Thank you for your response. On what basis do you assign an opinion merit? If we are each expressing opinions on what a radically different approach might be in addressing what you at least perceive as a problem for society to solve, then to my mind a solution involving love and support for both parents and children born into less fortunate situations might be better than the a punitive regulatory approach.

As for the pilot analogy, I’m sure you can see why that may not be such a hot comparison as not everyone can just fly a plane whereas people like all creatures can procreate. And even in the less desirable instances (which I do not assume) most folks don’t jump right to thinking fiery deaths necessarily lie ahead for all those whose paths cross said unlicensed baby. You’ve mentioned rights a few times as a given, by what means do you assign rights? Would you not say that people have the right to have sex and have children with whom they wish? Assuming of course they are consenting adults?

Again, I assert the claim that some of the most evil people and negative outcomes for the many people can and possibly have come from situations that you might promote and license. Whereas many of the most positively beneficial and strongest proponents for the good of many likely have arisen from situations you’d seek to ban. How can you; how can we help things to work toward good? I know you say my opinion of love has no merit, but if applied freely and liberally I do believe many of those fiery deaths might be avoided.

Don’t play games. You expect more than this from others. So, who are the prospective parents that will know their child will have a low IQ?

I only suggested such action for complete psychopathic, vicious and/or murderous types. I am certainly not talking about selective breeding based on the whims of what I or anyone else considers a ‘genetic’ advantage.

If I child is abused I don’t think killing the child is an answer. If a family is poor I don’t think killing their children is the answer. If a family to raise a child then social services will come in and take the child away - protecting the life of the child is nothing like suggesting the child should never exist because they are from inferior genetic stock. There is a HUGE difference and what you’re saying appears to be purposefully clouding the lines between ‘eugenics’ and ‘protection’. True, you don’t need to protect children that don’t exist.

No, but it would be hard to be a good parent if you're starving and have no resources, and those with IQs below a certain level are pretty much fated to a hard life of exploitation. A responsible prospective parent does not procreate if they know they're not in a financial position to be able to look after any offspring; and I think a couple who know that any child they have would have a very low IQ would also, if responsible, not procreate.

We may disagree about that, but in each case my defence of caring about those kinds of thing is fundamentally the same: protecting the welfare of others. — Bartricks

If your sole valuation of human life is based on IQ. Your facile reasoning is irresponsible so maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to have children? What do you say to that? Further still, given that you may already have children perhaps they should be ‘culled’?

Remind you of anything that happened last century?

Don’t play games — Brett

No offense intended to Mr. or Miss Bartricks, but I’m wondering if one sets the premise as; why don’t we require licenses to have kids? And, we engage that premise I feel maybe we might have heard someone yell, let the games begin! Nonetheless, it is a fun game; or thought experiment. It’s a bit strange how some assign value to one thing over another. So many born with low IQ can contribute so very much and can bring incredible good to the lives of others. Arguably those with the highest intelligence can be capable of the most harm. I hope in these discussions we can help each other be less quick to judge and assume.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the premise of ‘bettering’ the human race is a noble enough idea ... often the issue is simplified with extremely detrimental effects.

It is a topic that will no doubt become more and more apparent in political circles as the sciences advance our understanding. I’ve done a fair amount of research into this subject matter and the very idea of genetics determining human productivity is grossly overestimated. More support for poor families - such as governments paying parents to spend time with their children rather than punishing them financially and driving them away from infants - would be an extremely good idea. In terms of family planning that can be combated by educating young women in poorer nations.

When I said it would be better to make certain crazies in society ‘infertile’ I meant this for highly unstable individuals as they could effectively have children in secret and then lock them up. It wasn’t anything to do with some deluded idea that their children would grow up to be the same as them - there is no conclusive evidence to show this (in fact the opposite is generally more true when it comes to abuse).

Oh, are you disappointed in me. I am not playing games. Now, I've answered your questions, answer mine. If - if - a couple knew that any child they had would have a very low IQ, should they procreate? Is that a responsible thing to do? Don't ask 'how would they know?' - that doesn't engage with the point.

I only suggested such action for complete psychopathic, vicious and/or murderous types. I am certainly not talking about selective breeding based on the whims of what I or anyone else considers a ‘genetic’ advantage. — I like sushi

Just to be clear - you are in favour of eugenics, then. Yes? By your definition of eugenics, you. are. in. favour. of. it.

