Mandatory Castration

[Kylonicus]

I think it would help our civilization if dead beat dads were castrated.

 

I don't have a dead beat dad, but I have known alot of people who have had dead beat dads, and if we just castrated them all, it would solve alot of problems.

 

If someone can't take care of one child, then someone probably can't take care of two.

 

It would also be nice if this were done to rapist, however, I think that since girls can call rape when they actually haven't, a more reversible treatment should be imposed. They should still be made incapable of reproduction, don't get me wrong, just, they should be able to, if they are proven innocent, to keep their genitalia.

 

What do yall think?

 

If you steal in Arabia you lose your hand, but how many thieves do they have?

[AzurePhoenix]

I agree with every word. Same with the thief who loses his loses hand thing. Both should be imposed (as long as proof is available)

[Coral Rhedd]

I think it would help our civilization if dead beat dads were castrated.

 

I don't have a dead beat dad' date=' but I have known alot of people who have had dead beat dads, and if we just castrated them all, it would solve alot of problems.

 

If someone can't take care of one child, then someone probably can't take care of two.

 

It would also be nice if this were done to rapist, however, I think that since girls can call rape when they actually haven't, a more reversible treatment should be imposed. They should still be made incapable of reproduction, don't get me wrong, just, they should be able to, if they are proven innocent, to keep their genitalia.

 

What do yall think?

 

If you steal in Arabia you lose your hand, but how many thieves do they have?[/quote']

 

No one could possibly argue with this impeccable logic.

[Pangloss]

K.

 

What about enforced birth control for mothers on welfare?

[Coral Rhedd]

K.

 

What about enforced birth control for mothers on welfare?

 

Pangloss, I am surprised at you! That is no way for a libertarian to think.

 

Besides, force is probably unnecessary. Just offer money.

[AzurePhoenix]

Or save some cash and secretly slip them some sort of long-term ovulatation inhibititor at their next medical check-up or dentist's appointment.

[Skye]

I think that since girls can call rape when they actually haven't, a more reversible treatment should be imposed.

Don't worry, you just wait for them to do it three times, and on the third time you get a moral parable.

[Coral Rhedd]

I have long thought that we should every girl who reaches 18 without bearing a child a full scholarship to the public college of her choice. It just might work and it would probably save money in the long run.

 

Of course, men would say that was discrimination.

[BenSon]

*cough*mistaken identity*cough*

 

~Scott

[Pangloss]

Pangloss' date=' I am surprised at you! That is no way for a libertarian to think.

 

Besides, force is probably unnecessary. Just offer money.[/quote']

 

Your surprise might have been a better indicator to you there that your conclusion wasn't going to be accurate.

 

At any rate, my previous post made two points:

 

1) Punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet is a dangerous precedent.

 

2) It's very easy to jump on the bandwagon when we're talking about itinerant men, but when you change the subject to itinerant women, it gets a little harder, doesn't it? You seem reluctant to apply the same reasoning to a woman who would take advantage of welfare. You'd rather reward her for something she did wrong, and hope it will somehow be an incentive, when logic (not to mention history) suggests exactly the opposite.

 

 

Bias is a funny thing. It doesn't seem like bias until you hold it up to a mirror.

 

 

So let's turn your idea back around and see if it passes the reversal test for you: If the payment idea is such a good one, why not do the same thing with the man who refused to pay child support? Why not suggest, rather than castrating the man, that we offer him a tax rebate for the amount equivalent to the amount he owes in child support? How does that sound to you?

 

If the answer is "not too good", then I trust I've made my point.

[-Demosthenes-]

The fact is that there are some really rotten people out there. You can suck it up, and try to stop it form happening ever again, or you can take revenge. When you think about you can't be sure which one is right. Who says revenge is wrong? But there is no mistaking that chopping people up is revenge.

[Nevermore]

How about chemical castration? There are drugs which stop the production of testosterone and sperm, and if they turn out to be innocent, take them off the drugs.

