Having children be illegal if the parent has a family history of negative traits? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 16 years ago
#61
(Original post by thefish_uk)
If you outlawed having children without permission, then there would just be a load of kids born "outside" the system. They'd be born in someone's bedroom, have very nasty people as parents and would never officially exist without a birth certificate and not be able to go to school or get any service, anywhere, ever.
and that would be a terrible thing. Let us hope that politicians never reach that level of 'dead****ness'
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#62
(Original post by Sire)
and that would be a terrible thing. Let us hope that politicians never reach that level of 'dead****ness'
lol
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#63
Report 16 years ago
#63
I don't know much on the topic? Yet I'm the one who made the topic up? Um okay? Next time you want to come to my thread posting a bunch of your moral crap as to say you were right (oh, and yes, I believe we had the Nazi thing cleared up, and even ruled irrelevant, so we don't need you reinstating your "intelligence" on the matter, because you have offered nothing new to do the table, sorry big guy).

Firstly, I could start a thread on Tennis, but it doesn't mean I know anything about it. AS for having cleared up the nazi stuff, you do have to remember that in the time it takes to write a post other people will post too.

And the topic is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact, you idiot, so don't even try telling any of us we "don't know much on the topic"--especially when all you posted was a bunch of crap about instances that are already happening.

You really should always back up opinions with facts, and proper thought. Otherwise its plain ignorance and dogmatism.

The question is not whether or not it is possible, or if any laws already have similar parts to them, it's whether or not you would agree with it if it was true. So don't tell any of us what we do, or do not know, especially when the only fact you provided seems to be medical, which may be your forte, but most of us here are not into all the medical mumbo-jumbo, as it really even has no relevance in this case.

Of course it has relevance to the case you dumn prick. The only reason for eugenics is to benefit society. It has benefits, but real disadvantages. Modern medicine is meaning eugenics is unecessary because of prediagnoses, and increasingly effective ability to find traits in the family history.

As to the actual argument you made, past your little ignorant and disagreeable ending to the post:

As you yourself would say, my dislike of Americans is my opinion

Thought about what? The negative aspects to it? This is not the point. We as people have conversations, if you don't yet know what a conversation or discussion it, you can check your local library or even swing over to dictionary.com

You don't have blind conversations in a topic like this. This is a case when different people express their opinion. No opinion is wrong, but some are very silly and ill-concieved.

There are always going to be down-sides to every law, because every law can be broken, and unfortunately the human mind has a tendency to run around in circles over negativity without ever stopping, using it as an excuse as to why something is not good. There are more benefits than negative, other than the frequent arguments people post about, "People should be able to have kids if they want to!!!!" Um, okay? People who want kids want to fill something missing in their life. This is true. Offer me some evidence to prove otherwise, I can throw a thousand psychological arguments back at you if you wanna challenge my intelligence on this matter.

Actually the desire to have children is what drives us as a civilisation, and infact living creatures. People like myself who advocate IVF etc are simply showing compassion because we realise what a powerful driving force the desire for children is. As for the benefits, I have no doubt there are many in number, but I can offer you the power card. Our humanity. As soon as we start dictating who can breed and who can't we revert back to the actions of animals. Like a pack of dogs where only the chief ***** can mate. I don't question your intelligence, but I will question your wisdom.

And as this is true, I will tell you: I find it very selfish that these people cannot find healthier children, in the best interest of the child itself. You quoted me on this, as well, in which I repeated many valid, and excellent arguments. So I will not repeat them
Cannot find healthier children!?!?!?!?!?! You know where they come from right?

I don't care who did it. The fact that they were offered money makes it that much fairer.
I said money was offered to people in order to be sterilised so they never reproduce. But the amount was token, often just a hundred dollars by todays standards. They were taking the most desperate uneducated people in society, and tricking them out of a lineage. In the cases of mentally ill, retarded, autistic...they simply didn't tell them what they were doing. A quick high powered X-ray on the testes/ovary and bam, no children. O and often cancers as a side effect


Yes, technology is improving. Unfortunately, this technology is meant to assist the body of each living person, and this as a law would improve society, it wouldn't do any harm, except for how people may react to it. But then again, we all hated prohibition, didn't we?...not to mention making marijuana illegal, which was at one time legal, and was something lots of people enjoyed.
I can't say I understand this. As for prohibition, wasn't really there myself.

The only thing I would fear about this law is that it would lead to discrimination among peers. Oh, but don't pay any attention to me, I don't know any "facts" on the matter.
There already is discrimination. This would lead to discrimination being attributed to something else, like a crooked nose, or ginger hair. You 'law' is one step closer to a master race, even if you don't realise it.

Actually, I never proposed anything about abortion or people born with abnormalities. You brought this up, you rambled on about it, and you made it another issue. My proposal, in the original QUESTION (note it was a question, not a suggestion) was that we prevent the possibility of these "defected fetuses" to begin with.

If YOU want to go aborting people, or go protesting abortion, whatever, that's your thing.

Not to mention, children born with the abnormality and are living ARE living, it is not our job to say, "Well they wouldn't like knowing that they would have been aborted if we could detect their defects!"

