Serious question about eugenics and other controls on procreation

[Amelia]

Is there some group of people, or some type of person, or some individual, whom you truly believe should not be allowed to procreate, or at least should not procreate until they change their circumstances, or whose choice of partner should be limited to others who fit certain parameters?

... whether you would formalize it in law or would prefer to use societal pressure to prevent them from having children or influence their choice of partner...

As possible examples: people with congenital health issues or those who are addicted to drugs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Is there some group of people, or some type of person, or some individual, whom you truly believe should not be allowed to procreate, or at least should not procreate until they change their circumstances, or should be allowed to procreate but only with partners who fit certain parameters?

... whether you would formalize it in law or would prefer to use societal pressure to prevent them from having children ...

As possible examples: people with congenital health issues or those who are addicted to drugs.

I can think of many groups I'd restrict, most can, and congenital does not mean genetic, which is only one possible cause of congenital disorders.

 

[Amelia]

Is there some group of people, or some type of person, or some individual, whom you truly believe should not be allowed to procreate, or at least should not procreate until they change their circumstances, or should be allowed to procreate but only with partners who fit certain parameters?

... whether you would formalize it in law or would prefer to use societal pressure to prevent them from having children ...

As possible examples: people with congenital health issues or those who are addicted to drugs.

I can think of many groups I'd restrict, most can, and congenital does not mean genetic, which is only one possible cause of congenital disorders.

What do you mean by restrict?

I'm thinking of something stronger than merely thinking or casually saying that some people shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Would you ever approve of it as a matter of public policy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slippery slope

Is procreation an individual civil right under the Constitution?

 

[Sunni Man]

.
The original Obama Care / ACA program for the people. ..

Action T4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KNB]

Society cannot restrict who has children with whomever they choose. The only person who can choose to have a child is the woman who gets pregnant. Every woman is free to have as many children with as many different men as she chooses. She can choose to terminate one pregnancy or carry another to birth. It is whatever that individual woman chooses. That might not fit into the narrow moral scope of right-wing Christians but right-wing Christians aren't allowed to push their religion into public law. Society's only obligation is to collectively (society is a collective) nurture all of those children, regardless of who their parents are, toward a proper education and a productive lifestyle. This is how American society progresses.

 

[R.D.]

No

 

[Sunni Man]

Society cannot restrict who has children with whomever they choose. The only person who can choose to have a child is the woman who gets pregnant. Every woman is free to have as many children with as many different men as she chooses. She can choose to terminate one pregnancy or carry another to birth. It is whatever that individual woman chooses. That might not fit into the narrow moral scope of right-wing Christians but right-wing Christians aren't allowed to push their religion into public law. Society's only obligation is to collectively (society is a collective) nurture all of those children, regardless of who their parents are, toward a proper education and a productive lifestyle. This is how American society progresses.

I think you mean "digresses" ..

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Would you ever approve of it as a matter of public policy?

Potentially. It's a thorny matter however, as history clearly shows.

 

[Amelia]

Society cannot restrict who has children with whomever they choose. The only person who can choose to have a child is the woman who gets pregnant. Every woman is free to have as many children with as many different men as she chooses. She can choose to terminate one pregnancy or carry another to birth. It is whatever that individual woman chooses. That might not fit into the narrow moral scope of right-wing Christians but right-wing Christians aren't allowed to push their religion into public law. Society's only obligation is to collectively (society is a collective) nurture all of those children, regardless of who their parents are, toward a proper education and a productive lifestyle. This is how American society progresses.

Society does restrict it already.

For example, in most states sex between first cousins is against the law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Society does restrict it already.

For example, in most states sex between first cousins is against the law.

Marriage, I very much doubt sex.

 

[KNB]

Society cannot restrict who has children with whomever they choose. The only person who can choose to have a child is the woman who gets pregnant. Every woman is free to have as many children with as many different men as she chooses. She can choose to terminate one pregnancy or carry another to birth. It is whatever that individual woman chooses. That might not fit into the narrow moral scope of right-wing Christians but right-wing Christians aren't allowed to push their religion into public law. Society's only obligation is to collectively (society is a collective) nurture all of those children, regardless of who their parents are, toward a proper education and a productive lifestyle. This is how American society progresses.

