BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The Right to Breed

  
 
6opow
18:25 / 31.07.01
OK. In the Switchboard there is a post concerning child models. Within this post there is a conversation about "...the wrong people breeding." Now, some of you may recall how I feel about this topic, but let's ignore that for now as well.

This thread will address the following:

1) Does everyone have the right to breed?
2) Does this right supersede society's right to somehow control or contain breeding?
3) What are the responsibilities of the parent?
4) Are such responsibilities able to be enforced by an outside source?
5) Any other relevant thoughts, themes, and ideas related to procreation.

Please, let's keep this friendly. I know this is a very touchy subject, but let us attempt to discuss it lucidly and with rigour; which is to say, if you think someone else is making some sort of morally questionable statement, then explain why, but do not simply start the name calling or the piss giving. Thank you.
 
 
tracypanzer
18:41 / 31.07.01
This is a great topic, and something I've been thinking about since that exchange in the child model thread {shudder}. Another question, possibly: what role does religion play in all of this?

You can see all the electronic eggshells scattered around this topic...
 
 
SMS
22:28 / 31.07.01
In my opinion no one has a right to anything. The word is one we can use for the sake of convenience, and to help simplify matter, but when analysis on the subject of morals is to be made, the concept of rights really needs to be thrown out the window.

So then, all we are really allowed to ask is practical questions, like

  • Would it benefit society if certain people didn't breed? Whatever the hell that means, I think we can agree that indeed it would.
  • Is it best to prevent particular people from having children against their will?
    This isn't a close call for most people. Putting such a policy into practise would require something like sterilization, which, to me seems monstrous. I will elaborate if anyone disagrees with me
  • Is it best to discourage particular people from having children?
    Yes, and I think we do. We discourage teenagers from having children (with some success), and perhaps we ought to discourage others as well.
  • Is it best to look upon people who breed (that we feel shouldn't) with contempt and scorn? No. Contempt and scorn are never good.



This doesn't really help us to judge another's action is good or evil, but then, I don't think we ought to be doing that anyway.

Though for the sake of making some progress, when would it be best to recommend to your friend that $he not breed?

I would say so for anyone who has royally fucked up their own lives, who hasn't ever been in a stable relationship, who cannot support children, who has pedophelia (even if they're being treated), who has been abusive to another, who just can't imagine going a week without getting hammered, and others.
 
 
deletia
06:13 / 01.08.01
I think it's interesting to note that SMatthew above asks under what circumstances one shoud advise a friend not to breed.

Which is to say, it is very rare for proponents of elective termination, enforced sterilisation or any other method of curtailing the reproductive capabilities of a selected section of a populus to conclude that they are among the group which should incur that curtailment. Partly, perhaps, because they are rationally aware that iof they claimed they were not to trusted with their own gametes, the mass might inquire as to their qualification to proscribe the gametes of others.

Point being, even if we acknowledge that it would be better if some *people* did not/had not bred, is there any rubric by which a common element (or elements) can be identified the presence of which identifies an individual or group as not entitled to breed? Smatthew does not mention recreational pot smokers or ecstacy users, for example. Others might.

Thoughts?
 
 
ephemerat
10:01 / 01.08.01
Consider a woman pregnant with her ninth child. Of the previous eight children three were deaf, two were blind and one was mentally retarded. The father was a violent drunk and she was riddled with syphilis. Should she have been allowed to breed again? Should she ever have been allowed to breed?

Does it make any difference when you know that the child was Ludwig van Beethoven?

Orphanage boy, Louis Armstrong’s mother was a prostitute. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s father was a cruelly vile despot who was so hated that his own serfs rose up and killed him.

What makes a child?

The Victorians knew all about the Criminal Mind and the Criminal Class: what Mayhew (London Labour and the London Poor) called ‘the nomadic races’, ‘the wandering tribes’, the ‘other race’ with ‘their lax ideas of property... their general improvidence... their repugnance to continuous labour... their disregard of female honour... their love of cruelty - their pugnacity - and their utter want of religion.’

And they shipped them to Australia.

Which, while having crime rates as high as in the UK, hardly qualifies as the set of a John Carpenter movie.

