Should the government limit howmany babies a person can have based on IQ, Inhertitable disability, etc?

Question

Baka_otabuk30 nailed it. Unfortunately, people are blinded by religion and refuse to change for a better quality of life. There is no reason why somebody who can't support themselves should be allowed to have more and more children.

Answer 1

While the "feelgood" answer is to say that meddling in the reproductive affairs of humanity is wrong, it's also one of the chief failings of civilization. While people will say that it's wrong for the government to interfere with who can or can not have children, is it any less wrong for us to encourage a man with Downs syndrome to live a normal life and marry, knowing that he'll almost assuredly marry a girl that also has Downs syndrome, and thus have children that also have Downs syndrome? Is it any more moral for us to encourage the creation of a child that will start life handicapped and will never truly have a "normal" existence?

What about welfare families that churn out child after child, even though those children will never have a fair shot in life because their parents will never be able to offer them the things that could let them get ahead? A family of six that is poor now isn't going to suddenly strike it big and be able to give those children the best in life. With six children to clothe and feed, the most that they'll ever do is just barely make it by. With that many children, they'll probably be on welfare until those children are adults.

In the cases of certain genetic disorders, sterilizatin early in life, so that the child won't miss it when they grow older, would be the humane thing to do, even if it's not the politically correct or "feelgood" thing to do. Yes, an otherwise healthy person can pass down a gene for such a disorder, but a person with the disorder WILL pass down that gene. Stopping the obvious source would lessen the occurrences of such conditions.

Welfare benefits should decrease considerably as a family starts to have more children, hopefully discouraging welfare families from growing. Perhaps there could be additional benefits granted if the parents underwent procedures to stop pregnancy.

There should be a tax break for anyone with two or more children that opts to have a vasectomy (for males) or get her tubes tied (for females).

With a decrease in welfare children and government funds given to such families, these costs would more than pay for themselves.

Answer 2

Absolutely not. Governments all throughout the ages have tried to genetically engineer their future populace. All without success. There is no guarantee, no matter how carefully the creation of life by man is performed, that the final intended outcome will be attained. There are so many variables which man cannot control which will alter the development of the baby.

This topic, though, illustrates the ultimate in government invasion and control into the human existence and should be avoided at all cost.

Answer 3

I think they should limit the amount of babies you can have if you have a crack baby. One is enough tie her tubes.
Some have 5 disabled kids. It is an inherited defect and they just keep having them. that is insane. They are pushing them around at 30 in wheel chairs brain dead.
Yes, I do believe that the government should restrict how many children an unwed drug mother has who has them all in foster homes. Everyone should get a norplant and then have a good reason to get it removed. Show you can support a child. Have two caring parents. Your not on drugs.
They scream about the abortion issue. That child doesn't suffer near as much as a crack baby. They are born addicted to crack.
They sceam in agony for months. No one says anything about that. Or what about someone who has 3 mentally retarded children. There is some defect and they keep having them.

Answer 4

My answer is a big NO based on the following:

1. IQ tests are not a revelation from above. They can be flawed.

2. Inheritable-disabled people are not necessarily dumb. History is full of disabled people who were geniuses.

3. If I have a disabled son/daughter, I will love him/her as much as my not disabled one. If the government has this power, then I consider it a suppression of our emotions and feelings.

4. My now-disable son/daughter many not be disabled tomorrow. Cures are discovered everyday.

5. Giving the government this power will turn our society into a spartan society. The Spartan just vanished.

6. Nazi Hitler was in favor of this.

7. The matter should be none of the government concern.

Answer 5

It is a question which many people have different opinion about . Actually the government has no right to limit the productivity of a couple whatever the result is, and, according to studies and researches it is proved that the number of inhabitants of many countries are getting less in a terrible condition .Countries like Italy and it's neighbors are examples of that ,

Answer 6

Are you really asking this? First, no the government should not. I prefer the govt stay out of my bed. Second, I'm scared of what you would be trying to create. Third, there are no guarantees. Intelligent, healthy people have babies that have problems all the time.

Bottom line: you can't create a population free from disability or stupidity. We also live in a country with plenty of land, most of it unpopulated and so much food that most of us are on diets.

Answer 7

you might try but its brings back too many memories of right wing 'super races' for most people.

Some instiutions do sterilise patients (or did).

We should limit the number of children we have to the number we can comfortably support. The truth is we dont.

As for legislating the kind of changes you are proposing then it would almost certainly mean the end of a politicians career if he/she even hinted at such as thing.

Its a political 'can of worms' and no one is going to go near it any time soon.

Good idea? We just dont know.

Answer 8

What an interesting way to make anyone who is refused or given shoddy education a minority and insure power in those who can monopolize education!

No, I don't think so. However, I would encourage the public availability of information about people's genetic background, their educational background, their intelligence levels, a major part of the private decision to get married. I will encourage my daughter to choose wisely (but it's her choice) and was very careful myself (and I had already fallen in love, but chose to tell her what might make our marraige impossible). My wife is of the same opinion.

Interesting how many people would be willing to allow the government to decide their lives for them but balk at choosing their own mate that carefully.

Answer 9

No. While I do think that stupid people should not pass on their stupid genes, controlling their reproduction is eugenics and has generally been considered wrong, even though we do it all the time with animals such as dogs and horses. It would be too difficult to test intelligence and inheritable disabilities. Tests for both are not simple or particularly accurate. And all expressed intelligence is not influenced by genetics. It is also heavily influenced by diet, education, and environment.
In brief, my answer is no.

Answer 10

Sometimes it seems like a good idea...the whole "survival of the fittest" mentality. But it's cruel and gives the government (the faceless mass of STRANGERS who already control everything else) way too much power.