33 Disturbing But True Facts About Eugenics

[teamdaemon]

I've often thought, indeed, that there are some people that just should not have children. Is that wrong?

In fact, I've always sort of had this secret thought that people should first prove their ability to raise children before having them.

Yes, it is wrong. Who are you to decide who is fit to have children? What authority do you have to decide? Besides being a freemason, that is. Who would they prove their fitness to? A bunch of psychotic Nazis?

The sane way to "combat overpopulation", not that I am even suggesting that this is a problem in Louisiana, would be to spend that 1000 dollars on educating people and providing free birth control.

Maybe YOU are the person who isn't fit to procreate

[brekin]

It's obvious the drastic price drops in cell phones are designed to make the poor sterile anyway.

[annie aronburg]

Let me get this straight: a (probably catholic) southern republican advocating state-funded birth-control?

I have entered an alternate universe!

[Penguin]

how about we try to educate MORE people in this world so they make better decisions regarding procreation?

oh right, that would make sense.

Yea...Like the Catholic Church opposing condoms, Bush opposing condoms, who else..And opposing educating the poor, opposing sharing the wealth equally instead of supporting this vast imbalance of wealth - that is getting ever-wider. Hey, thats the planned economic system! How else could it go?

Then these same guys (maybe a gal here and there) think that since they run this Great Inequalizer, and are so smart and all, that they can decide who are the "useless eaters" . Let me tell you, the useless eater (good only for compost, and that with lots of mulch) is anyone who thinks they have a right to do or suggest any such thing, before they have dedicated their lives to improving the lot of the most poor. Like by planting local tree varieties with them, fighting for land reform, or helping give out condoms and education about sex and contraceptives. Or making sure the school system in countries like USA is actually about education and critical thinking, not the industrial slave consumer production system it currently is. Thats another totally intended design choice in "education" in many places.

Then they turn around and blame "the poor, breeding mass" (!!) for their conditions - conditions which could easily be changed, if the intention really was good.

[mentalgongfu2]

Teamdaemon said:

Yes, it is wrong. Who are you to decide who is fit to have children? What authority do you have to decide? Besides being a freemason, that is. Who would they prove their fitness to? A bunch of psychotic Nazis?

The sane way to "combat overpopulation", not that I am even suggesting that this is a problem in Louisiana, would be to spend that 1000 dollars on educating people and providing free birth control.

I agree with you Teamdaemon in that the relevant question for eugenics is "who gets to decide?" And the likely answers are why I don't support eugenics. But that is completely separate from the reality of limited resources. I don't know what number of humans on planet earth would be ideal for co-existence with every other living being or if we've surpassed that number, but it is a FACT that at some point the available resources will not be able to meet the demand if humans continue to multiply. At that point, though, I don't think we'll have to debate the morality or immorality of eugenics because things will start to take their own course. There's no need to murder people who are starving to death.


Loposapien gets points for addressing the subject matter directly without moralizing:

On a strictly theoretical level, I can agree that there are many people that should not be having or raising children. The trouble comes in how to decide, or, more importantly, who gets to decide the criteria for making the decision of who is fit and who is not.

[Penguin]

What Im saying is that when people live in stable societies and have the basic necessities of life, they are perfectly able to control the birth rate. We are just beginning to wake up to this kind of a lot too late, and the current world power model isnt gonna do one shit about it either - except in the vein of the eugenicists.

Many western countries already have negative population growth, and some densely populated areas are doing better also. Kerala in India as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala#Demographics (as it "develops" - south it goes...but there you can see the opposing trend too)

And remember, one human in the West uses at least 4 times as much energy and food resources than one human in a "developing" country. Its that development that increases the per capita demands. Instead we should be looking at ways to undevelope, if defined by present terms - economically and ecologically. Sustainables the word, but Newspeak has robbed that word of its meaning.

But if the still-"underdeveloped" countries all go the way paved by the Wise West, were all fucked. And its all thanks to us who showed the brilliant Western way of life as Holy Sermon to the whole world. (No, really, I cant blame West - its a civilization problem really, imho around 10 000 years. Exponential growth lately - like cancer shows. West only in this last acute spasm.)

