If I was president

[GGT]

Jeez choobs, where's your option for locking up all reproductive MALES until they're 21?

[Illusions]

You never addressed my first critique so I'm not sure whether I should post another.

[Veldan Rath]

Yes. They may attempt adoption, surrogacy, etc. Sneaks.

I'm not advocating limiting who can breed, just regulating the timing. Older parents make better parents. Better parents raise children to be better adults and good citizens of the state. Its for the best.

Of course I'm serious. WTF?

The intent is to prevent teen moms first and foremost and bad moms overall. We have judged our citizens not mature enough to drink a glass of wine before the age of 21. Yet at age 17 these same people are somehow mature enough to be a parent? I think not and my administration will put a stop to this nonsense.

EDIT: And there is no better way to stop the abortions.


People need tyranny, in just the right amount. Otherwise we fuck everything up. My administration will provide the tyranny America needs to stop floundering.

EyeKhan - 2012

SO...it's not my body my choice? Didn't know you were a Religious Right Republican!

18 is the age of majority...so are changing the voting age as well (and service to the military?) to match the drinking and procreation age?

[EyeKhan]

Jeez choobs, where's your option for locking up all reproductive MALES until they're 21?

Ahem, comes with the territory. Its the same raw deal men get when their knocked up 1-nighters decide to have (or to kill) their child without asking their opinion.

You never addressed my first critique so I'm not sure whether I should post another.

Woops. Crap, I forgot all about that. I'll look into it.

SO...it's not my body my choice? Didn't know you were a Religious Right Republican!

18 is the age of majority...so are changing the voting age as well (and service to the military?) to match the drinking and procreation age?

I haven't covered it yet, but I'm considering changing the voting age as well. And religion has nothing to do with this, btw. You can call the idea right wing, but not religous right wing.

[Veldan Rath]

Ahem, comes with the territory. Its the same raw deal men get when their knocked up 1-nighters decide to have (or to kill) their child without asking their opinion.

Woops. Crap, I forgot all about that. I'll look into it.

I haven't covered it yet, but I'm considering changing the voting age as well. And religion has nothing to do with this, btw. You can call the idea right wing, but not religous right wing.

No...I think you are beyond right/left at this point.

[Aimless]

The intent is to prevent teen moms first and foremost and bad moms overall.

1. Why are you using as useless and indirect an indicator as age, in that case?

2. Why are you singling out women?

3. How does this mesh with any good system of ethics?

[EyeKhan]

1. Why are you using as useless and indirect an indicator as age, in that case?

It's simple, its generally accurate, and there's a great deal of precedent.

2. Why are you singling out women?

Women are the ones that get pregnant. If all the pre-21 males were sterile, underage girls would still occasionally get knocked up by post-21 year old males. The point is for them not to have children, let's not get hung up on notions of gender fairness. The genders function differently and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Its the same sort of dynamic when men have no say in whether a woman he's made pregnant chooses to kill his child.

3. How does this mesh with any good system of ethics?

What's unethical about it?

[Khendraja'aro]

And the best part: He seems to be totally serious about it!

[Aimless]

It's simple, its generally accurate, and there's a great deal of precedent.

This is nonsense. If you're serious about this you should establish reliable and explicit criteria, and then just sterilise the poor.

Women are the ones that get pregnant. If all the pre-21 males were sterile, underage girls would still occasionally get knocked up by post-21 year old males. The point is for them not to have children, let's not get hung up on notions of gender fairness. The genders function differently and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Its the same sort of dynamic when men have no say in whether a woman he's made pregnant chooses to kill his child.

What's unethical about it?

Well for starters you'd be forcing people to take medication without asking for consent, which goes against the principle of autonomy. Moreover, you only subject one half of the population to this intrusion and everything that may come with it, which is clearly unfair. If people suffer adverse effects (and they will) then you should be held liable.

I think you can also agree that you clearly don't have the judgement--not to mention the attention-span--to pull this off in a good way. You'd be arrested for criminal abuse of nation

[EyeKhan]

This is nonsense. If you're serious about this you should establish reliable and explicit criteria, and then just sterilise the poor.

No no no no. First, if you sterilize the poor, who will do the manual labor??? Second, age limits work well in the US, and presumably elsewhere (drinking age, age of consent, driving age, retirement age, etc etc). I see no reason to come up with some government bloating laundry list of criteria and complexity that will give minor benefit for the extreme minority while making the government more costly and less effective.

Well for starters you'd be forcing people to take medication without asking for consent, which goes against the principle of autonomy. Moreover, you only subject one half of the population to this intrusion and everything that may come with it, which is clearly unfair. If people suffer adverse effects (and they will) then you should be held liable.

