Having problem children neutered?

Post Reply New Topic

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 21 Apr 2009, 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell is likely to deny that it affects him, Claire.

I agree, and I think a court case where this was tried would also agree.


Where is it denied in the Constitution? A certain degree of this is already found in our law, but you are right, a modification of this degree is likely hard to justify under the current legal framework.


Democracy would never tolerate it if the cultural conditions stood, and if the cultural conditions changed to allow this, for these groups, then totalitarianism would be closer to reality.


Ok.... I don't know what to say to that, but a reasonable discussion does involve some obligation.


It is not billed as punishment though, it is a medical treatment to prevent bad behavior, not to hurt those who act poorly. So, that constitutional argument wouldn't work.


That's probably very true for the argument, and has been made by multiple posters, such as Sand and Apple In My Eye.

Umm...... yeah, even if Orwell was wrong about poisoning the well. I dislike the psychoanalysis angle of this a lot. I mean, even if the argument were made that Orwell was being biased(which honestly, he probably is), it could have been made in a much nicer manner than to suggest counseling.

In any case, society has a natural tendency to encroach on rights unless they are clearly defined and protected, even by irrational seeming safeguards. This kind of view isn't even that weird. Now you can say that I've taken it too far with the argument from this leading to totalitarian eugenics, but I did later attempt to defend the argument.

As for me becoming a hermit? Well.... I am not entirely opposed to the idea. I don't like people that much. I find myself avoiding them anyway. I also don't believe that mental disorder can really exist, so I don't see a problem with this so long as I can survive in a similar manner. Eventually, my hope is to recreate the life of the Underground Man and write my own book about it! ;-P (I kid)


Gut reactions are *somewhat* valid. Unless you are going to start arguing about ethics, but most people systematically preclude eugenics in their ethical ideas somewhat.

I've been thinking about this somewhat, and I cannot say that this is absolutely wrong, but I think in the context of the social foundings of this society and in this idea, I could not accept it. For instance, if a culture had occasional, cultural maimings of a sort for their priesthood, perhaps I could accept it, so long as I were not a part of this culture. But for the general fabric of society, I would not accept it.


He is probably excessively disrespectful, so that is a fair comment. This isn't to say that I am necessarily as fair as I should be. In fact, I disrespect things for the sake of doing so at times, but it is fair.

He will survive. Rather, he would rather cut his tongue out than admit that I am capable of getting to him. Either way, he is a stout fellow, and he will get over it.

You are talking about social boundaries. The reason that social boundaries will decay if they are not maintained is that we actually do not have an inherent right to them. Based on this assumption, we can then have a reasonable discussion about which boundaries are actually worth the expense of maintaining them.

It can be most satisfying. After a few months, it is like you have finally managed to unwind from a long, tiring day. You begin getting more physical exercise, you take more notice of the world around you, you start seeing beauty in everything around you...it's like withdrawing successfully from a harmful drug. It is unbelievable, and it is well worth the bug bites.

That is a very good answer. Furthermore, our history has engendered in us very strong emotional reactions to anything that brings eugenics to mind. All ethical issues need to be understood in the context of the society to which they pertain.

I never said that anything was beyond discussion. In any case, no... that does not follow. It can be held that certain things exist that are not truly inherent, but that also should not be questioned because they are necessary to maintain desirable order.

In any case, yes, I think a discussion can take place.


Well, it makes sense to do so at least.

The most concerning part of your OP was "I also think that it is a service to society as a whole to reproductively incapacitate individuals who are often difficult to get along with and, quite frankly, potentially dangerous." The plain reading of this would be that you are in favor of such an idea. Are you? If not, you have really crappy communication skills.


Paranoid? I've learned from experience and from history that people are generally untrustworthy. If that makes me paranoid, so be it. Libertarian, yes, that is mostly accurate. "Deep, irrational fear that society has a natural tendency to ever further encroach on [my] rights unless I somehow defend [myself] against it." No, that is not what I believe at all. I tend to think that things are better now than in the past- as example, I would point to the fact that we did once have sterilization laws in many parts of the US and today such proposals would never be accepted. Counseling? No, I doubt that would be helpful. And what's wrong with being a hermit? If I lack interest in social interaction, why should I engage in it? Though I will note that I have been much more social since starting university last fall, and would hardly be considered a "hermit" by most people's standards.