But when we start euthanizing undesirables and preventing births authoritatively by some decree, then we are most definitely fucked beyond all hope of humanity ever resurfacing. And at that point Ill start considering terminating myself as first aid. Perhaps in some public place, by pouring gasoline all over myself and setting it alight. Because thats how bad it will be.

What I really mean is that everyone should ride a bicycle, stop eating meat right now today, its not about ethics, its about ecology. Eat locally grown food as much as you can. Buy only recycled goods if possible. I decided to not buy another new computer or electronic device ever. Ive contributed enough to that. Recycle everything you use, compost your biowaste.

Next comes whatever social action one can think of. But unless one personally is doing everything they personally can, yes, the even the seemingly incosequential little things, save where you can - if all you can do is small, do it. But with everyone blaming someone else and not taking personal responsibility, its gonna end in carnage. Its not about us alone - its about the mental health of our collective unconscious.

Im not being holier than thou here, I live in a country that uses a lot of energy since its a cold climate. But I will never own a car again, and I try to do most of the other things I can, most of the time.

I know lots of people who work in poor countries, personally going there to spread information and empower the locals. Not some up-down projects, but ones that recruit the locals for the work, and co-operatively try to develop working solutions to local problems. That kind of stuff we should have been doing for hundreds of years instead of building empires and fighting trade wars. Yes I know its ideological dreaming, but hell, so is that eugenistic fuckwit stuff.

Some people have moved to the countryside, to a wooden cottage, and started farming hemp organically, and grow local varieties of beans, peas, vegetables...Some are protecting original varieties of old local farm animals to preserve them which could live off the land, grazing in the forest.. Growing local varieties that are adapted to the climate, to save them from extinction under the pressure of corporate agribusiness..

Some live in cities, together with friends in communes, trying to forge new social ties with likeminded people, when old communities and family models have disintegrated under the pressure of modern industrial society..

Some organize undergorund raves in forests at summertime, or in abandoned warehouses in cities...Dancing to beats like humans tens of thousands of years ago. Turning to "psychedelic drugs" in their attempt to frantically regain contact with that which was lost long ago, collectively.

Some organize bicycling rallies, critical masses of cyclists..Some block traffic and turn streets to dance. Some oppose bullets and tear gas and death, in opposition to repression of free thought and organization of the open source variety. That which is only possible between equals - on the same level and frequency, and respect. That which we so sorely lack in all our endeavours.

Those who start and join co-operative ventures. Businesses, cafes, agricultural revolutions, workers taking control of factories, resocializing water facilities that corporations have taken control of to bleed people with lifes necessities.

This current shows up in software too. The beginning rise of Free, Open Source ideology. The idea that when we freely share something to everyone willing, and let everyone use that however they wish, as long as they agree to give that same freedom to everyone else again, it ends up benefiting everyone more and more and more, and leading to more innovation, better development, completely new ways of doing things...

This can be applied to everything. Business, education, culture, human relationships...This is what the old mindset of empire so fearfully wants to repress. It is rearing its newborn head everywhere you look at, but the dark clouds gathering are obscuring it from view.

People standing up to capitalist land owners, squatting on land repeatedly, starting sustaible farming on it, starting to provide basic health care and education, and a social fund that anyone able can pay into, and anyone in need can tap into. Spreading the idea of co-operatives on every level. Equal share, equal work, equal benefit, equal vote and equal respect. Nothing less will do as an antidote. No intellectual excuses are acceptable - we need a high ideal for the cure to a dire problem.

And the kind of thinking that caused a problem, sure as hell will not solve the problem. That is a law of nature, friends

You see what Im trying to say. Even If I knew that aliens will nuke the bloody Earth into glass tomorrow and instate a matrix silicon society instead, I would plant this tree today.

[8bitagent]

I have fellow left leaning friends who I strongly disagree with in regards to "overpopulation". I say that the analysts who say we need a percentage of the population to die off are no better than those behind genocide and war.

I say that the only reason overpopulation is hurting people, is that the elites are hording food and resources and having their boot on people's throats.

Im not afraid to mention the pre Nazi racial eugenicist origins of the American abortion movement, which Hitler and the SS greatly admired.

This whole "humanity is bad, humans should die off to save the planet" themes I hear in movies, tv, magazines, ect is sickening. As well as "some people shouldnt have children". Well, groups still trick poor black moms into sterilization...so I guess that idea still permeates...just like the goals of Margaret Sangar.

