KEO's article concerning the pregnant 17-year old has prompted me to publish this exerpt from my book LIFE, DEATH AND OTHER TRIVIA. I think it is a pertinent response. A discussion would be welcome.
Anyone who claims to be unprejudiced is, at the very least, self-deluded. Common logic dictates that if you have a preference, you automatically have a prejudice against its antithesis. Opinions are synonymous with bias and, as we keep hearing, everyone is entitled to them. Ergo, everyone leans in one direction or the other on virtually every issue, which inevitably leads to labels, intolerance and bigotry.
And that's okay with me. I don't think we should be expected to accept customs and ethical standards we find offensive, just to avoid the appearance of discrimination. Through observation and experience, I've learned that there are groups of people for whom I can only muster contempt and dislike, and if expressing these impressions makes me a bigot, so be it. Unlike many other prejudiced people, however, I don't stop with simply indicating my distaste; I try to find solutions to the underlying causes of my negative opinions.
For example, I am appalled by the unfettered proliferation of underage, unmarried parents in this country. Every time I see some bubblegum-popping kid with a snotty-nosed, screaming infant, buying Similac with food stamps, I'm tempted to yell, "What's the matter with you, you idiot? Have you never heard the word 'condom'? Why am I paying your way just because you think sex is a competitive sport?"
When this was first written, I was living next door to a family that consisted of three generations of unapologetic white trash, daily engaged in the sort of toxic interaction that passes for "parenting" in our endemically dysfunctional country. Sixteen-year old son of alcholic father siring an infant with a 19-year old addict, along with meth-head 18-year-old sister and her two-year-old head-banging toddler, all jammed together in a tiny 2-bedroom apartment. In short, I was living next door to the Jerry Springer show and I couldn't change the channel. So, if feeling disgusted, offended, and contemptuous of this sort of thoughtless, impulsive, uncontrollable procreation makes me a prejudiced snob, I gladly accept the label. I am repulsed by this lifestyle, and I don't care who knows it.
Not that too many kids having too many kids is just an American problem. It's no secret that one of the most basic causes of global distress is overpopulation, which, although widely recognized, has been pushed aside by more pressing world issues, except in modern China. Everywhere else, including our own clueless country, is rife with early sexual activity without the use of birth control. As a result, the world is overrun with millions of ignorant, uneducated, single parents, raising unending generations of ignorant, uneducated, neglected children for which the rest of us pay, in both money and lowered common standards.
I know there are many who will react with shock and who will sling terms like "genetic tampering", "right to life", "reproductive freedom", and similar holier-than-me imprecations when they read my solution. The specter of Hitler-style eugenics will be raised, groundlessly. This is not about "ethnic cleansing". It is about keeping the planet from being destroyed by too many humans with too little sense, and too few resources to support them. Therefore, a great deal of thought has led me to believe that the benefits of my program would so far outweigh these objections as to make them hardly worth mentioning. So here it is:
At age 12, every child on earth, both male and female, should receive a harmless substance that will render them sterile for an indeterminate period of time. This contraception can be reversed, but only twice in each lifetime, and only under the following conditions:
1) Both prospective parents must be at least 25 years of age and be gainfully employed.
2) The couple must have been in a committed relationship for a minimum of two years and must mutually desire a child before pregnancy is permitted.
3) Both must take extensive parenting classes and pass stringent physical, emotional and ethical exams before receiving a license to reproduce.
4) Inadequate finances, criminal behavior, addictions to dangerous substances, or the presence of any STD, prohibits granting of a license.
5) The contraceptive process will be reinstated after the first birth, and may be removed just once more, any time after the child's first birthday.
6) Immediately after the second child is born, both parents are permanently sterilized. Some exceptions can be negotiated, in the event of miscarriage or early death, but for the most part, that's it: two kids per married couple, straight or gay. Period.
Do I have to point out the enormous advantages? Okay. Try these:
· No more exploding population.
· No more famine.
· No more unwanted children.
· No more abortions.
· No more teenage parents.
· No more single-parent families.
· No more screwed-up kids who become screwed-up, often criminal, adults.
· A substantial reduction in the number of failed marriages.
· The eventual elimination of sexually transmitted diseases
· A significant drop in the crime rate.
· And, best of all, a peaceful, quiet world, full of happy, well-fed, well-behaved children with well-educated, happy, well-adjusted parents. Can it get any better than that?
