• Wes4Humanity
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yes… But should they get that choice?

    If I could wave a magic wand, I’d make it so every 12 year old that could make sperm (trans, cis, whatever) gets a reversible vasectomy automatically. Then, if/when they ever want and plan for starting a family, they can take the class on childhood development and how to be a good parent who raises not shitty humans. If they pass, great! They get to undo the vasectomy and try for a family. If not, oh well, no one wanted to have to support your shitty kids in the first place.

    I have no idea how something like this could ever actually be implemented in a fair way… Hense the need for the magic wand

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      How about we fix the fucking society, so raising children isn’t so fucking volatile instead of thinking up some wand of eugenics +2?

      • Wes4Humanity
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well, yeah, that would be the best way to go… I’d still think people should have to pass a class before they’re allowed to be responsible for another human beings entire life

          • Wes4Humanity
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Nah… Not sure what you think those words mean, but no one’s talking about genetics or the eradication of a race of people.

            • Umbrias@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Ah of course, my mistake.

              Eugenics certainly couldn’t be checks notes deciding who can have kids, and humans arent checks notes people.

              Absolutely ridiculous. Imagine actually being pro genocide.

            • intensely_human
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Well, a key aspect of humanity is choice of mating partners so you are sort of talking about eliminating my race and then replacing them with something like Homo obentiantalis.

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes. Ultimately, the reason we should let people choose isn’t to prevent people who would be bad parents from becoming parents. That’s an issue that couldn’t be solved directly, but could be indirectly addressed by providing comprehensive sex ed. The real reason we should let people choose is so people aren’t forced to do or not do something they don’t or do want. People may choose the wrong option for themselves and regret it, but outside forces aren’t going to know what they want better than they will.

      Magical thought experiments can often mislead, as ethics cannot exist outside of our uncertain, unmagical reality.

      • Wes4Humanity
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        But in this case the “wrong option” means a human being will suffer terribly (assuming we’re talking about parents who wouldn’t pass the test)… Do we not ethically owe it to children/humanity to take some level of precautions against allowing them to grow up in hell?

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 month ago

          We do owe them protection, but not only do we owe ourselves reproductive rights, there are other ways to protect those children. We can give people the knowledge and resources to be better parents while taking kids away from those that still suck. How many parents largely suck because of poverty? How many never got the chance to learn how to parent or what the experience will be like?

        • intensely_human
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          And the “right option” also means a human being will suffer terribly. Life is suffering.

    • intensely_human
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes… But should they get that choice?

      Should anyone else be in a position to grant or deprive them of that choice?

      • Wes4Humanity
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think as a society we could restrict ourselves… That’s basically what laws are

        • intensely_human
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah but our laws are constrained by rights. Free reproduction is a right.

      • Wes4Humanity
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Why? Should literally everyone have that choice? Should we allow someone like 1944 Hitler to have kids… Just because he WANTS to?

        None of it matters since there’s no way to implement anything like this… But for this thought experiment, WHY should every narcissistic asshole who feels like it be allowed to bring a life into this world, when we know full well they aren’t going to take care of it?

        • volvoxvsmarla
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Should we allow someone like 1944 Hitler to have kids… Just because he WANTS to?

          Do you think evil is genetic or what?

          But for this thought experiment, WHY should every narcissistic asshole who feels like it be allowed to bring a life into this world, when we know full well they aren’t going to take care of it?

          Because it is not your place to judge who is too narcissistic to have kids and who is going to be a good parent. Not only do people change and someone who has always wanted kids dearly and is a genuine caring person can end up being an awful parent (and the other way around), but also how insanely vain is it to assume that we, the people, can judge an individual and say their personality is not good enough to be a parent.

          There is also no way to draw a line. A narcissistic violent pedophile maybe should not be having kids. The next generation will say no former felons should have kids. Then the next generation will say no one who ever had any kind of mental health problems can have kids. The line is arbitrary and hence will be drawn arbitrarily and nonsensical.

          You also cannot tell who will be able to take care of a child. Life happens. Great parents die in accidents or become disabled. Depression can get a crippling grip on all of us. People lose their jobs and are fucked especially in countries with no social security net.

          • Wes4Humanity
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            We do know how childhood development works. We know what creates a healthy mind during those early years. Nothing I said was about deciding who CAN’T have kids. Not having kids should be the default, and those who are serious about having kids should need to study what we know about how to raise humans in a healthy way. If they learn what we know, then they can have kids, and they’ll probably be grateful they knew what they were getting into ahead of time.

    • steeznson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think there is a compelling logic to this idea. You could even make passing the class attendence based in terms of “passing” and make it extremely basic with ideas like, “don’t shake babies” being the core syllabus.

      I suppose there are two problems with it. Firstly, the practicalities/logistics of implementing it are so far fetched that even the most authoritarian country like China would struggle to implement it. If it is completely impractical then it becomes a mere thought experiment and the only real action you can take after considering it is voting for a political party which prioritises education so more parents are prepared and informed.

      The second issue is that - even if you managed to implement such a policy - it is literally eugenics and you would quickly see the genetic makeup of society change and skew towards wealthy people. I don’t think we can judge what groups should get the right to exist even if in theory the test is egalitarian.

      • Wes4Humanity
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t disagree… Which is why this is definitely a thought experiment… But why would it necessarily skew towards rich people? Some of the least qualified/worst parents I’ve ever known were rich people. Are you saying poor people are less capable of learning or passing a class? I guess you would probably need to make it a paid program and illegal to fire someone who’s taking the class. Gotta make it accessible to everyone.