Society does restrict it already.

For example, in most states sex between first cousins is against the law.

And rapists can be chemically castrated, so society already puts limits on who can have children. We already do that to an extent, but this doesn't appear to be a discussion about that. This discussion seems to imply that the law or society can stop anyone from having children with anyone else for any reason. That's a ridiculous argument because under that plan, if society really wanted to advance, the very first people who would be forced to stop breeding would be white Republicans who make less than $40k/yr, especially in the former Confederate states.

 

[Amelia]

Society cannot restrict who has children with whomever they choose. The only person who can choose to have a child is the woman who gets pregnant. Every woman is free to have as many children with as many different men as she chooses. She can choose to terminate one pregnancy or carry another to birth. It is whatever that individual woman chooses. That might not fit into the narrow moral scope of right-wing Christians but right-wing Christians aren't allowed to push their religion into public law. Society's only obligation is to collectively (society is a collective) nurture all of those children, regardless of who their parents are, toward a proper education and a productive lifestyle. This is how American society progresses.

Society does restrict it already.

For example, in most states sex between first cousins is against the law.

And rapists can be chemically castrated, so society already puts limits on who can have children. We already do that to an extent, but this doesn't appear to be a discussion about that. This discussion seems to imply that the law or society can stop anyone from having children with anyone else for any reason. That's a ridiculous argument because under that plan, if society really wanted to advance, the very first people who would be forced to stop breeding would be white Republicans who make less than $40k/yr, especially in the former Confederate states.

"This discussion seems to imply that the law or society can stop anyone from having children with anyone else for any reason."

I tried very hard to make my OP more inclusive than that.

 

[KNB]

What physical requirements will be needed? Heart disease is the number one killer in America, right? Anyone at risk of heart disease should be forced to stop having children? Society has already had this discussion and that's why we have the social norms that we have now. Everyone is free to choose who they want to have children with. Unfit parents are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This is what a free society should be.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Society cannot restrict who has children with whomever they choose. The only person who can choose to have a child is the woman who gets pregnant. Every woman is free to have as many children with as many different men as she chooses. She can choose to terminate one pregnancy or carry another to birth. It is whatever that individual woman chooses. That might not fit into the narrow moral scope of right-wing Christians but right-wing Christians aren't allowed to push their religion into public law. Society's only obligation is to collectively (society is a collective) nurture all of those children, regardless of who their parents are, toward a proper education and a productive lifestyle. This is how American society progresses.

Society does restrict it already.

For example, in most states sex between first cousins is against the law.

And rapists can be chemically castrated, so society already puts limits on who can have children. We already do that to an extent, but this doesn't appear to be a discussion about that. This discussion seems to imply that the law or society can stop anyone from having children with anyone else for any reason. That's a ridiculous argument because under that plan, if society really wanted to advance, the very first people who would be forced to stop breeding would be white Republicans who make less than $40k/yr, especially in the former Confederate states.

From you yes, but youd be suprised, no SHOCKED to see how many eemocrats would fo that to minorities.

 

[Seawytch]

Society cannot restrict who has children with whomever they choose. The only person who can choose to have a child is the woman who gets pregnant. Every woman is free to have as many children with as many different men as she chooses. She can choose to terminate one pregnancy or carry another to birth. It is whatever that individual woman chooses. That might not fit into the narrow moral scope of right-wing Christians but right-wing Christians aren't allowed to push their religion into public law. Society's only obligation is to collectively (society is a collective) nurture all of those children, regardless of who their parents are, toward a proper education and a productive lifestyle. This is how American society progresses.

Society does restrict it already.



For example, in most states sex between first cousins is against the law.

But in some states it is not...if they cannot procreate. It is an actual requirement that they cannot have children if they wish to marry. OP answered.