I freely confess that the left-wing liberal part of me objects to the abrogation of personal liberties outlined in this plan. Nevertheless, when I step back and look at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that the sacrifice of individual options for the betterment of society as a whole, is more to be desired than denigrated. So far, allowing ignorance to take precedence over social responsibility hasn't worked out very well. Perhaps it is time for a change of outlook. Maybe containing the numbers of humans on the planet is more important than maintaining man's "right" to reproduce without restraint.
Admittedly, there could be some negative fallout. Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil would have to find new lines of work, the Vatican would implode, the ACLU would become permanently apoplectic, and half the trailer parks in America would disappear. But honestly, would anyone really miss them? And even if these icons were to vanish from the scene, isn't that a small enough price to pay for Utopia?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
Peace,
libramoon
Melissa.. I don't care where you go to the bathroom, as long as it isn't in my front yard. As for being "repulsive", what do YOU call the unfettered propagation of ignorant, addicted children giving birth to ignorant, addicted children, ad infinitum, sucking the planet dry and giving nothing back to humanity? Why is it okay to demand a license to drive a car or own a dog, but if you can figure out how to have sex you can be a parent? That's MY definition of 'repulsive'.
You end with a question about Utopia - everyone's utopian dream will be different; standing from where you are, there will be a middle ground which would still be right of centre ground. Perhaps, and I do specify perhaps, standing from where I am, there would be less accord even at that point. As already pointed out, you offer a model for discussion which I venture to suggest will take a few generations to evolve into something semi acceptable, somewhere.
There are likely to be many unintended consequences of some of your suggestions, which are borne out of frustration and more than just an incy wincy bit of care about the needs of the next generation? In China these unintended consequences are already seen. As you know, in China, the only legal multiple family is one of twins or triplets, quads and so on. This tight restriction, (the single child family)is making the preferred production of a male, more imperative, female babies are being exposed. Out in the remote areas of China, the family size rules are difficult to enforce; it would be interesting to know if this factor is undermining the population reduction policy. Once born, what should the State do with these 'excess' babies?
Then there is the question of responsibility - I know you cry 'condom'. The poorest in our midsts are the most difficult to reach; it has always been easier for the male to walk away - how would you propose to deal with this perennially difficult issue?
On the sub-continent the preference for one gender baby/babies over the other is also creating social difficulties, criminality, and in some regions, there is the suggestion of multiple husbands to one woman - a reversal of the harem, which is one way of reducing sexual crime.
Such strict social engineering is unhealthy, inadvisable and extremely difficult to police.
As I can't see the whole of this reply in a preview, I find it difficult to check so I hope it will read as it is meant to.
BFN
"social engineering" like it's a bad thing. What do you call rules, regulations and laws, if not "social engineering?"
Love,
Teenage Single Mother
Nothing prevents pregnancy, not even condoms. I know they are better then nothing, but the only surefire way to prevent pregnancy is to not have sex.
When ever I hear someone say my tax paying dollars do this or that, I want to know how much to they actually pay in taxes, because normally it's not enough to support anyone, not even a baby. I could be angry becuase I pay more in social security taxes then the generation before me and social security most likely won't be around when I am old enough to recieve it, so why am I paying into something for my retirement years, that won't be there when I retire? Yet I'm okay with it, becuase I feel it is part of my duty to aid in the support of senior citizens.
You used a term I hate to hear "white trash", just what makes a person, any person trash?
About your "solutions"...i agree with some of them, but it sounds suspiciously like a recipe for engineering another "master race"..which I'm not comfortable with...and the truth is, human beings are too dumb or just plain ornery to be "programed"...with the best intentions, they will find a way to screw things up
My problem is, that I would have to be in charge of developing, administering and evaluating the "stringent physical, emotional and ethical exams before receiving a license to reproduce." No one else will do. It's gotta be me. I'm the only one I can trust to do it right.
There are exceptions to every "rule" as your commentors have noted. The failure, however, is in NOT noting the substantial REDUCTION of problems laid out by your article. No program will cover every exception. Human nature is too diverse to allow that. An immense dent, however, can be made in the problems you note with the program you note.
Over population IS a problem, a large and growing one. The trend is that the more educated, financially stable, professional is tending toward fewer children. While those with fewer resources at hand have not reduced their birth rates. My husband often says that we are devolving into two separate species and we aren't going to like who ends up in the minority.
Certainly we need solutions. The implimentation of this would never fly.
But if it does, I'm taking bids on that second child license. I'm done at one, so there's an extra out there. Opening bid?
Much of what you suggest is extreme, probably in order to start the discourse. Where will it go other than stay within Gather?