Should the state be able to prevent people from reproducing?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Should the state be able to prevent people from reproducing?

2008-04-08 20:58:09

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6556|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
To your second statement...never say never _/cackle
So never say that these people can never breed.
What? He said controlling reproduction can and will never happen...I say it will happen well within the next 100 years to a very significant extent. The scientific jumps and moral steps backwards are too great to warrant anything else.

edit: oh you're trying to stay on topic or something, geez.

No matter what definition the state sets of "genetic competence" there will be people breeding out of regulation. Doesn't mean a law or procedure won't be made.

Yes, I was staying on topic. The ability to start a family is a basic human right*. If a criminal has done their time in prison and paid their debt to society, why should someone say "You can't reproduce now"?

* Article 23.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

2008-04-08 21:03:32

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7133|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
So never say that these people can never breed.
What? He said controlling reproduction can and will never happen...I say it will happen well within the next 100 years to a very significant extent. The scientific jumps and moral steps backwards are too great to warrant anything else.

edit: oh you're trying to stay on topic or something, geez.

No matter what definition the state sets of "genetic competence" there will be people breeding out of regulation. Doesn't mean a law or procedure won't be made.
Yes, I was staying on topic. The ability to start a family is a basic human right*. If a criminal has done their time in prison and paid their debt to society, why should someone say "You can't reproduce now"?

* Article 23.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

If they get out they should be able to do whatever they want. I'm saying that if the crime was bad enough, they should have gotten the death penalty, and obviously be unable to pass on their genes after that.

Hurricane are you talking castration here, or CPS getting involved?

2008-04-09 03:08:51

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6837|'Murka

Capital punishment isn't about preventing that person's genes from continuing on.

Limiting anyone's right to reproduce for any reason is horrendous. Bioethicists be damned.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-04-09 03:12:14

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6556|North Tonawanda, NY

FEOS wrote:
Capital punishment isn't about preventing that person's genes from continuing on.

Limiting anyone's right to reproduce for any reason is horrendous. Bioethicists be damned.

I'm surprised people would trust the government with that kind of power.

2008-04-09 05:23:00

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6799|Kyiv, Ukraine

I see no problem if a criminal (or anyone) volunteers to chemically castrate themselves. Sex offenders should be allowed to do this in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Recidivism rates for someone castrated (they've already been doing this on a voluntary basis) is near 0%, compared to repeat sex offenders that haven't been castrated.

I'm all for it, but it must be voluntary. Rape a child, get 50 years...out in 20 if we can have your balls.

2008-04-09 05:45:49

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7133|67.222.138.85

FEOS wrote:
Capital punishment isn't about preventing that person's genes from continuing on.

Limiting anyone's right to reproduce for any reason is horrendous. Bioethicists be damned.

So after capital punishment, someone can still carry on their genes?

2008-04-09 05:58:23

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6556|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Capital punishment isn't about preventing that person's genes from continuing on.

Limiting anyone's right to reproduce for any reason is horrendous. Bioethicists be damned.
So after capital punishment, someone can still carry on their genes?

Either you missed his point or you are grasping at straws.

The reasoning behind capital punishment is punishment, retribution, and deterrence. It's purpose is not to prevent breeding. That is merely a side effect.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-09 05:58:43)

2008-04-09 06:08:30

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7133|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Capital punishment isn't about preventing that person's genes from continuing on.

Limiting anyone's right to reproduce for any reason is horrendous. Bioethicists be damned.
So after capital punishment, someone can still carry on their genes?
Either you missed his point or you are grasping at straws.

The reasoning behind capital punishment is punishment, retribution, and deterrence. It's purpose is not to prevent breeding. That is merely a side effect.

A very effective side effect.

If you don't have a problem with the state administering capital punishment, isn't controlling reproduction a significant step beneath that? Since killing people certainly is one way of controlling reproduction.

2008-04-09 06:13:47

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6556|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
A very effective side effect.

If you don't have a problem with the state administering capital punishment, isn't controlling reproduction a significant step beneath that? Since killing people certainly is one way of controlling reproduction.

I would not support a death penalty whose sole purpose is to 'keep dem bad guys from breedin!'.

I support a death penalty based on punishment. The difference is in the reason it is implemented.

Why would anyone support capital punishment as a genetic 'cleansing' tool?

2008-04-09 06:17:25

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7133|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
A very effective side effect.

If you don't have a problem with the state administering capital punishment, isn't controlling reproduction a significant step beneath that? Since killing people certainly is one way of controlling reproduction.
I would not support a death penalty whose sole purpose is to 'keep dem bad guys from breedin!'.

I support a death penalty based on punishment. The difference is in the reason it is implemented.

Why would anyone support capital punishment as a genetic 'cleansing' tool?

Because punishment is ultimately useless burden on society, deterrence is arguably very ineffective, and retribution is so six centuries ago.

I think it's one of the only reasons for capital punishment at all.

2008-04-09 06:24:12

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6556|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because punishment is ultimately useless burden on society, deterrence is arguably very ineffective, and retribution is so six centuries ago.

I think it's one of the only reasons for capital punishment at all.

OK, I can phrase this differently. Capital punishment is all about rehabilitation.

But that does not mean it should be used as a eugenics tool.