My initial "gut reaction" to eugenic ideas was generally positive, actually. But after learning some of the history, and seeing how bias and corruption will always creep in to such a system, I grew to distrust it. Then, after studying more biology, I realized that we honestly just don't know enough to be able to make competent eugenic decisions- better to continue rolling the dice as we always have.


Well, this is a common enough perception that I can't reject it as obviously false. I tend to be extremely blunt and undiplomatic, and often combative. That's part of my personality, and I think you'll find more than one hard-headed Aspie around here.

From where I sit, you exist only as text on a computer screen. You are having some serious delusions of grandeur if you believe that you are able to "get to me."


I think tampering with the human gene pool with deliberate purpose in mind is problematic for a number of reasons. Ignoring the many fundamental ethical issues that could be raised against such an idea, I don't see any way a good implementation of eugenic policies could be made.


And probably with good reason. How do you plan to avoid the mistakes of past eugenicists? Several posters have already demonstrated that your line of reasoning is frighteningly similar to that of more infamous eugenicists. Why is your proposal different, and how would you ensure such a system did not end with serious unintended consequences? Though it may be a cliché, I will have to pull out the slippery slope argument against eugenics. You make it routine to eliminate Down's Syndrome babies, then people see less of a problem getting rid of autistics, and so on until we reach GATTACA.

Let me second Orwell on this as a general principle. It would solve a lot of emotional problems in hot discourse.

Allowing adults the choice of chemical castration is a completely different matter (and maybe even demanding it as a condition of release from prison for persistent sex offenders, although this is more debatable). Can you not get it if you want it? And isn't chemical castration reversible anyway, in which case the main moral objections do not apply. If you suggested temporary chemical castration for problem children, this would be perhaps more acceptable, given that problem children are often given cocktails of drugs anyway, which likely screw up their development considerably.

Personality modification is a matter of individual psychology, aside from legal consequences. Each individual is a very complex problem and the introduction of blunt legal instruments into a vey delicate affair is an invitation to multiple disasters.

Since the effects of castrating children before the reach adolescence have been known for THOUSANDS of years, attempting to pass it off as "medical treatment to prevent bad behaviour" would not hold water. Castration is regarded as a Punishment by the law and it stands to reason that suggesting it as a beneficial procedure would go NOWHERE. You are intepreting the constitution and the bill of rights literally without realize the implications of them. Nottomention the fact that 99% parents would NOT go along with it because castrating their children would mean no grandchildren. Being able to have children if one wishes to do so could easily be interpreted as the pursuit of happiness which IS a constitutional right.

Umm.... I am not arguing in favor of this guy's proposal, I am just saying that the purpose is not to be as a punishment.

I wasn't aware that the law could argue what is and what isn't a medical procedure. Now, we can argue that the medical impact is too small to get us anywhere, thus it wouldn't be accepted, but I do not think such an argument involves the constitution.

Umm... yes. I am interpreting them literally, as laws are meant to be interpreted to make sure that they have constancy over time. I mean, I am distrusting of the legitimacy of less literal interpretations, as they can be disputed but the actual literal interpretation is much more difficult to dispute.

Well, yes, the lack of parental supportability is another reason why this is a terrible idea.

Well... the right to have children could be interpreted as that, but that is a rather weak argument, given that the intent of the procedure is to make it easier to be happy. Not only that, but the "right to pursue happiness" is closer to a bit of rhetoric than anything else, as it has almost no legal implications that we can display with certainty, and is thus at best, a heuristic by which to interpret the rest of the constitution.

Really? Find for me, anywhere in the Constitution, the phrase "pursuit of happiness." It's not in there. It's a Lockean natural right, and it was listed in the Declaration of Independence. The DoC is not a legal document in the United States, as it was mostly just a list of grievances and explanation of the justification for rebellion. The DoC wasn't really even seen as that significant at the time, with July 2, 1776 (when the Continental Congress actually declared independence from Britain) viewed as more important until later on.

That is true, but is your point that because its not specifically listed imply that one could argue that its not a constitutional right and such could be used to justify compulsory castration?

No, the lack of it being listed isn't a grounds for rejecting it, as established in the 10th Amendment. And compulsory castration is very problematic for a number of reasons.