Reproductive Rights

[Rasmus]

Over in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=164245) about an allegeldy unauthorized sterilization of a woman on welfare the issue of reproductive rights has come up.

I'll copy those posts that I saw on the issue after a quick scan; if I left anything out it was an oversight rather than intend. So, hopfeully we can discuss this issue here to not take the other thread further OT.

I think the key point is AvalonXQ's claim quoted here first:

Your reasoning is fallacious. By the same argument, I can't support the existence of prisons unless I myself go to jail, and I can't support the right to shooting in self-defense unless i'm willing to arrange to get shot.
Because society affords benefits to every citizen, society has the right to control the process by which we produce more citizens.
Having children is not a right.

Well, what are you gonna do about it?

Boy sleeps with girl, offspring happens. You have no right to stop that from happening.

No, society has no right whatsoever to dictate two consenting adults wether to have children or not.

No.

First of all, if you take Biology 101, you'll discover that nature controls the process by which we produce more citizens. And if having children is not a right, who exactly should have the power to decide this?

You're living under the same rules as the prisoners. If you break certain laws, you go to prison, just like them. They broke them, and you didn't, so they go, and you don't. But the rules are the same for everyone.

Entering your house without permission, particularly with malicious intent, subjects all people who do so to the possibility that they will be shot. You doing the same to someone else subjects you to the same thing. In terms of being shot in self-defense, the rules are the same for everyone.

However, you support sterilization. If you don't or won't get sterilized yourself, then you are applying your rules to other people but not yourself. You think society should determine who should have kids. I am in society. I have ordered you to go get sterilized. If you can't live under the rules you want everyone else to live under, then your rules are crap.

Wrong. It means that just like I don't believe I should be jailed under the rules by which some people should be jailed or shot under the rules that some people should be shot, I don't believe I should be sterilized under the rules that some people should be.
But I definitely don't believe we have a right to have children or be parents, and so I believe that society has the right to take away our ability to do so.

Regulating instinctive behavior might be a bit tricky.

People are messy. They do stupid things. If you try to regulate everything that doesn't fit into a utopian ideal, you only get unhappy people who do stupid things and then become criminals.

You're in good company. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

Ah, Godwin'd so soon.
I'm simply not convinced that family planning is a right. But I'm aware that I'm in the minority on this.
Further discussion in this direction should probably move to its own thread, no?

[...]
Yes - i think it's a ridiculous solution.

Mandated birth control and sterilization, however, is not as such ridiculous; it would work - in a way. It's just happens to be outright evil on many, many levels.

[Darat]

Well, what are you gonna do about it?

Boy sleeps with girl, offspring happens. You have no right to stop that from happening.


We already as a society say we have right to stop that happening in certain circumstances, so we have laws against incest, age of consent, consent laws and so on. I take it you are not against such approaches?


No, society has no right whatsoever to dictate two consenting adults wether to have children or not.



I do disagree, because I simply look at it from the perspective of the child and I believe society has a grave responsibility to ensure that its future full members have a good start.

(I don't think the world can easily be rendered to simple black and white distinctions so take the next two statements as a slight exaggeration of my view on the matter, I'm more trying to illustrate that I don't think there should be an absolute "right" to have child.)

If a person becomes pregnant under the age of consent there should be two options, adoption or abortion.

Anyone who has been convicted of abusing their child should never be allowed to have any more children.

[Rasmus]

Just to make myself clearer:

Having children is not a right that you can demand in a biological sense. Nobody is required to see to it that you get children if you want them.

But it is a right in the sense that nobody should be allowed to stop me from having children (assuming I find a consenting partner for the deed), let alone pre-emptively make it impossible for me.

Even if I thought that anyone's right to have children could be denied I don't see how that could ever be enforced in a way suitable for a civilized society.

So, I stand by my Godwin-Argument: To effectively stop those from having children who one thinks ought not to have children requires an unjust, inhuman and draconian tyranny.

I think wolfman once wrote a post on the Chinese one-child-policy where he defended the idea. I'll try to find that thread later. But as far as I remember, he argued to limit the total number of children out of necessity, rather than supported the idea of socially designing future generations through political selection.

Besides wondering how AvalonXQ would justify and enforce his policies, I also wonder just what criteria should be used to determine who would still be allowed to have children.

[Rasmus]

We already as a society say we have right to stop that happening in certain circumstances, so we have laws against incest, age of consent, consent laws and so on. I take it you are not against such approaches?

I am all in favour of age of consent laws. But these do not rule out that someone may have children at all.

I do not support laws against incest as long as consenting adults are involved.

I do disagree, because I simply look at it from the perspective of the child and I believe society has a grave responsibility to ensure that its future full members have a good start.

I am not sure that taking children away from their parents is the best way to go about this as a matter of routine. But that is not the same as not letting someone be pregnant in the first place, anyway.

(I don't think the world can easily be rendered to simple black and white distinctions so take the next two statements as a slight exaggeration of my view on the matter, I'm more trying to illustrate that I don't think there should be an absolute "right" to have child.)

This much I agree with.

If a person becomes pregnant under the age of consent there should be two options, adoption or abortion.

This I disagree with. If a minor - with help of their parents. Community, etc. - is able to raise a child I'd let them.

Anyone who has been convicted of abusing their child should never be allowed to have any more children.

Never is a long time, but I tend to agree. Again, the solution would be to take the child away rather than sterilize the person, though.

[quadraginta]

Okay. I'll bring over my comment and join the fun here. :)


Ah, Godwin'd so soon.
I'm simply not convinced that family planning is a right. But I'm aware that I'm in the minority on this.
Further discussion in this direction should probably move to its own thread, no?


I don't think that this reference counts as a Godwin, unless you are saying that the field of eugenics, which you appear to be advocating, was utterly discredited by Hitler's acceptance of the idea. This would make your position a somewhat uncomfortable one.

It's valuable to remember that Germany's ideas about eugenics were largely imported from U.S. practices. By way of example Margaret Sanger, of Planned Parenthood fame, was not an absolute foe of forced sterilization. She condoned it for the "feebleminded". Her views on racial superiority were fairly clear as well. Although her personal ethics were admirable by the standards of the time it is important to note how easily they were distorted into something quite reprehensible.