In other words: genetics might be just a bit more complex than we give it credit for, and the way in which a child is brought up might be a bit more important than behavioural Darwinism might lead us to believe.

Or, less politely: Fuck Eugenics.
 
 
angel
10:23 / 01.08.01
Ummm, at the risk of sounding monsterously stupid ...

What is Eugenics?


And other question ...

Is it more that we don't want certain ideas to breed (Bigotry, Racism, Physical/Mental Abuse, etc) and therefore because children are influenced by their parents (in one way or another) we would really like certain people NOT to breed??

and of course the really sticky question ...

Who gets to regulate this? (or does that one send us down the slippery slope to name calling, etc?!!)
 
 
The Mr E suprise
11:49 / 01.08.01
eugenics n : the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)

To quote George Orwells 1984 (badly) "the only future is in the Proles, we are the dead".

I've never liked the "they shouldn't be allowed to breed" atitude. To echo The Haus of Jericho's comments, The 'they' is normally anyone perceived to be "common" and therefore stupid/bad. (IMHO it's usually held by people who aren't as clever as they'd like to be, but I digress.)

I think, the idea that before you have children, the parents should have training on what that means is a sound one, but I have no idea where you start, or how you would stop "unqualified" people from performing one of the definitions of life.

Should we teach basic childcare in school? Child Psychology? Should we lock up all our teens in a room with only a robotic baby for company, until they crack? Would this make a difference in the way people are raised?

Note that I'm avoiding the idea that you could form a 'good' society by only allowing the good citizens to raise more citizens. Look at my careful eggshell stepping. (Are those goose eggs? No goosestepping for me )

On a related note, does anyone know anything about Australias "put aboriginal children with white families" scheme? I know it happened, but I've never seen any studies on its effects, nor do I know much about it.

[ 01-08-2001: Message edited by: The Mr E suprise ]
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
12:17 / 01.08.01
quote:Originally posted by The Mr E suprise:
On a related note, does anyone know anything about Australias "put aboriginal children with white families" scheme? I know it happened, but I've never seen any studies on its effects, nor do I know much about it.
It was, as I understand it, a process of removal that happened at around the same time that the "white Australia" immigration policy was still in effect.

The SMH has a relatively good site here, the findings of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families is here, and The Age's archive is here. From the SMH site: quote:Key points
• An estimated 100,000 children were taken from their parents over 60 years
• 10 per cent of Aborigines over 25 were removed from their parents in childhood, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures in 1994.
• Other reports estimated the number at 47 per cent
• NSW admitted in June 1997 that between 1940-1969 it separated at least 8,000 children, and said the real figure was likely to be much higher.
• In May 1997 the report ' Bringing Them Home' by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was published.
• It called for a Government apology, compensation and a national Sorry Day. It said the Government's policies had amounted to genocide.
• On October 8, 1996 Senator Herron, borrowing Lady Macbeth's line, told the Senate: "What's done cannot be undone."
• In July 1997 the Catholic and Anglican Churches apologised for their role in the stolen generation policy.
• On August 26, 1999 Federal Parliament passed a historic declaration of "deep and sincere regret" for past injustices to Aborigines. It did not mention 'stolen generations'

I'm not there at the moment - maybe Rosa or someone closer to home could comment? One of the biggest problems is that there seems to be a lack of governmental acceptance of their role in the situation - or, rather, an inability to apologise for the actions of the previous administrations. Which seems to be a major thorn in the side of reconciliation.

And no, despite all this fucktardery, we're not quite a John Carpenter set. Though sometimes, Bathurst on a Saturday night can come pretty close...
 
 
Ria
19:01 / 01.08.01
we have a number of topics here...

eugenics as applied to ethnic groups.

eugenics applied to people who have genes for retardation, blindness, whatever.

and making sure that people from certain environments don't have kids. (I don't know if you can, technically, call this eugenics.)

one does not nessecarily mean the other.

will write more maybe once I have given this a think.
 
 
GRIM
21:30 / 01.08.01
Eugenics is coloured in everyone's minds by nazism associations and with the mindless hysteria about GM that has been going on.

