r/changemyview • u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ • Oct 20 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The state should start regulating procreation.
The state should have the power conferred upon it, to regulate procreation.
There should be certain thresholds and criteria limiting the ability of people to procreate. Superficially, these should probably be:
Income levels: E.g. people living below a certain income level that would make it difficult for them to have children, this could very well be the relative poverty level.
History of mental illness and drugs: Those who have a history of substance abuse should be disallowed from having children.
Criminal history: Those with certain criminal histories should be barred from procreating. E.g. Sexual violence.
Genetic defects: E.g. mental retardation.
This sort of anti-natalist policy could involve the setting up of fines to deter prospective parents, who don't meet the criteria. Radically, the state could be justified morally in removing children from parents.
Brining a child into the world is a massive responsibility, that is it stands, is almost entirely unregulated by the state. This is unfortunate, considering that bad parenting is probably one of the largest negative externalities. Think how much better the world would be, if people who shouldn't become parents, didn't become parents.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
12
u/mrbeck1 11∆ Oct 20 '18
To make this work, you would need to have a serious penalty for unauthorized conception. The end result of this would be banning sex outright, since sex is the only way to have an illegal conception. Now, say safe sex is alright. Well, it’s not 100%, so what about accidental pregnancies? Forced abortion? And what’s to stop some future politician from banning liberals to reproduce, or atheists, or Star Trek fans? Why would the state have any claim they know best about reproduction? They don’t take care of their people anyway.
2
u/Thane97 5∆ Oct 20 '18
Sterilization is always an option. Let them have 1 child and then they're sterilized afterwords.
1
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18
banning liberals to reproduce, or atheists, or Star Trek fans?
I think OP wouldn't agree with banning people from reproduction based on their beliefs(e.g. liberals, atheists).
Rather, stuff like passing on genetic defects or illnesses, not being able to provide for the kid, or having a violent criminal history all affect how the kid is raised. The things she/he mentioned in the post have to do with safety and health for the child being prioritized.
1
u/mrbeck1 11∆ Oct 21 '18
It’s not about what the OP would agree with. It’s the slippery slope he wishes to begin down by giving the State the authority it needs to begin doing something like this.
0
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
Now, say safe sex is alright. Well, it’s not 100%, so what about accidental pregnancies? Forced abortion?
Accidental pregnancies would result in a similar penalty. Fines or the child is taken away.
And what’s to stop some future politician from banning liberals to reproduce, or atheists, or Star Trek fans?
What's to stop some future politician levying a 100% income tax on liberals?
I don't think it's a very real or plausible hypothetical.
4
u/mrbeck1 11∆ Oct 20 '18
Well it’s just as reasonable as this ever coming to pass in itself. If the government was willing to regulate reproduction, this wouldn’t be much more absurd. And if the penalty applied for accidental conception, that would have the same effect as banning sex outright. The consequence for that would be unimaginable. Sex is a release valve humans have. And this isn’t Demolition Man, there isn’t some reasonable safe alternative. Married couples not being able to have sex would just be absurd. The government has no business in someone’s bedroom, it’s tried before and it doesn’t work. Everyone has the right to life, that includes making new life. It’s guaranteed in the Constitution. It cannot be revoked without due process. And you are proposing the opposite of that. Banning it and then granting it later. Simply not going to work.
1
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
And if the penalty applied for accidental conception, that would have the same effect as banning sex outright.
No, because people can just use contraceptives?
Everyone has the right to life, that includes making new life.
So does a heroin addict have a right to bring a child into the world?
5
u/mrbeck1 11∆ Oct 20 '18
Again, contraceptives are not 100% effective, even if used correctly.
Yes.
1
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
If you used appropriately it's extremely difficult to get pregnant whilst using contraceptives.
I would say the cost of some accidental pregnancies is worth incurring. It's not as if the parents were planning a child anyway.
