Having too many kids

[Bellerophon]

(1) The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. I've argued that getting hair plugs is vain, and your retort is that I'd prevent you from using shampoo. (2) I'm concerned with vanity, not the "unnatural" character of scientific intervention. I oppose the use of performance-enhancing drugs because they're illegal. If they weren't, there wouldn't be a free-rider problem. That's where the vanity comes in - ignoring rules that others follow because you think you deserve to be special. When it comes to reproductive assistance, I think it's vain to insist that your children share your genes when your genes not functional. A counterpoint would be that some people who depend on reproductive assistance don't have defective genes, they just waited too long to have a kid. My reply would be that having one's own child under such circumstances is not worth the increased risk of birth defects when there are perfectly healthy children up for adoption. It's only worth it if you attach an irrational significance to having your own child. What is the only quality that your own child could have that an adopted child cannot? Your DNA. Clear it up any?

[Peter]

Keep digging.

I'm amazed and horrified by some of the opinions I've read in this thread. Sheesh - it's like the twentieth century never happened.

If this is what the younger generation believes I'll stick with mine, thank you very much.

Disgusted of Oakingham

[jessia]

i still believe in reproductive rights...

[Bellerophon]

Disgust is inimical to reason, Peter. You're a superlative creative writer, but I venture your persuasive faculty could use some work. Care to get off your high horse and explain precisely what you mean by that?

[Blossom]

Sheesh - it's like the twentieth century never happened.

I think the problem is that the 20th century did happen, and what it did was a massive crap on the earth, leaving this generation to clean up the mess.

What is the only quality that your own child could have that an adopted child cannot? Your DNA. Clear it up any?

I agree that this is vain.

[kaoshoneybun]

I see the point that having fertillity treatment if the whole reason you cannot have children is that there is something wrong with your DNA, I guess it would be cruel bringing children into the world knowing they'd have the same defective genes. But this comes very close to eugenics which is another sticky subject people normally argue against, not least because of the Nazi assosciation.

I don't think people wanting their own biological children comes down to 'vanity' - this makes it sound so superficial. Its not like wanting plastic surgery to make yourself look nice, its wanting to satisfy a very natural, deep-rooted urge to have children.

One of the great things about being a parent is seeing yourself and your family in a child - something you can't get with an adopted child.

[LadyHawke]

That is a good point, Honeybun.

They say never make a law you wuddn't want to live under. I don't think anyone would like it if they lived in a ahrm, (clears throat) 'free society,' and two people fall in love, and they wanna make babies together (I SWORE it wuddn't happen to me, and it did) and then the governement says 'Sorry, no can do. You don't meet the requirements." That would really suck, wouldn't it? I can't support any measures that could lead to that. (they do that in China, you ain't allowed to have but so many kids, and they only want guys- btw, as a result, there ain't enuff women in the country for all the guys now, results of that kind of restrictions.....) While paying people to sterilize themselves MAY be an option, it isn't one I would support, it is horrible and frankenstien at its worse. I would be ashamed to be part of a society that the best solution they could come up with would be that.

I ain't even TOUCHIN the abortion issue, cuz I have mixed feelings on that. I DON'T like the idea that a bunch of men (who don't even hafta go thru the pregnancy, or expereince the pain of childbirth, thier only involvement in the pregnancy is all fun for the first 20 minutes) get to decide what I can do with my uterus (it ain't like I can cut off THEIR reproductive choice), but I do feel that a fetus should have rights as well. (Altho wether or not the same rights as baby, would be debateable). We fall into the murky area of what people feel about life and the spirit, (or don't) and that gets touchy, with little of the parameters that is needed in legal issues.

But I also think that a person who wants to have a child or two, (not a friggin DOZEN, now) should be able to, and that the technology should exist. But I also think that the ones who assist with that fertilization bear a huge responsiblity that they refuse to take. This woman had kids, and while she didn't need more, she still cuddn't have had 8 more kids if the technology hadn't have assisted her. The responsibililty of the doctor cannot be taken out of the equation. People are far too quick to take the money for something, and far too reluctant to take responsibility, but that is the practice on ALL levels, professional, legal, personal, and every other way. To take accountability or responsibility goes against the very grain of our nature.


And now, to get off my soapbox before I slip off........ Whuuuooops!

[Bellerophon]

Its not like wanting plastic surgery to make yourself look nice, its wanting to satisfy a very natural, deep-rooted urge to have children.

Vanity is a very natural, deep-rooted urge as well. And I don't think the term applies equally to people who want children and are able to have them, or to athletes who go for the gold and have the legs to win it. What I think is especially vain is to defy a natural or agreed-upon prohibition simply to perpetuate oneself in some respect.

Even so, when it comes to fertility treatments my disapproval is not so fierce that I'd support a ban.