[Dapthar]

How about chemical castration? There are drugs which stop the production of testosterone and sperm, and if they turn out to be innocent, take them off the drugs.

One can get around this by injecting themselves with synthetic testosterone. (I first learned this from an episode of Law & Order.)

 

(Source: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/163390.pdf)

 

The above PDF is about 220 kB, and is a study by the US Department of Justice on child molestation. The section I am referring to is quoted below:

 

From a practical standpoint, sex offenders cannot be relied on to comply with a drug regimen to which they have not consented and from which they cannot withdraw. Moreover, the apparently compliant offender can easily circumvent the effects of the drugs or the surgery by buying testosterone (steroids) on the street.

[Coral Rhedd]

Your surprise might have been a better indicator to you there that your conclusion wasn't going to be accurate.

 

At any rate' date=' my previous post made two points:

 

1) Punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet is a dangerous precedent.

 

[/quote']

 

Agreed.

 

2) It's very easy to jump on the bandwagon when we're talking about itinerant men, but when you change the subject to itinerant women, it gets a little harder, doesn't it? You seem reluctant to apply the same reasoning to a woman who would take advantage of welfare. You'd rather reward her for something she did wrong, and hope it will somehow be an incentive, when logic (not to mention history) suggests exactly the opposite.

 

Well I suppose that would depend on what you mean by taking advantage of welfare. To me it is there for a good purpose and that purpose is to benefit children.

 

Bias is a funny thing. It doesn't seem like bias until you hold it up to a mirror.

 

No you misunderstand me! I was not serious when I said the castration suggestion had impeccable logic. I was joking. I mean follow it. There is no reason to castrate someone for fathering a child. Castration is permanent. Birth control is temporary.

 

The reason I suggested giving young women scholarships if they don't pregnant by college are these:

 

1. Girls who don't get pregnant before 18 are less likely to start that habit of serial child bearing that keeps them on welfare and makes them find welfare useful.

 

2. You can know when a young woman has borne a child much easier than when a young man has fathered one. The young women usually keep them in tow.

 

Please remember that I lived 10 years on a cattle ranch. We had 10 bulls and many more cows. If there were two bulls in a pasture, we could never be sure which one fathered a particular calf, but we could almost always spot the calf's mother. She was the one being suckled.

 

So let's turn your idea back around and see if it passes the reversal test for you: If the payment idea is such a good one, why not do the same thing with the man who refused to pay child support? Why not suggest, rather than castrating the man, that we offer him a tax rebate for the amount equivalent to the amount he owes in child support? How does that sound to you?

 

It is completely illogical. It is a good thing not to get pregnant before college. It is a bad thing not to pay child support. Why would you want to reward a bad thing?

[BenSon]

The reason I suggested giving young women scholarships if they don't pregnant by college are these:

 

1. Girls who don't get pregnant before 18 are less likely to start that habit of serial child bearing that keeps them on welfare and makes them find welfare useful.

 

2. You can know when a young woman has borne a child much easier than when a young man has fathered one. The young women usually keep them in tow.

I know you said some people will say this is a sexist idea but it is! Firstly your rewarding women for being responsible and not getting pregnant, why not reward men for practising safe sex and give them free scholarships as well they are being equally responsible. Also your rewarding the people who aren't getting prgnant these people already have a headstart over others who got pregnant and can't do anything. Why wouldn't you spend the extra money on funding young mothers to go to college on scholarships seeing as they are more economicly disadvantaged by having to take care of a child. As for the second point, many young fathers who put in effort to help support children have to drop out of school and get jobs in order to do so and will find it equally hard to go to college. Just because they probably won't spend as much time with the child raising them dosn't mean they are not making equal sacrifices.

