Conclusion To End the torture and vicious cycle. Dec 25th 06

                                           Conclusion

 

This is the conclusion to the blog called (End the torture and vicious cycle. Dec 25th 06).  Firstly I would like to thank everyone for their opinion and for contributing to the topic in discussion.

 

I never really expected people to agree with me, and I guessed what people’s reactions would be before they even commented. Why? Because I hold the same opinion. You can’t give the power to decide whether, when and if a person has children. Especially to modern day governments, even if it is in the best interest of the people it’s meant to help. Though what I suggested was logical, it was also very Orwellian. So as mankind is corrupt and self-destructive in nature, there is always going to be tendencies by certain parts of humanity to abuse the law, and use it to their own political and ideological ends.

 

The whole reason I opened this topic up was to see if anyone else out there had any other alternatives to the suggestion I posted. Because it’s becoming very obvious that if something isn’t done soon about the population explosion and the weakening of the species due to modern life, we are in for some bad weather politically, socially and literally! Spice the cat did come up with an alternative, but it still involved taking away the right to have children. He suggested that at birth the ability to have children was turned off, by means of genetic manipulation. And only after they fulfill a certain criteria for having children for example, proving they are not addicts, alcoholics and don’t have any violent or paedophile tendencies, then they may have children. There are two problems with spice’s suggestion. One, it’s still the same basic argument of can we stop these people from having children and is it morally justified? Two, the genetic technology to carry this out is at least thirty to forty years away, we can’t wait that long and still, the moral argument is still there.

 

While I was pondering Spice’s suggestion I came up on a thought of the future. With no population control and climate change, there are going to be famines and diseases becoming more common than they already are. Coupled with destruction of grazing and agricultural land, caused by climate change and an increased population, it wont be long untill governments of the world have no choice but to implement a law like the one we are talking about. For instance, India passed the 1 billion mark in 1999 and is predicted to expand to 1.5 billion by 2050! Each year India is adding 18 million people to the country! So at present in a country where half the children are undernourished, and one-third live below the poverty line, how is it going to be in fifty years time!? Even before hitting the 1 billion mark, India was outrunning its natural resource base! This wont just have disastrous consequences for India and other third world countries, it will also have an effect on the western world too. With starvation in their own countries and no job opportunities, they are going to flock to any first world country they can. Causing considerable strain on the small European countries like Britain. I’m not saying immigration is wrong, what I’m saying is it’s wrong for such a mass of people to flock to one or two points on the globe, which is what they were fleeing in the first place.

 

So whether we like it or not, governments will soon impose draconian laws on the people of their respective countries to combat the problem of the increasing human population. This will be more so in third world countries than first, because in the first world with a better education and contraceptives readily available and no stigma attached to using them anymore, the population stays low. But sadly, in the third it’s a different story as we know. So the answer is education, and to get that they need money. Which they don’t have, and any they do have is miss managed, siphoned off in to secret bank accounts or spent on arms to secure the bent political regimes in third world countries where the problem exists. So untill the bent politicians in third world countries are stopped and the rest of the third world wakes up and starts spending money on education instead of arms, then there is going to be more mass migration, more starvation and future draconian laws forced on the people of the countries where the problem exists.

End The Torture and Vicious Cycle

                                                        The Reasons

 

The reasons I chose to write about this subject is in response to people I have spoken to for some time now on the subject of not letting certain people have children. I have observed in the world around me, a concern for the children and people in question. You must have seen the NSPCC adverts asking for money and help to stop the abuse of children? And how after they have seen it the people say “They shouldn’t be allowed to have children!”

 

The same goes for drug addicts or people with addictive personalities and people with extremely low IQ’s, some people say they shouldn’t be allowed to have children either, and I agree. Why I hear you ask? Subjecting a child or condemning it to a life of abuse by the addict parent or being an addict for the rest of their life, would cause untold misery and torture for the addict, the addicts family and the community on the whole. And when I say addict, I mean addicted to all kinds of addictive substances from alcohol to heroin. There are two kinds of addict, there are the ones who drink or take drugs as a habit (habitual addicts) or to cope. Then there is the genetic addict, who is genetically predisposed to be an addict. The genetically predisposed addict is the addict I propose to make infertile and ban from having children. As for the habitual addict who is not genetically predisposed to be an addict can have children under certain strict conditions. Which will be out-lined later.