My proposal is not based on 'whims' anymore than yours is. It is based on the idea that a) people do not have the right to do things if the lack the skills to do them well and when doing them badly has very bad consequences for others.

That's not a whim - it is the same basis upon which it would be justified to stop psychopaths breeding.

Regarding items like stress, anxiety and IQ, there is something called the ‘grandmother’ effect. This means that if a woman is living in high-stress circumstances when pregnant then this effects the baby. Once that baby grows and has children (regardless of upbringing) there will still be a preset inclination toward stress for their children.

Think about this. Basically this shows genetic adaptation takes places over multiple generations so to suggest IQ is a given based on parents is utterly ridiculous as there is no evidence for this because both the prenatal environment and the postnatal environment are contingent to both that child AND their grandchildren to some degree. It’s very complex and we’ve barely scratched the surface of these mechanisms - ‘mapping the genome’ didn’t help anywhere near as much as people had anticipated.

If your sole valuation of human life is based on IQ. — I like sushi

How on earth does that follow?

I think people should be prevented from breaking other people's arms. By your logic that means my sole valuation of human life is based on having usable arms.

For the record: I think people with low IQ have rights. Hell, I think my cat has rights.

Your facile reasoning is irresponsible so maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to have children? — I like sushi

Look, I know you've recently acquired this word 'facile' and you're understandably enjoying using it, but there's nothing facile about my reasoning.

Further still, given that you may already have children perhaps they should be ‘culled’? — I like sushi

Your reasoning, however, is another matter altogether.

How on earth does it follow that I'm in favour of culling existing children just if I am in favour of preventing some people from breeding?

I mean, you realize that means you - you - are in favour of culling the kids of psychopaths, yes?

I am in favour of preventing irresponsible breeding - that does not mean that I am in favour of killing those who have already been brought into existence. After all, in addition to having a right to a decent upbringing, kids also have a right not to be killed.

No. I stated clearly.

Eugenics is about selective breeding. I am against eugenics and for the protection of children born to psychopaths or other maladapted individuals - the best form of protection being to prevent them from having children (of course this is merely hypothetical because we’ve no way of knowing who is likely to become such a person - once known it would make sense that they are either locked up, made infertile, and/or have any offspring taken away from them.

This is already the case where adults with Down syndrome - depending on their mental faculties - are not allowed to raise infants just like children are not allowed to raise infants (unassisted).

It doesn’t matter how many times you try to snare me I haven’t said I am for eugenics. You can accept this or you can continue to bang your head against a wall. Which is it? Frankly I see it as a distraction from you having to defend the position you’ve set out - it’s wrong as far as I can tell so you’ll have to do more to convince me to shift.

Undoubtedly there will be a line where things are blurry, but that will be in extreme circumstances. Selective abortions is more or less where such items become socially relevant in today’s climate and what is likely to become an issue more and more this century.

I was merely painting the ‘IF’ picture. I am not attacking YOU.

I am in favour of preventing irresponsible breeding - that does not mean that I am in favour of killing those who have already been brought into existence. After all, in addition to having a right to a decent upbringing, kids also have a right not to be killed. — Bartricks

You are effectively dictating who has a right to exist.

Perhaps if you say how you’d go about ‘preventing irresponsible breeding’ I can point out clearly why it is wrong.

Attempts at goading me into anger won’t work either. If I say ‘facile’ it is because the term suits, and if i repeat it it is because I believe that you didn’t pay heed to it the first time around. If it upsets you I’m not particularly sorry because I’m not here to tread on egg shells and second guess every word I write as ‘possibly offensive’. The definition suits the situation perfectly from my perspective.

I think you're the reason I'm against licensing for procreation.

We could propose possible ‘requirements’ for such licensing. It wouldn’t be long before we begin to open up a whole load of problems and unexpected problems merely in a theoretical realm. If put into action there would be unforeseen problems too.

Such blueprints for eugenics have been applied in the past. I believe poor, mostly ethnic minorities, were paid to become sterilized.

What possible requirements would need to be met, how would they be monitored, and what loopholes could be exploited that go against the basic idea of ‘betterment’ for all?