The human race no longer adapts through natural selection. And we don't choose for strong traits any more.

The species is weak, and weakening.

being more selective or applying GM is the only way to do anything about it.

We could wipe out all genetic disorders in two generations with sufficient will to do so.

doubtless someone will find this idea unspeakably awful...
 
 
Cat Chant
21:50 / 01.08.01
quote:Originally posted by GRIM:
The human race no longer adapts through natural selection. And we don't choose for strong traits any more.

The species is weak, and weakening.

being more selective or applying GM is the only way to do anything about it.



Why do we need to do anything about it? Seriously? We seem to be getting along okay. We may be weak and weakening but we can still fuck over all the other species on the planet... weak as against what? what sort of 'strength' would you like to see in the human species? (Sorry if this sounds confrontational, I genuinely don't understand what you're getting at.)

Angel said:

quote:Is it more that we don't want certain ideas to breed (Bigotry, Racism, Physical/Mental Abuse, etc) and therefore because children are influenced by their parents (in one way or another) we would really like certain people NOT to breed??


That's a *really* interesting idea, and starts getting towards the idea of parent training - and whether this should be the responsibility of the State, thru education, or of the family, which seems to be the most important part of this debate. How far should the privacy of the family be placed above the welfare of the child, or vice versa? The problem seems to be the set-up that pits nuclear family against the State as the source of moral judgements about child-rearing, as if it could be only one or the other that took ultimate responsibility for child welfare.

So maybe the answer is: get rid of the nuclear family.

Also in response to angel, the whole idea of "reproduction" is being called into question - kind of like ephemerat's post about Beethoven's mum, which (I thought) points out that the consequences of breeding are not just producing little replicas of the 'inadequate' parents, or producing defective humans through the simple reproduction of genes. Ideas change too as they get handed down the generations... it's not like a factory line, mass-reproducing identical bigotry & genetic defects...

Rambling now. Going.
 
 
Ierne
11:34 / 02.08.01
Not sure where this fits in the argument...but many of the children that are abused, neglected, etc. are also unwanted. . This is the case whether or not one is dealing with a single, underaged, impoverished mother, a married, adult well-off heterosexual couple, or any variation in between.

I think the subject of effective, accessible contraception is an essential component of any conversation dealing with child rearing (and who should/should'nt have kids). That, and accessibility of information about various methods of birth control. A lot of people considered "unfit" would probably be more than happy to use contraception if they knew about it, how to use the various methods properly and WHERE TO GET THEM WITHOUT HASSLE.

[ 02-08-2001: Message edited by: Ierne ]
 
 
ephemerat
14:51 / 02.08.01
Thanks Deva, that was indeed part of what I was intimating. Genetics, upbringing, personality, intelligence, endurance etc. are part of a complex and capricious dance of interactions not amenable to simplistic reduction.

GRIM, the species isn’t ‘weakening’. It is, as always, existing, surviving and dying within an environment. It’s just that, now more than ever, we are altering that environment. Now (let’s leave GM alone for a minute – I’m a lot more favourably disposed, if incredibly cautious, when it comes to GM) regarding eugenics, I assume that in reference to ‘weakening the species’ we’re talking primarily about four types of individuals: Those for whom the range of modern health care has ensured that they survive infectious diseases which previously would have killed them (so that they can therefore pass their non-disease-resistant genes to other generations); those who modern health care has allowed to survive (and breed) despite having potentially lethal or debilitating genetic disorders; those who are physically not strong, and finally; those who are weakening the collective intellect by spawning further mental midgets.

To deal with the disease-resistant: Firstly; disease resistance is generally specific to a type of disease. You may be resistant to typhoid or cholera, but it doesn’t mean that you are going to be resistant to hepatitis, measles or mumps. What’s more, new diseases are constantly appearing and old diseases are constantly changing. We are living in a soup of seething, teeming, tiny organisms upon which all life on this planet is dependent. Unfortunately this means that a whole host of bacteria, viruses and prions are just waiting to be levelled at any of us at any time. That are, in fact, bombarding us constantly. Eugenics is slow, cumbersome and ultimately ineffective in response to the sheer profusion of diseases and the terrific rate at which they evolve (far faster than us human slow-coaches due to the faster rates of reproduction) – better to use medicine be it technological, homeopathic or psychological (whatever works), and while we’re at it, why not explore the possibilities of nanotechnology instead, a hugely promising avenue when it comes to fighting both disease and aging?

