who gets to define what is the poverty level? Oh, that's right, it's the government who does that.

natedogg

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

My argument for two basically goes that, based upon the principle that people should have the freedom to do what they want provided that it harms no one else, raising a child in destitute conditions is harmful to that child, and the child should be protected from a shitty existence.

I voted yes to this, and I did so solely because this scenario exists in a perfect scientific vacuum. (I actually didn't take the constitution into consideration, it was that far-fetched for me). I seriously doubt that science could concoct a procedure with the same efficacy as described, and that the government could come up with a fair and reasonable means of administering it. Perfect vacuum; impractical, but interesting to think about imho.

In reality, protecting the constitution is probably more important than regulaing the population.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

Small sample size. Come on, I thought we were all poker players here ^_^

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

Uhhhhhhhh....some turn of the century eugenicists called.

They want their ideas back.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
Uhhhhhhhh....some turn of the century eugenicists called.

They want their ideas back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, some countries had officially sanctioned eugenics programs through the 1970s. I wish such things were 100 years behind us.

And if I had to guess, I don't think it will be 100 years before we see such state-sponsored eugenics programs again.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
Small sample size. Come on, I thought we were all poker players here ^_^

[/ QUOTE ]

My null hypothesis for this sample was that the vote would be 100%-0%, or possibly (if you actually support this) 99.9%-1 vote. Those results allowed me to reject both versions of the null with 100% certainty.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

I vote NO, also this isn't science fiction it is very easy and very possible for government to impose these types of restrictions.

Mack

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

I don't think pre-emptive sterilization can ever be morally justified, and I would never accept that the government did this to my future children. I do however think that people who doesn't take care of their children properly should be stopped from reproducing further.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

I typed up a whole response, but I think it would be wasted. I'm giving this post the attention it deserves.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
My argument for two basically goes that, based upon the principle that people should have the freedom to do what they want provided that it harms no one else, raising a child in destitute conditions is harmful to that child, and the child should be protected from a shitty existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes a rather arrogant assumption that no existence is better than a meager existence. This is something no living person can fully justify since so human can comprehend never existing.

Also this assumption could then be used to justify genocide. This is a dark path to be followed.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uhhhhhhhh....some turn of the century eugenicists called.

They want their ideas back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, some countries had officially sanctioned eugenics programs through the 1970s. I wish such things were 100 years behind us.

And if I had to guess, I don't think it will be 100 years before we see such state-sponsored eugenics programs again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. Do know off hand the names of some of the countries?

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

No one should ever be given this kind of power. Who the hell has the right to tell me I can't have kids? Also, the population could well fall dramatically over time, messing up the whole country.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell has the right to tell me I can't have kids?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are an irresponsible deadbeat, I think that innocent responsible people should, as long as they are forced at gunpoint to support your children through tax-funded welfare, definitely be allowed to have a say regarding your future reproduction.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uhhhhhhhh....some turn of the century eugenicists called.

They want their ideas back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, some countries had officially sanctioned eugenics programs through the 1970s. I wish such things were 100 years behind us.

And if I had to guess, I don't think it will be 100 years before we see such state-sponsored eugenics programs again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. Do know off hand the names of some of the countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

Canada and Sweeden, at least, I think.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, some countries had officially sanctioned eugenics programs through the 1970s. I wish such things were 100 years behind us.

And if I had to guess, I don't think it will be 100 years before we see such state-sponsored eugenics programs again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting. Do know off hand the names of some of the countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

Canada and Sweeden, at least, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did some digging and you are right. Some other countries guilty of this: USA, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Switzerland, Iceland, Singapore, Austrailia, and Norway.

The more I learn about history the darker it becomes.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

some of the more interesting links, please?

edited to fix the typo.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
some of the more interesting linps, please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, could you define linps?

10 Yes?!?!?!?
 

Ten people voting yes.......

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did some digging and you are right. Some other countries guilty of this: USA, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Switzerland, Iceland, Singapore, Austrailia, and Norway.

The more I learn about history the darker it becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the US had more or less abandoned eugenics programs after WWII; it was certainly a fadish academic-type subject in the 1920s/30s, to be sure - but I'm surprised to learn such programs existed past WWII, after witnessing the horros of Nazi Germany.

Although it must be said that what constitutes eugenics is highly subjective.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did some digging and you are right. Some other countries guilty of this: USA, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Switzerland, Iceland, Singapore, Austrailia, and Norway.

The more I learn about history the darker it becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the US had more or less abandoned eugenics programs after WWII; it was certainly a fadish academic-type subject in the 1920s/30s, to be sure - but I'm surprised to learn such programs existed past WWII, after witnessing the horros of Nazi Germany.