Also, why is this a concern? We know that less developed countries are have higher population rates to mitigate child mortality. As mortality rates in infants fall so do birth rates - all of this goes hand in hand with the lessening of inequality. It is sensible to guard against lessening ‘inequalities’ by inhibiting human choices (for ‘better’ or ‘worse’). There is certainly difficulty in finding a balance and often we fall into the stupidity of believing what works now works forever - balancing is a continuous act not something we can approach in a formulaic way and then leave unattended.

There is a serious issue regarding inequality due to the cost of education. Undoubtedly recent advances in our understanding of pedagogy has widened gaps in society regarding opportunity. This could have extremely bad results in the near future. Correcting/Giving better all round education is a far better way to tackle the gap as it is the route cause - selective breeding is merely a way of covering up the problem by removing some people’s rights (selective inequality based mainly on wealth/status).

The idea that children who are up for adoption have this right, but those who are not do not, is ludicrous. And thus, it is equally ludicrous that we licence the former but not hte latter. — Bartricks

This is quite ludicrous. My view we be the reverse approach though - that is to make it easier for people to adopt rather than to make it harder for people to have children.

I used to think it was bizarre that people could be banned from having pets yet could still have children. After more thought it is down to our regard for animals generally being quite different than for humans. Animals are always (throughout there lives) unable to do much to change their circumstances, and because of this are treated as ‘inferior’ as well as being mentally ‘inferior’ and reliant upon human care in a domestic environment. Human reliance on others decreases with maturity quite drastically.

A licence for procreation is really a license to have sex without fear of getting pregnant.

Pregnancy without a license is a crime.

Accidental pregnancy is a crime. The parents are criminals. The child is removed.

Sex is a natural drive in humans.

Those without a license will need to abstain from sex (as Catholics were required to do, which didn’t work) or take contraception.

If accidental pregnancies increase in number then those without a license are required to be on contraception. This is a form of eugenics.

To not be on contraception, even if a child isn’t produced, is equal to the crime of accidental pregnancy. Contraception becomes compulsory unless you have a licence. Contraception will be administered by the state. Policing will be necessary. Proof of actually taking contraception will be required.

Because the child born to parents classified as idiots or low IQ or undesirable will be detrimental to society the pregnancy must be terminated.

Naturally there will be a black market in licenses.

Illegals will be removed from parents, even if it’s a loving, supportive relationship. Unless you can make an appeal, unless you have the money. But you’ve already broken the law, so you have a criminal record, therefore you’re unfit to be a parent.

What's your point?

This is a form of eugenics. — Brett

I know. Your point?

Is your point that the Nazis practiced a form of eugenics and that therefore it must always and everywhere be wrong?

I am assuming so, otherwise I don't see what point you could possibly be making (describing a view does not amount to criticizing it).

I am having a fence built at the moment. But I am a bit worried that it is evil to have the fence built because I've just been told that the wood has to go into a - wait for it - gas chamber. That's how they treat it. If they don't do that to it, it'll rot. They put the wood in a gas chamber and gas it and then do other things to it. But the important point is that it goes in a gas chamber - a giant one. And Nazis used gas chambers, didn't they. So that's evil, right? It's evil to put things in gas chambers.

Only no, it isn't. It kinda matters what you're using the gas chamber for. Racist holocausts - evil. Treating wood. Utterly ethically innocuous.

Now, stop being silly and thinking that if something qualifies as a eugenics policy that makes it evil and Nazi and wicked. That's every bit as stupid as thinking that all uses to which one might put a gas chamber are evil just because the Nazis put them to an evil use. It's the opposite of sensible debate - it's cheap, silly, emotive debate.

Now, we already have a eugenics policy. Children are not permitted to breed. The very seriously mentally challenged are not permitted to breed.

Are you opposed to those eugenics policies? Should children be allowed to breed? No, of course not. Yet that's a licencing scheme in all but name. If you are below a certain age, you are not permitted to breed. I am just extending that idea in sensible and, I think, ethically justifiable - I would say mandatory - ways.

Now, do children have a right to a good home and a healthy upbringing?

yes.

What's a 'right'? What does it mean to say that someone has a 'right' to something?

It means force can be used if necessary to give them it.

That's why people protest about rights - that's why people always get a bit hot under the collar when people talk about rights. It is because they're talking about the legitimate use of force - of coercion.

So, children have a 'right' to a good home and a healthy upbringing.

That means we - we moral agents, or suitable agencies operating on our behalf - are entitled to use force and coercion to give it to them.