2008-04-09 07:08:53

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6951|South Florida

A better question, is CAN you prevent people from reproducing. If the state told me i couldn't have a child because im a bad person, and i was still with my girlfriend, whos to say i couldnt:

A) Accidently impregnate her.
B) Impregnate her and not tell anyone.
C) Impregnate her and have her raise the child, or we could both raise the child and i'd tell the state its not my child, im just a friend.
D) Im pretty sure the state would then have no right to 'take' the child, or force the child to have any type of test to see if i am the father.

15 more years! 15 more years!

2008-04-09 07:10:09

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7070

hell yeah, next we could then outlaw interracial relationships. keep the gene pool pure.

2008-04-09 07:12:48

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6799|Kyiv, Ukraine

Mitch wrote:
A better question, is CAN you prevent people from reproducing. If the state told me i couldn't have a child because im a bad person, and i was still with my girlfriend, whos to say i couldnt:

A) Accidently impregnate her.
B) Impregnate her and not tell anyone.
C) Impregnate her and have her raise the child, or we could both raise the child and i'd tell the state its not my child, im just a friend.
D) Im pretty sure the state would then have no right to 'take' the child, or force the child to have any type of test to see if i am the father.

The State, by court order, could take your balls the same way it could take your head.

at least six states have experimented with chemical castration laws in the United States. Those states are California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Montana. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for sex offenders. In California, judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense treatment is mandatory. In Iowa and Florida chemical castration is available in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California treatment is mandatory after a second offense.

2008-04-09 07:32:49

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6951|South Florida

GorillaTicTacs wrote:
Mitch wrote:
A better question, is CAN you prevent people from reproducing. If the state told me i couldn't have a child because im a bad person, and i was still with my girlfriend, whos to say i couldnt:

A) Accidently impregnate her.
B) Impregnate her and not tell anyone.
C) Impregnate her and have her raise the child, or we could both raise the child and i'd tell the state its not my child, im just a friend.
D) Im pretty sure the state would then have no right to 'take' the child, or force the child to have any type of test to see if i am the father.
The State, by court order, could take your balls the same way it could take your head.

at least six states have experimented with chemical castration laws in the United States. Those states are California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Montana. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for sex offenders. In California, judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense treatment is mandatory. In Iowa and Florida chemical castration is available in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California treatment is mandatory after a second offense.

Oh damn, i wasn't thinking they would de-activate you. Stupid me, lol.

Hmm can you still orgasm if your... chemically castrated.

15 more years! 15 more years!

2008-04-09 07:50:27

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6716|Éire

The State shouldn't have too much control over the life of the individual in my opinion.

However, if a vigilante army decided they were going to wipe out all chavs/knackers/white trash I wouldn't bat an eyelid!

Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-09 08:19:11)

2008-04-09 07:56:41

mikkel: Member; +383|7027

Anyone considering themselves "guardians of the gene pool" are the last people I would want the children of tomorrow to be like. Self-infatuated moral policemen? We have enough of those as it is.

2008-04-09 07:57:44

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6556|North Tonawanda, NY

Mitch wrote:
Oh damn, i wasn't thinking they would de-activate you. Stupid me, lol.

Hmm can you still orgasm if your... chemically castrated.

Castrations after the onset of puberty will typically reduce the sex drive considerably or eliminate it altogether. Castrates can, however, still have erections, orgasms and ejaculations.

Source.

Whether there is any sperm or if it is viable I do not know.

2008-04-09 08:26:59

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6951|South Florida

SenorToenails wrote:
Mitch wrote:
Oh damn, i wasn't thinking they would de-activate you. Stupid me, lol.

Hmm can you still orgasm if your... chemically castrated.
Castrations after the onset of puberty will typically reduce the sex drive considerably or eliminate it altogether. Castrates can, however, still have erections, orgasms and ejaculations.
Source.

Whether there is any sperm or if it is viable I do not know.

Poor guy cant even jack off while hes rotting in his jail cell.

15 more years! 15 more years!

2008-04-09 08:33:36

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7075

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
hell yeah, next we could then outlaw interracial relationships. keep the gene pool pure.

And deport all those Hispanic types back to Mexico!

2008-04-09 10:37:10

PeoNinja: Ninja Fart - Silent but Deadly; +31|6624

CameronPoe wrote:
Only Muslim people.

really?

https://mangasverdes.es/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/britney.jpg

2008-04-09 13:51:17

jord: Member; +2,382|7104|The North, beyond the wall.

No to answer simply.

2008-04-09 15:49:38

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7133|67.222.138.85

SenorToenails wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because punishment is ultimately useless burden on society, deterrence is arguably very ineffective, and retribution is so six centuries ago.

I think it's one of the only reasons for capital punishment at all.
OK, I can phrase this differently. Capital punishment is all about rehabilitation.

But that does not mean it should be used as a eugenics tool.

...what? I don't follow.

2008-04-09 16:15:47

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7140|US

Ah, yes, we should blindly follow our leaders to genetic purity...I think that sounds familiar...

WTF? Dude (or should I say heartless asshole). I'm guessing you want to decide who gets to reproduce? Or do you want to keep your hands clean of that one?

2008-04-09 16:19:21

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6981

SenorToenails wrote:
The state should never have such a power. Ever.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Should the state be able to prevent people from reproducing?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Should the state be able to prevent people from reproducing?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Mitch wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Mitch wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Mitch wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Board footer