I am amazed that this dangerous opinion still thrives, so many years after Nazi Germany advocated it.
In order to make your solution work, you need to have the state set up the guidelines. Which leads to the frightening question: who decides which group reproduces? The rich white men in power currently?
Wanna make a wager as to which group(s) would be most restricted? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be low-income white high-school graduates.
I wasn't aware I was attempting to censor you by responding.
Reading over some of the hundreds of responses to the question, I truly was shocked to read how many people think that taking away a natural right is in any way an appropriate function of the state.
I used to believe as you do. But my personal truth is now a little different.
These days, well... I don't believe there are any natural or perhaps inalienable rights. I think that they're a modern fiction perpetuated by a toothless attempt at a world government. (By which I say I wish the United Nations had a little more power and those rights were enforced...!).
Every right we have was founded on struggle and is maintained by our ability to defend them through struggle. Even if the world was completely disarmed and we lived in some kind of Utopia, such rights would only prevail until they came within the reach of the next bureaucratic despot.
But within the scope of our society's power, our rights are pretty much what we decide them to be.
I disagree- reproductive freedom is absolutely essential. Although a Godwinning wasn't the best way to go about it,nofaves has a point. At many times in the past, not just Nazi Germany, the rhetoric used to justify curtailing reproductive freedom has led to horrific abuses, usually on the grounds of race, class, or disability. Even today many people suffering from disabilities are screwed over by medical 'professionals' in their attempts to have children. I'm not usually a fan of slippery slope arguments, but this particular slope is so very slippery that I'll make an exception. It's just too risky to legislate away reproductive freedom, even with the best of intentions. Ain't nobody's business what a woman does with her uterus but her own.
The right to keep children once they've been had, however- well, there's a reason the Department for Child Protection exists.
I see no reason why a couple who are not neurotypical should be legally barred from having children. I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'retarded'- I could be wrong but I thought that it wasn't a diagnosis these days?- but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming you're using the term to refer broadly to people with severe learning disabilities and/or low IQs. Obviously parenthood could pose different and more difficult challenges for these people, but if they're in a position where they're capable of forming an adult relationship then one would assume that they're also capable of providing loving care for a child. Perhaps they would need more (and probably different kinds of) support from carers or their own parents; perhaps not, depending on the individuals and the type of disability they have. Anyway, what would you suggest as an alternative? Mandatory sterilisation? Forced abortions? Paternalistically treating adults living with disabilities as if they were children incapable of making decisions about their own
( ... )
I guess my feeling is that anyone with a severe mental disability or handicap would inevitably pass on stunted social skills to their children. I'm concerned with rights, but I put the children's right to lead a "relatively" normal life above the parents' selfish desire for children.
Forced sterilisation is not the only course that can be taken. The tea issued to British soldiers during WWII supressed sexual drive, for instance.
I'm never really in favour of state decreed abortions.
Comments 8
In order to make your solution work, you need to have the state set up the guidelines. Which leads to the frightening question: who decides which group reproduces? The rich white men in power currently?
Wanna make a wager as to which group(s) would be most restricted? I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't be low-income white high-school graduates.
Reply
I like how you used the word "solution" there to describe my idea - it really kept the Nazi meme going.
And lets throw in some racism, envy and fear mongering for good measure, eh?
I'm feel honoured to have been engaged by so intelligent a debator.
Reply
Reading over some of the hundreds of responses to the question, I truly was shocked to read how many people think that taking away a natural right is in any way an appropriate function of the state.
Reply
I used to believe as you do. But my personal truth is now a little different.
These days, well... I don't believe there are any natural or perhaps inalienable rights. I think that they're a modern fiction perpetuated by a toothless attempt at a world government. (By which I say I wish the United Nations had a little more power and those rights were enforced...!).
Every right we have was founded on struggle and is maintained by our ability to defend them through struggle. Even if the world was completely disarmed and we lived in some kind of Utopia, such rights would only prevail until they came within the reach of the next bureaucratic despot.
But within the scope of our society's power, our rights are pretty much what we decide them to be.
Reply
The right to keep children once they've been had, however- well, there's a reason the Department for Child Protection exists.
Reply
Should a pair of mentally retarded people be allowed to have a child?
Should we set reasonable limits to our population growth in a world that finds it impossible to set limits on our resource consumption?
Reply
Reply
I guess my feeling is that anyone with a severe mental disability or handicap would inevitably pass on stunted social skills to their children. I'm concerned with rights, but I put the children's right to lead a "relatively" normal life above the parents' selfish desire for children.
Forced sterilisation is not the only course that can be taken. The tea issued to British soldiers during WWII supressed sexual drive, for instance.
I'm never really in favour of state decreed abortions.
Reply
Leave a comment