Pay for your children, or get mandatory birth control!

[Diogenes]

I don't expect there'll be much if any censorship because those couple of guys are offensive or disgusting to some. I'd definitely agree they're way out of line if this forum wants to be taken seriously as a reasonable Polywell/Fusion discussion forum.

The Fusion issue has been beat to death. Unless someone can come up with a new theory regarding it, or new experimental data which can support or discredit the various existing theories, I don't see much merit in discussing it further. We need new information. That being said, I find issues of import to this nation interesting, and believe they need to be discussed.

The only good aspect to WizWom's proposal is that he seems to consider it a tragedy that kids are born into squalor from parents who ought to know better.

It IS a tragedy! The entire point of this idea is that it is a FAR GREATER tragedy than the topic thread proposed idea, and your comments on the idea indicate that you simply don't comprehend the scope of the tragedy. Perhaps I have a better view of things because i've spent so much time amongst those people for whom this sort of tragedy is commonplace.

My brother and sisters were sent to an orphanage when I was young, my real father was a drunken self-centered worthless piece of crap that abandoned the family shortly after I was born. My two best friend's fathers ALSO abandoned their families in a like manner. I know lots of people that this has happened to, and it is complete bullshit that society thinks this behavior is acceptable.

And that those kids can't be let down by the rest of society, e.g. left to starve under those parents.

The deterrence idea is to make people take stock of their decisions and not be so cavalier about who's taking responsibility for their bad choices. As the anecdotal exchange between judge and horse thief goes:

Horse thief: "Your Honor, it is unfair that I should be hung for stealing a horse."

Judge: "You are not being hung for stealing a horse, you are being hung that horses might not be stolen. "

But the justification that those parents "stole" WizWom's money is rubbish. Why is it stealing then but not when the money's put to good use?

This is simple. Citizens are required to support the necessary functions of government because those functions are needful to protect the citizens and society. Paying for defense and paying for the operations of the legal system make a free nation possible. Paying for things which are NOT required for the survival of any nation are optional. Paying for things which are in fact detrimental to the country (and individual citizens as well) is the equivalent of a crime. Doing so outside the lawful framework of our governing documents does in fact make it "STEALING" in my opinion.

Why does govt bear no guilt for its irresponsible funding of those people in the first place? Why is the voting population not considered responsible for its allowing govt to have such irresponsible policies that those people are getting govt help they shouldn't?

It is, and the Franchise has been seriously damaged by the detrimental effects of watering down the requirements and the stupidity being promulgated through television (which has been totally under the control of Liberal Democrats since it was invented.)

I'm not looking for Diogenes' answers.

Probably not, but they are likely the most sensible answers you are going to get.

[Diogenes]

A basic problem with the involuntary sterilization proposals is "you can't get there from here." Maybe that's not a problem.

Involuntary sterilization is part of U.S. history, a part of which we are or should be rightfully ashamed.

I disagree. Even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes agreed that this was necessary. It is still common practice to sterilize mentally retarded people. It is one of those tasks (like the slaughtering of animals to eat) that is unpleasant, but necessary.

Apart from that, I have recently been considering the notion that the idea might function without being mandatory. Simply inform them of their choices. Vasectomies or tubal ligations, vs. going to prison, (or in the case of the mother, going to a restrictive public housing facility with strict rules and security. ) Call it coerced consensual. They could always pay their own bills to get out of it.

Further, once those who choose who gets sterilized start to broaden the scope of who gets selected, expect exponentially increasing resistence to the procedures. I have a variety of characteristics which could be used to select me for sterilization (e.g. I don't think involuntary sterilization is a good idea). I would resist; I would expect anyone who stands on two feet, walks on crutches, sits in a wheelchair, lies in a bed or who has control of any voluntary muscle to resist.

You are suggesting a "Domino Effect" or "Slippery Slope?"

Well, in order to counteract such a concern we need to have some sort of negative feedback method. How about using the legal system and going through a court? (That's what I was thinking needed to be done anyway)

This is how we deal with crime currently, and I believe it is also how the state deals with sterilizing the mentally retarded currently. I would suggest if we ever get to the point where we are sterilizing people indiscriminately through the court system, we will have at that point far bigger problems to deal with.