#1. The "population" in this scenario consists of all females in that age range. I'm subjecting them all. #2. If adverse effects occur, there are alternative medications. #3. Forcing? I suppose you think the government shouldn't have the power to compel taxes, children to go to school or military service too? Right? There are matters that are key to the state in which the state has the authority to compel the citizens. This is one of them.

I think you can also agree that you clearly don't have the judgement--not to mention the attention-span--to pull this off in a good way. You'd be arrested for criminal abuse of nation

Please, why bring slurs and name calling into this discussion? Arn't we trying for a kinder, gentler, flame free forum? Shame on you, of all people.

[GGT]

And the best part: He seems to be totally serious about it!

Really? He sounds crazier than me!

6. Once they become fertile, all girl children will receive birth control implants that will remain effective and in place until age 21. They can get it out the day they have their first legal drink, if they choose. (Also note, while marriage will be open to everyone, including same-sex and plural marriage, no-one under age 21 will be allowed to marry).

Why not test boys' fertility instead? Once they're shooting live ammo, harvest their sperm, castrate them all, and use IVF for all future pregnancies? That way you can monitor exactly who's getting pregnant and by whom, to see if both parties meet all your other criteria.

[Aimless]

No no no no. First, if you sterilize the poor, who will do the manual labor??? Second, age limits work well in the US, and presumably elsewhere (drinking age, age of consent, driving age, retirement age, etc etc). I see no reason to come up with some government bloating laundry list of criteria and complexity that will give minor benefit for the extreme minority while making the government more costly and less effective.

Your entire proposal has as its inevitable result the bloating of government at great cost and minimal benefits due to the inefficiency of using anything other than reasonable explicit criteria for determining who should get to breed or not. If you're not going to do it right then you shouldn't do it at all.

Re. the poor, so you don't care about the children of the poor? You don't care about the adults that the kids will grow up to be? If there is one thing you should do it is to make sure children are born into healthy families, to parents that have good incomes and enough leisure time.

#1. The "population" in this scenario consists of all females in that age range. I'm subjecting them all.

Yes, which is unfair. Your implied position that being equally unfair (which you won't be) to lots of people approximates fairness is nonsense.

#2. If adverse effects occur, there are alternative medications.

All medications have the potential for side effects, and if you wait until they do experience a side-effect then you'll have assaulted them. Moreover, you don't take into consideration the possibility of future adverse effects, ie. those that will come to light once you're dead and don't have to care.

#3. Forcing? I suppose you think the government shouldn't have the power to compel taxes, children to go to school or military service too? Right? There are matters that are key to the state in which the state has the authority to compel the citizens. This is one of them.

Can you give me some good examples of situations in which the state is allowed to liberally violate people's integrity and autonomy while exposing them to potential harm? The first example that comes to mind is the prohibition against assisted suicide. Another example that comes to mind is the mistreatment of people with psychiatric illnesses or dementia.

Please, why bring slurs and name calling into this discussion? Arn't we trying for a kinder, gentler, flame free forum? Shame on you, of all people.

Oh I only believe in that for D&D. My observation wasn't a slur, it was just my way of pointing out the importance of being totally right when violating someone else's rights.

[EyeKhan]

Why not test boys' fertility instead? Once they're shooting live ammo, harvest their sperm, castrate them all, and use IVF for all future pregnancies? That way you can monitor exactly who's getting pregnant and by whom, to see if both parties meet all your other criteria.

You seem to completely misunderstand. Is that intentional? (ie Are you joking?)

[EyeKhan]

Your entire proposal has as its inevitable result the bloating of government at great cost and minimal benefits due to the inefficiency of using anything other than reasonable explicit criteria for determining who should get to breed or not. If you're not going to do it right then you shouldn't do it at all.

You are clearly wrong and simply stating otherwise won't change a thing. Shame on you.

Re. the poor, so you don't care about the children of the poor? You don't care about the adults that the kids will grow up to be? If there is one thing you should do it is to make sure children are born into healthy families, to parents that have good incomes and enough leisure time.

Of course I care about the poor and the opportunity they have as they grow up. That's the whole point of everything. Duh.

Yes, which is unfair. Your implied position that being equally unfair (which you won't be) to lots of people approximates fairness is nonsense.

Are you seriously complaing about fairness? God. Grow up, son.

All medications have the potential for side effects, and if you wait until they do experience a side-effect then you'll have assaulted them. Moreover, you don't take into consideration the possibility of future adverse effects, ie. those that will come to light once you're dead and don't have to care.