 

People with low IQ’s bellow 75 should not be permitted to have children. 75-80 percent of mental retardation runs in the family, and 20-25 percent is due to biological problems and brain damage. As a IQ of 70 or under is considered mentally retarded I suggest IQ, mental health evaluations and social skills evaluations for everyone through out the person’s life. Then once a person reaches sexual maturity and has been found to be unfit to be a parent they will be permanently banned from having children. By either the vasectomy that should have been carried out when the child was of teenage age or carry one out immediately. I also think as soon as a down syndrome child is detected in the womb at the earliest stage it should be mandatory to abort them. As I think it is not fair to bring a child in to a life of mental retardation needing constant care and being a constant burden on the parents, even if they wish to look after it or not. After all it’s the child who will suffer most not the parent, and to bring it in to the world just because they think it’s right or their religion says to do it, is selfish!

 

Other reasons for not allowing People with low IQ’s to have children, is their inability to look after themselves their children and the environment around them. One instance of this was in my local paper last year. A women with an extremely low IQ was in a relationship with a violent man, she also had a child too, to another previous partner. The child lived with her and her violent partner, the violent partner beat the child on numerous occasions with no real objections from the mother. The child later died. And this women is still allowed to have children, why should she have been allowed to have them in the first place?! The same goes for animals and the places where these people live. It would cause misery on whatever estate they live on as they will not look after the children leading to anti-social behaviour subsequently bringing the estate down and leading to later anti-social generations. It would also lead to neglected animals in their possession.

 

                                     What should be done and how to do it

 

First: Sterilize all people with the addictive personalities genes, no matter how old, young, healthy religious, all colours no matter how high their IQ is or even if they are reformed addicts. After all there is always the possibility they could relapse or pass on the genes to the next generation, no matter what their intentions are.

 

Second: All male children at the age of producing valid sperm for fertilisation, will deposit it in a sperm bank. Once that it is done they will immediately or later have a vasectomy, so as not to go round impregnating all the women, who by the way are not sterilised. Also if the law comes in to force all men who have never been sterilised shall deposit their sperm in a sperm bank too, and then be made in fertile.

 

Third: As soon as a child is born they have their development monitored, a little like today. So all through life they are monitored in the areas that matter for raising children. For example, the monitoring of temperament and violent tendencies, pedophile tendencies, severe drug abuse or alcohol abuse, IQ and coping skills.

 

Fourth:,Once the person reaches the age allowing them to have children, around 27, allowing for any violent traits or severe substance abuse, pedophile tendencies, criminal tendencies time to manifest themselves. If the people in question pass the above outlined tests they will be allowed to have children, the amount they have will depend on what the population of the particular country is at the time. Also the male can only have children under strict guidelines, and he will not have possession of the sperm to have the children. And once he’s had the amount of children he is permitted, he can have no more, the same goes for the female. 

 

                                                 The ethical argument

 

We live in a so-called democracy, I would call it a shadow democracy but that’s a different story. So I will call it a so-called democracy, but is it ethical to do what I outlined above? Is it right to take away the rights of a person to stop the misery of another they would bring in to the world? I would say yes, but then you have the argument that if you give a government power to take away the right to have children, you give them power to do almost anything! In an ideal world we could implement it, but if this was an ideal world we wouldn’t have a problem in the first place.

 

The fact remains, we do have a problem and it is not just going to go away. You can train an army of social workers and plow all the money you like in to helping these people, but the core fact is the government has been working on the problem for sometime and there is still problems. I’m not saying things haven’t got better, they have, but there is always a sad story in the paper or on the telly and even in your street, the chances are you will probably know someone with a problem highlighted in the above.

 

The problem of putting this in to law is if we can trust the government not to take other rights away? With the west’s latest bogy man and excuse to limit our freedoms more, Terrorism!, can we trust them? I can only say I can trust myself, as I could not be bought, bent or corrupted in any way shape or form, and I can guarantee that! The government cannot! So I don’t know if we should sacrifice our right to choose when and if we are allowed to have children? You could say if you follow the above guidelines you will be ok and be allowed to have children if not guaranteed some if you follow them.

 

Even if I could control the country and make the laws, would doctors perform the operations? Especially religious ones? Even the non religious doctors would have to refuse because it’s against the patients will! It could even cause a deep division in the country it’s self! But lets ask ourselves, what’s the alternative? To let this carry on? People and children subjected to the misery of alcoholism! addicts and people with low IQ’s having children and continuing the circle of substance and violent abuse! And the weakening of the Human species itself?

 

What do you think? Do you disagree? Do you have other ideas or solutions? let me know.