Abortion of 'unfit' foetuses is the logical step from what you were proposing. Or are you now saying you didn't mean anything by it, and it was just a random question/suggestion.

And, I'll repeat, I never said anything about abortion. You brought this on YOURSELF. So you can get the hell out if you wanna get pissed off more and more as you type your own proposals.



When did I say inferior child? And I thought this was the only issue I brought? Please quit being stupid.



And where's the cut-off point? Sorry, guy, laws are not vague, and you being the big medical guru that you seem to pret...I mean seem to be, you'd know there are medical cut-off points. If your eyesight is bad, you cannot drive without glasses. If they can put cut-off points on my eye-sight, they can put cut-off points on severe medical risks. I'm sorry, I guess I have more common sense, so until now I didn't think it needed to be said.
That is a nonsense argument. The cut off point with eye sight is when you can no longer see a certain distance (which is worked out with regards to the reaction time required to stop the car safely). My whole point with the cut off argument is where exactly do you think it should lie? Would an autistic child be ok? How about Tauretes? Asperger? But then would a child with Cystic Fibrosis be unacceptable? Like I said with the abortion thing (i don't think you realised my point) people will always abuse a law/rule. So whereas I don't class Cleft palate as a viable disability, some parents do. I don't think you know (being American) there's quite alot of stuff going on in Britain with regards toa new law ruling on what disabilities qualify for termination post 12 weeks.

And if people get pregnant with high risk genes, I never suggested screening or abortion, but being that it would be illegal, they would be taken to trial and sentenced accordingly (if not jailtime, a fine, in case you want to be even dumber and ask what the setencings might be--honestly, you have a ****ing head, use your imagination).
Taken to jail for what crime (sorry I've lost the line of thought here).

Looking back at all the posts I have expanded on your original view and then argued against it (so for everyone else, he's right in saying he never said anything about abortion etc) But lets face it, if you are going to bring up a viewpoint, be prepared to give proper arguments for it. I'm yet to see anything that would advocate a 'yes' in your poll
J
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#64
Report 16 years ago
#64
(Original post by caz)
Thanks for the history lesson, however it made absolutely no difference. It was put into effect because overpopulation. Was this not my point? And conditions became poor. Men outnumbered women? This may be true, but is only part of the reason, and still makes no difference to the point being made.

What not go near the "diseases and viruses" comment? Come doctor! Enlighten us! As you seem to have skipped over most of the thread and felt that I was the one making up arguments, when in reality (yes, I have recollection of reality too!) I was actually responding.
I meant this thread is basically about eugenics. You don't want to associate eugenics with anything to do with infectious diseases. Its a minefield
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#65
Blind arguments from the guy who thought saying Native Americans first started usage of nicotine means Americans invented smoking--then who argues Americans didn't start smoking, but it in fact originated in South America LOL

You have no clue. Moving on now...
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#66
(Original post by foolfarian)
I meant this thread is basically about eugenics. You don't want to associate eugenics with anything to do with infectious diseases. Its a minefield
Well you ignored a lot of the thread, where you will see the part about viruses and diseases was a followup to the guy who said (I think it was thefish_uk) that more and more diseases keep coming. And, also, infectious diseases and viruses can be trasmitted through birth, so even if I had brought it up out of nowhere, it still was relevant.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#67
Report 16 years ago
#67
(Original post by caz)
Blind arguments from the guy who thought saying Native Americans first started usage of nicotine means Americans invented smoking--then who argues Americans didn't start smoking, but it in fact originated in South America LOL

You have no clue. Moving on now...
No, I actually pointed out that Americans DIDN'T invent smoking, and DIDN'T first use tobacco. I distinctly recall saying that it was silly to think that it was americans who came up with it
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#68
Report 16 years ago
#68
(Original post by caz)
Well you ignored a lot of the thread, where you will see the part about viruses and diseases was a followup to the guy who said (I think it was thefish_uk) that more and more diseases keep coming. And, also, infectious diseases and viruses can be trasmitted through birth, so even if I had brought it up out of nowhere, it still was relevant.
Actually you'll find Saf! was spot on "u can't completely stop diseases........................ new ones form every now and then...................and it would be impossible to stop a huge number of ppl from having kids!"
He's absolutely bang on. You respond with 'but it would help!' but to be honest it really wouldn't help all that much. Not by the method you proposed which was to step parents with inherite diseases having children.

Now the point you made above was about vertical transmission - transmission to a baby. Lets say for arguments sake that you marry and your wife is pregnant. She somehow gets infected with Hep B. When the baby is born it also is Hep positive.
Do you think that baby should be killed there and then, or sterilised, what?
J
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#69
Report 16 years ago
#69
(Original post by lala)
They put to death many Germans because of their hereditary diseases, and sterilised many more. Some of them were blonde haired and blue eyed you know!
LALA, you can't discuss that! It's already been mention!!

If sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, call me the wit-less wonder
J
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#70
Report 16 years ago
#70
I love when people start trying to make value judgements on someone elses life.