I respect difference of opinion on the subject and wouldn't try to impose my view by ballot or otherwise.

Those of you who would extend my argument to ridiculous extremes should be satisfied with that. Any comparison to eugenics is insulting and unwarranted.

One question I'd ask, however, is do you think fertility treatments should be covered by public health insurance?

[kaoshoneybun]

Any comparison to eugenics is insulting and unwarranted.

It is not at all unwarranted as what you suggested about people with unfit genes wanting to reproduce,

to insist that your children share your genes when your genes not functional

is exactly what eugenics is all about.

The interests of the eugenicist are in improving the quality of those born and increasing the proportion of the socially adequate.

Taken from the OED.
eg. only allowing perfect, healthy people to bred while cutting those with imperfections & diseases out of the breeding pool.

The fact you support such a view but find 'eugenics' to still be an insulting term is very confusing.

I myself have some sympathy for the eugenic argument: I have a younger brother with multiple, serious allergies which means he is heavily reliant on medication. I was wondering whether it would be cruel of him to have children in light of this. At the same time however, I realise I could be passing on myopia to my own children and the question becomes what can be lived with and what puts your decendants on unfair reliance on surgery, medication or glasses etc.

[krebbe]

I think it's important to draw a distinction between eugenics where you are denying people from having children who are capable of having children naturally because man/society deems their genes unworthy, and the refusal to help those who are unable to produce children unassisted as a result of their genes i.e. natural selection would not have allowed them to reproduce unassisted.

The philosophy of not allowing animals to reproduce who cannot reproduce naturally has been enforced by mother nature since life began. The fact that modern science can allow the genes of those who would not have otherwise been able to reproduce to become established in the human gene pool is a change in the status quo that undermines nature's ability to eliminate problematic genes and could have serious consequences for future generations if left unchecked.

I'm not suggesting IVF should be banned, only that there's a difference between refusing to offer the aid of a scientific invention to a couple who can't conceive and locking up and forcing abortions on disabled people for having unauthorized babies.

[LadyHawke]

Humans left the natural processes behind long ago, and we can't really think we should start adhereing to those natural processes again unless we wanna kick everyone out of hospitals and nursing homes, and make everything from bandaids to blood transfusions to eyeglasses illegal.

That having being said, I think Krebbe makes an excellent point.

Props to Krebbe!

[Zero]

What I think is especially vain is to defy a natural or agreed-upon prohibition simply to perpetuate oneself in some respect.

I have had to read and re-read your posts to convince myself that you were serious.

You describe a desire to overcome sterility as vanity and defiance – and then seem to think that because you have narrowed the definition of the desire to propagate down to “simply to perpetuate oneself” and can justify your claims based on your own narrow definition you have somehow proved your point.

Defining a thing being discussed in your own terms and then taking a bow when your argument matches your own (singular) definition is a trick for children; you avoid any complication to your beliefs that the myriad spectrum of reasons people the world over might have for breeding. I know this discussion might be a month old but I couldn’t let such blatant evasiveness go unchallenged.

You also casually suggest disgust is inimical to reason, disgust might be inimical to your logic but reason is at the very least a product of logic and revelation not an emotionless void; your entire argument is abhorrent and I'm sorry to say that anyone who was responsible for “awarding” you the title of eloquent must be ignorant of the words Latin root.

[Kinders]

My hazy, hippy thought before bedtime:

Instead of trying to create, or restrict humanity to, a uniform race that conforms to our (socially-constructed) idea of perfection, shouldn't we be celebrating the fascinating diversity inherent in our bizarre and unpredictable existence?

[Niall]

anyone who was responsible for “awarding” you the title of eloquent must be ignorant of the words Latin root.

...elaborate on this.

[Kinders]

A relevant article on population control that I haven't had time to read yet.

[Zero]

...elaborate on this.

I will explain myself, but I have been warned privately by another mod that my comment is a “personal remark” and is somehow “offensive” in a way that the suggestions made by Bellerophon are not - and apparently only superficially relevant to this topic. A conclusion I fundamentally disagree with but am compelled to take into account; I will try and explain without running the risk of angering the thought police further, but excuse me if I sound stilted as I’m not sure how far the chains stretch.

Eloquent (at its root) means using applicable language in a cogent manner. Advocating eugenics,condescension and semantic trickery is far from elegant or appropriate and I have yet to see a single instance of Bellerophon making a persuasive argument for his stance. The base components of eloquence are missing, hence my comment.

I incorrectly assumed that if someone proudly displayed a colored badge of supposed eloquence in every post they make I might be within my rights to draw attention to it. I was apparently quite mistaken and i stand both corrected and further disgusted.

