Select best genpools in order to create a new super human species and minimize genetic diseases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If there are no limits placed, who is going to end up supporting and caring for all these kids, who eventually grow up to be non-contributing adults of society? If you can't support a child, financially/emotionally etc, then why even have kids? If you are an alcoholic with no job, and you give birth to a child with fetal alcohol disorder who now because a drain on societies resources, what good is that? Just let the defective gene pool die with you. Unfair to the child and society.
A lot of our primitive instincts have developed over so many years that we need more control over future demographics. By taking measures to curb the growth of certain risky populations, we could potentially prevent unnecessary suffering, war, death, violence, and lack of opportunities for a fulfilling life.
The maturation of a wealthy society has been shown to lead to a declining birthrate. This tendency is not universal, however. Not everyone in a society has the same wealth or culture.
Some individuals are severely handicapped and would have to give any progeny over to the state if they became impregnated.
Other areas are more gray, like older mothers having an increased risk for birth defects, certain cultures having overly large families, and drug-addicted mothers damaging the fetus.
By preventing still-fertile mothers from fertilizing their old eggs and mandating the use of younger eggs, we could decrease the number of birth defects. We now have the technology to preserve a mother's eggs for a later pregnancy. I think it would be hard to argue against having fewer birth defects, even if you did argue that the presence of birth defects to some degree in a society brings a certain scientific awareness and richness to people's lives. The question then is whether to subsidize mothers in this process.
Without taking it to the extreme, society could positively most people's lives by restricting reproduction in certain cases. Because society feels it has to take care of its citizens, it should be allowed to limit the people who need to be taken care of. Moreover, because wars are fought over limited resources or ethnic conflicts, limiting population with regards to available resources or the ethnic status quo could prevent violence.
How does society enforce these limits? The question does not address the ethics of forced sterilization as opposed to more minor measures like higher taxes or fines.
Yes, but only is speciffic circumstances. China is the only example so far where such law was passed on mass level. It brought certain social problems, but the idea appears reasonable. China is China.
Demographic explosions occur in subdeveloped regions. Take the Albanians in Kosovo as example, where it led to war and powerty. Having borders against such social phenomenom is a bliss.
Not allowing individuals was practiced in Sweden some decades ago. Many people were sterilized for having some minnor non-genetical defect, like bad eyesight for example. It didn't last. That was one very sad chapter in Swedish history.
The instinct to reproduce is one of the deepest human instincts. If you deprive someone of that, how would you keep such individual integrated into society? Would that person become it's slave? It is a heavy and easily manipulative moral issue. Those who would control such thing, who have power or money, would tend to go beyond obeying it... Too unfair in the already unfair society we live in.
People who have genetical defect are marginalized in society on the long run. Natural selection is a possitive force.
Human population tends to grow beyond natural resources and capacity. Wars and illnesses are natural regulators, but seem not good enough. Man has been playing god for some time.
Genetical engineering is on the way in our dark future. Let's wait and see what will it bring, and what constelation will it change in the future. Laws will follow, and change.
You can't say who can or cant get pregnant. It is inhumane and monstrous. No one should have a label put on them no matter what. You might as well have a floating sign above people's head saying "Can have baby" or "Cannot have baby." It is cruel to label a human being like that.
No, I would have to disagree that society should place limits on who can reproduce. While we may not want some people to reproduce, it is their right to have a spouse and create a family if they so wish to. We cannot regulate our people this way, it is not right.
It is a gross violation of civil rights to limit who can reproduce and when.
That being said, there should be better standards and practices in place to keep people from being essentially paid to have children on the welfare system; we have a system in America where several generations in a family grow up entirely on welfare, with no one in thfamily ever having a job.
No, I do not think that society has the right to tell its citizens who can and cannot reproduce. The right to reproduction is inherent in all human beings, and it is not the role of society to be telling people if they are allowed to be able to reproduce or not.
The civil rights war this would unleash is one that assures it's never going to happen. Nor should it because of how many people would be "ineligible" due to qualifications that are likely in some areas completely unfair. This would be a extremely frightening invasion of privacy were it ever even brought up.