nermal

Uh, Ok. You agree with me.

Ed

Psychic

If our strategy at licensing pregnancy was successful from the start, why should you jump to abortion!

If you go back to the Original Post you would notice the word build devices! traditional contraceptive can’t be applied to implement such policy for the apparent reasons you’ve just mentioned. I am assuming a hi tech device that has creditcard-level security that is programmed to be “Locked as long as there are negative conditions” (as mike suggested)

Do you think that a couple who are drunk all day, smoking Heroin, live in a dumpster and their brains can only think of their body needs. Who are very likely to abuse a child, and raise him in the streets of a bad neighborhood have any right in having children.
Or let’s do the logic backwards, consider a 10-year old battered boy, having nothing to wear, finding very little to eat, needing someone to guide and motivate, someone to teach …etc Doesn’t he deserve good parents? Doesn’t he deserve to have a loving and caring mum and dad just like everybody else?

Consider the alternative I am trying to protect you from: committing self-suicide by raising a whole new generation of psychopaths and emotionally-ill youth (that’s the kind of people the policy is preventing from ever existing).

nermal

nermal

Ok, dammit. How do you insert multiple quotes?

Ed

Psychic

well, this is the MF&P forum. I gave the assumption that building such devices will be possible in the near future. Live with it. it is not the core subject here. Anyway cyborg contraception devices are not remotely out of reach.

why are you assuming that the policy would deprive you your right to reproduce? Secure a descent living for a child and get your right? Unless you have plans for future Heroin addiction or something. Your cost/benefit analysis presupposes that we are denying everyone’s right to reproduce, or presupposes that you are a drug addict.

how warm! He lived with a mum and a dad with bad conditions, and you are offering him good conditions without a mum and a dad. Is that your solution? Would you accept you being raised by the state in some beneficiary? Scratches head.

Preventing drug addicts to reproduce THEN fertility levels drop and the society commits self-suicide.
Allow them to reproduce THEN there children won’t have any effect and the healthy people will represent the future.
Can you accept both?! Exactly how much impact does drug addict’s children have on society?

Psychic

it is totally unacceptable to post “originally posted by psychic” and then add whatever you wish between the lines. And also it’s important for others to be able to understand our debate to be more organized. Please buddy read the VB code on the “post a reply” page.
I wrote a very harsh version of this note, but when I saw your last post, I went to edit my previous post to subsitiute it with this one!:boohoo:

dk

Originally posted by Nermal:
The institution of regulated reproduction leads immediately to things like forced abortion or adoption (a woman being forced to put her child up for adoption) or forced sterilization. This would, of course, be controlled by some government agency.
Posted by Psychic:
If our strategy at licensing pregnancy was successful from the start, why should you jump to abortion!
dk: For the same reason preventative birth control leads to abortion, because its unreliable.

Originally posted by Nermal:
If a person didn't submit to forced sterilization, would we drag them in and perform surgery on them against their will? Would we hold women down and inject them with birth control drugs? Some women have very bad reactions to these by the way.
If a woman had an unauthorized pregnancy, would we tie her down and abort, or pull the newborn from her arms and cart it away?
Posted by Psychic:
If you go back to the Original Post you would notice the word build devices! traditional contraceptive can’t be applied to implement such policy for the apparent reasons you’ve just mentioned. I am assuming a hi tech device that has creditcard-level security that is programmed to be “Locked as long as there are negative conditions” (as mike suggested)
dk: New non-surgical sterilization methods to sterilize the poor, feeble minded, mentally ill, drug addicts and genetically flawed. Women in high risk categories will probably be determined by socioeconomic and genetic indicators to qualify for the benefit.
Here’s an excerpt from an article at Harvard.
The world has accepted compulsory vaccination against small-pox, which is surely an invasion of the body.... And the state so claims control of the body of its male citizens that it compels them to accept military service, and of the bodies of its children -- male and female -- as to force their attendance at school.... In this context I do not think that sterilization after an allowable number of births is so revolutionary a restriction on personal freedom as it may first appear to be. I think it is obvious that we should help to discover and to support any system of incentives which would significantly reduce the birth rate in the countries which are in a population crisis.
-- John P. Robin, Ford Foundation, Representative for East and Central Africa, 1968
If some excesses appear, don't blame me.... You must consider it something like a war. There could be a certain amount of misfiring out of enthusiasm. There has been pressure to show results. Whether you like it or not, there will be a few dead people.
-- Dr. D. N. Pai , Harvard-educated director of family planning Sterilization and Abortion : by Betsy Hartmann in Bombay, commenting on his plans for compulsory sterilization (New York Times, 1976)