Suffice it to say, It would seem to me that if appropriate safeguards are taken, then the dangers of a "domino effect" can be eliminated.

[Diogenes]

You need to explain how people are "stealing" your money only when they use it to make babies the way you disapprove of.

Babies are made the same way, through sex. No one is complaining about people having sex, they are complaining that they are not doing it responsibly and then expecting others to pay the costs of the all too predictable outcome. In past ages, any woman so foolish as to do this would either die or have to be supported by her immediate family who along with her community would chastise here incessantly for having burdened them so.
There IS no negative feedback system for these foolish people currently.

Diogenes hasn't posted in here, so you probably mean Chrismb.

He is using the term "Diogenes" as a derogatory accusation. He is apparently of the opinion that my ideas are so noxious that my handle serves the purpose of a pejorative. It is an ad hominem slam at both me and to whomever he is replying.

The real Diogenes cared not what others thought of him, and would masturbate at them to show his contempt. While I wouldn't go that far, I must say I can understand his motivation.

[Diogenes]

Rates of successful tubal ligation reversal is ~ 20-70 percent. Hardly reassuring.

http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/surger ... ersalp.htm

Vasectomy reversals are ~ 50% effective.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vasect ... al/MY00326


These are the two least invasive surgical methods of birth control. Generally safe, there are still deaths and morbidity risks. And reversal is a crap shoot at best. And you recommend this be imposed on select individuals? How will you reimburse those who satisfy some criteria to regain their reproductive privileges if the reversal does not work? How do you reimburse those who who suffer injury or death as a direct consequence of the surgery? How do you pay for those crippled that require lifelong and expensive medical care? Perhaps you could legislate a ban on their 'legal rights' under the law. But, now you are not only harming them surgically, you are also making them a less privileged subclass within society. This is a very slippery path.
Fairly efficient BC with implanted hormones for women are aviable (but what about the men?). But, as with any birth control, there are risks. You might argue that the risks are less than the risks of childbirth, but that is a gray area, depending on the population you are talking about.

I would suggest that those most likely be affected consider those risks before undertaking a journey to that destination.

There are no convienient, temperary and reverasable BC methods that do not suffer from some risks.

You could take China's approach, and abort unlicenced pregnancies, but then you would have to admit that you were just like the communists. And, I suspect many of those argueing for selective birth privaliges are against abortion- Oh wait, they are a subclass, so it is ok (sarcasm intended).

Dan Tibbets

I have a better idea! We send the bill to Dan Tibbets personally and see if he objects. We can call him a communist who believes in eugenics and murder if he doesn't agree to pay the bill.

[Diogenes]

Not necessarily. WizWom may have other things to do...I assume all of us do. I invite us to practice patience.

There are some days that I regard the messages I am to reply to as so foolish that I simply cannot muster the interest necessary to respond. At least not right away.

[D Tibbets]

Eugenics does mean killing off a group. Limiting the definition of a group to genetically pure subspecies may obscure the language used. But it does not change the process. A group that is killed off through either killing directly, or preventing reproduction so that they die off in 1-2 generations is the same. The Chinese avoid this by claiming that their forced birth control is applied to all (along with allowing for some replacement, but no growth of the population). In practice though, there are always exceptions for those who can pay for it one way or another. In this sense, total birth prevention is even more extreme than the Chinese approach. It is based on perceived consuption of resources by all. This argument is based on the consumption of a subgroup, and the resources of another group. The Chinese approach is more honest, and at least in principle, more fair.

I remember the fight over the proposed sterilization af a mentally challanged giel. She apparently had several children from different men, She could not care for the children, and it was argued that she did not have the capacity to deny sexual advances from (obvously opertunistic) men. I don't know how the issue was resolved, but it was a mess. And, I did not see any mention of hunting down the fathers and steralizing them.