This is an important lesson to take away from the eugenics debates of the early twentieth century. Very relevant to this discussion and the position you are espousing. Not a Godwin at all.

[quadraginta]

Just to make myself clearer:

Having children is not a right that you can demand in a biological sense. Nobody is required to see to it that you get children if you want them.

But it is a right in the sense that nobody should be allowed to stop me from having children (assuming I find a consenting partner for the deed), let alone pre-emptively make it impossible for me.

Even if I thought that anyone's right to have children could be denied I don't see how that could ever be enforced in a way suitable for a civilized society.

So, I stand by my Godwin-Argument: To effectively stop those from having children who one thinks ought not to have children requires an unjust, inhuman and draconian tyranny.

I think wolfman once wrote a post on the Chinese one-child-policy where he defended the idea. I'll try to find that thread later. But as far as I remember, he argued to limit the total number of children out of necessity, rather than supported the idea of socially designing future generations through political selection.

Besides wondering how AvalonXQ would justify and enforce his policies, I also wonder just what criteria should be used to determine who would still be allowed to have children.


I think that the crux of the issue hovers around this.

It's one thing to say that everyone has exactly the same rights and restrictions on reproduction (i.e. everybody is allowed to have x kids, and that's all.) It's another thing entirely to start picking and choosing who has such a right and who doesn't.

We've got an awful* lot of evidence about how that usually works out.

(* intended. :rolleyes:)

[AvalonXQ]

It's one thing to say that everyone has exactly the same rights and restrictions on reproduction (i.e. everybody is allowed to have x kids, and that's all.) It's another thing entirely to start picking and choosing who has such a right and who doesn't.

I think I was clear in saying that no one has a right.
But I agree that, like anything else in society, it is important for us to administrate our duties fairly.
The model I'd like to propose is the following one (and I agree that we do not yet have the technology to implement it, but we are close). Each individual is sterilized before fertility. To have a child, you have to apply much the way we apply for a driver's license. You have to show the completion of a parenting course and agree to the financial burden of a child.
A background check is performed to determine that the parents in question are a) not convicted of certain serious crimes (like child abuse), b) not currently receiving government welfare (presumptively able to pay for the child). Then you can have a child, either by temporarily reversing the sterility procedure (removing a block, etc) or through a simple in vitro implantation using gametes removed earlier and held in trust by the government, whatever's easiest.
The prevention of unintended pregnancies alone would be a major boon for society.

[quadraginta]

I think I was clear in saying that no one has a right.
But I agree that, like anything else in society, it is important for us to administrate our duties fairly.
The model I'd like to propose is the following one (and I agree that we do not yet have the technology to implement it, but we are close). Each individual is sterilized before fertility. To have a child, you have to apply much the way we apply for a driver's license. You have to show the completion of a parenting course and agree to the financial burden of a child.
A background check is performed to determine that the parents in question are a) not convicted of certain serious crimes (like child abuse), b) not currently receiving government welfare (presumptively able to pay for the child). Then you can have a child, either by temporarily reversing the sterility procedure (removing a block, etc) or through a simple in vitro implantation using gametes removed earlier and held in trust by the government, whatever's easiest.
The prevention of unintended pregnancies alone would be a major boon for society.


Nearly everyone who goes down this path starts out with standards for selecting the "deserving" that seem perfectly reasonable, certainly within the context of their culture.

The track record of the end results of taking such a path is less admirable.

For some reason when it is presented as "everyone or no one" the concept invariably gets less traction than when it can be interpreted as "us and them".

Why do you think that is?

[AvalonXQ]

Nearly everyone who goes down this path starts out with standards for selecting the "deserving" that seem perfectly reasonable, certainly within the context of their culture.
The track record of the end results of taking such a path is less admirable.

There it is again.

[quadraginta]

There it is again.

There is what again?

I was thinking that forced sterilizations in our country have occurred in relatively recent memory, and some of the cases might even still be making their way through the courts.

What were you thinking of?

[quadraginta]

There it is again.

There is what again?

I was thinking that forced sterilizations in our country have occurred in relatively recent memory, and some of the cases might even still be making their way through the courts.

What were you thinking of?


Took a quick peek in Wiki, just to refresh my memory (it needs a lot of that. :p)

These excerpts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization#United_States) can give us a few areas of discussion in the off-Godwin vein.

The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. They were devastated when it was shut down due to ethical problems.

Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case Buck v. Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell) which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia) home for the mentally retarded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation). The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma), 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942), complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime).[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization#cite_note-21)My highlight.


After World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) policies of Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany), though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon) Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization#cite_note-24)Again, my highlight.

Note that this is only discussing the policy sanctioned ones, and probably doesn't include quasi-legal sterilizations of minor children at the behest of parents or guardians.

[AvalonXQ]

So, in the past, we've sterilized specific groups of people. We've also decided that this was bad.
I'm not so clear on why it's bad to sterilize everyone, and then make parenting a genuine opt-in scenario.

[JoeTheJuggler]

We already as a society say we have right to stop that happening in certain circumstances, so we have laws against incest, age of consent, consent laws and so on. I take it you are not against such approaches?

I think there's ambiguity here on the word "that" (as in "that happening"). (I think it referred to "offspring happens" not the sex part.)

We as a society under no circumstances have the right to force any pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will.

[Rasmus]

So, in the past, we've sterilized specific groups of people. We've also decided that this was bad.
I'm not so clear on why it's bad to sterilize everyone, and then make parenting a genuine opt-in scenario.

Because it's *my* body and anyone who wants to put a knife to it without my explicit consent let alone against my declared will, will have to kill me first, that's why. (It's also why I cannot support mandatory vaccination no matter how useful or beneficial that would be.)

Do you really not see how *everybody* is the most encompassing group of all possible specific groups? It's the same idea, you're just including many more people.

And it wasn't a bad idea because we happened to select the wrong people, it was a bad idea in and of itself. You could hardly go further than denying a person their most private human rights then by modifying their very own bodies against their will - you could go one step further and outright kill them.

[Beerina]

You have to be careful of "creeping intrusion" of government as well. "Well, the kids of this particular person just are more expense of welfare, given the magnitude of the L on her forehead, so we are justified in doing this forced sterilization."