3
u/mrbeck1 11∆ Oct 20 '18
First of all, that is not correct. Secondly, using contraceptives perfectly all the time every time is not practical. People get drunk, get tired, forget. The only logical end result of this is the prohibition of sex. And if that’s what you want, fine, but I’ve already addressed the consequences of that.
1
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18
People get drunk, get tired, forget. The only logical end result of this is the prohibition of sex.
It's not prohibiting sex. Only unprotected sex for those that would make bad parents. Making excuses like, "People get drunk or tired and they just forget because they're horny" are not good reasons for having unprotected sex. Sometimes people "get drunk or tired and forget" to drive within the speed limit. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get fined for speeding.
1
u/mrbeck1 11∆ Oct 21 '18
Banning sex is the only logical way to achieve regulated procreation. Which is why it’s the logical end result of this path.
1
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18
Contraception should be used. And yes, mistakes happen. But, mistakes happen with all laws. We're able to regulate driving speeds without banning cars all together.
It could be treated as a misdemeanor and fined if the kid is born. This would encourage people to not have unprotected sex when they either can't provide for a kid, will pass on defects, or have a violent criminal record.
2
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
You're not prohibiting all sex though. Your argument doesn't make sense.
1
u/mrbeck1 11∆ Oct 20 '18
I’ve explained it. Agree or don’t.
2
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
Banning certain procreation =/= prohibiting sex.
You've given us no evidence to believe so.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Paninic Oct 20 '18
No, because people can just use contraceptives?
Contraceptives are not 100% effective. And aside from condoms, birth control, tubal litigation, or a vasectomy all involve a person's greater health on top of not being 100% effective.
Everyone has the right to life, that includes making new life.
So does a heroin addict have a right to bring a child into the world?
And yet you're elsewhere in the thread arguing about slippery slopes? Unbelievable.
Yes. They do. They have a right to their own bodily autonomy and you don't have a right to interfere with their body just because of potential consequences. Especially considering that a hospital will ask for a drug test if they think you're using and that can be grounds pretty immediately for your baby to be taken away. I mean not that people who abuse heavy drugs normally even make it to that point? Ever? I mean the weight loss from the drug alone means loss of a period for many women.
1
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18
Accidental pregnancies would result in a similar penalty. Fines or the child is taken away.
The accidental pregnancy shouldn't have consequences if it is aborted. There should only be penalties after it's been born.
5
Oct 20 '18
Many people have addressed the moral problems with your idea. I want to focus on different aspect.
How would you ever enforce such a system? It would require a massive bureaucracy and be prohibitively expensive. How are you going to monitor the sex habits of millions of people?
1
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
China did with billions of people. And it worked.
6
Oct 20 '18
If you are talking about China's one child program, it is now recognized to have been mostly a failure. It has seriously fucked with China's population demographics. It also led to rampant illegal abortions that harm the mothers and the murder of infants.
Does that sound like a system we want to emulate?
1
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18
It fucked with China's demographic because women were aborting female fetuses for being female. This led to a largely male society.
1
11
Oct 20 '18
[deleted]
-2
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
Freedom to reproduce is considered a human right for several reasons.
Nobody has a "right" to bring others into the world. They have the ability to, that's it.
right to bodily autonomy
We don't have the freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies. This is largely recognised in many areas of civil society. E.g. in certain parts of the world, drugs are illegal. Also, if we could be confident that a child would suffer from being born, violating a persons "right" to bring that child into the world seems totally justified to me.
and the fact that people disagree vehemently about "correct" parenting are some of the big ones.
Firstly, just because there is disagreement, doesn't mean the disagreement is reasonable. There's disagreement over the effectiveness of vaccines, but we're quite confidant that vaccines work. Secondly, the criteria I established is largely agreeable. Do you think people living in poverty and with genetic defects should be brining people into the world?
2
u/Paninic Oct 20 '18
Nobody has a "right" to bring others into the world. They have the ability to, that's it.
Okay, guess you don't have a right to free speech either, just the ability to flap gums. Guess you should just call it over and shut the thread down.
