Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
You are not considered the moral debate of taking away someone's right to reproduce (personal "freedom").
One thing is allow science to evolve and research ( people to do whatever they want in that sense) another thing is to give the government the right to determine who's good enough to "reproduce" and who's not. It's really twisted if you think about it and not much different from most fascist ideas - some people are "superior" and we determine who they are, other people are "inferior" and we opress them and control their reproduction.
When you say this idea would work in "troublesome areas" you're pretty much saying the richer would get away with it and the poorer would be the victims.
We're also living in a world in which the great majority of the population (the poorer) have no access to education, birth control or even the idea that there could be any other objective in life.
I agree with Nefeli, education is key, people need choices, not more control.
|
Well, if you actually read my longer reply to Nefeli you could see with your own eyes that I made this comment:
''In a way, what I mean is that it wouldn't be a ''punishing'' tactic couples would be stamped on with for the rest of their lives, more a monitoring of their well-being in order for them to reproduce at the best of their capabilities. ''
That doesn't imply that couples would have their right to reproduce taken away from them at all, more their motivations would be more closely monitored. And I don't even think technically you could impose anything like that on the population at large unless we refer again to sci-fi, apocalyptic, barbaric scenarios, which are nothing I was on about at all.
The comment about the rich/poor doesn't imply I am saying anything other than what I said either, the ''troublesome areas'' I refered to weren't meant to be anything other than certain geographical spots. Bad parenting affects the rich
and the poor, and more importantly, it also affects the rich
er in between the two sides
, which as you might know has the potential of seeing their wealth shrink due to violent shakes in the economy like everyone else, and ultimately doesn't differ all that much from their poorer counterparts when it comes to certain social behaviours. To suggest that all rich people defy all laws seems also too limited thinking to me.
About the rest - Let's put it this way, if you look at history nothing establishes itself with 100% peacefulness and consideration for all the parties involved, sometimes certain ideas even create mis-balancing within sections of an established majority. All methods of imposing benign or malign rules in society and its structuring have an element that you could define, to use a popular term with the liberal crowd, as ''fascistic''.
Can't write more now because I'm at work. brb