My mother always said that if you did something nice for someone, unasked, you can't then use it to lord over them. Of course, that never stops government, does it?

[AvalonXQ]

Because it's *my* body and anyone who wants to put a knife to it without my explicit consent let alone against my declared will, will have to kill me first, that's why.

Ah. Easy solution -- it's not mandatory, but it is freely available. If you have a child without a license, we deport both parents and the child.
Does that comport with your rights better?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because it's *my* body and anyone who wants to put a knife to it without my explicit consent let alone against my declared will, will have to kill me first, that's why.

And in the context of convicted criminals (who have indeed had the freedom over their bodies taken by the government after due process), I would argue that forced sterilization would fall under prohibited "cruel or unusual punishment".

[Fiona]

What is the mischief we are trying to solve here?

[Ambrosia]

The model I'd like to propose is the following one (and I agree that we do not yet have the technology to implement it, but we are close). Each individual is sterilized before fertility. To have a child, you have to apply much the way we apply for a driver's license.

There are a number of issues to get around first. (by no means an exhaustive list)

i) side effects of the sterilisation procedure what are they?
ii) cost of the sterilisation, who pays?
iii) how do we prevent future governments from radically changing the selection procedure?

In this scenario we are giving away power to authority. The power to have children, which is one of our most fundamental things. We achieve immortality by passing our genetic code and our memories to our offspring.

Whats to stop future authority from saying, no we wont give you back this power unless you jump through these expensive unreasonable hoops. Or no there are too many <insert population subgroup of your choice here> in the world, you can't have any children.

[Francesca R]

We already as a society say we have right to stop that happening in certain circumstances, so we have laws against incest, age of consent, consent laws and so on. I take it you are not against such approaches?Just to be clear, (as already noted by someone else) society (in the UK) has not given itself the right to compel sterlisation nor abortion.



I do disagree, because I simply look at it from the perspective of the child and I believe society has a grave responsibility to ensure that its future full members have a good start.I regard this as flawed thinking, since surely from the perspective of the child (imagine yourself in some pre-conceived state expressing a "view" here) it is always more in your interest to be conceived (and probably born) than not, unless you wish to argue that lack of life can be objectively a better prospect ex-ante than existence of life.

If a person becomes pregnant under the age of consent there should be two options, adoption or abortion.

Anyone who has been convicted of abusing their child should never be allowed to have any more children.Very illiberal, and enforcement would likely be repellent to many.

[Shalamar]

Ah. Easy solution -- it's not mandatory, but it is freely available. If you have a child without a license, we deport both parents and the child.
Does that comport with your rights better?

Deporting Citizens? And to where would you deport these people, and their children? What country would take them, since you'd have to strip them of their citizenship, and passports?

[Darth Rotor]

The model I'd like to propose is the following one (and I agree that we do not yet have the technology to implement it, but we are close). Each individual is sterilized before fertility.
Besides the fact that this screws up a bit of other interconnected hormonal development ...

That statement is more than a little at odds with "first, do no harm" and second "go forth, be fruitful, and multiply" and as well a bloody invasion of privacy, via mutliation, of the state on the citizen ... even if the tech is there to desterilize or sterilize at will.

I am puzzled at your position that one should sterilize a developing child/teen/adolescent.

DR

[Arcade22]

So, in the past, we've sterilized specific groups of people. We've also decided that this was bad.

How is sterilizing those who are obviously incapable of breeding and raising a healthy child a bad thing?

[ponderingturtle]

I think that the crux of the issue hovers around this.

It's one thing to say that everyone has exactly the same rights and restrictions on reproduction (i.e. everybody is allowed to have x kids, and that's all.) It's another thing entirely to start picking and choosing who has such a right and who doesn't.


We do that already. Look at the foster system and how many parents have had their kids taken away from them.

[Darat]

Just to be clear, (as already noted by someone else) society (in the UK) has not given itself the right to compel sterlisation nor abortion.

...snip...

Incorrect. In the UK a person unable to consent for themselves, e.g. mentally disabled can be sterilised if it is considered in their best interest. It is rarely carried out these days as less drastic methods are considered much more appropriate but it is a part of the legal code.



I regard this as flawed thinking, since surely from the perspective of the child (imagine yourself in some pre-conceived state expressing a "view" here) it is always more in your interest to be conceived (and probably born) than not, unless you wish to argue that lack of life can be objectively a better prospect ex-ante than existence of life.



:wackytwitcy:



Very illiberal, and enforcement would likely be repellent to many.

The "it's icky" argument is not a very strong argument - plus of course that there are lots of things that we (society) do that are repellent to many people yet as a society we still do them.

[Darat]

How is sterilizing those who are obviously incapable of breeding and raising a healthy child a bad thing?

How will you make this determination?

[ponderingturtle]

So, in the past, we've sterilized specific groups of people. We've also decided that this was bad.
I'm not so clear on why it's bad to sterilize everyone, and then make parenting a genuine opt-in scenario.

The problem here is that reversible sterilization is no where near perfect. This would seem unlikely to produce a sustainable population structure.

[ponderingturtle]

Because it's *my* body and anyone who wants to put a knife to it without my explicit consent let alone against my declared will, will have to kill me first, that's why. (It's also why I cannot support mandatory vaccination no matter how useful or beneficial that would be.)

So you are also gainst treating people who are not alert and orriented times 3. Get knocked out and become unable to consent to the ambulance ride and we leave you on the side of the road to die.

[Francesca R]

:wackytwitcy:Not a very strong argument.


The "it's icky" argument is not a very strong argument - plus of course that there are lots of things that we (society) do that are repellent to many people yet as a society we still do them.But the "it's illiberal" one is very strong IMO.

ETA--And repellent enforcement is, frequently, an efficacious reason why various laws never get made, or get made then rescinded or watered down or ignored. Right down to having to paint speed cameras bright yellow so that they don't "repugnantly entrap unsuspecting motorists"

[JoeTheJuggler]

How is sterilizing those who are obviously incapable of breeding and raising a healthy child a bad thing?

Hold on. Is anyone even considering sterilizing someone incapable of breeding? And further, how do you know their children will be healthy? (Isn't it more of a challenge to raise an unhealthy or disabled child anyway?)

