Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not all flaws are equal... therein lies the flaw of your point
The flaw in your post is that there is no point at all .Give an example of what flaws are more important than others/what flaws should weed someone out of the gene pool/etc. Don't simply be negative, offer a rebuttal, or better yet, a solution.
WE DO NEED TO LIMIT POPULATION GROWTH! so how do we decide who gets to breed? Any ideas other than arguing for COMPLETE reproductive freedom(not possible long term) or Orwellian breeding tactics(sinister and crazy)? Lets think about it guys
Instead of putting restrictions on who specifically can or can not breed based on genetic flaws or personal income or IQ, I think we should beef up birth control education and availability. How many pregnancies do you believe are accidental and how many planned?
We have so much opposition to abortion, providing sex education and birth control in the schools, pharmacies filling birth control prescribtions, etc. how can we move forward toward controlling our populations when we as a society are so backwards concerning sex and contraception.
I think first, we should make sex ed and birth control education and availability a priority including sterilization incentivies.
Second, revamp the welfare program. No $$ for additional children, if you cant support your own kids after a few yrs. help to get on your feet, they should be put up for adoption or foster care. Of course then we would have to improve those programs.
Third, close the fertility clinics, sperm donors, surrogates and test tube babies. This would take us back towards natural selection.
The flaw in your post is that there is no point at all .Give an example of what flaws are more important than others/what flaws should weed someone out of the gene pool/etc. Don't simply be negative, offer a rebuttal, or better yet, a solution.
can i throw in a smarmy little smiley?
i'd rather put up with someone with an addictive personality for instance over one with a propensity for cancer or bipolarism
Denial of procreation based on traits, defects, or intelligence isn't the only possible method. We could always keep it random. We could hold a lottery each year, similar to Shirley Jackson's short story. Make it mandatory and charge each family a hundred bucks. We could go with a winning family for every hundred families. The winning family's members are hanged in the town square amidst a carnival, popcorn stands, and a shaved ice booth. All the fees and proceeds could be paid to the government as a tribute. This would kill two birds with one stone: population control and tribute to Caesar.
These gentleman didn't want to put up with defective people either:
I believe there should be a limit of two kids. There are too many people having babies they should never have had, like addicts, illegal immigrants, poor, etc, They just keep having babies and its crazy! I also think that in this day and age with all of our birth control options and abortion, there really should not be so many babies. Especially teenagers etc.
Actually, I thought up a futuristic scenario a long time ago. Like maybe in the 70s.
Couples could choose parenting as a profession, become properly trained, and given a nice roomy farmhouse to live in at public expense, along with a per-child stipend to cover expenses. They would give birth to and rear as many children as they felt like having, with farm and household chores a part of their daily life. Couples who had professional lives in other fields would not need to concern themselves with child-raising, and could go about their grown-up business. Parenting couple would be screened in advance, to make sure there are no sociopaths or otherwise obviously unsuitable candidates.
So nearly all children in the country would be born to a relatively small number of parents. In order to keep a varied gene pool, any couple would be free to have a child of their own, and enjoy oogling a d googling it and tickling its little toes, but then when it became tiresone, would be encouraged to drop it off at one of the farmhouses, rather than abusing or neglecting the child.
This would maximize the opportunity for each child to be raised in a wholesome environment. It would also be a deterrent to over-urbanization of the country, since farm-raised children would be accustomed to a rural lifestyle and less attracted to the city. Parenting farms would be clustered enough that centralized schools would provide education. A cluster might contain about 50 houses over a few square miles, and several hundred children.
The government could also gently manipulate population growth, by sending out periodic bulletins to parents saying "We suggest that you try not to have another child this year."
Here is the answer. If a person has a mental IQ very low so they cant funtion or care for any offspring. THEY SHOULD NOT be allowed to breed. If they do anyway they should be jailed and forsed to be sterilized. Its common for certified retarded females to be sterilized now. Sad yes but for the childrens sake it has to be..
The only way I think you could choose would be to put it up to a public vote. If a large majority, lets say 60% vote that a certain group shouldn't have children, that might be the only way to do it fairly. Of course, representatives from the group being voted against would have their say as well.
As far as enforcing it, I just don't know. Perhaps if they did get pregnant, then you would take their children away at birth, not sure, thats a harder question.
The only way I think you could choose would be to put it up to a public vote. If a large majority, lets say 60% vote that a certain group shouldn't have children, that might be the only way to do it fairly. Of course, representatives from the group being voted against would have their say as well.
As far as enforcing it, I just don't know. Perhaps if they did get pregnant, then you would take their children away at birth, not sure, thats a harder question.
The majority of the population is not educated, afraid of science, and believes in a form of creationism (last poll I knew of). One of the reasons the US is a republic, as I understand it, is to avoid mob rules.
Here is the answer. If a person has a mental IQ very low so they cant funtion or care for any offspring. THEY SHOULD NOT be allowed to breed. If they do anyway they should be jailed and forsed to be sterilized. Its common for certified retarded females to be sterilized now. Sad yes but for the childrens sake it has to be..
Now that is my thoughts exactly! Thank you!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.Give an example of what flaws are more important than others/what flaws should weed someone out of the gene pool/etc. Don't simply be negative, offer a rebuttal, or better yet, a solution.
