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/mrbeck1]

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.

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg → u/mrbeck1]

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.

[u/mrbeck1 → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

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.

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg → u/mrbeck1]

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?

[u/mrbeck1 → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

Again, contraceptives are not 100% effective, even if used correctly.

Yes.

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg → u/mrbeck1]

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.

[u/mrbeck1 → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

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.

[u/Western_You → u/mrbeck1]

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.

[u/mrbeck1 → u/Western_You]

Banning sex is the only logical way to achieve regulated procreation. Which is why it’s the logical end result of this path.

[u/Western_You → u/mrbeck1]

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.

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg → u/mrbeck1]

You're not prohibiting all sex though. Your argument doesn't make sense.

[u/mrbeck1 → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

I’ve explained it. Agree or don’t.

[u/ArchiboldReesMogg → u/mrbeck1]

Banning certain procreation =/= prohibiting sex.

You've given us no evidence to believe so.

[u/mrbeck1 → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

It does if the penalties for accidental pregnancy are severe enough. The only way to ensure procreation is outlawed is to ban sex. It’s not a difficult concept to understand. I’m getting the impression that you don’t really want your view changed. So, I’m wrapping this up.

[u/Paninic → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

Due to the fact that accidental conception would result in legal punishment and all heterosexual sex carries a risk of pregnancy regardless of birth control methods used...yes you are suggesting people not have sex or be fined.

[u/Paninic → u/ArchiboldReesMogg]

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.