Evil Parents Again...

[WildCat]

From here, free registraton required.

The woman told police that she had been punched, burned on the ears, neck, arms and chest with cigarettes, and shocked with the bare wires of an electrical cord placed between her toes, Higgins said. He said that Keith Jax allegedly had sex with the woman and that her mother cooperated.

Despicable. Though she was 18, she was mentally disabled. The mom and step-dad could be fed to starving crocodiles and it wouldn't be enough punishment.

 

[Prospero]

This is why it should be necessary to get a license to have children. I would think that sadists don't deserve children.

 

[Tony]

This is why it should be necessary to get a license to have children. I would think that sadists don't deserve children.

Serious constitutional and human rights objections aside, how would you enforce such a policy?

I like the Alex Grey avatar btw..

 

[Jon_in_london]

From here, free registraton required.

Despicable. Though she was 18, she was mentally disabled. The mom and step-dad could be fed to starving crocodiles and it wouldn't be enough punishment.

Starving crocs? Maybe full-up crocs, that would just take a little bite here or there until they get really hungry...

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Evil Parents Again...

Starving crocs? Maybe full-up crocs, that would just take a little bite here or there until they get really hungry...

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will...), but don't crocs fill up on zebra or monkey or whatever, then don't eat again at all for days or weeks?

 

[Hypocolius]

Re: Re: Re: Evil Parents Again...

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will...), but don't crocs fill up on zebra or monkey or whatever, then don't eat again at all for days or weeks?

They don't have to eat again for weeks, but they will if a meal falls in their laps.

 

[Blue Monk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Evil Parents Again...

They don't have to eat again for weeks, but they will if a meal falls in their laps.

Boy, did I ever learn that the hard way.

 

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

Human nature never fails to surprise.

Why would anybody in their right mind commit such things I wish I only knew.

Either, have somebody do back to them what they did to their child. Or bring back stocks and let the public throw rotten food at them. Might teach those animals a harsh reality lesson.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Human nature never fails to surprise.

Why would anybody in their right mind commit such things I wish I only knew.

Either, have somebody do back to them what they did to their child. Or bring back stocks and let the public throw rotten food at them. Might teach those animals a harsh reality lesson.

As in my sig regarding ' Intellectual TKO's ', anything you could do to these people wouldn't register..

Sadly, any pleasure we might feel from watching them suffer, would only validate the motivation for their behavior..

 

[Tricky]

As in my sig regarding ' Intelectual TKO's ', anything you could do to these people wouldn't register..

Sadly, any pleasure we might feel from watching them suffer, would only validate the motivation for their behavior..

You are correct. In many (most?) cases, child abusers were themselves abused children. This is exactly what they expect, and it would only make them behave worse.

 

[nightwind]

Parents

Unfortunately, scumbags can reproduce like everyone else or become parents.

 

[BillyTK]

Serious constitutional and human rights objections aside, [snippy]

Is having children a human right?

Anyway, on croc feeding behaviour, though I'm not an expert (there aren't that many crocodiles in Yorkshire), I understand that crocodiles don't always eat their prey straight away, and instead have an underwater "larder" to store it in, until the carcass is just on the right side of "melt in your mouth" decomposition.

 

[AfaintcoldcupofTea..]

As in my sig regarding ' Intellectual TKO's ', anything you could do to these people wouldn't register..

Sadly, any pleasure we might feel from watching them suffer, would only validate the motivation for their behavior..

True. A very true point.

 

[toddjh]

Is having children a human right?

It's not a matter of whether reproduction is an inherent right so much as it's about who would get to make that call, and how that power could be abused.

I, too, would like to see fewer stupid people breed, but I don't think a licensing scheme is a practical way to go. Personally, I'd like to see a permanent but easily reversible contraceptive device implanted at birth and taken out when the person is over 18 and wants a kid. Teenage pregnancy and abortion would both drop to near zero overnight, as would the number of children born to people too stupid to use a condom or take a pill every day.

Jeremy

 

[MoeFaux]

This is why it should be necessary to get a license to have children. I would think that sadists don't deserve children.

There's nothing wrong with Sadists as long as they are Safe, Sane, and Consensual.
These folks were just plain evil f**kers. And that's not cool at all.

 

[BillyTK]

It's not a matter of whether reproduction is an inherent right so much as it's about who would get to make that call, and how that power could be abused.

But you could apply this analysis to any right—both actual and supposed—and come to the conclusion it's better not to have any rights because of the potential for abuse. For instance, any serious analysis of property rights would come to the conclusion that monopolies are an abuse of that right, but that in itself is no reason to dispense with property rights.

What my main interest was in asking the question, was that if reproduction is a right, then what would be the implications of such a right. For instance, the obligations this would place on society to address the needs of those who, due to biological problems or sexuality issues, would not be able to exercise this right in conventional ways.

Here's an example: a woman had eggs removed before treatment for ovarian cancer which left her sterile; her partner at the time agreed to donate sperm to fertilise her eggs, as embryos have a better chance of viability than eggs. Unfortunately, they later separated and her partner demanded that the embryos were destroyed. Under UK law both partners have to give consent for use of embryos, but one partner can demand that the embryos be destroyed. In the subsequent court case the judge felt he had no choice but to uphold the law (details here). But if reproduction is a right (and the embryos in question are the only way this woman could conceive her own children) then this renders the law as it stands illegitimate, because it is denying the woman her rights.

 

[toddjh]

But you could apply this analysis to any right—both actual and supposed—and come to the conclusion it's better not to have any rights because of the potential for abuse.

Hrm. Maybe I didn't say that very well. I meant that trying to license people to have children opens up the potential for abuse: eugenics, unfair application of licensing, etc. So it's not that I think reproduction is a right so much as that treating it any other way is impractical and dangerous.