Next, those with potentially lethal or debilitating genetic disorders: Firstly I’d like to take issue with the assertion that ‘We could wipe out all genetic disorders in two generations with sufficient will to do so’. This just isn’t true; what we could do is reduce the numbers of those born with genetic disorders but we would never wipe it out. DNA is always open to mutations or injurious combinations - that’s evolution – eugenics can not, and will not, change that. Secondly; reductions in the available gene pool have almost always resulted in further proliferation of genetic disorders as recessive genes have a higher probability of combining. Thirdly; this argument always strikes me as being more economic than health-orientated (ie relating to the cost of health care for the individual) – perhaps we should try asking anyone with a genetic disorder as to whether they feel they should have been born, if they are indeed, genetic abominations? I would suggest, however, that it may be somewhat easier (and less emotionally harrowing) for us to ask ourselves whether people like Ray Charles, Franz Kafka, Woody Guthrie and Professor Stephen Hawking should ever have been born? Incidentally, Professor Hawking has a beautiful wife and two healthy children. Fourthly; knowing that we would never wipe out genetic disorders we would therefore need to maintain a state of constant eugenic watchfulness. Do we really want to hand any further control of our bodies, our right to reproduce to a corporation or nation-state? Cause, sure as apples, they wouldn’t simply restrict their endeavours to physical disorders…

Sorry but I can’t take these last two seriously:

Next up: the physically not strong? We have guns and fork-lift trucks these days, I can think of other more important traits quite frankly…

Lastly: the mental midgets. Firstly; we as yet have no reliable means of testing intelligence. Secondly; we have a lot of evidence that suggests that intelligence is strongly related to upbringing rather than genetics (current split is rated at 48% genetic/52% education). Thirdly; ethically it sucks. Fourthly; let me repeat again, we have no reliable means of testing intelligence.

In summary: please – eugenics is a pseudo-science. It’s ineffective at everything it sets out to do, it’s morally reprehensible and it represents a complete decimation of personal freedom.
 
 
ephemerat
15:28 / 02.08.01
My apologies for extreme flippancy on the last few points due to limitations of time. I will speak more about stupid or bigoted people breeding, about the role of the state in reproduction and other, more useful alternatives (like GM or gene therapy) tomorrow.

Thanks for your time and patience.
 
 
grant
15:31 / 02.08.01
You know, people might have the right to breed, but they currently don't have the right to raise children. The State frequently removes kids from "unfit families." Routinely, even.
'Swhat my girlfriend used to do.
 
 
SMS
09:56 / 03.08.01
http://www.vhemt.org/

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
 
 
Devin 1984
09:56 / 03.08.01
I have no doubt that mother nature will correct our overpopulation problems at some point.

A historical side note, many vikings used to kill newborns if they were deformed. It helped keep their people strong. (I'm not suggesting this.)
 
 
Raven
09:56 / 03.08.01
Devin - you're doubtless right. I do wish that we would limit our reproductive powers on our own, but it's obviously not happening. This would be the type of reproductive curtailing I would support; not targeted at any specific group (even the mental midgets, much as I'd prefer not to have to deal with them) but restricting the number of children anyone can have so that eventually we would have a bit more of the resources and space on the planet for everyone.
 
 
Saveloy
09:56 / 03.08.01
*reads ephemerat's post, throws hat up in air and cheers*

Raven:

"I do wish that we would limit our reproductive powers on our own, but it's obviously not happening."

Funny enough there was a bit in the paper yesterday about recent predictions for population size and the current rates of reproduction. Apparently the birth rate needs to be 2.1 (I presume that means an average of 2.1 kids per couple) for one generation to replace the next with no increase or decrease. I suppose the .1 takes into account those who die before reproducing. Anyhow, it said that "in many countries the birth rate is already well below that." The main headline bit was that the total population of Earth was predicted to reach a peak of about 9 billion (in about 2020, I think) and then start decreasing to 8.4 billion (when it would reach that point, and what would happen after that I can't remember).