Originally posted by Nermal:
This is why your analogy was so ill-formed. Reproduction is a physiological process. You can deny someone a driver's license easily without Orwellian consequences, but to deny someone the right to exercise bodily function requires a level of government authoritarianism that is simply lunacy.
Posted by Psychic:
Do you think that a couple who are drunk all day, smoking Heroin, live in a dumpster and their brains can only think of their body needs. Who are very likely to abuse a child, and raise him in the streets of a bad neighborhood have any right in having children.
Or let’s do the logic backwards, consider a 10-year old battered boy, having nothing to wear, finding very little to eat, needing someone to guide and motivate, someone to teach …etc Doesn’t he deserve good parents? Doesn’t he deserve to have a loving and caring mum and dad just like everybody else?
dk: In 1932 Margaret Sanger summarized your argument with the slogan, “Every child a wanted child.” In 1924 Sanger wrote, “Everywhere we look, we see poverty and large families going hand in hand. We see hordes of children whose parents cannot feed, clothe, or educate even one half of the number born to them.” --- A case for Birth Control, in Women Citizen. Sanger went on to list the conditions in which women should not be allowed to bare children,
When children already born abnormal even though both parents are in good physical and mental condition.
Not until the woman is twenty-three years old and the man twenty-five.
Not until the previous baby is at least three years old.
Children should not be born to...

• Parents whose economic circumstances do not guarantee enough to provide the children with the necessities of life.
• A couple who can take care of two children and bring them up decently in health and comfort, give them an education and start them fairly in life.
• A woman should not bear children when exhausted from labor. This especially applies to women who marry after spending several years in industrial or commercial life. Conception should not take place until she is in good health and has overcome her fatigue.
• A couple for two years after marriage.

In the year 2003, history tells another story, since birth control and abortion became available children have become increasingly unwanted, parents increasingly inept, public schools increasingly incompetent, and dysfunctional, broken, amputated and malformed families increasingly normal. The explosion of children controlled by happy pills, detention centers, drug rehab facilities, adult jails, foster homes and child services staggers the mind. I think its time people wake up, Sanger’s conclusions were feeble minded, ill conceived, structurally unsound and practically dysfunctional. Its a tragedy but that is what we have become.

LostGirl

Are these effects always positively correlated with abortion and BC? Really? Why? And as I recall from first year psychology (since it was drummed into my head over, and over, and over)correlation does not equal causation. Just because these two sets of social behaviour have increased in tandem does not mean that one caused the other. Often there is a third cause, or a series of unrelated causes that have resulted in both trends, especially when the cause and effect issues are complicated, as they are here. I don't think you can blame inept parents on birth control and abortion. There have always been inept parents; and their ability to parent has little to do with whether or not they can figure out the instructions on the condom packet or birth control insert. Rather, the ability to do so is probably the same reason they will or will not be an inept parent. Two effects, same cause. It's not the abortion/BC that caused the ineptness; rather, it allows for the ineptness to be expressed in a new way. I think one has to look at society as a whole and see why both sets of social behaviour increase and what is driving that.

You may be able to pin it on the sexual revolution as a whole, and say that abortion/BC facilitated the sexual revolution. However, I'd like to see some indication that there are no societies without ready access to either that show these kinds of effects. I think you can get there in a multitude of ways, and that maybe BC/abortion are a symptom of the disease, and not the disease themself. This would mean that it might be possible to remove the underlying cause without having to remove the access to BC/abortion. I'd rather live in a society where we tried to improve ourselves, rather than one where we throw our hands up and say we can't, so we should deny ourselves things that we won't take responsibility for using . . . well, responsibly.
Basically, I'd rather teach my children and my peers that it's better to resist taking the cookies out of the jar except when appropriate than remove the cookies and the jar altogether.

One more thing: have the ratios of "bad" children increased relative to overall population? Or is this increase you cite due in the most part to increasing population itself?

nermal

I agree

Thank you, that's what I needed.

Thank you for your help and consideration.

Ed

I_C_THE_LITE

Wow, your statements, if I perceive them correctly, are utter none-sense, especially since their is quite a smattering of so-called statistical evidence.
Of course, not all parents 'good' or even 'decent';however, that does not negate their right to reproduction. I was reared by foster parents, but according to your theory, I should not have been born, especially since several of my sibling were reared by foster parents. From a personal standpoint, your position is an affront.
However, I will note that parents do appear to be progressively worse than years past, but I would equate any such change to the technological advances realized over the past, both recent and not far distant. Parents are able to disregard their children for long periods of times, because of personal computers, video games etc.. There are a lot of influences in a childs life today, that were not even a thought a mere 50 years ago. Still, the right to reproduce is a right that should not be hampered.

Further, looking at 3d world countries and considering your argument, the birth rate should be curtailed considerably, since most of the children have little hopes of progressing from their eery fates. What about those tha do.

Your generalities appear not too well thought out and that can be a dangerous thing.