Eugenics never went away, it just got repackaged and taken up as a leftist cause away from fascism

[OP ED]

I'm gonna get slammed on this one, but I'll say it anyway . . .

Is there some specific reason why unceasing, prodigious propagation is supposed to be a high ideal among humans? I may be missing something, but it seems to me that we are already woefully overpopulated.

I've often thought, indeed, that there are some people that just should not have children. Is that wrong?

In fact, I've always sort of had this secret thought that people should first prove their ability to raise children before having them.

Man, I'm gonna get slammed on this thing.

I'm glad you said it and not me man.

But seriously, you gotta take two tests in most states to get a driver's license...

I think people should also have to prove their literacy to vote, also, but that's just me maybe.

(all votes must be write-ins and names must be spelled correctly? shit shit, how do you spell h-u-s-s-e-i-n again?)

[Username]

~

I'm gonna get slammed on this one, but I'll say it anyway . . .

Is there some specific reason why unceasing, prodigious propagation is supposed to be a high ideal among humans? I may be missing something, but it seems to me that we are already woefully overpopulated.

I've often thought, indeed, that there are some people that just should not have children. Is that wrong?

In fact, I've always sort of had this secret thought that people should first prove their ability to raise children before having them.

Man, I'm gonna get slammed on this thing.

We've all met people who should not have children. Many of our parents should not have had children. What are you going to do about it? Exterminate them? Sterilize them? What would be your final solution to the problem?

"Prove our ability to raise children" to who? Our 8th grade home economics teacher? James Dobson?

What makes you think you would be getting slammed anyway? Because your comments are shallow and thoughtless maybe? idk. you tell me.

While searching the net for someone to articulate my point for me, googling "why eugenics is wrong," I came across an article that helped me to understand some of the deeper implications of the argument.

Life's Private Book
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Humility and Eugenics
This is a continuation of my commentary on Jim Manzi's article from the June 2, 2008 National Review.

In Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton remarked that the problem with the modern world is not that it is vicious, but that its virtues have been "let loose", and "the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrific damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone." With respect to the virtue of humility, Chesterton says this:

"Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of the appetite of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys. By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giant unless they are larger than we... But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason."

Traditionally, humility followed from what man knew. He knew that there is a God; he knew that his own existence is but an undeserved gift from God. He knew that besides God, there are gods, and some of these gods are hell-bent on his destruction. In other words, man knew himself to be a "middle creature," greater than the beasts but less than the gods and certainly less than God. His "middleness" was also characterized by the peculiar synthesis of good and evil in man. Man was capable, like an angel, of the greatest goodness; but he was also capable, like a demon, of the basest evil. Most peculiarly, the individual man himself, through sin, embodied the dialectic between good and evil. The humble man did not doubt that all this was true. In light of its truth, what he did doubt was his own ability to "make a difference in the world", or "make the world a better place" through his own personal vision and work. For man's vision and work is always infected by sin, and it is not man but God Who makes the world a better place, through man's humble and faithful submission to God.

What I have just written may strike the ear of the reader as antique, obscurantist, and even a little blasphemous. A dogma of the modern world is that we can and should charge out and "make the world a better place." Our Churches have even embraced this vision; how many times have I heard in song and sermon that on leaving Mass, I should "make a difference" in the world? What has happened in the modern world, as Chesterton says, is that the virtue of humility has left the organ of ambition and settled on the organ of conviction. We doubt the existence of God or of any beings greater than man; this leaves man the greatest thing in the world, with no giants or gods to look up to. And we have left off doubting our own ambition, our ability to "make a difference in the world." And why not? If man is the greatest thing there is, how will things get better if not through his vision and work? And if man is to improve things, then certainly improving man himself will top the list... which brings me to eugenics.

Eugenics is wrong because man is a middle creature, one who did not create himself or determine his own destiny, and one who is thoroughly infected by sin. Eugenics is the attempt to usurp the role of the Creator, to create man in man's own image and establish his destiny as a matter of arbitrary will. It is a consequence of the sin of pride, and as an attack on the fundamental ontological relationship between God and man, can only have the most evil and serious consequences.