It might be worth doing a web search for a more detailed account.

"This would be the type of reproductive curtailing I would support; not targeted at any specific group (even the mental midgets, much as I'd prefer not to have to deal with them)..."

Hmm, well if you're smart enough you can get a job with a big salary and buy a big house out in the wilds (plenty of space too), or a home in one of those walled-in communities with gates and security guards, and you'll never have to deal with another mental midget again. Actually, I wonder if our space problems aren't the fault of the mental midgets but the clever buggers who buy up all the land, the clever buggers whose businesses decide what is done with the land and it's resources. And the state, of course - in Britain, I think it's the M.O.D. who are the biggest land owners (is that right, anyone?)

"...but restricting the number of children anyone can have so that eventually we would have a bit more of the resources and space on the planet for everyone."

But how much space, exactly? What do you think is the ideal amount of space per person? What's the ideal number of people? Are we (by which I mean the human race in general) actually suffering because of too many people full stop or is it a question of distribution?
 
 
Devin 1984
18:47 / 04.08.01
>>>>Hmm, well if you're smart enough you can get a job with a big salary and buy a big house out in the wilds (plenty of space too), or a home in one of those walled-in communities with gates and security guards, and you'll never have to deal with another mental midget again. <<<<<<<<

Wrong. You'll find more mental midgets in those suburban communities than outside.

I am against child limits, simply because it invites too much government control. It opens the doors for a lot of abuse (concealed higher restrictions on minorities etc.). I just don't think any government should have the right to tell me how many children my wife and I can have.

Humans screw with nature enough already. We are evolving technologically much faster than we are ethically. We

In my opinion, I think we should just let mother nature cleanse us. We have so many sickly people, so many diseases that are becoming resistant to modern medicine, and we are raping the world so quickly it has to rebalance itself.

But to have faith in that reversal is quite hard. I see why many people want to jumpstart the process through limiting the number of children etc., but I think mother nature will do a much better job than we will. Just my opinion.
 
 
Mordant Carnival
19:01 / 04.08.01
'Mental midgets'? I just cannot BEGIN to tell you how badly that phrase makes me want to puke on my shoes.

No. You can't dictate who gets to breed and who doesn't. Fuck that. I just know who's going to be forcibly sterilized first: can you say 'working classes', children? Followed swiftly by anybody who might pass on nasty subversive ideas to their offspring. Oh yeah- that would be us.

You want to put the kibosh on the population explosion? Educate the women. Teach women to read and watch how many kids they don't have.

You want to stop teenage single girls getting knocked up? Proper, sympathetic sex ed in schools, free contraception, and less media pressure while we're at it.

You want to get rid of genetic 'defects'?
Kill yourself. No, really. I mean it. Guns, knives, cyanide, it's all the same to me, ADOLPH. Kill yourself. You'll improve the overall quality of the human race in a small yet significant way.

[ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: Mordant Carnival ]
 
 
6opow
19:51 / 04.08.01
"Ehhxcellent."

Well I see we are coming along fine here--many interwoven issues. Reminds me of how much of an idealist I am at times, and how I often let myself forget about the real world (or maybe I ought to have used those star thingies, like this: *the real world*? I'm not sure what those stars are supposed to do. Anyone care to elaborate?)

I agree that we need to avoid eugenics: who's to say that a certain stock (racial) is better than others. I do not want to see an "us" and "them" solution; rather (and here is some of that idealism I was mentioning), it has to be a "we" need to stop breeding.

And no, it is not about "killing the mental midgets;" rather, it is about reducing the chances that children grow up deprived of opportunity.

The way I see it is that the more of us there are, the easier it is to maintain this fucked up system where there is a very tiny portion of the population who are the rulers and rich (and of course their kids get the best education right?), while the majority of us get fucked over and raped on a daily basis by this small, elite group.

