Evil Parents Again...

[WildCat]

From here, (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0310010140oct01,1,1673955.story?coll=chi-printmetro-hed) free registraton required.
The woman told police that she had been punched, burned on the ears, neck, arms and chest with cigarettes, and shocked with the bare wires of an electrical cord placed between her toes, Higgins said. He said that Keith Jax allegedly had sex with the woman and that her mother cooperated.
Despicable. Though she was 18, she was mentally disabled. The mom and step-dad could be fed to starving crocodiles and it wouldn't be enough punishment.

[Prospero]

This is why it should be necessary to get a license to have children. I would think that sadists don't deserve children.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Prospero
This is why it should be necessary to get a license to have children. I would think that sadists don't deserve children.


Serious constitutional and human rights objections aside, how would you enforce such a policy?

I like the Alex Grey avatar btw..

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by WildCat
From here, (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0310010140oct01,1,1673955.story?coll=chi-printmetro-hed) free registraton required.

Despicable. Though she was 18, she was mentally disabled. The mom and step-dad could be fed to starving crocodiles and it wouldn't be enough punishment.

Starving crocs? Maybe full-up crocs, that would just take a little bite here or there until they get really hungry...

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Starving crocs? Maybe full-up crocs, that would just take a little bite here or there until they get really hungry... Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will...), but don't crocs fill up on zebra or monkey or whatever, then don't eat again at all for days or weeks?

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will...), but don't crocs fill up on zebra or monkey or whatever, then don't eat again at all for days or weeks?

They don't have to eat again for weeks, but they will if a meal falls in their laps.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


They don't have to eat again for weeks, but they will if a meal falls in their laps.

Boy, did I ever learn that the hard way.

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

Human nature never fails to surprise.

Why would anybody in their right mind commit such things I wish I only knew.

Either, have somebody do back to them what they did to their child. Or bring back stocks and let the public throw rotten food at them. Might teach those animals a harsh reality lesson.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by AfaintcoldcupofTea..
Human nature never fails to surprise.

Why would anybody in their right mind commit such things I wish I only knew.

Either, have somebody do back to them what they did to their child. Or bring back stocks and let the public throw rotten food at them. Might teach those animals a harsh reality lesson.


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..

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes
As in my sig regarding ' Intelectual 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..
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.

[nightwind]

Unfortunately, scumbags can reproduce like everyone else or become parents.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony



Serious constitutional and human rights objections aside, [snippy]

Is having children a human right?

Anyway, on croc feeding behaviour, though I'm not an expert (there aren't that many crocodiles in Yorkshire), I understand that crocodiles don't always eat their prey straight away, and instead have an underwater "larder" to store it in, until the carcass is just on the right side of "melt in your mouth" decomposition.

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

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..

True. A very true point.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Is having children a human right?

It's not a matter of whether reproduction is an inherent right so much as it's about who would get to make that call, and how that power could be abused.

I, too, would like to see fewer stupid people breed, but I don't think a licensing scheme is a practical way to go. Personally, I'd like to see a permanent but easily reversible contraceptive device implanted at birth and taken out when the person is over 18 and wants a kid. Teenage pregnancy and abortion would both drop to near zero overnight, as would the number of children born to people too stupid to use a condom or take a pill every day.

Jeremy

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Prospero
This is why it should be necessary to get a license to have children. I would think that sadists don't deserve children.

There's nothing wrong with Sadists as long as they are Safe, Sane, and Consensual.
These folks were just plain evil f**kers. And that's not cool at all.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by toddjh


It's not a matter of whether reproduction is an inherent right so much as it's about who would get to make that call, and how that power could be abused.

But you could apply this analysis to any right—both actual and supposed—and come to the conclusion it's better not to have any rights because of the potential for abuse. For instance, any serious analysis of property rights would come to the conclusion that monopolies are an abuse of that right, but that in itself is no reason to dispense with property rights.

What my main interest was in asking the question, was that if reproduction is a right, then what would be the implications of such a right. For instance, the obligations this would place on society to address the needs of those who, due to biological problems or sexuality issues, would not be able to exercise this right in conventional ways.

Here's an example: a woman had eggs removed before treatment for ovarian cancer which left her sterile; her partner at the time agreed to donate sperm to fertilise her eggs, as embryos have a better chance of viability than eggs. Unfortunately, they later separated and her partner demanded that the embryos were destroyed. Under UK law both partners have to give consent for use of embryos, but one partner can demand that the embryos be destroyed. In the subsequent court case the judge felt he had no choice but to uphold the law (details here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3151762.stm)). But if reproduction is a right (and the embryos in question are the only way this woman could conceive her own children) then this renders the law as it stands illegitimate, because it is denying the woman her rights.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BillyTK
But you could apply this analysis to any right—both actual and supposed—and come to the conclusion it's better not to have any rights because of the potential for abuse.

Hrm. Maybe I didn't say that very well. :) I meant that trying to license people to have children opens up the potential for abuse: eugenics, unfair application of licensing, etc. So it's not that I think reproduction is a right so much as that treating it any other way is impractical and dangerous.

What my main interest was in asking the question, was that if reproduction is a right, then what would be the implications of such a right. For instance, the obligations this would place on society to address the needs of those who, due to biological problems or sexuality issues, would not be able to exercise this right in conventional ways.

