Evil Parents Again...

[toddjh]

What do you consider the difference to be? Is it more than semantics?

A right is something that must be guaranteed to you, by whatever means. A liberty is something that cannot be denied, but isn't necessarily handed to you either.

Okay, I'm not inferring that the following is necessarily your view, but just following the implications of this position̫blind people, deaf people, people with other physical deficits (or even mental ones), there's no obligation on society to help them? They should be left to their own devices because, well, them's the breaks?

No, but that's not exactly what I meant either. But I think simple quality of life, not freedom of speech in particular, is the reason that society should help people in that position.

Hi! *waves* UK person here. This really doesn't mean that much to me, although I think i can empathise by reflecting on the history of democracy in my country...

Or around the world. I wouldn't trust the government to decide something so important. Just imagine what could happen if religious fanatics came to power, as they're always trying to over here.

Jeremy

 

[BillyTK]

A right is something that must be guaranteed to you, by whatever means. A liberty is something that cannot be denied, but isn't necessarily handed to you either.

Thanks for your definitions, but I don't see a difference between them; a liberty is something that must be guaranteed to you, by whatever means. A right is something which cannot be denied, but isn't necessarily handed to you either...

No, but that's not exactly what I meant either. But I think simple quality of life, not freedom of speech in particular, is the reason that society should help people in that position.

I wasn't thinking specifically in terms of free speech, but rather generalising the principle of laissez faire... I mean, "them's the breaks". However, since you've mentioned quality of life, isn't my quality of life diminished if I can't have my own children without the help of medical technology? Doesn't that place an obligation on society (and before anyone suggests it, this is not equivalent to society having an obligation to provide them with the latest [*insert consumer good of choice] to improve their quality of life!)?

Or around the world. I wouldn't trust the government to decide something so important. Just imagine what could happen if religious fanatics came to power, as they're always trying to over here.

I'm ambivalent on this one because governments have their uses. However, the thought of the religious right extending their grip on your government is... worrying.

 

[Chanileslie]

You are correct. In many (most?) cases, child abusers were themselves abused children. This is exactly what they expect, and it would only make them behave worse.

Actually, this is untrue. Most child abusers were not abused as children. They come from every walk of life, every socieconmic backgrounds and every type of living environments. It isn't understood why people abuse.

 

[toddjh]

I wasn't thinking specifically in terms of free speech, but rather generalising the principle of laissez faire... I mean, "them's the breaks". However, since you've mentioned quality of life, isn't my quality of life diminished if I can't have my own children without the help of medical technology?

Maybe, but not to the extent that it would be if you were blind.

Doesn't that place an obligation on society (and before anyone suggests it, this is not equivalent to society having an obligation to provide them with the latest [*insert consumer good of choice] to improve their quality of life!)?

It's a social contract. Society helps individuals with the expectation that they will return the favor by contributing in a positive way. It provides help for blind/deaf/disabled people (in the form of nondiscrimination laws, braille labels, disabled parking spots and entrances, etc.) so that they can function as productive citizens instead of being a burden to others.

What's the incentive for helping people have children? You could argue that you're raising the next generation of taxpayers, which is true up to a point. However, there is no particular reason why the child you raise has to be your own offspring. Society, at least in the U.S., does provide assistance for people who want children, by subsidizing costs for foster children.

Even on an individual level, it's just not economically sound to spend tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments when there are plenty of kids out there who need homes already. It's irrational behavior, and should not be encouraged.

Jeremy

 

[mgidm86]

Originally posted by Diogenes

As in my sig regarding ' Intellectual TKO's ', anything you could do to these people wouldn't register..

Sadly, any pleasure we might feel from watching them suffer, would only validate the motivation for their behavior..

That is probably true, however, the same can be said for many other types of crime and punishment as well.

I have seen the worst in people, as far as parenting goes, and it is very frustrating. Bad parenting, in my opinion, is one of the greatest contributing factors to the problems in our society, and it is one of the few things we really can't stop people from doing.

I know a woman who has 5 kids. She couldn't afford the first one, much less the other 4. There are 4 different fathers. She has, for the past 10 - 13 years, had a serious drug problem, been in and out of jail, abandoned her kids with her family without warning, and has been a huge burden and general pain in the ass for her family, as they have tried repeatedly to "help" her out.

Now her sister is taking care of 3 of the kids. It seems someone (the state or county) FINALLY realized that this chick is a piece of trash and took her kids...for now. She's getting them back in a month and she's in no better shape than before. The whole thing is very sad to me, and frustrating. She can, and just may, have even MORE kids! Only because she's too stupid to use birth control, not because she wants them. Stupidity at its finest.