The argument I have just made is a "positive" argument; it is an argument that eugenics is positively wrong based on philosophically known truth. But suppose we wish to make an argument against eugenics that will appeal to the "modern" ear. The modern mind doesn't put much stock in philosophy; it finds it ambiguous and "iffy." What the modern mind believes in is science. Can we make an argument against eugenics in scientific rather than philosophical terms?

Jim Manzi attempts such an argument in his June 2 article, in the only way possible. Such an argument can only be an argument from ignorance rather than an argument from knowledge. For in a world where science is held to be the final arbiter of truth, the greatest thing in the world is necessarily scientific man, the voice of science and therefore of truth. What will be the brake on the ambition of scientific man? The traditional brake is gone, for scientific man is not a "middle creature;" his science acknowledges nothing greater than itself and therefore nothing greater than the scientific man who thinks it. We can only propose to scientific man that he doesn't know all he thinks he knows, and hope that the sense of his own ignorance will temper his ambition. In other words, we will move the virtue of humility from the organ of ambition to the organ of conviction. Jim formulates the argument this way:

"Despite their confidence in predicting future discoveries, however, our ignorance about humanity runs deep, and the complexities of mind and society continue to escape reduction to scientific explanation. This ignorance is one of the most powerful arguments for free-market economics, subsidiarity, and many of the other elements of the conservative worldview. Science may someday allow us to predict human behavior comprehensively and reliably, so that we can live in Woodrow Wilson's 'perfected, co-ordinated beehive.' Until then, however, we need to keep stumbling forward in freedom as best we can."

Put simply, the argument is that we should not conduct eugenics because we do not (yet) know enough to do it right. I noted in an earlier post that the freedom supported by this argument is merely a "freedom of the gaps", a temporary and illusory freedom that will disappear as soon as science has filled in the blanks in determinism. Neither is the humility supported by the argument true humility, but a "humility of the gaps." For it is not based on a positive appreciation of our place in the universe, but merely on our temporary inability to fulfill our eugenic ambitions.

But the problem with eugenics is not that, in our present ignorance, we are incapable of wisely conducting it. The problem is that the eugenic vision is itself one of Hell rather than Heaven. Woodrow Wilson's vision of a 'perfected, co-ordinated beehive' should fill us with a deep horror, not wistful longing for that which we cannot currently obtain. (The classic, schlocky 1976 sci-fi "B" movie Logan's Run plays on the theme of the eugenic utopia that is really a hell.)

The unfortunate fact is that eugenics works. And you don't need a deep knowledge of genetics to make it work. Man has been successfully selectively breeding animals for thousands of years, most of that time in utter ignorance of genetics. There is no doubt that man can selectively breed himself as well. You breed tall men with tall women and you get tall children. You breed intelligent men with intelligent women and you get intelligent children. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and the eugenicists of the early 20th century were not wrong because their eugenics program didn't work; they were wrong because, even if it did work (and it does), the attempt itself is damnable. The reasons it is damnable, however, are philosophical and not scientific.

There is no scientific argument against eugenics, for even if we are too ignorant right now to make eugenics work, we may be knowledgeable enough in the future. Rather than retarding eugenic efforts, the appeal to ignorance is a spur to investigate them further, for science thrives on the challenge of the unknown. Ignorance is no barrier to eugenics; the only true barrier is knowledge, a knowledge of man's true place in the cosmos, and for that we finally need philosophy and not science.
~

[OP ED]

bah. moralistic nonsense.

"eugenics is wrong because it is wrong. because...well, we haven't got there yet because this is a deep philosophical problem filled with all sorts of hooey and assumptions and, well its just wrong cause I say so."

nonsense.

we already HAVE standards for people raising children. Our PROBLEM is that we ONLY check people out using these ESTABLISHED standards AFTER they fuck up some children. WHY?

give me a good MORAL answer for that.

Then explain why people don't have to get a driver's liscense until after they cause a multi-vehicle accident.
oh wait. nevermind.

Logic?

oh we don't need logic...we have feelings...

People adopting children must be checked out first, but somehow being able to fuck gives us this notion of entitlement to create and then screw up children at will. What nonsense.

stupid bubble headed bleeding heart nonsense.

Eugenics already exists. We call it society. I'd just like to save us a few thousand years of fucked up and/or dead children.

somehow MY position is the one considered morally objectionable.