So you're just talking about sterilizing someone that you (or Big Brother or Palin's death panels or some such) think is incapable of raising a child?

You don't see what's wrong with letting you (or Big Brother or Palin's death panels or some such) make that decision?

[ponderingturtle]

What is the mischief we are trying to solve here?

I am not at all sure. The benefit would seem to be greater if you just make people apply to adopt their kids, instead of giving them automatic rights until they get caught harming them sufficiently.

Also make improper prenatal care a crime.

[Darat]

What is the mischief we are trying to solve here?

I thought it was just a "chewing the fat" discussion, I am sure no one can really think that in the near to mid future that we will see the law in regards to "reproductive rights" in countries like the UK change significantly.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So you are also gainst treating people who are not alert and orriented times 3. Get knocked out and become unable to consent to the ambulance ride and we leave you on the side of the road to die.

If someone has advance directives or something else that expresses a DNR order, yes I am against treating them against their will.

In the absence of such orders, treatment is based on the assumption that they would consent if they could. If you wait until they are able to consent, they might be dead or permanently injured.

(ETA: I know it's absurd, but in the case where someone has gone unconscious, it would be completely illegal and unethical to assume they consent to getting breast implants.)

But forced sterilization isn't something you can assume anyone would consent to. You need expressed permission to do something like that.

Unless not sterilizing someone is life-threatening, it's not analogous. (And when it is, and there are no advance directives to the contrary, yes, I'm in favor, for example, of a performing a hysterectomy that's necessary to save the patient's life.)

[Arcade22]

So you're just talking about sterilizing someone that you (or Big Brother or Palin's death panels or some such) think is incapable of raising a child?

Yeah, like people who are prostitutes, career criminals, junkies or etc.

You don't see what's wrong with letting you (or Big Brother or Palin's death panels or some such) make that decision?

No, i see nothing wrong in that.

[ponderingturtle]

If someone has advance directives or something else that expresses a DNR order, yes I am against treating them against their will.

In the absence of such orders, treatment is based on the assumption that they would consent if they could. If you wait until they are able to consent, they might be dead or permanently injured.

(ETA: I know it's absurd, but in the case where someone has gone unconscious, it would be completely illegal and unethical to assume they consent to getting breast implants.)

The thing is that you have no way of knowing exactly what a patient would or would not consent to. Maybe they are JW and blood transfusions are right out, or maybe they are christian scientists. You can't know what anyone would or would not consent to. So yes there is a standard of care that needs to be met, but he was talking about being against things that he did not consent to, not just things that were below the standard of care.

So for example someone with undiagnosed diabeties, they get into altered consiousness and you have to let them die as they have not previously consented to treatment, and can not now give consent.

Unless not sterilizing someone is life-threatening, it's not analogous. (And when it is, and there are no advance directives to the contrary, yes, I'm in favor, for example, of a performing a hysterectomy that's necessary to save the patient's life.)

The statement I was responding to made no specific mention of what procedures one would have to treat him over his dead body, just that any treatment he did not consent to would be administered over his dead body. Funnily enough that is exactly what would happen.

[ponderingturtle]

You don't see what's wrong with letting you (or Big Brother or Palin's death panels or some such) make that decision?

Personaly I am for the sterilization of Big Brother contestants.

[bookitty]

Ah. Easy solution -- it's not mandatory, but it is freely available. If you have a child without a license, we deport both parents and the child.
Does that comport with your rights better?

Deport people for having children? We don't even export our criminals.

As for the rest of it. Tubal ligation and vasectomies are difficult to reverse. The only way this scenario would work is if birth control was made mandatory. Since taking someone's word for it would be out, that would mean the Depo-Provera shot for women only. The male version is not available.

So every woman of breeding age who was not OK'd for children would be forced to take a hormonal medication that has known and dangerous side effects. It is immoral in the extreme.

[AvalonXQ]

As for the rest of it. Tubal ligation and vasectomies are difficult to reverse. The only way this scenario would work is if birth control was made mandatory. Since taking someone's word for it would be out, that would mean the Depo-Provera shot for women only. The male version is not available.

So every woman of breeding age who was not OK'd for children would be forced to take a hormonal medication that has known and dangerous side effects. It is immoral in the extreme.

As my original explanation acknowledged, the technology is not currently up to implementing the program. These problems don't concern me overmuch; I agree that we should not implement any program like this until doing so is very, very safe.

[Fiona]

May I ask if you have been voluntarily sterilised, AvalonXQ?

[AvalonXQ]

May I ask if you have been voluntarily sterilised, AvalonXQ?

Not yet. Anyone else here?

[Ziggurat]

I'm not so clear on why it's bad to sterilize everyone, and then make parenting a genuine opt-in scenario.

To start with, because demographic decline sucks. Secondly, what reversible sterilization procedures are there which do not carry risks?

[Ziggurat]

Personaly I am for the sterilization of Big Brother contestants.


Well sure, that's easy to say. And of course, we also want that for the Jersey Shore participants. But once you start, where will it end? Do you sterilize Dancing with the Stars contestants? American Idol? America's Funniest Home Videos? Jeopardy contestants? The McLaughlin Group?


On second though, maybe you're right, maybe this approach would work.

[Foolmewunz]

I thought it was just a "chewing the fat" discussion,... <snip>

Apparently so.



May I ask if you have been voluntarily sterilised, AvalonXQ?

Not yet. Anyone else here?

AvalonXQ: Why not? To argue a case so passionately, I was certain that you would've answered in the affirmative. I know any number of people who've gone that route, and I would've bet the mortgage money that you were going to hit that question out of the stadium.

So this is just theoretical? (There's an expression for that sort of thing, isn't there?)

[Darat]

Well sure, that's easy to say. And of course, we also want that for the Jersey Shore participants. But once you start, where will it end? Do you sterilize Dancing with the Stars contestants? American Idol? America's Funniest Home Videos? Jeopardy contestants? The McLaughlin Group?


On second though, maybe you're right, maybe this approach would work.

I have to disagree with you - you would need to include all the people that create such shows in the first place!

[Foolmewunz]

I have to disagree with you - you would need to include all the people that create such shows in the first place!