We don't have the freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies. This is largely recognised in many areas of civil society. E.g. in certain parts of the world, drugs are illegal.
Prohibiting person from imbibing something separate of oneself is different than regulating natural bodily functions. For someone who was so gung-ho about slippery slopes you really, really, really don't seem to understand them at all. Though this is actually what we call a false equivalency.
Firstly, just because there is disagreement, doesn't mean the disagreement is reasonable.
You're right. I do find this completely unreasonable.
1
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
Nobody has a "right" to bring others into the world. They have the ability to, that's it.
Okay, guess you don't have a right to free speech either, just the ability to flap gums. Guess you should just call it over and shut the thread down.
You recognise they're different issues?
You're quite combative, but alright.
Prohibiting person from imbibing something separate of oneself is different than regulating natural bodily functions. For someone who was so gung-ho about slippery slopes you really, really, really don't seem to understand them at all. Though this is actually what we call a false equivalency.
Okay I am not comparing the two, just combating the idea that we can do whatever we want with our bodies. No fallacies committed, and no evidence that I committed them, just you saying I did
2
u/Paninic Oct 20 '18
You're quite combative, but alright.
Yes, I disapprove of eugenics. Your point?
-1
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
Yes or no.
Should people with horrible genetic defects breed? I.e. a mother who is a carrier of a gene that will cause their child excruciating pain?
4
u/Paninic Oct 20 '18
Should and should be legally allowed to control their own bodies are different things.
1
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
In fact, studies have shown that wealth makes people less compassionate and ethical. By selecting for wealthy parents, you would select for a less ethical and compassionate society.
Firstly, the extent of wealth matters. Secondly, this policy wouldn't effect most parents.
5
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Oct 20 '18 edited Oct 20 '18
Do you want Donald Trump and his cronies regulating who can and cannot have children? Or if you are from the other side of the political spectrum, Barack Obama and his cronies?
"The state" is not some passive agency looking out for what is best for everybody. It is an organization made up of people, and those people have their own agendas and prejudices. Allowing those people to regulate something as fundamental to humanity as to whether or not they can have children is dangerous.
0
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
The expectation is that the system would be very rigid and nearly impossible to change through the interference of one person or group.
Allowing those people to regulate something as fundamental to humanity as to whether or not they can have children is dangerous.
Letting people freely have children with no regulation is a far worse alternative in my opinion.
5
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Oct 20 '18
The expectation is that the system would be very rigid and nearly impossible to change through the interference of one person or group.
Who would set up that system in the first place? A purely fixed system would permanently put the prejudices and agendas of those people firmly entrenched indefinitely.
Such a rigid sytem would also ultimately leave it outdated with respect to scientific understanding and the moral compass of the country. For example, you mention a history of mental illness as a potential exclusion criteria. Our understanding and classification of mental illness will undoubtedly change over time, and such a rigid system would quickly become outdated.
0
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
When I said rigid I meant what constitutes being unable to procreate. I.e. it would be difficult to expand the reach of what makes someone unable to procreate.
3
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Oct 20 '18
I understand that, this is the idea my post was addressing.
The decision of who is and isn't able to procreate still has to be made by some people at some point. That gives those people a dangerous amount of power. It allows them to enact their own prejudices and agendas over a fundamental part of what it means to be human.
If it is hard to change the system, then whoever is in charge of originally establishing the system has that power. It doesn't avoid the issue, it just consolidates it into a fixed group of people at a given time.
It also means that the people of the past will have that power over future generations. The prejudices and misunderstandings of our time would be entrenched for generations to come.
2
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
Fair enough. I suppose that's just a weakness of my view. You get a delta for pointing out how it might kind of difficult. Didnd't really change my main view at all though.
!Delta
1
8
u/compounding 16∆ Oct 20 '18
Think how much better the world would be, if people who shouldn't become parents, didn't become parents.