Try considering this point of view without presupposing that it implies any sort of classism and/or racial bias.

The sticking point, I agree, is always WHO makes these decisions, but as I've mentioned, I don't see anyone here bitching about how difficult it is to adopt children. Is this not essentially the same thing, except, y'know without the fucking?

None of this is in any way related to concerns over sex education, the availability of birth control, etc. etc.

(except as distractions)

Lay on.

LIL,
SHCR

[brainpanhandler]

Try considering this point of view without presupposing that it implies any sort of classism and/or racial bias.

I assume then that what you mean is that people of substandard intelligence should be prevented in some way from reproducing. Yes?


At everyone:

Population control as related to our existence as a species on the planet and our impact on the planet is an entirely different topic and only tangentially related to the issue of eugenics. It would be nice if people would stick with the topic of eugenics.

[OP ED]

Try considering this point of view without presupposing that it implies any sort of classism and/or racial bias.

I assume then that what you mean is that people of substandard intelligence should be prevented in some way from reproducing. Yes?


At everyone:

Population control as related to our existence as a species on the planet and our impact on the planet is an entirely different topic and only tangentially related to the issue of eugenics. It would be nice if people would stick with the topic of eugenics.

well, that would be nice, but no, not really, it wasn't what I was saying.

(there are better ways of doing THAT, than liscensing them, really)

and to be honest, I've yet to think of a means of implementing a policy along these lines that wouldn't give more power than I'd like to people that I don't like, if you get my drift. But this discussion is theoretical, so I'm leaving that open for later exposition.

in a sense, I guess, I'll rephrase and say yes, that IS what I'm saying, but that my standards wouldn't neccessarily be measurable by simplistic SB IQ testing or whatever.

Like I said before, do you think people have a right to drive cars?
Should they not require liscensing?
WHY do people, in theory, NOW require a liscense?
What about gun ownership?

Why should it be easier for me to have sole responsibility for a human for twenty years than it is for me to take my Buick out in public?

Do you think people who intend to adopt children should not have to go through a background checking process?

Why or Why not?

(you didn't answer these questions last time I asked, so I ask again)

I don't see it as being any different from adoption, except that humans have some sort of presumption that they have a right to raise their own children. This is probably a holdover from beliefs that regard children as the property of the parents.

I feel that anyone wishing to breed and/or raise children should be required to be vetted in a similar process to those used to determine which humans are eligible for adopting existant children. Perhaps these processes should be more rigorous, in actuality, as lots of perverts and profiteers slip through system cracks all the time. These existing processes do not generally rely on one criterion, be it intelligence or whatever, but rather on the general psychological health and emotional preparedness of the potential parents.

I don't think I mentioned sterilization or anything like that. Most of the "problems" that early eugenicists wished to remove by these means aren't entirely genetic, and could not easily be combatted in this way even if one wished to. Low intelligence, for example, is only about half innate. The rest is socialization.

My point is that these forces are already at work, in reverse, making our world dumber and more hazardous everyday. It would be foolish of us not to utilize our best abilities to reverse these trends.

I mean, I literally know people who can't spell "republican" and yet have babies for no other reason than to increase the size of their welfare check. They'll even tell you that they're doing this. They shouldn't be allowed to do this. Sorry. I suppose they have the "right" to drop out more water-head miracle babies.
However.
I have a "right" not to live in a planet filled with dipshits that I have to pay to feed.

[brainpanhandler]

(you didn't answer these questions last time I asked, so I ask again)

I'll agree that the asker of the first question/s deserves the first answer/s, but hopefully you will understand why I wanted that little bit of clarification first. I don't know if I actually got clarification what with all the jostling around and half answers, but I'll answer your questions...

Like I said before, do you think people have a right to drive cars?

No

Should they not require liscensing?

They should be required to pass a test and be duly licensed. Were it within my power I would revoke the licenses of a great many of the idiots that are currently allowed to drive.

WHY do people, in theory, NOW require a liscense?

Because motor vehicles if driven improperly are dangerous as hell to life, limb and property.

What about gun ownership?

Should require rigorous background checks and testing/licensing (as well as neural scans for emotional stability, etc)

Why should it be easier for me to have sole responsibility for a human for twenty years than it is for me to take my Buick out in public?