John Lennon said that the easiest way to change a society is through its music, but I disagree: the easiest way to change a society is to reduce its population (although, the actual reduction is the tricky bit). It seems fairly clear that if there was less (and I mean way less people), then many of our Western societal ills would vanish. It would be easier to care about and support each other if there were not so damn many of us trying to define our differences by forming little groups and cliques that are not "their" groups and cliques.

[ramble]The goal reminds me (again, in idealistic ways) of the original four issue "Books of Magic" series. Recall where the boy ends up at the end of time and there are only archetypes left hangin' 'round. Well, in the spirit of the external = the internal, we are all archetypes, and we all compose the "collective psyche." A problem concerning our numbers is that this collective becomes more and more fragmented and "schizoid" the more god/dess(es) (read: every individual) we have roaming about this world. In other words, it appears that the more of us there are, the more we need an elite to rule the masses (because mob mentality gets lower the higher the numbers), which contributes significantly to our bondage and misery.

Freedom (and I mean real freedom: spooky, scary, terrible freedom) will come when we can (each and every one of us) realize our divinity here and now, and this is not possible under such fractured Selfhood. Less people = more divinity (without the loss of any one individual's divinity (unlike now where only the few are divine, and only in strictly artificial terms)).[/ramble]

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
 
 
Verbal Kint
20:17 / 04.08.01
I don't want to drag this thread off track, but beyond the genetic issue of controlled breeding there is a larger ethical issue which encompasses procreation in general. With the right to "breed" comes a responsibility - in this day and age we seem to have a lot of talk of rights and little about responsibility.

While it is wrong for the government to dictate who can have children, it would be beneficial to provide public education reenforcing good parenting practices from the time kids are say, 10 years old. It would be nice if parents would do this, but realistically most don't, so like sex education it falls to the schools.

Teach kids that there is a HUGE amount of responsibility in parenting beyond just conceiving and giving birth. Sex education is important, but it's not *just* about telling kids about STD's and contraception anymore. Since kids are going to have sex and get pregnant young, they better have some idea how to parent. Since many don't see good parenting at home, where should they learn it?

Also, it's time to lose the fairy tale idea put forth by society that everyone grows up, gets married, and has babies. This is most definately an idea which is pushed on women. Perhaps it would be more positive to position "breeding" as something you should do if you really, really want children.

Just because most people can breed doesn't mean they should - but the individual should be educated to the point where they can determine that for themselves and not be pushed by society/religion/family into having kids.

[ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: Verbal Kint ]
 
 
bio k9
09:35 / 05.08.01
I'm wondering how many of you have children. Everywhere I go I look at people and the way they behave and think to myself "Oh, god, my daughter is going to go to school with their children." And it worries me.

That being said, I want no part of a society that has laws deciding who can give birth to children or what those children should be taught in regards to 'morals" and "values".

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Biologic K-9 ]
 
 
Verbal Kint
09:35 / 05.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Biologic K-9:

...what those children should be taught in regards to 'morals" and "values".

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Biologic K-9 ]

I am not questioning your personal parenting skills (really), but in making the statement above, are you assuming that the majority of parents are teaching their children morals and values? If you are having the described reaction to people you meet, do you feel these people are doing a great job of imparting their own morals and values to their children? Or is it the morals of the parents that are the problem?

I wasn't suggesting that the government teach morals and values - I was talking about the life skills necessary to parent - and the seriousness of being a parent.

But that being said, what do you do when a parent won't or can't impart morals or values on their child? Without this parental guidance you can end up with some seriously disturbed children. Years ago there was a larger social structure which encompassed religion, community and family which supported a parent in raising a child. That is pretty much gone.

So, barring government intervention, what is the alternative? Personal responsibility doesn't seem to be working.

I don't have an answer on any of this - just more questions.

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Verbal Kint ]
 
 
Mordant Carnival
20:33 / 05.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Biologic K-9:
...Everywhere I go I look at people and the way they behave and think to myself "Oh, god, my daughter is going to go to school with their children." And it worries me.

[ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: Biologic K-9 ]

[threadjack] So deschool her and teach her yourself. If you're really lucky, she'll turn out almost as well-balanced as me [/threadjack]

We seem to be entering another debate here, not on nature but nurture.

I'm inclined to see a lot of the concerns raised here as a matter of underresourcing.

For example: I'd be scared to death of having a baby in my current circumstances because there's a good chance that if a Carnival Jr ever occurs, s'he will pop out complete with a wonderful selection of genetic disturbances- asthma, epilepsy, short sight, various psychiatric screwups, etc, etc. Factoring in hir probable daddy, these problems can only be compounded.

Now, I certainly don't feel that any of these genetic conditions ought to be a bar on a full, happy and productive life, but looking back at my own experience I can only conclude that they probably will be unless I am in the position of being able to provide private healthcare (not to mention contact lenses).

Most of the problems that have been raised here can be seen not as problems with breeding, but as problems with underresourcing. By resources, I don't just mean monetary resources. I mean resources in terms of experience, help, cultural diversity. Your Granny is a resource. Your kid is a resource. The bloke in the corner shop is a resource. I'm a resource. You're a resource.

I suppose what I'm talking about here is a restructuring of society so as to be more inclusive (hey, if you're going to grow up having shit shovelled into your head, it might as well be 57 flavours of shit).

BTW- all genetic disorders in two generations? Oh, PUHLEEEEEEEEEEZE!
 
 
GRIM
05:59 / 06.08.01
What annoys me is that the pro-lifers (crap term) and the other 'life is sacred' protest types are ALSO the people (largely) campaigning against genetic research et al which could correct these problems by easier means.
Grr.
 
 
—| x |—
06:15 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Verbal Kint:
With the right to "breed" comes a responsibility - in this day and age we seem to have a lot of talk of rights and little about responsibility.

I was talking about this with a group of friends the other day. Some of us thought it was strange that we need a license to drive a car, or own a gun, but we can have as many kids as we want.

The idea was not so much that the government should dictate who should have kids, but more this idea of parental responsibility. People want their "right to breed," but they do not want and/or are not ready for the responsibility involved in such a task.

I see that most of us feel that better education is the answer, but how do we better the education when the trend seems the exact opposite. I mean, the curriculum in schools seems to be getting easier all the time.
 
 
6opow
08:46 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by SMatthewStolte:
http://www.vhemt.org/

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Thank you for this wonderful link (I only now checked it out). This site is exactly what I'm trying to get at.

Mad, mad props fer ya' SMatthewStolte!
 
 
Mordant Carnival
16:43 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by GRIM:
What annoys me is that the pro-lifers (crap term) and the other 'life is sacred' protest types are ALSO the people (largely) campaigning against genetic research et al which could correct these problems by easier means.
Grr.

I concurr. Grrrrrr!
 
 
Verbal Kint
10:56 / 07.08.01
quote:Originally posted by GRIM:
What annoys me is that the pro-lifers (crap term) and the other 'life is sacred' protest types are ALSO the people (largely) campaigning against genetic research et al which could correct these problems by easier means.
Grr.

<slighlty off topic rant>
Alot of "pro-lifers" I have met are simply misogynists hiding behind a cause. If you took away their "legitimate" reasons for controlling womens lives what bat could they swing to make sure they controlled what women could do with their bodies? I have sat through lectures given to me by former friends who got into that movement where they carefully explained all of the things that were evil about being pro-choice (another crap term). When quizzed on what to do about issues like this or what to do with all the unwanted children that would be produced by putting their beliefs into legislation the answer was, "I don't know, it's just wrong for women (! I about fell over) to mess with God's plan". I guess they think for their God, and have intimate knowlege of all his/her plans.

It doesn't make me feel better that we have a huge lobby of people in Washington who think this way, as well as half the senate and house, and the attorney general. And then their is GW, pandering to them all.

</slighlty off topic rant>

You can forget any sort of research or pro-choice issues being approved in the US during this administration. Like it or not research with stem cells and abortion are now inextricably tied at the hip. Maybe Europe can make medical strides in the next few years. We are too busy being pious and hypocritical.

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Verbal Kint ]
 
  
Add Your Reply