* Bellerophon, despite your “insulting and unwarranted” umbrage, eugenics is precisely what you are advocating. It is not a “comparison” despite how insulting you might find that – you are very clear about your views and it the fact that you object to the definition applied to your suggestion does not alter it one jot.

[Darragh]

Bailout!

[Bellerophon]

I allow that my position on this subject seems more comprehensible in my mind than it appears on the page. I must have been in a sour mood or something. In any event, it's a fair criticism that my posts are perilously glib and incendiary. I also regret being deliberately rude to Peter when I lost my temper.

While I intended to retreat in penance for the above, I see this thread will return to haunt me unless I clear up a few things. (1) No eugenicist with half a brain would support my opinions in this thread. (2) I see a number of flaws in my presentation, and may concede others, but the fact that I've argued from my own definition isn't one of them. (3) The acceptable degree of emotion in reasoned debate is controversial. (4) Attempts to undermine my argument by reductio ad Nazium are unlikely to change my mind.

Please read on if you have a lot of time on your hands, and are prepared for civil disagreement.

Spoiler:

(1) I've taken two positions in this thread, neither of which would win me friends among eugenicists. (a) I suggested that sterility be made a condition to receive long-term government aid. In hindsight, I'd emphasize more clearly that accepting help from the state would have to be voluntary. What happened to Carrie Buck is reason enough for that. My intention was to affect the serially irresponsible, not people held legally incompetent. Accordingly, eugenicists would not approve my prescription because it doesn't have any basis in heredity. My criteria are imperfect proxies for the characteristics that eugenicists prefer, and as a result, they would find the policy both over and under-inclusive. Indeed, it might include them. They don't make much money these days. (b) Eugenicists would not approve my second argument for two reasons. (i) It's partly an appeal to nature. See (2) below. Eugenicists are social engineers, not cheerleaders for natural selection. The only people I've ever known to suggest otherwise were religious fanatics trying to slime evolution. And even if my ethical reservations were adopted by everyone, they still wouldn't be coercive. People make ethical trade-offs all the time. Of course, the appeal to nature problem extends to my use of words like "functional" and "defective." But note that the word "gene" is often defined in terms of heredity. A gene that frustrates heredity can be considered a failure by definition. I'm not using those terms in their value-laden sense, as a eugenicist might. In fact, I carefully avoided the term "unfit" because it's more ambiguous and would raise the question, unfit for what? (ii) Many of the people who rely on fertility technology are the sorts of people that eugenicists would want to reproduce. This is similar to the inclusivity problem that would cause eugenicists to oppose argument (a).

(2) If you want to criticize my opinion fairly, this is the section for you. (a) My argument is weak to the extent I appeal to nature. Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean it ought to be. A few of you alluded to this but declined to pursue the implications below a very high level of generality. See the questions in (4) below. (b) One might also question the merits of my distinctions. Zero makes much of the fact that I defined the difference between a biological child and an adopted child as the fulfillment of a wish to perpetuate oneself. From that definition -- what follows is a clarification -- I'd argue it's vain to deliberately incur expenses above the transaction costs of adoption in order to conceive a biological child because the only benefit you'd get from the marginal outlay is a reflection of yourself. I'm pretty vain, so I might pay $100 more for pills with the usual side effects. But I wouldn't drop $50K on IVF. So, what are the problems with this judgment? The fact that I've argued from my own definition isn't one of them. Constitutional courts do this all the time in the United States. What is due process? How about the right to privacy? Is the right to bear arms a collective right, or an individual right? Such definitions are, in a sense, arbitrary. A better counterpoint would be that my definition of the marginal benefit of reproductive assistance over adoption (see above) is false or under-inclusive. Perhaps one attaches special value to the experience of pregnancy, for instance. I might take stuff like that into account, but if reproductive assistance is state-subsidized in your country there's an incommensurability problem. It's hard to argue that a subjective, deeply personal benefit is worth expense to the state. Moreover, if you accept help from the public, you may be obligated to avoid waste. Consider the case of a country that accepts a bailout from the IMF or World Bank. Ordinarily, the people would be entitled to self-government. Yet they trade away a good portion of that right in the loan covenants, which often impose budgetary constraints to limit the drain on the bank. Returning to reproduction, there are children up for adoption whose costs of being brought to term are already sunk. It would be much less costly for society to give you one of those children than it would be to subsidize another. But perhaps you think society is obliged to protect your choice regardless of the expense. Some constitutions, like Brazil's, explicitly protect the right to reproduce. But is that inclusive enough to cover a right to fertility treatments? Another way to break my loan analogy would be to draw a distinction between political rights, which can apparently be traded away, and unalienable personal rights. Just be careful if fertility treatments are state-sponsored. It's one thing to protect a personal right, and another to require subsidies for its exercise. Would either approach defeat the incommensurability problem? I'd argue for credit, at least. How high could it push the acceptable expense? $5K? $50K? $500K? $5MM? I use dollar amounts for convenience -- one should also account for the unquantifiable risks of medical complications. (c) In countries whose constitutions protect the right to reproduce, making the right conditional on aid status may be unconstitutional if the recipient is entitled to the aid or the government is obligated to provide it. I know this is true in the United States. One might attack my first argument about sterilization on the ground that the government is obligated to provide welfare, so it can't demand sterilization in return. I'm certain the government is obligated to provide welfare up to a point. Does anyone think the obligation is unlimited? I'm kind of on the fence. My support for voluntary sterilization was more of an experiment than a deeply-held position. (d) I appealed to ridicule when I lost my temper, and begged the question a bunch of times. But those are just gotcha points.

