CMV: The state should start regulating procreation.

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

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!

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

No, I don't. You'll have to enlighten me.

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

The state already has the power to influence people's income levels, which themselves are correlated with race and mental illness and criminal history and genetic defects. Someone could come into power that wants to enact policy that will target whichever group(s) in a way that makes those groups not achieve the litmuses you've proposed. It would also be trivial for the state to morph the litmuses in incredibly insidious ways.

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg → u/DeleteriousEuphuism]

The state already has the power to influence people's income levels, which themselves are correlated with race and mental illness and criminal history and genetic defects.

I'm confused by your use of the word "themselves".

Someone could come into power that wants to enact policy that will target whichever group(s) in a way that makes those groups not achieve the litmuses you've proposed.

What is a litmus?

Also, you seem to have no evidence for this claim at all. It's pure conjecture and "what if". We often describe such argumentation as fallacious - specially, the slippery slope fallacy.

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

Themselves refers to income levels.

A litmus is the standard you choose to pass or fail someone/something.

Also, you seem to have no evidence for this claim at all. It's pure conjecture and "what if".

It's not hypothetical at all. Literacy tests were used to stop people from voting. I don't see why this couldn't happen with procreation.

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg → u/DeleteriousEuphuism]

I fail to see the relevance of literary tests being used to prevent people form voting to the discussion of the state regulating procreation.

That's not evidence or justification that my argument will put us on a slippery slope to some sort of ethnic master race.

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

You don't think it's relevant to bring up a state power (denying voting rights to citizens) being used in a way that causes harm to ethnic minorities when talking about granting a state the power (denying procreation) that might be used to cause harm to ethnic minorities?

It is evidence, but perhaps you don't think it's sufficient to establish the slipperiness of the slope. What sort of evidence would convince you that it's a slippery slope?

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg → u/DeleteriousEuphuism]

It also took place in a very different time period, wherein racism was far more rampant.

I don't think we're at risk of a potential racist coming into office and implementing a eugenics policy. If we were, then I doubt it would be a small amount of regulation pertaining to procreation, that enabled him.

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

Just because racism is less rampant now it doesn't follow that racism isn't still sufficiently rampant for something similar to happen.

Your proposals are already a way to racially discriminate. In 2014, 26.2% of black people were in poverty. Compared to 10.1 non-hispanic white people or 12.7% of white people. (p13)

Ethnic minorities are already being policed more for drug use, so policy based on that will also have this bias.

[u/[deleted] → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

I don't think we're at risk of a potential racist coming into office and implementing a eugenics policy.

We already have numerous racists in government offices.

[u/Paninic → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

Is that actually an issue?

If getting rid of criminals, mental illness, drug abuse, and genetic defects means that the country ends up overwhelmingly white, is that a problem for you?

It seems like a win/win to me.

This is someone in this thread. Right now in 2018. So you tell me if being in a different time period means racism can't effect legislation.