So how can we as a society stop this from happening? Education? She quit school. Social programs? She's used them all. Forced sterilization? Well that sounds good in some cases, but nope. I don't think she has really broken any laws for most of this time...nothing that would get her kids taken away from her apparently, until now. That to me is just unbelievable. Her oldest is 16 years old, and lookin to follow in mom's footsteps. What do we do?

 

[toddjh]

Forced sterilization? Well that sounds good in some cases, but nope.

Sounds good to me. I think that would be for the best. If people can't afford to take care of their existing families, they certainly can't deal with an addition.

If not permanent sterilization, then maybe depo-provera injections while they're receiving aid. Now that it looks like there's something similar for men on the horizon, it might even be practical.

Jeremy

 

[BillyTK]

It's a social contract. Society helps individuals with the expectation that they will return the favor by contributing in a positive way.[...]

One of the ways is by introducing and raising the next generation (more a bit further on).

What's the incentive for helping people have children? You could argue that you're raising the next generation of taxpayers, which is true up to a point.

You're also raising the next generation of workers; although you could rely on economic migrancy, this raises the problem of inculcating the host country's culture and values, something which the family achieves far more effectively—it's one of the family's primary functions—than government can. So it's about a lot more than simply providing the next set of taxpayers. This is implicitly recognised in the social contract; otherwise the contract is kind of meaningless.

However, there is no particular reason why the child you raise has to be your own offspring. Society, at least in the U.S., does provide assistance for people who want children, by subsidizing costs for foster children.

Even on an individual level, it's just not economically sound to spend tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments when there are plenty of kids out there who need homes already. It's irrational behavior, and should not be encouraged.

Jeremy

I completely agree with you about the need for foster parents, and for the need to encourage potential parents to consider fostering. I also agree with your economic argument against fertility treatment in the face of the number of kids who need foster parents (except to note that economic arguments can be made against any, if not most rights [or liberties, depending on your point of view]). I don't agree though, that seeking fertility treatment per se is irrational behaviour, what with it being an particular expression of what seems to be an important survival trait, the fundamental need/drive to procreate.

I'll admit though I'm not particularly impressed with the idea of fertility treatments "on the government", but neither am I impressed with the idea of fertility treatment only for those who can afford it, not least because it seems like a back-door (if unintentional) form of eugenics.

In response to schplurg's comments on enforced sterilization, you say:

Sounds good to me. I think that would be for the best. If people can't afford to take care of their existing families, they certainly can't deal with an addition.

I wonder how you rationalise this with your previous comment that

I wouldn't trust the government to decide something so important. Just imagine what could happen if religious fanatics came to power, as they're always trying to over here.

For instance, why wait until these people get into "familial difficulties"; why not head 'em off at the pass?

 

[toddjh]

One of the ways is by introducing and raising the next generation (more a bit further on).

You're also raising the next generation of workers; although you could rely on economic migrancy, this raises the problem of inculcating the host country's culture and values, something which the family achieves far more effectively—it's one of the family's primary functions—than government can. So it's about a lot more than simply providing the next set of taxpayers. This is implicitly recognised in the social contract; otherwise the contract is kind of meaningless.

Well, maybe. But the underlying issue is, is it necessary to reward or provide assistance to parents? Would the ideal population growth rate still be met without this assistance? In Europe, the answer might be "no," but in the U.S. and most other regions, I'm pretty sure it's "yes."

I don't agree though, that seeking fertility treatment per se is irrational behaviour, what with it being an particular expression of what seems to be an important survival trait, the fundamental need/drive to procreate.

Something being a survival trait doesn't make it rational. It just means that it was beneficial at one time. For most of history, eating things that taste good was a survival trait. Now, it's the cause of one of the biggest health problems in the civilized world.

I'll admit though I'm not particularly impressed with the idea of fertility treatments "on the government", but neither am I impressed with the idea of fertility treatment only for those who can afford it, not least because it seems like a back-door (if unintentional) form of eugenics.

Again, it all comes back to the social value of the children. If there are already too many children, especially in poor families, does it make any sense for society to encourage people to create more?

In response to schplurg's comments on enforced sterilization, you say [sterilization should be a requirement for public assistance programs].

I wonder how you rationalise this with your previous comment that [the government should not license people to become parents]

There's no conflict. One would restrict people against their will; the other would simply be providing a choice the person could accept. If the person in question wanted a kid, well, there's nothing forcing them to accept public aid. Let them support themselves and then they can do whatever they want.

For instance, why wait until these people get into "familial difficulties"; why not head 'em off at the pass?

Umm...because then you'd be forcing people to be sterilized against their will? Not to mention the fact that you'd destroy the entire human race??

Jeremy