Because owning a driving a buick has nothing to do with the basic control of fundamental biological processes.

Do you think people who intend to adopt children should not have to go through a background checking process?

I think they should have to go through a background checking process. One that is as rigorous as can be devised by man.

Why or Why not?

I think this answer is self evident.

I don't see it as being any different from adoption, except that humans have some sort of presumption that they have a right to raise their own children. This is probably a holdover from beliefs that regard children as the property of the parents.

There is a difference and you are too smart not to know it.

I feel (bolding added by me) that anyone wishing to breed and/or raise children should be required to be vetted in a similar process to those used to determine which humans are eligible for adopting existant children. Perhaps these processes should be more rigorous, in actuality, as lots of perverts and profiteers slip through system cracks all the time. These existing processes do not generally rely on one criterion, be it intelligence or whatever, but rather on the general psychological health and emotional preparedness of the potential parents.

I thought we were sticking with logic. I know we are supposed to be setting aside class concerns, but I have to note that in addition to the psychological health and emotional preparedness of the prospective adoptive parent/s, financial stability and preparedness is also often a criteria that is considered.

The process of adopting a child and the state's attendant requirements/prohibitions do not involve the competing right of an individual to exercise control over their own basic, biological functions.

I don't think I mentioned sterilization or anything like that.

I don't think I mentioned or even implied that you did, but now that you mentioned not mentioning it, why do you feel the need to mention not mentioning it?

Most of the "problems" that early eugenicists wished to remove by these means aren't entirely genetic, and could not easily be combatted in this way even if one wished to. Low intelligence, for example, is only about half innate. The rest is socialization.

Endlessly debatable and to no good end, nonetheless, how you arrive at your rough figures is a mystery to me when, as you say, "my standards wouldn't neccessarily be measurable by simplistic SB IQ testing or whatever. " After having slogged through the very nearly insufferable Bell Curve I decided that since I had no way of really sorting out the nature/nurture ratio I would just go on the assumption that our "intelligence" (we could go on for 100 pages and not arrive at a defintion, although my point will dearly beg for one) is entirely the result of the circumstances of our formative years, including gestation and even the circumstances of conception. I know this is not true and there has to be some genetic component, but since I cannot determine precisely what that is and separate it out from the system of interdepndent variables that determine our abilities and defincencies, then the most sensible and humane thing is to presume that we are all born equal (even though I do not think this is true).

It's no mistake that the same strata of our "culture" that would enslave us all in one form or another can without any pangs of conscience whatsover advocate 100's of billions of dollars for "defense" spending and simultaneously wish to slash funding for programs like head start. Who is served by keeping a large percentage of the population mentally crippled for life?

My point is that these forces are already at work, in reverse, making our world dumber and more hazardous everyday. It would be foolish of us not to utilize our best abilities to reverse these trends.

I like to believe you mean we should henceforth invest at a minimum a 100 fold increase in our public education system and critically, pre-K-12 programs.

I mean, I literally know people who can't spell "republican" and yet have babies for no other reason than to increase the size of their welfare check. They'll even tell you that they're doing this. They shouldn't be allowed to do this.

This is a fact, however, statistics related to what most people consider "welfare" show that most people, that's single mothers with children, receive welfare for a brief period and voluntarily terminate benefits and would typically rather not receive it at all, not least of which because of the stigma attached to it.

There will always be a small percentage of people looking to get something for nothing from the state/taxpayers, always. (go read the bank collpase threads) As this relates to "welfare" it's a teeny, tiny little drop in an olympic sized swimming pool. That's not to say it's not worth policing, but in the grand scheme of things it is vastly more important to help lift others out of poverty and feed and house those who for whatever reason are not able to feed and house themselves. There's a loud mouth where I work that used to go on and on and on about welfare moms squeezing out more babies so they could get bigger checks and drive a newer model cadillac. Twit. I did the math and figured out that he was paying roughly one half of one cent per day for EVERYTHING that could be considered "welfare", even by a loose definition of that term. Which means that he is/was paying an infinitesmal amount to the cheaters and loafers.

He never seemed to complain about how Haliburton was robbing him blind with no bid contracts or how crooked bankers were systematically and in collusion with elements of the USG robbing society blind or any of the other ways in which he was being robbed and cheated. I finally asked him a theoretical question.