I'm sure the details can be worked out for a reasonable solution for everyone. You wanted policy, you have policy. Why wade into the mud?

Can you give me some good examples of situations in which the state is allowed to liberally violate people's integrity and autonomy while exposing them to potential harm?

Selective service.

Oh I only believe in that for D&D. My observation wasn't a slur, it was just my way of pointing out the importance of being totally right when violating someone else's rights.

No one and no policy is totally right since the concept of right is contextual and subjective.

[GGT]

You seem to completely misunderstand.

Your "policy" is purportedly to ensure that specific people become parents: certain females should not get pregnant, they shouldn't kill a man's baby against his wishes, and no one can marry until age 21. But you're focusing on the females at the exclusion of the males. By using IVF and male castration your state policy might be perfect.

Is that intentional? (ie Are you joking?)

Of course I'm being ridiculous and outrageous. Just following suit for the hand you led.

[Aimless]

You are clearly wrong and simply stating otherwise won't change a thing.

No, you are clearly wrong. Your approach is as sensible as using skin-colour to determine who needs help, rather than assessing directly the need for help. Ie. it's not very sensible at all. If you want to target specific failings in order to improve outcomes on specific measures for specific purposes then you should do so, rather than to take a single idiotic measure such as age.

Of course I care about the poor and the opportunity they have as they grow up. That's the whole point of everything. Duh.

Clearly you don't, because if you did you would endorse the sterilisation of the poor and underprivileged or just simply do away with economic inequality entirely.

Are you seriously complaing about fairness? God. Grow up, son.

Are you trying to pretend that fairness isn't an important consideration in various adult activities that include the formulation and implementation of laws and policies? Just because you feel you've been unfairly treated doesn't mean that unfairness is something that should be accepted, let alone encouraged. I also invite you to consider the possibility that part of the rationale for your proposed policies is to be fair to unborn children. If you truly did not care about fairness you wouldn't give a rat's ass about most of this.

I'm sure the details can be worked out for a reasonable solution for everyone. You wanted policy, you have policy. Why wade into the mud?

I was wondering what forum members want to do, and I thought that their greatest problems would involve choosing which good thing they should do first. I didn't imagine it'd involve working out how to assault girls using the might of the state I do appreciate you taking on this discussion, however

Selective service.

How is the denial of some services the same as forcing a drug onto someone?

No one and no policy is totally right since the concept of right is contextual and subjective.

Contrary to popular belief, even contextual and subjective things can, to some extent, be assessed critically.

[EyeKhan]

Your "policy" is purportedly to ensure that specific people become parents: certain females should not get pregnant, they shouldn't kill a man's baby against his wishes, and no one can marry until age 21. But you're focusing on the females at the exclusion of the males. By using IVF and male castration your state policy might be perfect.

1. Why the derogatory quotes? Seems an unnecessary attack.

2. I have stated no policy regarding abortion as yet. I merely mentioned it as an illustration of how reproductive issues cannot be equalized between the genders.

3. The mandatory birth control policy is intended to prevent unwanted births and wanted births to teen moms while avoiding an abstinance requirement. It has nothing to do with selecting fit mothers vs unfit mothers within the same age group. It assumes that while sexual activity for young people is acceptable (and should be encouraged, even), teen moms are a bad thing for our country. Furthermore, even if a birth control implant were available for males, it would not achieve the policy goal because girls could still have sex with 21+ aged males resulting in unwanted / teen mom pregnancies. You don't see how your complaint doesn't make sense? Why in the world does it matter who is getting the birth control anyway???

4. Your mention of castration is ludicrous and hyperbolic. You're advocating permanent mutilation so normal sexual activity is impossible. WTF??? This policy is intended to enable normal sexual activity to the fullest extent possible while at the same time addressing the teen mom problem.

Of course I'm being ridiculous and outrageous. Just following suit for the hand you led.

Yes, you are. But I am not.

[GGT]

choobie, you're posting totalitarian reproductive mandate crap that's ridiculous and absurd. That's not an unnecessary attack, either.

[EyeKhan]

No, you are clearly wrong.

I think you need to check your definition of "clear" again.

Your approach is as sensible as using skin-colour to determine who needs help, rather than assessing directly the need for help.

Absolutely wrong. This isn't about helping anyone, but avoiding all possibility for the problem of teen pregnancy occurring. It nips the need for help right in the bud and provides for a net improvement in quality of parenting accross the board. A very sensible policy indeed. It seems your concern is that young girls who happen to be mature enough to have children and somehow not stumble into the very clearly demonstrated social and economic difficulties teen pregnancies result in will not have the freedom to do so and that is plainly ridiculous.