That means that stopping someone who is clearly not going to be able to give the child he/she has a stable, happy home and a healthy upbringing is something we're entitled to do.

That's eugenics. But it is good eugenics. It is not racist eugenics. The justification is to prevent rights violations.

Perhaps you think it won't prevent rights violations, but then argue that. Don't just label it 'eugenics' and think your job is done.

Children are not held accountable. If under some policy an adult has a child in your scenario then they would be breaking the law - prison term or fine (I assume they’d likely be poor too).

Not to mention every parent screws up to some degree. We’re not robots.

Then there is the difference between children of young parents and older parents. Studies have found that younger parents tend to be less controlling and that their offspring tend to be more socially adaptable because of this whilst the children of older parents are more mollycoddled.

What exactly would be the measure for ‘good parents’?

What's your point? — Bartricks

The point is not the one sentence about eugenics. The point is the problem of authority over people, how complicated it is and the unknown knock-on effects. Because in your posts there’s no room for the sudden unexpected spark of brilliant life that comes to us randomly and unexpectedly.
It’s the randomness that’s behind the brilliance, not the ticking of boxes.

I can’t think of one moment in history that would suggest this sort of authoritarian management of life would be worth it.

But it is good eugenics. — Bartricks

Don’t you see the error in that statement?

But it is good eugenics. — Brett

No. Did you read anything I wrote about it - anything? Are you a pigeon? Everything is black and white. Eugenics = bad. Gassing = bad. Crumbs = good. Waddling and cooing = good. Pooing randomly on things = good.

Why don’t you address the rest of my post, not just eugenics? Why not address the potential problems of licensing?

The point is the problem of authority over people, how complicated it is and the unknown knock-on effects. Because in your posts there’s no room for the sudden unexpected spark of brilliant life that comes to us randomly and unexpectedly.
It’s the randomness that’s behind the brilliance, not the ticking of boxes. — Brett

Ah, the random unexpected spark - the last resort of someone who's totally lost the argument.

Should children be allowed to breed? I mean, it isn't currently allowed. You'd allow it - yes? You know, because of the unexpected spark. Or do you agree with me that that is just the most stupid argument in the world ever?

Authority - normally we don't have the moral authority to interfere with other people's private lives, and that applies a fortiori to the state. But that's because most people's private lives are the result of their own free choices.

There are exceptions. A pigeon ethicist wouldn't be able to see them. But everyone else can.

Children don't choose their parents. Their upbringing is not a result of their own free choices.

Now, are you opposed to licencing pilots? Answer please. Are you a total anarchist?

Why don’t you address the rest of my post, not just eugenics? Why not address the potential problems of licensing? — Brett

I just did. How about you address something I've argued.

I assume you now agree that eugenics is not always and everywhere wrong and that your 'that's eugenics' point was cheap?

I suspect it wouldn’t take much to have you barking orders at others. You’re posts get more and more abusive.. I don’t know why. Is it because you disagree with me or you think I’m stupid?

Why don't you answer the questions?

Are you a complete anarchist where procreation is concerned? Should it not be regulated in any way at all? Should children be allowed to breed, for instance? Or would that be irresponsible?

Are you an anarchist across the board? Are you opposed to the state regulating who can fly a plane or drive a car?

You express concerns about authority. Those are just general concerns.

Are you opposed to all interference? Should anyone and everyone be allowed to do anything to anyone? Or engage in any activity at all, no matter how great the dangers may be of doing it badly?

What principle are you appealing to?

The state mustn't interfere in anyone's life ever?

The state mustn't interfere in anyone's life unless the way they're living it poses a threat to the rights of others?

The former is not consistent with my proposal, but it is also far more controversial than it and requires robust defence - provide it.

The latter is not controversial, but is consistent with my proposal.

Should children be allowed to breed? — Bartricks

To answer one of your questions. This law is not about children breeding. It’s a law that applies to people over the age of consent. The law is not about the child but the adult.

To answer one of your questions. This law is not about children breeding. It’s a law that applies to people over the age of consent. The law is not about the child but the adult. — Brett

that's not an answer to my question. You've just told me it is against the law. Er, yes, I know. It is against the law because it would be grossly irresponsible to allow it.

Now, again, is it morally justified to prevent children from breeding - is, in other words, the law against it 'just'? yes or no?

As I just said, the law is not about children breeding.

Edit: it’s about protecting the child.

Answer the question.