If someone stole ten cents from you and another person stole $1000 from you, who would you resent more?

Sorry. I suppose they have the "right" to drop out more water-head miracle babies.

That's ugly and your reply should not be a glib, "the truth is ugly".

However,
I have a "right" not to live in a planet filled with dipshits that I have to pay to feed.

So, in spite of all your equivocating and dancing around the issue (which as an aside, seems antithetical to your mo of laying it on the line without regard to the predictable attacks the bubble headed pc crowd will launch at you) the issue of eugenics is a question of biologically, that is gentically, based "intelligence", even if current tools for quantifying that are flawed.

How exactly do you define "dipshit"?

[OP ED]

Nitpickers generally avoid the content of an argument to focus on more distracting issues.

(see post above)

I have no intention of quoting you word for word, as that would take longer than I wish to invest in this conversation, which has already ended where I predicted it would previously.

I define "dipshits" as being roughly equivalent to your use of "idiots" in your reply to the question about DLs. Fair enough?

(roughly: people clearly unready by several required criteria for the responsibility in question, as evidenced by their endangering of other human lives with their behavior)

(because Children, if raised improperly, are "dangerous as hell to life, limb and property" not least of which their own)

I notice you jumped on my use of the word "feel" as if it is somehow relevant to this discussion. Please replace it in your mind with the word "think" if that makes it easier for you to avoid digressing into irrelevant discourse.


You said:
The process of adopting a child and the state's attendant requirements/prohibitions do not involve the competing right of an individual to exercise control over their own basic, biological functions.

Incorrect. A significant portion of Adoptions are those of children who have already been seized from their biological parents AFTER these parents did something wrong. (my adopted sister, for example) Whether this is neglect, abuse, or simply the inability to provide for the child, it shouldn't be assumed that all children who've become wards of the state did so because their parents' Chose for it to be so. Statistically speaking, rather the opposite is true.

Of course, unlike yourself, I do not neccessarily recognize that anyone has a "right" to exercise control over their basic biological functions. This is tantamount to the criticism I levelled at the beginning, that because it involves fucking, it is somehow holier than other methods of procuring children. I think the logic of this argument is fatally flawed, and a "you're too smart not to know the difference" is not an answer, but rather an emotive appeal to accepted norms. Never good enough.

Your digressions about the relative "size" of the welfare state and comparisons between it and investment banking, while correct, are irrelevant to this discussion. We can deal with those dipshits in another thread.

"water head miracle children" is a Bill Hicks reference. It got boos from the crowd, so the reaction doesn't suprise me.

Nor does it suprise me that people regard "standard biological processes" as somehow holy and above social reproach. This is a common belief, but is no more correct for being so. As I mentioned previously, these "rights" as you call them, are commonly interrupted by the current social system, for various reasons. My problem is that the system only cleans up messes, never tries to prevent them. It has no problems with violating biological rights AFTER the children are fucked up, but to interfere slightly at an earlier stage is somehow different, in a way not as of yet described to me except that it cannot be done because fucking is holy and gives us special rights to the products of our lust.

If you address only one thing, pick this, because this is the hinge of my issue: YOUR problem, as I see it is this:
You are regarding "your" children as somehow within your "right" to raise as "you" see fit because you regard them as being part of your "standard biological processes". The fact of the matter is that THEY are not, they are part of their own biological processes and ceased to be your biological extension at conception when they became a unique human being.

What makes a baby part of "your" biological processes once the fucking and gestating are over?

(answer: belief, and nothing else)

Love is Law,
SHCR

P.s. I think the public education system could benefit greatly from an increase in funding much larger than the one you mentioned. That is not neccessarily the topic at hand though.

[Penguin]

But it is.
The point everyone made to support - that people are too stupid to raise children.
That is solely the result of numerous decisions of how to "educate" people and to what ends. And whether to promote contraceptive use and informed parenthood, or prohibit those..And be good catholics.

Because like now, its the good catholics who then go on to support such policies without realizing it was their own way of doing that led to the situation. So who gets to say who is stupid or clueless or who is a good parent and not or who is adapted to life in the inner city, who to the autobahn, who to the sun of the west.. Or who is the better hunter of rabbits. Or probably rats, soon.. A big market for em in Asia already.