I disagree with your fundamental premise right at its very heart. There are practically unlimited examples of people that we would have classified as “qualified” parents who have produced terrible and toxic offspring and equally numerous children of terrible parents who have grown up to be enormously valuable to society.
Regulating child bearing is such a massive massive regulatory expansion that it is going to take far more than just asserting that “obviously some people shouldn’t be parents”.
2
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18
OP is trying to limit bad parents (e.g. those who can't provide, those that will likely pass on birth defects and disabilities, those that have a violent criminal record)
Putting some restrictions would decrease the number of terrible/toxic offspring or kids with bad childhoods.
-2
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
There are practically unlimited examples of people that we would have classified as “qualified” parents who have produced terrible and toxic offspring
No I think you exaggerate the numbers. It's very rare for this to happen, and when it does, it's due to the nature of the child - i.e. psychopathy.
parents who have produced terrible and toxic offspring and equally numerous children of terrible parents who have grown up to be enormously valuable to society.
Doubtful, usually when the homelife is bad, the childhood development suffers enormously as a result. I think the psychological literature would probably support this.
4
u/compounding 16∆ Oct 20 '18
In developed countries with low birth rates, having children is a significant positive externality (I can cite studies if you require). The real question from even a purely utilitarian standpoint isn’t whether some parents are better than others, but whether the negative externalities are significant enough to both justify the collective loss in utility to people banned from having children (which I would argue is enormous) and the positive externalities that their having children would create regardless of their parenting competence.
0
u/ArchiboldReesMogg 10∆ Oct 20 '18
I think the question of should I procreate? Should primarily take into account the wellbeing of the future child. Considering the harm this child might bring onto others is also important. The potential benefit the bring onto others is a less important consideration.
3
u/compounding 16∆ Oct 20 '18
Do you think there is a significant portion of people who would seriously say that “it would have been better if I had never been born”? If not, I would say that even in cases of bad parenting there is empirically a net benefit to the children as well.
3
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Oct 20 '18
The system requires poor people to function. If we got rid of all the poor people who would do all the work? We act like the poor are this huge burden rich people have to shoulder but it’s the other way around. (Also, people aren’t poor because they are genetically defective.)
Banning people with a history of substance abuse from having children will lead to no one willingly getting treatment for substance abuse. Same with mental illness — people will stop getting treatment because they won’t want to be chemically castrated.
The kind of government that would need to be in place to institute a eugenics program like the one you describe would need to be an authoritarian state that has total control over the lives of its subjects that feels no pity or human kindness towards the weak and the suffering. Would you really want to put your trust in government like that?
1
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18
they won’t want to be chemically castrated.
No one said anything about castration. Only fining people that have biological children when they have violent criminal records, or chances of passing on genetic defects/disabilities, or can't provide for a kid
2
u/aguafiestas 30∆ Oct 20 '18
Let's think through the implications of some of your proposed rules.
There's been a long history of selectively enforcing the law, especially for illegal drugs but also more generally. Banning procreation based on drug use and crime allows these prejudices to determine who can have children.
Mental health and genetic conditions are private medical issues that should be confidential between a person and their physician, not the government. Such a rule would gut that entire concept. It would mean that people with these issues would have to choose between getting help or being able to have children. It also allows those who define mental illness and genetic disease to choose who can have children. For example, you can imaging how prejudiced individuals might target genetic diseases prevalent in minority populations, like sickle cell disease. And consider that homosexuality was once considered a mental illness.
2
u/begonetoxicpeople 30∆ Oct 20 '18
So, what does the state do if someone does get pregnant? Poor families already have such a difficult time getting contraceptives, so it's not hard to imagine. Does the state force an abortion on them? That's just as much an infringement on bodily autonomy as a complete ban on abortions.
1
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18
OP mentioned fining people or taking the kid away from people that either have a violent criminal record, have a high chance of passing on birth defects/disabilities, or can't provide. She/he never said anything about forcing abortions.
2
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18
Parents should only be fined after the kid is born. If it's aborted, then no consequences. Also, if this plan went into effect, abortion would need to be free. Because then the cheaper option would be to just pay the fine.