(3) I believe that strong emotional reactions cloud judgment, and should be avoided in policy debates. This view is commonplace (though not unanimous). Many people consider appeals to emotion an unfair debate tactic.

(4) Suppose my position is not worth a dam. Hardly a stretch for some of you. What's a better one? I doubt any of you believe that expanding reproductive intervention is always ethical without qualification or limitation. At what point would you begin to hesitate, and why not before?

[Zero]

I see a number of flaws in my presentation, and may concede others, but the fact that I've argued from my own definition isn't one of them.

Allow me to disagree, it most certainly is...

“Eugenicists would not approve my second argument for two reasons.”
“Eugenicists are social engineers, not cheerleaders for natural selection”
“Eugenicists would not approve my prescription”
“My criteria are imperfect proxies for the characteristics that eugenicists prefer”
“Many of the people who rely on fertility technology are the sorts of people that eugenicists would want to reproduce”
“This is similar to the inclusivity problem that would cause eugenicists to oppose argument”

Once again – because you have defined what Eugenicists think then state your argument as being incompatible with this supposed group you indicate that you are ipso facto not advocating eugenics.

Either I am unaware of the existence of The World Council of Eugenicists and they have provided a rigid charter - or you are constructing something that sounds like definitive factual statements out of thin air, pointing out your own supposed distance from it and using that as proof of your conclusions and the errors in others perception.

It’s a poor sort of tactic in any discussion and you appear over reliant on it – see also “note that the word "gene" is often defined in terms of heredity. A gene that frustrates heredity can be considered a failure by definition” as another glaring example. It’s apparently your default position and it invalidates many of the points you try to make. Sorry if the fact that I find your method of discussion weak and your beliefs objectionable made me take a crack at your sig title but it’s not eloquence as I understand it. A genuine apology if that seemed like an attempt to wound for cheap “gotcha points” it wasn’t meant as such – it was far more insidious than that!

I could go on but I’m starting to see this as a distraction from the actual issue here.


Main course. I will gladly forgo the very minimal satisfaction of claiming to be “right” about the above if you can simply address the following:

You have advocated forbidding fertility treatments to people who cannot conceive naturally because they are genetically deficient. (And would thus propagate the deficiency) That is Eugenics.

Now - If you can either a) refute that this is what you claimed, or b) refute the definition of Eugenics as we understand it please do so. I’m assuming you understand that I’m not interested in more invented flim-flam about “Eugenicists and what they think”, nor an essay in the comparative expenditure vs cost savings for an economy – it’s prevarication.

For your convenience - Eugenics: belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species by discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects.

Not the complete definition by any means, but the part we are concerned with here I think?

[Bellerophon]

I see a number of flaws in my presentation, and may concede others, but the fact that I've argued from my own definition isn't one of them.

Allow me to disagree, it most certainly is...

Disputing my definitions is perfectly acceptable. But as I wrote above, arguing from disputable definitions is not a problematic debate tactic. Courts do it all the time. Perhaps you believe in defining "eugenics" and "gene" more broadly. Just because there may be support for very broad definitions doesn't mean I'm wrong to argue from narrower ones. Consider "good" and "evil." Should I look them up in the dictionary, and be satisfied with what I find? Philosophers have been wrestling with the meaning of such terms since time immemorial.

You have advocated forbidding fertility treatments to people who cannot conceive naturally because they are genetically deficient.

I changed the emphasis. That's untrue, I said it's vain to incur the costs given the nature of the benefit. Just because something is vain doesn't mean it should be prohibited.

For your convenience - Eugenics: belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species by discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects.

That's a very broad definition. I think of eugenics more in terms of activism, but even if I accept your broader view there are still pressure points. I don't believe what I've suggested would "improve the qualities of the human species," and not everyone who would need fertility treatments to reproduce has a genetic defect. Some problems are the result of age or environmental factors.

Do you believe reproductive assistance is always ethical no matter what the cost? If not, why wouldn't your position be vulnerable to the same claims?