What my main interest was in asking the question, was that if reproduction is a right, then what would be the implications of such a right. For instance, the obligations this would place on society to address the needs of those who, due to biological problems or sexuality issues, would not be able to exercise this right in conventional ways.

Eh, I disagree. Having a right does not necessarily mean that society must pick up the slack. We have the freedom of speech, but the government doesn't guarantee us a captive audience.

Maybe it would be better to phrase it in terms of what the government cannot do, rather than what individuals can. I think the government should keep its hands off the matter of reproduction, whether it is a "right" or not.

Edited to add: As others have pointed out, how would you enforce this licensing scheme, even if it did exist?

Jeremy

 

[BillyTK]

Hrm. Maybe I didn't say that very well. I meant that trying to license people to have children opens up the potential for abuse: eugenics, unfair application of licensing, etc. So it's not that I think reproduction is a right so much as that treating it any other way is impractical and dangerous.

Broadly I agree, but imo reproduction is either a right or not; there's anough of a moral fudge as it is without introducing "fuzzy" rights

Eh, I disagree. Having a right does not necessarily mean that society must pick up the slack. We have the freedom of speech, but the government doesn't guarantee us a captive audience.

True, but the government guarantees your right by taking/threatening measures against those forces which would prevent you exercising that right, which in the case of reproduction would be, well things that prevent you reproducing. This is not the same as suggesting That your right to free speech means the government should give you your own radio station

Maybe it would be better to phrase it in terms of what the government cannot do, rather than what individuals can. I think the government should keep its hands off the matter of reproduction, whether it is a "right" or not.

Well, you could build into legislation restrictions on state intrusion, but the contradiction is that the government is the ultimate arbiter in these things, not least as guarantor of your rights, but also as the author of legislation; there is no higher power to appeal to.

Edited to add: As others have pointed out, how would you enforce this licensing scheme, even if it did exist?

IQ tests *evilgrin*? (Just kidding, for anyone who is not familiar with my views on those wretched things). I dunno, I just find it odd that you need a license to own a dog (and a TV in this country) but not to have a child, which is a far greater undertaking and responsibility. I look at this as the worse possible state of affairs, apart from all the other ones (to paraphrase Churchill).

 

[toddjh]

Broadly I agree, but imo reproduction is either a right or not; there's anough of a moral fudge as it is without introducing "fuzzy" rights

I'm not a big fan of "rights" myself. I'm a much bigger fan of "liberties." I think people should be free to reproduce, but I don't think society must pick up the tab for fertility treatments, or that anyone owes parents anything for making that choice. That's why I hate all these tax breaks people with kids get.

True, but the government guarantees your right by taking/threatening measures against those forces which would prevent you exercising that right, which in the case of reproduction would be, well things that prevent you reproducing.

The government takes action against those who would restrain your speech, but as far as I know it doesn't do anything to help people who have biological difficulty communicating. I don't see why reproduction would be any different -- if you want to try, go for it. If some agency tries to stop you somehow, then the government should step in. But if you physically can't, well, them's the breaks.

Well, you could build into legislation restrictions on state intrusion, but the contradiction is that the government is the ultimate arbiter in these things, not least as guarantor of your rights, but also as the author of legislation; there is no higher power to appeal to.

Just look at how difficult it was to get voting applied fairly: it took 150 years and more than one Constitutional amendment to get the local governments in line. It's not easy to make sure the government treats people fairly!

For example, if people need licenses to reproduce, would those licenses be granted to gay people? I'm guessing not, in the current political climate. What about immigrants? Poor people? Mixed-race couples?

People with potential genetic diseases? Now that opens up a real can of worms. You could make a pretty good case that cystic fibrosis carriers, for example, should not be granted a reproduction license. But just imagine what that implies: the government would be taking upon itself the responsibility of deciding what genes are allowed to be passed on. Is that really something you'd trust them with?

IQ tests *evilgrin*?

Heh. But I meant, how would you enforce it? How would you physically stop people from reproducing? It doesn't take a genius to figure out how.

I dunno, I just find it odd that you need a license to own a dog (and a TV in this country) but not to have a child, which is a far greater undertaking and responsibility. I look at this as the worse possible state of affairs, apart from all the other ones (to paraphrase Churchill).

Oh, I agree. I hate stupid parents, not least of all because they are likely to raise stupid children, and that is a real waste. But I can't think of an alternative that isn't even worse.

Jeremy

 

[BillyTK]

I'm not a big fan of "rights" myself. I'm a much bigger fan of "liberties."

What do you consider the difference to be? Is it more than semantics?

I think people should be free to reproduce, but I don't think society must pick up the tab for fertility treatments, or that anyone owes parents anything for making that choice. That's why I hate all these tax breaks people with kids get.

The government takes action against those who would restrain your speech, but as far as I know it doesn't do anything to help people who have biological difficulty communicating. I don't see why reproduction would be any different -- if you want to try, go for it. If some agency tries to stop you somehow, then the government should step in. But if you physically can't, well, them's the breaks.

Okay, I'm not inferring that the following is necessarily your view, but just following the implications of this position̫blind people, deaf people, people with other physical deficits (or even mental ones), there's no obligation on society to help them? They should be left to their own devices because, well, them's the breaks?

Just look at how difficult it was to get voting applied fairly: it took 150 years and more than one Constitutional amendment to get the local governments in line. It's not easy to make sure the government treats people fairly!

Hi! *waves* UK person here. This really doesn't mean that much to me, although I think i can empathise by reflecting on the history of democracy in my country...

[everything else...]

In agreement with you... what are we going to do now? I know–anyone fancy a pint?