Dan Tibbets

[Betruger]

Not necessarily. WizWom may have other things to do...I assume all of us do. I invite us to practice patience.

There are some days that I regard the messages I am to reply to as so foolish that I simply cannot muster the interest necessary to respond. At least not right away.

Do yourself a favor and ignore my posts unless I clearly ask for your input. I said above I wasn't going to argue with you.

[GIThruster]

The real Diogenes cared not what others thought of him, and would masturbate at them to show his contempt. While I wouldn't go that far, I must say I can understand his motivation.

The real Diogenes was a lot like your father:

". . .made a virtue of extreme poverty, famously begging for a living and sleeping in a tub in the marketplace."

and a lot like you:

"He became notorious for his provocative behaviour and philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man."

What you don't get, Dio, is that just because people don't think irresponsibility should be criminalized, doesn't mean we think it's okay. Probably most of us believe in giving a man a "leg-up" in life, but rather than give a man a fish, we want to teach him to fish for himself. Stuff like this is not best handled through the political institutions but through charities and churches, from friends family and others who take a personal interest. What diminishes us all, is when we try to institutionalize things like forced will upon the people. That's a step too far toward a draconian future for most of us, at least; for those of us with some compassion left.

[rjaypeters]

Poster child:

Man who fathered 23 children with 14 women sent to prison after missing more than $500,000 in child support payments

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... ren_w.html

[WizWom]

Not necessarily. WizWom may have other things to do...I assume all of us do. I invite us to practice patience.

Or, I could not be raising to the troll-bait.

[Betruger]

See, RJP?

Asking plain questions is troll bait huh? Let's see:

Morality argument: By choosing to steal resources from me and other productive people, you have violated my property rights.

How does this not say specifically that those irresponsible parents have stolen resources from you and other productive people? How does this criteria for sterilization apply only to those irresponsible people? Or does your argument really do run as follows?

Because irresponsible progenitors stole your money by accepting govt handouts, unlike anyone else who also happened to accept govt handouts either for other purposes or for responsible child bearing, they should be sterilized.
There's no distinction between one and the other.

You haven't answered D Tibbets' questions either - Are those troll bait too? Next I'll ask how involuntary sterilization isn't a human rights violation.

[Diogenes]

Not necessarily. WizWom may have other things to do...I assume all of us do. I invite us to practice patience.

There are some days that I regard the messages I am to reply to as so foolish that I simply cannot muster the interest necessary to respond. At least not right away.

Do yourself a favor and ignore my posts unless I clearly ask for your input. I said above I wasn't going to argue with you.

And this is an example of what I was talking about. Seriously? Don't respond to commentary? Now why would I do that?

[Diogenes]

Eugenics does mean killing off a group. Limiting the definition of a group to genetically pure subspecies may obscure the language used. But it does not change the process. A group that is killed off through either killing directly, or preventing reproduction so that they die off in 1-2 generations is the same. The Chinese avoid this by claiming that their forced birth control is applied to all (along with allowing for some replacement, but no growth of the population). In practice though, there are always exceptions for those who can pay for it one way or another. In this sense, total birth prevention is even more extreme than the Chinese approach. It is based on perceived consuption of resources by all. This argument is based on the consumption of a subgroup, and the resources of another group. The Chinese approach is more honest, and at least in principle, more fair.

I remember the fight over the proposed sterilization af a mentally challanged giel. She apparently had several children from different men, She could not care for the children, and it was argued that she did not have the capacity to deny sexual advances from (obvously opertunistic) men. I don't know how the issue was resolved, but it was a mess. And, I did not see any mention of hunting down the fathers and steralizing them.

Dan Tibbets

And this is another example. Did the root word for "eugenics" not provide some sort of clue?

[Diogenes]

Poster child:

Man who fathered 23 children with 14 women sent to prison after missing more than $500,000 in child support payments

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... ren_w.html

From those who think we should acquiesce to this sort of behavior.... crickets....

[Betruger]

No. Answer as you wish; I'm just not going to be reading thru and replying. Others might glean some things worth debating, no doubt.