Agreed, but you'll have to admit that Cowell would be a great starting point.

[Ravynn123]

May I ask if you have been voluntarily sterilised, AvalonXQ?

Not yet. Anyone else here?


Yes I had my tubes removed 17 years ago. It was my decision because I didn't want anymore children. I have a daughter and a son and that is all I wanted. It is not something that I would want to force on anyone else. My husband at the time and I talked about it at length. I decided it was what I wanted.

By the way I got pregnant with my daughter when I was 17 years old and gave birth to her when I was 18. I had to go on welfare because of her piece of **** father left and didn't want to take any responsibility for her. I stayed on welfare for about 2 years and I have not been back on it since. I worked to get off of welfare. My daughter is now 22 and a mother of 2. She is going through a divorce and had to go on welfare for a few months until after my grand daughter was born and now she is working and off of welfare too.

So making someone get sterilized because they are on welfare is not a good reason. Yes I know there are a lot of people on welfare that stay on it for life and never do anything to change their situation. My point who has the right to decide if I have children or not. Who has the right to tell anyone they can or can not have children? If you take that away then what will be the next thing that will be taken from people. And who gets to decide who can have a child or not?

Yes I agree there needs to be something done for people who stay on welfare as their career in life, and something needs to be done for people who have children and abuse them. The answer to those two problems are perhaps stricter laws but not to sterilize someone because you think they shouldn't have children. No body has the right to do that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not yet. Anyone else here?

I have--about 6 years ago.

ETA: I remember a program in India that was having some success. They were offering movie passes to men who got vasectomies. I think education and a much greater awareness of the problem of overpopulation is a better solution. But anyone who's studied ecology knows that there is a solution, one way or another, if we simply ignore the issue.

[AvalonXQ]

By the way I got pregnant with my daughter when I was 17 years old and gave birth to her when I was 18. I had to go on welfare because of her piece of **** father left and didn't want to take any responsibility for her.

This sounds like an example of a problem that the proposed system would fix. I assume that if you and the father were sterile (like everyone else), and had to apply for a parent's license before you could get pregnant, then you would have not have ended up as a single mom at 18, correct? You would have had your daughter later, with a man who would be responsible for her.
Again, I feel the elimination of unplanned pregnancies alone would make an opt-in system worth considering.

[Fiona]

Is that the mischief you are trying to fix? Much less draconian methods seem to work very well in Holland and other countries. I certainly don't think you can justify it on that basis

[Darth Rotor]

This sounds like an example of a problem that the proposed system would fix. I assume that if you and the father were sterile (like everyone else), and had to apply for a parent's license before you could get pregnant, then you would have not have ended up as a single mom at 18, correct? You would have had your daughter later, with a man who would be responsible for her.
Again, I feel the elimination of unplanned pregnancies alone would make an opt-in system worth considering.

Wrapping the rascal is cheaper and less risky.

DR

[Ravynn123]

This sounds like an example of a problem that the proposed system would fix. I assume that if you and the father were sterile (like everyone else), and had to apply for a parent's license before you could get pregnant, then you would have not have ended up as a single mom at 18, correct? You would have had your daughter later, with a man who would be responsible for her.
Again, I feel the elimination of unplanned pregnancies alone would make an opt-in system worth considering.


I don't see forced sterilization has a fix to anything. What would have been a fix for my situation are laws that don't allow for dead beat parents. I did meet a man later in life and we got married and then had a son. Guess what we got divorced after 14 years. So then we were both single parents. How does your little system account for that? Even if your little idea was put into practice what is to say that the parents would even stay together? What would be the resolution for that? There are plenty of single parents out there that were married and then they divorced and guess what? Dead beat parents not only come about because of unplanned unmarried pregnancies but also from divorce? What would the solution be then????

[Fiona]

Retrospective abortion???

[AvalonXQ]

I did meet a man later in life and we got married and then had a son. Guess what we got divorced after 14 years. So then we were both single parents. How does your little system account for that? Even if your little idea was put into practice what is to say that the parents would even stay together? What would be the resolution for that? There are plenty of single parents out there that were married and then they divorced and guess what? Dead beat parents not only come about because of unplanned unmarried pregnancies but also from divorce? What would the solution be then????

Then at least we would know that both parents consented to be parents and were elligible (under whatever standards were set) to do the job. Sure, divorce could still break open households -- but the addition of forethought and deliberate choice into family planning would certainly help rather than hurt the situation.

[Ravynn123]

Then at least we would know that both parents consented to be parents and were elligible (under whatever standards were set) to do the job. Sure, divorce could still break open households -- but the addition of forethought and deliberate choice into family planning would certainly help rather than hurt the situation.

It still puts children in a single parent environment and thus increase the need for some of these children to be on welfare. Not to mention since the increase of divorce has risen more and more children are in single parent homes not because of unwed pregnancies but because of divorce. So as long as the parents where licensed to have the children then after that all bets are off and it doesn't matter? How is that a solution? You still have the same problem?

[AvalonXQ]

It still puts children in a single parent environment and thus increase the need for some of these children to be on welfare. Not to mention since the increase of divorce has risen more and more children are in single parent homes not because of unwed pregnancies but because of divorce.

I agree that parenting licenses, by themselves, won't automatically solve the problems associated with marital separations and single-parent homes (unless one of the conditions of jointly applying for a parenting license is a binding commitment to raise the kid jointly).

[Ravynn123]

I think I was clear in saying that no one has a right.
But I agree that, like anything else in society, it is important for us to administrate our duties fairly.
The model I'd like to propose is the following one (and I agree that we do not yet have the technology to implement it, but we are close). Each individual is sterilized before fertility. To have a child, you have to apply much the way we apply for a driver's license. You have to show the completion of a parenting course and agree to the financial burden of a child.
A background check is performed to determine that the parents in question are a) not convicted of certain serious crimes (like child abuse), b) not currently receiving government welfare (presumptively able to pay for the child). Then you can have a child, either by temporarily reversing the sterility procedure (removing a block, etc) or through a simple in vitro implantation using gametes removed earlier and held in trust by the government, whatever's easiest.
The prevention of unintended pregnancies alone would be a major boon for society.