Eh, I disagree. Having a right does not necessarily mean that society must pick up the slack. We have the freedom of speech, but the government doesn't guarantee us a captive audience.

Maybe it would be better to phrase it in terms of what the government cannot do, rather than what individuals can. I think the government should keep its hands off the matter of reproduction, whether it is a "right" or not.

Edited to add: As others have pointed out, how would you enforce this licensing scheme, even if it did exist?

Jeremy

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by toddjh
Hrm. Maybe I didn't say that very well. :) I meant that trying to license people to have children opens up the potential for abuse: eugenics, unfair application of licensing, etc. So it's not that I think reproduction is a right so much as that treating it any other way is impractical and dangerous.
Broadly I agree, but imo reproduction is either a right or not; there's anough of a moral fudge as it is without introducing "fuzzy" rights ;)

Eh, I disagree. Having a right does not necessarily mean that society must pick up the slack. We have the freedom of speech, but the government doesn't guarantee us a captive audience.
True, but the government guarantees your right by taking/threatening measures against those forces which would prevent you exercising that right, which in the case of reproduction would be, well things that prevent you reproducing. This is not the same as suggesting That your right to free speech means the government should give you your own radio station ;)

Maybe it would be better to phrase it in terms of what the government cannot do, rather than what individuals can. I think the government should keep its hands off the matter of reproduction, whether it is a "right" or not.
Well, you could build into legislation restrictions on state intrusion, but the contradiction is that the government is the ultimate arbiter in these things, not least as guarantor of your rights, but also as the author of legislation; there is no higher power to appeal to.

Edited to add: As others have pointed out, how would you enforce this licensing scheme, even if it did exist?
IQ tests *evilgrin*? (Just kidding, for anyone who is not familiar with my views on those wretched things). I dunno, I just find it odd that you need a license to own a dog (and a TV in this country) but not to have a child, which is a far greater undertaking and responsibility. I look at this as the worse possible state of affairs, apart from all the other ones (to paraphrase Churchill).

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Broadly I agree, but imo reproduction is either a right or not; there's anough of a moral fudge as it is without introducing "fuzzy" rights ;)

I'm not a big fan of "rights" myself. I'm a much bigger fan of "liberties." I think people should be free to reproduce, but I don't think society must pick up the tab for fertility treatments, or that anyone owes parents anything for making that choice. That's why I hate all these tax breaks people with kids get.

True, but the government guarantees your right by taking/threatening measures against those forces which would prevent you exercising that right, which in the case of reproduction would be, well things that prevent you reproducing.

The government takes action against those who would restrain your speech, but as far as I know it doesn't do anything to help people who have biological difficulty communicating. I don't see why reproduction would be any different -- if you want to try, go for it. If some agency tries to stop you somehow, then the government should step in. But if you physically can't, well, them's the breaks.

Well, you could build into legislation restrictions on state intrusion, but the contradiction is that the government is the ultimate arbiter in these things, not least as guarantor of your rights, but also as the author of legislation; there is no higher power to appeal to.

Just look at how difficult it was to get voting applied fairly: it took 150 years and more than one Constitutional amendment to get the local governments in line. It's not easy to make sure the government treats people fairly!

For example, if people need licenses to reproduce, would those licenses be granted to gay people? I'm guessing not, in the current political climate. What about immigrants? Poor people? Mixed-race couples?

People with potential genetic diseases? Now that opens up a real can of worms. You could make a pretty good case that cystic fibrosis carriers, for example, should not be granted a reproduction license. But just imagine what that implies: the government would be taking upon itself the responsibility of deciding what genes are allowed to be passed on. Is that really something you'd trust them with?

IQ tests *evilgrin*?

Heh. But I meant, how would you enforce it? How would you physically stop people from reproducing? It doesn't take a genius to figure out how. :)

I dunno, I just find it odd that you need a license to own a dog (and a TV in this country) but not to have a child, which is a far greater undertaking and responsibility. I look at this as the worse possible state of affairs, apart from all the other ones (to paraphrase Churchill).

Oh, I agree. I hate stupid parents, not least of all because they are likely to raise stupid children, and that is a real waste. But I can't think of an alternative that isn't even worse.

Jeremy

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by toddjh


I'm not a big fan of "rights" myself. I'm a much bigger fan of "liberties."
What do you consider the difference to be? Is it more than semantics?
I think people should be free to reproduce, but I don't think society must pick up the tab for fertility treatments, or that anyone owes parents anything for making that choice. That's why I hate all these tax breaks people with kids get.

The government takes action against those who would restrain your speech, but as far as I know it doesn't do anything to help people who have biological difficulty communicating. I don't see why reproduction would be any different -- if you want to try, go for it. If some agency tries to stop you somehow, then the government should step in. But if you physically can't, well, them's the breaks.
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?

Just look at how difficult it was to get voting applied fairly: it took 150 years and more than one Constitutional amendment to get the local governments in line. It's not easy to make sure the government treats people fairly!

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...

;) :D

[everything else...]

In agreement with you... what are we going to do now? I know–anyone fancy a pint? :)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BillyTK
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]

Originally posted by toddjh
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... :confused:

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]

Originally posted by Tricky

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]

Originally posted by BillyTK
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

[schplurg]

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]

Originally posted by schplurg
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 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/06/male.pill/index.html) for men on the horizon, it might even be practical.

Jeremy

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by toddjh
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]

Originally posted by BillyTK
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