Although it must be said that what constitutes eugenics is highly subjective, to be sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're right the USA did it pre WWII. I just thought I should mention it incase anyone wanted to cast blame and be righteous about this. This is the first I've heard about this, this is shocking to me.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did some digging and you are right. Some other countries guilty of this: USA, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Switzerland, Iceland, Singapore, Austrailia, and Norway.

The more I learn about history the darker it becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the US had more or less abandoned eugenics programs after WWII; it was certainly a fadish academic-type subject in the 1920s/30s, to be sure - but I'm surprised to learn such programs existed past WWII, after witnessing the horros of Nazi Germany.

Although it must be said that what constitutes eugenics is highly subjective, to be sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're right the USA did it pre WWII. I just thought I should mention it incase anyone wanted to cast blame and be righteous about this. This is the first I've heard about this, this is shocking to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as I said - it was certainly an idea cultivated in academia; and there was no shortage of psuedo-science, 'race study' type inquiries going on during the period. And the US wasn't immune to the movement. A black mark in history, if you ask me.

Re: 14 Now
 

Perhaps the people who voted yes should be sterilised, just in case. You know?

Mack

Re: 14 Now
 

I thought OP was a sole wacko.

Who is voting yes? Is there some kind of pattern?

Re: 14 Now
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought OP was a sole wacko.

Who is voting yes? Is there some kind of pattern?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is a pattern, they all think that having more money than someone else automatically makes you a better person, which is nonsense.

Mack

Re: 14 Now
 

I think its much more sinister then that.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

I'm in favor of sterilizing violent criminals, people on welfare, and Anna Nicole Smith. However, I propose that those sterilized for welfar purposes be able to have the sterilization procedure reversed as soon as they are able to support their children financially. There should be an avenue for violent felons to do this as well, although there must be strict requirements and it should be dealt with on a case by case / crime by crime basis.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

I voted "yes"... but only because I like the idea in theory, but I don't like your 2nd condition at all. I think having children naturally should be similar to adopting children. People should have to take a parenting class, and pass some sort of test to make sure they know what they're doing. We make people pass a drivers' test... and driving isn't really all that difficult (although I am amazed at the bad drivers out there). Parenting is not easy... I think it would benefit the parents, the children, and society if parents had to take some sort of class and pass a test before being allowed to have kids.

PS: We should also take away any monetary incentives in having kids (ie: welfare increaseses based on # of kids you have).

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

Maybe slightly restrictive - but an idea to consider. I'm assuming this is a spinoff from the Freakonomics abortion findings that abortions caused a decrease in crime. I think the quality of life of the unborn needs to be considered.

Also from Freak, the country in Europe (Bulgaria I think) prohibited abortions and there was a backlash causing the imposing dictator to be executed. Something to think about.

Re: 14 Now
 

Must be just me, I can't think of anything more sinister than the chattering classes having poor people sterilised.

Mack

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
Canada and Sweeden, at least, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweden officially abandonded eugenics programs in 1975. I don't think there was any cases of it after mid-fifties or so.

I probably should read more about it, it's not exactly the most glorious part of Swedens history.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell has the right to tell me I can't have kids?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are an irresponsible deadbeat, I think that innocent responsible people should, as long as they are forced at gunpoint to support your children through tax-funded welfare, definitely be allowed to have a say regarding your future reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the answer to government oppression is more government oppression? If people are being forced at gunpoint to support someone else, wouldn't it be better to stop forcing people to support others rather than to place restrictions on the supported people?

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

Ah.

Well then you're just wrong for more reasons than I care to point out.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

Well done, sir. Ten points.

The "poverty" condition was meant to be a simple, unbiased condition that prevented "obviously" bad would-be parents from ruining their lives and others. However, as some people pointed out, this condition is something arbitrary defined by the government, which kind of leads to ugly conditions.

I agree entirely on parenting classes and welfare reform. These are reasonable partial solutions.

And come to think of it, if this procedure were readily available and affordable, most sensible people would opt for it anyway.

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

To those who disagree with the right to privacy constitutional law cases (because the right to privacy is nowhere in the constitution.) Would a Regulated Human Reproduction law be constituional? (keep in mind that laws banning contraception were held unconstitutional because of the right to privacy.)

Re: Regulated human reproduction
 

This is eugenics. We fought a world war against a power that believed in eugenics and a superior race. The level of support for this idea is scary and shows how easy it was for Hitler to convince people of otherwise sound mind that this was in anyway acceptable.
It also suggests quite stupidly that the reason someone is poor is because of their genes! People are realtivly poor due to mismanged wealth distribution that they often have no control over. Try solving the real causes of poverty rather than blame the genes of the poor and needy.