According to Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005, released by the U.S. Census Bureau in August, 2007, there are approximately 13.6 million single parents in the United States today, and those parents are responsible for raising 21.2 million children (approximately 26% of children under 21 in the U.S. today).

So what's the "average" single parent really like? According to the U.S. Census Bureau...
She is a Mother:

* Approximately 84% of custodial parents are mothers, and
* 16% of custodial parents are fathers

She is Divorced or Separated:
Of the mothers who are custodial parents:

* 44% are currently divorced or separated
* 33% have never been married
* 22% are married (In most cases, these numbers represent women who have remarried.)
* 1% were widowed

Of the fathers who are custodial parents:

* 57% are divorced or separated
* 24% are currently married (In most cases, these numbers represent men who have remarried.)
* 18% have never married
* 1% were widowed

She is Employed:

* 79% of custodial single mothers are gainfully employed

50% work full time, year round
29% work part-time or part-year

* 92% of custodial single fathers are gainfully employed

74% work full time, year round
18% work part-time or part-year

She and Her Children Do Not Live in Poverty:

* 27.7% of custodial single mothers and their children live in poverty
* 11.1% of custodial single fathers and their children live in poverty

She Does Not Receive Public Assistance:

* 31% of all single parents receive public assistance
* Only 6% of single parents receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)

http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm

[jadey]

May I ask if you have been voluntarily sterilised, AvalonXQ?

I got snipped after my second child.

I can't figure out what the end goal is here either. I've got nothing against promoting fewer children and responsible parenting, but forced sterilization just seems way over the top.

[Ravynn123]

I agree that parenting licenses, by themselves, won't automatically solve the problems associated with marital separations and single-parent homes (unless one of the conditions of jointly applying for a parenting license is a binding commitment to raise the kid jointly).

Ok how will you enforce this commitment to raise the kid jointly?

[AvalonXQ]

Ok how will you enforce this commitment to raise the kid jointly?

Good question.

[AWPrime]

Never is a long time, but I tend to agree. Again, the solution would be to take the child away rather than sterilize the person, though.Replace 'rather than' with 'and'.

[Ravynn123]

If you don't have a solution to enforce a married couple who get divorced to commit to raising a child jointly then how can you justify forced sterilization? It doesn't make sense.

I am all for stopping unwed pregnancies we have far to many children with no parents at all living in foster care or group homes. And I am all for welfare reform to make these single parents who live on welfare for life and basically make a career out of it. The answer is not a simple one and it certainly does not include forced sterilization. We may not have the right to reproduce and I agree with that. But no one has the right to force any kind of sterilization either. Because once you put something like that into effect what is the next thing that is going to be forced on us? I may not have the right to reproduce children but I do have the right to choose if I want to or not if I am capable physically and emotionally. And no I may not have been emotionally capable at the age of 18 but I am proof positive that people can get off of welfare and make something of their lives and so is my daughter. She is a single mother of two because of a divorce and the father is not helping her at all. I would love to be able to force him but other than having him thrown in jail where she would get no money from it there either, there is no real solution. And I think that is what we should focus on.

[AvalonXQ]

If you don't have a solution to enforce a married couple who get divorced to commit to raising a child jointly then how can you justify forced sterilization? It doesn't make sense.
Wait, what?
If the proposed system can end all problems caused by unintended pregnancies, why is it not justified if it can't also end problems caused by intended pregnancies? That's like saying we shouldn't find a cure for stomach cancer because it doesn't also cure lung cancer.
No one program is going to be the magic cure to end everybody's problems forever. That doesn't mean that a program can't at least do a lot of good.

I may not have the right to reproduce children but I do have the right to choose if I want to or not if I am capable physically and emotionally.

Wait, what? You may not have the right to reproduce, but you have the right to choose to reproduce? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Ravynn123]

Wait, what?
If the proposed system can end all problems caused by unintended pregnancies, why is it not justified if it can't also end problems caused by intended pregnancies? That's like saying we shouldn't find a cure for stomach cancer because it doesn't also cure lung cancer.
No one program is going to be the magic cure to end everybody's problems forever. That doesn't mean that a program can't at least do a lot of good.



Wait, what? You may not have the right to reproduce, but you have the right to choose to reproduce? That doesn't make sense to me.


How is forced sterilization going to cure the problem?

What gives you the right to force sterilization on me? That doesn't make sense to me...

[Ravynn123]

If you go back and read post #56 you will see that 44% of single mothers are either separated or divorced and only 33% of single mothers have never been married.....


ETA: So your forced sterilization argument for unwed pregnancies just doesn't cut it when a majority of single mothers and single fathers are from divorce and separation.

[AvalonXQ]

How is forced sterilization going to cure the problem?
Removing from everyone the ability to naturally become pregnant as a result of sex fixes the problem of unintended pregnancy.

What gives you the right to force sterilization on me?

You have no right to have kids, and society has the right to prevent you from having kids.

[AvalonXQ]

If you go back and read post #56 you will see that 44% of single mothers are either separated or divorced and only 33% of single mothers have never been married.....

Even if we translate that into "preventing all unintended pregnancies would only eliminate 33% of single mothers", why isn't that a considerable fix in and of itself? Especially since the 33% we're fixing are going to tend to be the youngest and least able to support themselves and their children, correct?
Again, fixing the teen mother epidemic may not also fix the divorce epidemic; I'm okay with acknowledging that they are different problems with different solutions.

[Ravynn123]

Removing from everyone the ability to naturally become pregnant as a result of sex fixes the problem of unintended pregnancy.



You have no right to have kids, and society has the right to prevent you from having kids.


That is your answer to forced sterilizations? LOL Epic Fail

[Ravynn123]

Go back and read post #56 especially where it states that 79% of single mothers are gainfully employed.

[AvalonXQ]

That is your answer to forced sterilizations? LOL Epic Fail

An excellent, intelligent rebuttal. Very well done.

[Francesca R]

http://www.shmoop.com/brave-new-world/director-of-hatcheries-conditioning.html

:)

[Ravynn123]

An excellent, intelligent rebuttal. Very well done.

I have given you intelligent rebuttal in everything you have said but you have not done the same. To say that society has the right to tell me or any woman that they have the right to choose for her is stupid.

