[hmkpoker]

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.