Clearly you don't, because if you did you would endorse the sterilisation of the poor and underprivileged or just simply do away with economic inequality entirely.

So you think its only poor teen girls that get knocked up? WTF? And while preventing teen pregnancy per this policy is clearly and practically achievable, the elimination of economic inequality is not. Indeed its impossible by the very nature of not just the human species but of all life and maybe by the nature of the universe itself.

Are you trying to pretend that fairness isn't an important consideration in various adult activities that include the formulation and implementation of laws and policies?

No, I'm stating the fact that nothing is fair.

Just because you feel you've been unfairly treated doesn't mean that unfairness is something that should be accepted, let alone encouraged.

This has nothing to do with me, it is a fact of humanity. We can and should strive for fairness, but its impossible. Nor is it relevant to this discussion. Nobody is being treated unfairly with this policy, everyone is regarded equally. There could be nothing more fair that would acheive the policy goal.

I also invite you to consider the possibility that part of the rationale for your proposed policies is to be fair to unborn children. If you truly did not care about fairness you wouldn't give a rat's ass about most of this.

Abortion is an issue that causes a great deal of social strif in the US. This policy would eliminate the lions share of that strife and put the argument to bed. It is a worthy goal.

I was wondering what forum members want to do, and I thought that their greatest problems would involve choosing which good thing they should do first. I didn't imagine it'd involve working out how to assault girls using the might of the state I do appreciate you taking on this discussion, however

You completely mischaracterize this policy spinning it with terms like 'assault.' Shame on you. Outside possible health issues (which I did consider in formulating the policy but I decided to leave the concern out and assume this could be implemented without medical difficulties in order to facilitate a philosophical discussion about intent and methodology without getting too bogged down in the "how"), I fail to see anything wrong with the policy at all.

Also, you have no difficulties with any of the other line items in the overall Child Management Initiative? If not, I recommend you not focus so entirely on the negative.

How is the denial of some services the same as forcing a drug onto someone?

Selective Service is what we call military conscription in the US. The power of the government to take me out of my personal life, brainwash me into a killing machine, then send me overseas to die in war is pretty significant compared to merely preventing all teen girls from getting pregnant, no?

Contrary to popular belief, even contextual and subjective things can, to some extent, be assessed critically.

True, but none will be totally right or totally wrong. You're in the territory of absolutes here...

[EyeKhan]

choobie, you're posting totalitarian reproductive mandate crap that's ridiculous and absurd. That's not an unnecessary attack, either.

Of course it is.

[GGT]

choobs, your "policy" is bizarre and makes several false assumptions. Not all teen pregnancies are "bad" for society; you assign some magical transformation from and difference between 20 yrs + 11 months vs 20 yrs + 12 months (21 yrs); birth control can and should be shared by both males and females but you leave out the male. 30 yr olds can be crappy parents, even with education, some even get abortions, some still "need help" from the state.

For some reason you've assigned teen pregnancy as the main cause for society's problems, AND general poor parenting skills, AND "the state" can just fix it all by requiring female implants until age 21 plus parenting classes. Then you act like it's all totally logical, equitable, and reasonable. For the sake of society or something. That's why it sounds to me like dark sarcasm or a really bad joke.

[EyeKhan]

choobs, your "policy" is bizarre and makes several false assumptions. Not all teen pregnancies are "bad" for society;

Which teen girls would you recommend to get pregnant because it would be good for society?

you assign some magical transformation from and difference between 20 yrs + 11 months vs 20 yrs + 12 months (21 yrs);

I picked 21 for the same rationale assigned to the drinking age. In all honesty, probably the age of reproduction should be pushed back to 30, for various reasons, but I thought most would consider that unreasonable.

birth control can and should be shared by both males and females but you leave out the male.

If all the underage girls cannot get pregnant, what is the point of also administering birth control to the males, assuming the technology were available? You just want to double up on the costs out of some bizarre idea of fairness? It makes absolutely no sense at all to do that.

30 yr olds can be crappy parents, even with education, some even get abortions, some still "need help" from the state.

And so because of that, we shouldn't prevent teen pregnancy?

For some reason you've assigned teen pregnancy as the main cause for society's problems,

No I haven't. This is merely one policy to address a specific set of problems.

AND general poor parenting skills,

One big cause of bad parenting, not all.

AND "the state" can just fix it all by requiring female implants until age 21 plus parenting classes.