Women have the right to decide if they want an abortion or not but they are then forced to be sterilized and do not have the right to choose without a license to have a baby??? Can you give me a logical answer to this question other than because that is How you feel or that is your belief...
I have already shown evidence that most single parent families are due to divorce. What evidence can you show me that will help me change my view about forced sterilization? Not your opinion but evidence....

[Darth Rotor]

Retrospective abortion???

I had heard that the legal term is manslaughter ...

[AvalonXQ]

I have given you intelligent rebuttal in everything you have said but you have not done the same. To say that society has the right to tell me or any woman that they have the right to choose for her is stupid.
No, it's logical.
Society has neither unlimited resources nor the unrestricted responsibility to include any number of people that any individual chooses to produce. Making people is not a right, nor is raising them, as both involve a person other than yourself (namely, the one you're creating).

I have already shown evidence that most single parent families are due to divorce.

No, you haven't. You showed a survey of all parents of children under 21 years of age who are not living with the other parent. The survey showed that 44% of the mothers are currently separated or divorced.
If you had been included in that survey, you would show up as separated or divorced despite the fact that you originally became a single mother due to an unintended unmarried pregnancy, not due to a divorce. This would be true even if the only child you had ever had was your first.

First, let's make sure that I have your claim straight. Are you claiming that my system should not be implemented because unintended pregnancies are not actually a major problem?
If this is your claim, what evidence do you have to support it?

[Ravynn123]

No, it's logical.
Society has neither unlimited resources nor the unrestricted responsibility to include any number of people that any individual chooses to produce. Making people is not a right, nor is raising them, as both involve a person other than yourself (namely, the one you're creating).



No, you haven't. You showed a survey of all parents of children under 21 years of age who are not living with the other parent. The survey showed that 44% of the mothers are currently separated or divorced.
If you had been included in that survey, you would show up as separated or divorced despite the fact that you originally became a single mother due to an unintended unmarried pregnancy, not due to a divorce. This would be true even if the only child you had ever had was your first.

First, let's make sure that I have your claim straight. Are you claiming that my system should not be implemented because unintended pregnancies are not actually a major problem?
If this is your claim, what evidence do you have to support it?

No I am saying that your system should not be implemented because you can not force something like sterilization on someone or at least should not be able to. What would your criteria be exactly as to who should be allowed to get a license to give birth and who shouldn't? I never claimed that unintended pregnancies are not a major problem. Do not put words in my mouth. I did say yes it is a problem but if you go back and actually read my post instead of picking and choosing which ones you want to comment on and ignoring the rest you will see that I stated that I do not agree with people on welfare as a career, deadbeat parents, and other problems that single parent homes can cause. I did however state that a better way to handle it would be change the current laws and that no there is not an easy answer to the problem. But, I do not believe that any answer includes forced sterilization. There has to be a better alternative than that That is what I am stating.

[Ravynn123]

AvalonXQ just a quick question. Do you have children?

[Ravynn123]

Oh and by the way if it was societies right to have forced sterilization then why is there this?
Forced sterilization has been recognized as crime against humanity if the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice by the Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

[dafydd]

An excellent, intelligent rebuttal. Very well done.

To an unintelligent,elitist and religion-driven argument.

[Giggywig]

No, it's logical.
Society has neither unlimited resources nor the unrestricted responsibility to include any number of people that any individual chooses to produce. Making people is not a right, nor is raising them, as both involve a person other than yourself (namely, the one you're creating).
Could you list the rights people do have? In your country, at least.

[Ziggurat]

No, it's logical.
Society has neither unlimited resources nor the unrestricted responsibility to include any number of people that any individual chooses to produce.

You say this like the resources needed to raise a child are extracted from society as a whole. But they aren't in general, and they certainly don't need to be. They come primarily from whoever is having the child. That person is indeed free to allocate their resources as they see fit, and that includes using them to raise a child. Once the child is grown, they can contribute to society. The only burden that is ever placed on society as a whole is through entitlement programs that redirect resources to children or parents, but society doesn't need to offer such benefits. It may choose to, but it cannot fairly use that choice to deprive an individual of the choice of how they allocate their own resources.

[AvalonXQ]

I never claimed that unintended pregnancies are not a major problem. <snip> I did say yes it is a problem <snip>

Okay, so the statistics you've provided thus far seem to be a red herring.

[AvalonXQ]

You say this like the resources needed to raise a child are extracted from society as a whole. But they aren't in general, and they certainly don't need to be. They come primarily from whoever is having the child. That person is indeed free to allocate their resources as they see fit, and that includes using them to raise a child. Once the child is grown, they can contribute to society. The only burden that is ever placed on society as a whole is through entitlement programs that redirect resources to children or parents, but society doesn't need to offer such benefits. It may choose to, but it cannot fairly use that choice to deprive an individual of the choice of how they allocate their own resources.

That's an interesting argument.
1) Do you assert that it would be moral for society to refuse to recognize the human rights of some of its members?
2) Do you assert that recognizing the human rights of a member of society doesn't impose a burden on society?
It seems clear to me that every time you have a child, society as a whole receives the burden associated with that child's rights, whatever they may be. But if you say yes to either #1 or #2, then this point may be worth discussing further rather than simply assuming that it's true.

[Ravynn123]

Okay, so the statistics you've provided thus far seem to be a red herring.


No they are not a red herring. But you want to have a program of forced sterilization because as you put it (paraphrasing, correct me if I am wrong) that unwed pregnancies are the main problem when I simply showed you that you you reasons were flawed because a majority of single parent homes are not caused from unwed pregnancies but from divorced parents. So how does it make it a red herring????

[AvalonXQ]

Could you list the rights people do have? In your country, at least.

Another important point. When I'm discussing rights, I'm talking about what rights there should be, rather than what rights our legal system actually acknowledges.
Legally, we do have the right to make any people we are physically able to. But morally, I do not believe human beings have (or if you prefer, should have) any such right.

[AvalonXQ]

No they are not a red herring. But you want to have a program of forced sterilization because as you put it (paraphrasing, correct me if I am wrong) that unwed pregnancies are the main problem when I simply showed you that you you reasons were flawed because a majority of single parent homes are not caused from unwed pregnancies but from divorced parents. So how does it make it a red herring????