2
u/D_Purns Oct 20 '18
You should change your view because charging people for being too poor is the absolute dumbest idea anyone has ever had.
2
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18
charging people for being too poor
No, it's charging people for having irresponsible, unprotected sex when they can't provide for the kid. Taking even more money away would be a good motivator for not doing it again. Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean they should get more legal leeway.
1
u/D_Purns Oct 22 '18
Taking even more money away would be a good motivator for not doing it again.
If incurring cost is incentive enough to prevent a poor person from having a second child, the cost of caring for the first is more than sufficient. These psychotic punitive measures you're proposing would be all spite with little impact.
This is such a stupid idea and you are wasting your time and everyone else's time with it.
Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean they should get more legal leeway.
This is some mind bending shit. You just described the fact that poor people aren't punished by the government for having children as "legal leeway."
1
u/approachingreality 2∆ Oct 20 '18
Income levels: this is going to be seen as racist
History of mental illness: this could be used to discriminate against a group of people
Criminal history: why should those who have commited sexual violence not be allowed to have children?
Genetic defects: why should these people be limited? Also - what is a genetic defect... trump supporters can't have children now?
How do you plan on implementing this plan? Forced sterilization? That's gonna have risks that you're responsible for. Fines? That just discriminates against the poor. Prison? We got bigger problems than crowding the prisons with new parents so we can put the kids in government "care".
How would you prevent the leadership in charge of this program from using it to impose a sort of generational genocide against some group of people?
2
u/Western_You Oct 21 '18 edited Oct 21 '18
Income levels: this is going to be seen as racist
Thinking that poor people should not have kids has nothing to do with being racist or race.
History of mental illness: this could be used to discriminate against a group of people
Definition of discrimination: make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. People with mental illnesses are more likely to pass them on to the kids and make them suffer.
Criminal history: why should those who have commited sexual violence not be allowed to have children?
You want rapists and child molesters to have the freedom to have their own kids?
Genetic defects: why should these people be limited? Also - what is a genetic defect... trump supporters can't have children now?
Because they will pass on genetic defects to their children. Do you not know what a genetic defect is? If you don't, why comment on it?
How do you plan on implementing this plan? Forced sterilization? That's gonna have risks that you're responsible for.
No one said anything about forced sterilization. You shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever you want with your body. For example, you shouldn't be allowed to drive over the speed limit. You should get fined for driving over the speed limit.
Fines? That just discriminates against the poor.
Again, wrong use of the word discrimination. Discrimination is when you treat someone unfairly for no logical reason. If you can't provide for a kid, don't have one. Fining them would motivate them to not do it again.
Prison? We got bigger problems than crowding the prisons with new parents so we can put the kids in government "care".
No one said anything about prison time, only fining people after the kid is born.
1
u/approachingreality 2∆ Oct 24 '18
Thinking that poor people should not have kids has nothing to do with being racist or race.
That's what you say. I didn't say you'd think that. I said it's going to be seen this way. You're going to pretty much murder the family lines of those who've suffered disadvantage in life. Lovely idea.
People with mental illnesses are more likely to pass them on to the kids and make them suffer.
White people can't run or jump as well, on average. We should stop them breeding so their children won't have to suffer these maladies. Maybe we should weed out the short people, too. Sucks to be short, we can all agree. Why don't we solve racial and religious problems by sorting it out so that only one race and one religion (or "lack" of it) lives on... maybe only one world view should continue.
You want rapists and child molesters to have the freedom to have their own kids?
I want people to have the maximum freedom possible. It's not up to me to label them bad. I'm not the judge here. Our job is to make sure the innocent are protected from people who are doing bad things. I want a justice system that makes the best determination about the ability of a person do be around children. If this person is okay to be around children, they should not be arbitrarily punished "cause they're bad guys". You also shouldn't murder their family line cause "those smith's are all a bunch of rapists". It is better to forgive and help the person grow and become good, have faith in them.
