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.