You agree that unwanted pregnancies are a real problem. Whether or not there is a bigger problem is irrelevant.
You still haven't established that divorce actually is a bigger problem than unwanted pregnancy, but even assuming your point to be true, it doesn't actually have anything to do with a discussion of a method that would eliminate unwanted pregnancy.

[Ravynn123]

You agree that unwanted pregnancies are a real problem. Whether or not there is a bigger problem is irrelevant.
You still haven't established that divorce actually is a bigger problem than unwanted pregnancy, but even assuming your point to be true, it doesn't actually have anything to do with a discussion of a method that would eliminate unwanted pregnancy.


I thought the problem was single parent homes that were living on welfare and being a drain to society.

[AvalonXQ]

I thought the problem was single parent homes that were living on welfare and being a drain to society.

While I agree that families living on welfare may be a drain on society, and therefore a problem, I don't think this is "the problem".

[Arcade22]

While I agree that families living on welfare may be a drain on society, and therefore a problem, I don't think this is "the problem".

What is 'the problem' then?

[Ravynn123]

yes please clarify what you think the problem is.

[Ravynn123]

Avalon I also see where you are using unwanted pregnancy and I am using unwed. Please don't misunderstand my unwed pregnancy with my daughter was by no means unwanted. She was unplanned yes, but never unwanted. And again I ask maybe you missed this question earlier, Do you have any children?

[AvalonXQ]

Please don't misunderstand my unwed pregnancy with my daughter was by no means unwanted. She was unplanned yes, but never unwanted.

Another interesting point.
So, if this system were in place, would you have applied for a parenting license and pregnancy when you were 17?

[Ravynn123]

Another interesting point.
So, if this system were in place, would you have applied for a parenting license and pregnancy when you were 17?


I don't know how that matters. Do you think that every unwed pregnancy or unplanned pregnancy is unwanted?

[fullflavormenthol]

...and society has the right to prevent you from having kids.

So the whole of the debate is an argument between the notion of individual or societal rights?

Well I can say my perspective is that society has no rights.

[AvalonXQ]

I don't know how that matters.

It matters that you were pregnant by accident, and if you had had a choice, you wouldn't have been pregnant.
I think making pregnancy always be an intentional choice would be a very good thing.

[funk de fino]

So, in the past, we've sterilized specific groups of people. We've also decided that this was bad.
I'm not so clear on why it's bad to sterilize everyone, and then make parenting a genuine opt-in scenario.

That truly shocks me.

[Ravynn123]

It matters that you were pregnant by accident, and if you had had a choice, you wouldn't have been pregnant.
I think making pregnancy always be an intentional choice would be a very good thing.

When did I ever say given the choice I wouldn't have been pregnant? I was unwed and it was unplanned at the time but who said that once I became pregnant that I wasn't over joyed and thrilled that I was pregnant. You assume to much.

[Fiona]

Even if we translate that into "preventing all unintended pregnancies would only eliminate 33% of single mothers", why isn't that a considerable fix in and of itself? Especially since the 33% we're fixing are going to tend to be the youngest and least able to support themselves and their children, correct?
Again, fixing the teen mother epidemic may not also fix the divorce epidemic; I'm okay with acknowledging that they are different problems with different solutions.

What percentage of that 33% were in long term relationships but not married. Are you going to limit the right to have children to those who get married now? WTF

[funk de fino]

It matters that you were pregnant by accident, and if you had had a choice, you wouldn't have been pregnant.
I think making pregnancy always be an intentional choice would be a very good thing.

In your world, I would not be here today.

Thanks.

[Ziggurat]

That's an interesting argument.
1) Do you assert that it would be moral for society to refuse to recognize the human rights of some of its members?

No.

2) Do you assert that recognizing the human rights of a member of society doesn't impose a burden on society?

Yes. I believe in negative rights, not positive rights (a.k.a entitlements). Negative rights are not a burden on society.

[jadey]

I think making pregnancy always be an intentional choice would be a very good thing.

I agree that it would be nice if pregnancy was always an intentional choice, but completely disagree with any attempt to enforce it.

[Cobalt]

Removing from everyone the ability to naturally become pregnant as a result of sex fixes the problem of unintended pregnancy.

Or just better educate people on safe sex. Yes, it isn't 100%, but better than what you propose by still giving people control over their own bodies.

And I'm amazed there's not been one joke about anal. Kudos.


You have no right to have kids,According to who? You? Who are you again?
and society has the right to prevent you from having kids. By what criteria? Financial? Intelligence? Religious Beliefs?
No matter where you draw that line you'll create a class war of immense magnitude.

That truly shocks me.
Welcome to the internet. Probably should get a cup and mouth guard.

[Darth Rotor]

Another important point. When I'm discussing rights, I'm talking about what rights there should be, rather than what rights our legal system actually acknowledges.
Legally, we do have the right to make any people we are physically able to. But morally, I do not believe human beings have (or if you prefer, should have) any such right.
You and I will not agree on this.

I find greater rationality in the position that (consistent with the general principles of the US Constitution, as outlined in Amendments IX and X) rights are reserved by the people, en toto, except as they agree or consent to modify, restrict, or forfeit to the state, or society. In short, the default position is pure liberty (and if you want to call that anarchy, fine) modified to X amount of order and consensuallyl agreed curtailment or limitation of rights.

For example, the most commonly agreed norm that I can think of in the global sense is the taboo against killing within the tribe/society/state. A societal agreement has made (universally?) that the general case of taking another's life is not a right, or it is a right with significant limitation (example: self defense only, otherwise forfeited.)

In reality, you only preserve those rights you defend. I see no reason not to defend the right to reproduce. I need to be given a better argument than you have provided to agree to waiving a part of that right.

Avalon, I suggest the normative change, even if not achieving the 80% solution, would be a better mode to approach whatever problem you perceive in need of remedy than a draconian default position of abrogating rights to be "earned" back from the state. I'd reserve that sort of "re earn" motif to those who have already broken faith with the society/tribe/state by actual behavior, felonious, rather than potential to screw up.

You should not by default assume that the citizen is a criminal, nor an incompetent, regardless of the fact that some are.

DR