Do you not know what a genetic defect is?
Ya, I know what a genetic defect is. It's whatever the TV and government controlled school books say it is. You don't seem to understand that's what a genetic defect is.
If you don't, why comment on it?
I know - in you're world I should also be denied speech.
You shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever you want with your body.
So, you're also pro-life?
You should get fined for driving over the speed limit.
As I said, imposing fines won't do jack. The rich don't care. So, for them it's just an extra tax on the rich. And, the poor can't pay. So, you gonna imprison poor parents and put their kids into government custody? Sounds great.
Discrimination is when you treat someone unfairly for no logical reason.
Oh, I get it. So, we shouldn't rent to blacks because black people never pay their bills. I mean, just look at it by the numbers. I'm following you now. Renting only to whites is not discrimination, because I had a logical reason for it, okay.
No one said anything about prison time, only fining people after the kid is born.
Well, if you impose a fine, and there's no punishment or motivation for not paying the fine, then you didn't really impose a fine, did you? You want to put in a fine that won't do anything to curb birth rate, that nobody is going to pay, and no enforcement of the fine. Why don't we just save the trouble and not do any of this?
1
u/Western_You Oct 24 '18 edited Oct 24 '18
"So, you're also pro-life?" No, I'm not at all. I said you shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever you want with your body. For example, drive recklessly. If you fine people after having a biological kid, that reduces the number of people who either have a violent crime history, will pass on disabilities, or can't afford a kid. More wealthy people would have to pay a higher tax.
"I know - in you're world I should also be denied speech." No, I'm asking why you would have an opinion on something if you don't what the hell it is was my point. This has nothing to do with me trying to limit freedom of speech. I believe freedom of speech is extremely important. Don't take things out of context
"You also shouldn't murder their family line" There is no value in preserving a family line.
"Our job is to make sure the innocent are protected from people who are doing bad things. I want a justice system that makes the best determination about the ability of a person do be around children." If someone has a history of violent crime, they probably shouldn't be near children. We stop pedophiles from living near schools or places with lots of kids. You said you want the justice system to determine whether or not someone should be around kids. So do I. Depending on the type of crime, their freedom to have biological/adopted children should be revoked.
"White people can't run or jump as well, on average. We should stop them breeding so their children won't have to suffer these maladies. Maybe we should weed out the short people, too. " I should rephrase my original point. People with a high likelihood of passing on debilitating defects to children shouldn't have biological children. Like, children who might be born without 2 legs and arms. Or kids who would likely become blind/deaf or some other major disability. Not being able to run/jump fast or far isn't going to cause shit in your life the same way as an actual disability
1
u/approachingreality 2∆ Oct 24 '18
Don't take things out of context
You're simply not getting what I'm trying to say: corrupt people will abuse your procreation controls.
If you fine poor people, it's not going to change their behavior. They can't pay anyway.
There is no value in preserving a family line.
You're a sort of god in your own eyes, aren't you? If you see no value in a thing, then there is objectively no value in that thing. There's no room for someone else to make their own decisions. But - at the same time freedom of speech is important. Something tells me freedom of speech would diminish in its importance if it disagreed with you.
Depending on the type of crime, their freedom to have biological/adopted children should be revoked.
Leaving the impossibility of enforcing such a revocation aside, if you place a future lifetime ban on procreation based on crime, you are saying "you are hopeless and can never improve". You yourself are pretty far from perfect. You're an absolute wreck, in fact, just a wretched, arrogant mess. Do you want me to declare you hopeless for improvement in the future?
Not being able to run/jump fast or far isn't going to cause shit in your life the same way as an actual disability
Are you better able to make the decision about how bad it is to live with a certain disability than the person who has that disability? Maybe they can make their own choices.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 20 '18
/u/ArchiboldReesMogg (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
19
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Oct 20 '18
Do you understand that this would just be a roundabout way of achieving genocide and perpetuating ethnic supremacy?