I'd put some more arguements against your dreaming ideas caz but looking at the poll results I don't think it's needed - you're doing a good enough job of persuading people to see sense on your own
0
deadflower1984
Badges: 0
#71
Report 16 years ago
#71
How would you stop people having kids? Mass sterilisation, aversion therapy to stop people having sex? Not going to work! And neither should it work. I know a lot of people with very negative traits, and unfortunately there is no history of illness etc in their family. They are actually just horrible people. Why not prevent right wingers having kids?
0
preyingmantis
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 16 years ago
#72
(Original post by deadflower1984)
How would you stop people having kids? Mass sterilisation, aversion therapy to stop people having sex? Not going to work! And neither should it work. I know a lot of people with very negative traits, and unfortunately there is no history of illness etc in their family. They are actually just horrible people. Why not prevent right wingers having kids?
i see caz has strangely gone quiet...
0
stuck!!!!
Badges: 0
#73
Report 16 years ago
#73
I know that in many countries, young people (especially girls) with (usually quite severe) mental handicaps are sterilised. Usually the girls cannot understand this consept, and so cannot give consent, it is done on their parents wishes. This is supposed to be to stop them getting pregnant, especially as they can often not understand the possible 'side effects' of sex. They are often suseptible to men who can take advantage of them, and so may be likely to get pregnant. They would not be able to bring up a child, but they would suffer if they had to give birth, AND the child could run the risk of inheriting the disease. Surely therefore there is SOME argument for not allowing people with some types of diseases to have children.
Please understand I am only applying this to people with severe mental handicaps, who are not able to understand the responsibilities of having a child. I believe that all people who would be capable of raising a child, inspite of there own , or its disabilites. should have the opportunity to do so.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 16 years ago
#74
(Original post by stuck!!!!)
I know that in many countries, young people (especially girls) with (usually quite severe) mental handicaps are sterilised. Usually the girls cannot understand this consept, and so cannot give consent, it is done on their parents wishes. This is supposed to be to stop them getting pregnant, especially as they can often not understand the possible 'side effects' of sex. They are often suseptible to men who can take advantage of them, and so may be likely to get pregnant. They would not be able to bring up a child, but they would suffer if they had to give birth, AND the child could run the risk of inheriting the disease. Surely therefore there is SOME argument for not allowing people with some types of diseases to have children.
Please understand I am only applying this to people with severe mental handicaps, who are not able to understand the responsibilities of having a child. I believe that all people who would be capable of raising a child, inspite of there own , or its disabilites. should have the opportunity to do so.
very discerning post
0
Tribi18
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 16 years ago
#75
(Original post by Saf!)
i don't think that's fair though......................it's not the parents fault they've got a disease etc..
I dont think its fair but people shud still b able 2.. bless em.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#76
Report 16 years ago
#76
(Original post by stuck!!!!)
I know that in many countries, young people (especially girls) with (usually quite severe) mental handicaps are sterilised. Usually the girls cannot understand this consept, and so cannot give consent, it is done on their parents wishes. This is supposed to be to stop them getting pregnant, especially as they can often not understand the possible 'side effects' of sex. They are often suseptible to men who can take advantage of them, and so may be likely to get pregnant. They would not be able to bring up a child, but they would suffer if they had to give birth, AND the child could run the risk of inheriting the disease. Surely therefore there is SOME argument for not allowing people with some types of diseases to have children.
Please understand I am only applying this to people with severe mental handicaps, who are not able to understand the responsibilities of having a child. I believe that all people who would be capable of raising a child, inspite of there own , or its disabilites. should have the opportunity to do so.
Handicaped or not, if someone is incapable of raising a child then social services will remove the child. WEll, thats how its meant to work, everyone knows stories about the failsafes...failing
J
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 16 years ago
#77
(Original post by preyingmantis)
i see caz has strangely gone quiet...
She is in the US so is at least 5 hours behind the UK...I wouldn't expect her to surface again until the evening
0
TK0
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#78
Report 16 years ago
#78
return to let the panzers roll or something
0
caz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#79
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
I love when people start trying to make value judgements on someone elses life.

I'd put some more arguements against your dreaming ideas caz but looking at the poll results I don't think it's needed - you're doing a good enough job of persuading people to see sense on your own
My dreaming ideas? Actually I was just supporting the idea, I never actually said I would support the law. Everybody is arguing morals of a parent deserving to spread their seed, when in reality there are lots of children out there to take that place.

I even voted NO. It's not my fault if you all wanna play war

(Original post by preyingmantis)
i see caz has strangely gone quiet...
Or I actually have a life?

And foolfarian made it clear how ignorant people can be, and how stupid they can be on such a subject, so I got bored. Him and his little, "I know facts, facts, facts!!!!" on a subject that involves opinion. Geeks like him are always steering threads away
0
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#80
Report 16 years ago
#80
(Original post by lala)
Well, from the poll it looks like we're all pretty much agreed. uk-learning doing me proud, well done peeps!
Even I agree with you on this one.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (530)
66.75%
No (264)
33.25%

Watched Threads

View All