 

~Scott

[Coral Rhedd]

I know you said some people will say this is a sexist idea but it is! Firstly your rewarding women for being responsible and not getting pregnant' date=' why not reward men for practising safe sex and give them free scholarships as well they are being equally responsible. Also your rewarding the people who aren't getting prgnant these people already have a headstart over others who got pregnant and can't do anything. Why wouldn't you spend the extra money on funding young mothers to go to college on scholarships seeing as they are more economicly disadvantaged by having to take care of a child. As for the second point, many young fathers who put in effort to help support children have to drop out of school and get jobs in order to do so and will find it equally hard to go to college. Just because they probably won't spend as much time with the child raising them dosn't mean they are not making equal sacrifices.

 

~Scott[/quote']

 

Scott, it is easy to prove whether or not a woman has a child by checking the birth records. How are you going to prove a man has not fathered a child?

 

No government program is going to give money to anyone without proof. Think up a workable program and I am all for it, but no one is going to take anyone's word.

 

I'm trying to think of a way to encourage people not to have children when they are young.

 

I am not denigrating the efforts of young parents, but I know I would not have made a very good mother at 17. I am glad I waited until I was 34 to have a child.

 

I am also a bit of a zero-population growth person.

[BenSon]

Scott, it is easy to prove whether or not a woman has a child by checking the birth records. How are you going to prove a man has not fathered a child?

 

No government program is going to give money to anyone without proof. Think up a workable program and I am all for it, but no one is going to take anyone's word.

I would sugest parental DNA testing upon birth if the DNA does not match the said father it goes into a database when a man applies for the scholarship his dna is compared to the database of children indeterminate fathers if one pops up well bad luck. Yes this system is more costly and complex but it is fair

I'm trying to think of a way to encourage people not to have children when they are young.

 

I am not denigrating the efforts of young parents, but I know I would not have made a very good mother at 17. I am glad I waited until I was 34 to have a child.

I am not suggesting that the governmen tell people to go and have children at a young age but rather extend help to those disadvantaged by having a child. Not to give extras to people who are more or less on a level playing field by not having a child. I get hat you would prefer to stop people getting pregnant in the first place but i think a fairer system would be to extend scholarships to people who are disadvantaged over people who have managed not to get pregnant. I'm sorry if i sounded a bit harsh when replying to your second point in the previous post but it just seemed like you weren't giving credit to many young fathers who deserve it.

 

~Scott

[Skye]

it is easy to prove whether or not a woman has a child by checking the birth records.

That tells whether someone has had a birth registered.

[Lance]

Scott, it is easy to prove whether or not a woman has a child by checking the birth records. How are you going to prove a man has not[/b'] fathered a child?

 

Isnt the father's name on the birth record also? Im just asking, I have no idea.

[Dapthar]

I would sugest parental DNA testing upon birth if the DNA does not match the said father it goes into a database when a man applies for the scholarship his dna is compared to the database of children indeterminate fathers if one pops up well bad luck. Yes this system is more costly and complex but it is fair.

Then you would have to get a DNA sample from every child at birth. Even if people were willing to agree with such a gross invasion of privacy, this system still wouldn't catalog the DNA of children who were not born in a hospital.

[-Demosthenes-]

1. Girls who don't get pregnant before 18 are less likely to start that habit of serial child bearing that keeps them on welfare and makes them find welfare useful.

I'd like to point out that having children is not bad, only teenage pregnancies. Having a lot of children doesn't necissarily mean they will be on welfare, I know many families with more than 5 kids that are not on welfare and live very well.

[BenSon]

Then you would have to get a DNA sample from every child at birth. Even if people were willing to agree with such a gross invasion of privacy, this system still wouldn't catalog the DNA of children who were not born in a hospital.

 

Invasions of privacy how so? The DNA database would not be able to available to police or the public only to meidcal operators who are inputing DNA samples. I never said nobody would have a problem with this system but i still believe it is a fairer system then discriminating against men. If a homebirth is in question when the child is registered a DNA sample would be taken. I understand that this system would only apply if the child was registered at birth but so would coral rhedd's system.

 

~Scott