Just the teen pregnancy problem. Parenting classes, if you check your notes, were part of a separate policy.

Then you act like it's all totally logical, equitable, and reasonable.

I'm not acting, it IS logical, equitable,and reasonable. Nothing anyone has argued thus far, outside the potential medical concerns, has challenged the logic, fairness or reasonableness of this bit of the Child Management Initiative.

For the sake of society or something.

Or something? What's that supposed to mean anyway? I've very clearly stated it will benefit the entire country to eliminate teen pregnancies, which is supported ad nauseum by real world experience, and I have yet to see any sensible challenge to that conclusion.

That's why it sounds to me like dark sarcasm or a really bad joke.

This thread is called "If I Was President...." How seriously do you really think policy suggestions should be taken?

I think yours and Aimy's reactions clearly demonstrate why and how this would never ever be implemented. Heck, most of the Initiative would never pass for similar reasons. But are the policies unworkable? Illogical? Without assured benefit? Absolutely not. Every argument agaisnt has been made from an emotional, irrational, and idealistic basis and are entirely without practical merit (except maybe the medical side-effect implications).

[littlelolligagged]

If all the underage girls cannot get pregnant, what is the point of also administering birth control to the males, assuming the technology were available? You just want to double up on the costs out of some bizarre idea of fairness? It makes absolutely no sense at all to do that.

You specified that teen girls could have sex with people over 21. So can teen boys. Teen boys can impregnate their teachers, even.

And with all your licensing to become parents, what will you do if someone you deem unfit gets knocked up? Take the kid away and give it to a "worthy" family?

Your entire plan is based on the idea that you are someone more fit to decide who can be parents than anyone else is. The arrogance is almost as horrifying as the idea of state control over reproductive rights in itself.

[EyeKhan]

You specified that teen girls could have sex with people over 21. So can teen boys. Teen boys can impregnate their teachers, even.

I did consider this and I'm not sure what the correct approach would be. Technically the policy goal is to prevent teen girls from getting pregnant, so its tempting to scope out the teen-boy-as-father-to-child-born-to-adult-woman issue. I'm not sure how widespread this problem is, you typically hear of the occasional sensationalized case. Maybe its just not reported often. If it turns out to be a big problem, it would likely need its own policy.

And with all your licensing to become parents, what will you do if someone you deem unfit gets knocked up? Take the kid away and give it to a "worthy" family?

It isn't a fitness for parenting license, its a marriage license, something that's already required today. If people want to marry, they have to get the required training, including parenting classes. There is nothing in there intended to stop unwed people from having children.

Your entire plan is based on the idea that you are someone more fit to decide who can be parents than anyone else is.

I'm not fit to decide who cannot be parents. The policy addresses teen pregnancy under the heavily supported conclusion that teen pregnancy is generally bad. If that's wrong, if teen pregnancy is generally a good thing, then this aspect of the policy can be scrapped. In any case, once individuals pass the age limit, they can breed as much as they like.

[Nessus]

Your entire plan is based on the idea that you are someone more fit to decide who can be parents than anyone else is. The arrogance is almost as horrifying as the idea of state control over reproductive rights in itself.

Is there something magickal about parenting as a skill and feat that means it cannot be quantified?

[littlelolligagged]

Is there something magickal about parenting as a skill and feat that means it cannot be quantified?

Not at all. That's why the idea that someone considers themselves qualified to determine who should be a parent or not is so disturbing - and Chacha's dystopia seems to go well beyond protecting children from abuse.

[Nessus]

Not at all. That's why the idea that someone considers themselves qualified to determine who should be a parent or not is so disturbing - and Chacha's dystopia seems to go well beyond protecting children from abuse.

What do you mean, "that's why"?

[Illusions]

You never addressed my first critique so I'm not sure whether I should post another.

...

Since part of the reason for your reproductive regulations are founded in your marriage ideas, it would be nice, yet again, if you addressed this...

[littlelolligagged]

What do you mean, "that's why"?

Because there is nothing magickal about parenting as a skill and feat. There are many different ways to do it, and do it well. Or to be a mediocre parent and not screw up your kids, even. Regardless, every child isn't the same, and every family isn't the same. Chacha's one-size fits all plan to make good parents won't work - and could possibly turn superb parents off of ever hatching kids.

[EyeKhan]

Chacha's one-size fits all plan to make good parents won't work - and could possibly turn superb parents off of ever hatching kids.

Just wondering what you're describing as one size fits all? Is it the parenting class requirement for the marriage license or the policy to keep teens from becoming parents? Not sure how either would convince otherwise reasonable people not to have children...