Allowing reproduction.

L

Lil Light Foot

Just a fuzzy lil Fyre ball.
Registered Senior Member
This relates slightly to pi-sudoku's thread on criminal reproduction (in biology and genetics).

Should some people be stopped from reproducing? For example, psychopaths, those with other severe psychological problems, perhaps those with severe physical problems? How about the more controversial, those with a very low IQ, how about those who abuse their children, or maybe even those who are considered to be, less than acceptable when it comes to appearances.I would like to take a moment to point out, I do not feel looks / appearances to be a valid or acceptable reason for people to be stopped from reproducing. I was merely putting forward various reasons I thought people may use as a basis to stop others from reproducing. I have not put forward my view on said reasons, and just because I have included reasons both above and below does not mean I agree with them, or consider them to be valid reasons, it means that I thought SOME people would consider them to be. Esepcially in the age of genetic engineering, which may be in our future. Now to continue my list of reasons which I have interrupted.

How about the people in the lower working classes, "chavs" and "trailer trash perhaps".
This obviously isn't true in all cases, but I have noted, that those in lower end of the scale in terms of IQ and social standing have more children, this is a very sweeping generalisation of course. Surely that would mean, that within say, 300 years, the average IQ would have gone down, violence was more acceptable etc?

(I am sorry if this topic has been covered before, I did try checking to make sure it hasn't been.)

The next issue, is, who has the right to decide who is allowed to reproduce and who isn't? Where do the boundries lie? Would doing the things above improve society, and the human race as a whole?

Another debate which is very closely entwined within this whole concept, is that of the age old nature vs nurture debate. Would those people have a low IQ is they were raised in a higher standard environment? Would those psychopathic killers, still have that mentality if they were raised different, what about the health problems, of course some are genetic. However, not all are, and even if they are genetic they need a trigger to bring out the problem, in alot of cases anyway.

This does seem very much along the lines of Hitler's thinking, he did just want to improve the human race after all, is this going to be the next step? Genetic engineering could well be around the corner, this could well be the next step mankind takes to improve itself and evolve. The idea of genetic engineering could well lead to people taking it upon themselves to improve the species. As I pointed out above, looks could be taken into account here, and this was the instance I was considering. Where only the very best specimens would be considered for reproduction, and appearances would most likely be taken into account, this DOES NOT mean that I agree with it.

I do not necessarily agree with any of the reasons stated above, I am more interested in your views on them, and the whole idea of it all.

You have to admit though, the whole idea is kinda scary...don't you think?
 
Last edited:
The doubleplus ungood thing about setting up this sort of system is that it wipes out people like Stephen Hawkings (genius w/unwanted genetic defect that both handycaps and drives him).
Of course, that's not to say that human engineered perfection wont yield worthy geniuses.
 
I think that's a very good point, alot of the geniuses had "defects" Einstein had Autism? (Something along those lines) Mozart, and Stephen Hawkings both (as you said) also had defects.
So you have to consider the following, which is the most important trait to breed for? Are you willing to sacrafice state of mind, and appearance for intelligence for example?
 
I think valid reasons would be hard to find, if someone was to die soon and couldnt care for a child, or was of exceedingly old age it could be a valid reason to prevent reproduction.
Looks are subjective, people like different things and if they were used to create "perfect" people, it would merely be one persons idea of perfection, the same could even be said of personality traits, which in turn could extend to intelligence, some people obviously like the stupid ones or they wouldnt reproduce with them.
I say leave the people with low intelligence, they have entertainment value, i also dont know how you'd measure intelligence to decide.
As for diseases well perhaps percentage wise we'd be better without most, however some seemingly have benefits and often make people smarter and we couldnt remove those.
 
The birth rate is too low in developed countries. There's no way they would restrict reproduction.
 
That's a good point, which means, that those in less developed are going to (and probably already do) outnumber those in developed countries. Could this be a problem in the future? As I mentioned above, I noticed that those in higher social standing, and of higher intelligence (yes, very sweeping generalisations) do tend to have less children, in a general. Does this mean, the earth is being left to the less well developed rather than the meak?
 
In my personal opinion, in the majority of cases, nature should take it's course. Although there are exceptions, there are for example times when i do think trailer trash, chavs etc shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. What are they giving to society? There are also those with severe, genetic health problems, I do understand this sounds very harsh, but they are continueing the health problem within society. If they are suffering, is it really fair to make a child suffer as well?
 
Last edited:
I'd agree except that if its not affecting their ability to care for a child theres not much of a reason to stop them, if their health prevents them from looking after kids then they shouldnt have them however, same as the way social care takes kids away from unfit families who cant care for them properly, im not sure its ethical to prevent them having kids, even if its desirable, better education perhaps would be more worthwhile.
 
That's fine, but the problem is, it's not fair on the children to go into social care either. How many people enjoy the adoption or foster care system? It's not natural to take a child from it's mother. You also have to think of the child of the case of health, is it really fair on the child to make them carry on living even though they can never live a normal active life?
Also, you have to think about those in the lower classes, those children, (this is again, a sweeping generalisation, of course it doesn't apply to all) are likely to underperform in school and use the outlet in forms of gangs and crime.
 
Of course thats always a concern, but im not sure you can force someone not to have kids, people change, they may change their situation or ability and be able to be a perfectly good parent.
 
I'm not saying all "chavs" should be neutered, but there are always those cases who just should not have children, same goes for those with medical conditions. There are of course cases where they cope perfectly well, but there are also cases where children are kept alive in almost vegetative states, which I do not believe to be fair on the child.
 
I mean its impossible to tell who will change in the future and progress in themselves and be perfectly capable as a parent, so deciding who shouldnt be allowed would be difficult to say the least as things may then change but they still couldnt have kids, i'd consider that unfair.
 
Life is unfair, it's just a fact. This isn't about whether it could viably happen, it's about whether it Should. Nature should take control, but there are always exceptions to the rule.
 
I dont think it should in that case, if someone works hard to change their life around they shouldnt still be being punished for something they already did, if a girl is 15 and has a baby and is then not allowed anymore, but reaches 24 and is successful and capable to be a mother, she is no longer allowed under that kind of system, i think it would make things worse, a lot of people would see no reason to better themselves.
 
That's all very fine and good, but you still have all those other 15year olds who don't bother turning their lives around and their child gets taken off them and ends up in social. You have to work to the majority, if that person could prove they could and would turn their life around to a significant enough degree, then they could carry on to have more children.
 
A lot of people are unaware of how their life will turn out, things can easily go the other way, someone may be a great parent but then things decline, again i dont see how you can then tell them they cant have anymore kids for the rest of their life.
 
We both know, the best method is leaving it up to nature with the odd few exceptions. I have been playing devil's advocat, although the lower class "baby factories" are irritating to say the least, that is no reason to stop them reproducing. However, what about pedophiles, psychopaths, sociopaths, and those with severe psychological problems which cause them to be dangerous to society. There is no proof that such traits are genetic, but surely it would be best to cut out the chance?
 
Yes i'd agree they're awful but we cant stop them, however as far as psychological things go, reproduction should be stopped, i think those psychological defects require someone to be locked up for a very long time if they act on them though so it shouldnt be an issue.
 
Locking them up could be a form of stopping reproduction. It isn't known if it's genetic or not, but I think it would be more sensible to stop reproduction. However, this does not take into account those with medical conditions, I do not see how it is fair on the child to be hooked up to tubes etc for a short life, where it cannot participate in normal activities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top