Human Rights

I was having a conversation a few days ago in which an interesting question was brought up: do people have a right to reproduce? I was unable to come up with a definitive answer for this question, so I thought I'd post it and see what everyone else's thoughts are. The context was a debate over the idea of compulsory, but reversible, sterilization for all citizens as a social policy.

On the "yes" side, I believe involuntary human sterilization is generally regarded as an atrocity, from what I know of it occurring under the Nazi regime and scattered incidents of punitive sterilization, and certainly it (and its potential abuses) seem like pretty bad things. However, I cannot really come up with a convincing reason why this should be so. The ability to bring life into the world is probably one of the largest responsibilities a human being can have, after all, and as such, the unrestrained proliferation of this ability has the potential to cause a great deal of suffering - we have only to look to the innumerable cases of single mothers, broken families, etc to see the misery that it can and does cause. I'm not sure why such a huge responsibility should be regarded as an inherent human right.

Say we implemented a policy that all males were to be sterilized at birth. Then, according to some set of criteria, when the individual is deemed "fit" to reproduce, the sterilization could be reversed. This criteria could range from the mild to the Orwellian - it could be a simple age restriction (based on when a person is on average "settled" enough to have a child), it could be a combination of age, financial situation, and marital status, or it could be done on a case-by-case review basis. This final option, in my mind, would be the most ideal setup, although obviously it is also the most prone to abuse.

On a larger scale, it is also easy to see the advantages of involuntary sterilization. I'm positive that the following ideas are considered...shall we say "taboo," but again, I'm not certain why. If we were able, as a society, to choose who among us could reproduce, we could in effect reinstate natural selection without inviting the pain of death back into our lives. I promise, I'm not a neo-Nazi, but if we're totally honest with ourselves, and assuming that my previous idea that we do not have an inherent right to reproduce is correct, can we really argue against a eugenics process? We could ensure humanity's survival by tailoring each generation to be stronger, faster, and smarter than the one before; and what would we really lose?

The main objection that I can see is the simple "we shouldn't be playing God" objection, which, while I do agree to some extent, I see more as a plea for caution than a moral imperative.

Obviously there are immediate emotional responses to such an idea, and I'm not suggesting that it is any way likely or feasible for this to be introduced as a serious proposal. There are also simpler, less Orwellian ways to achieve a similar result, like, say, a free, easy, 100% effective contraceptive; I'm sure the majority of "undesirable" pregnancies are probably also unwanted. Free abortions would probably also achieve a similar result - the book Freakonomics proposes that the legalization of abortion was responsible for the crime drop in the 1990s. I'm just curious as to the actual ethics of this particular concept.

Semantics

Speaking of semantics - the economic stimulus.

I just have one thing to say:

It's not investing if I take 5 dollars from you and then give you back 3.

That is all.

So Greedy, Foul, and Infantile

I generally try to keep up on the most important news of the day. I don't watch TV, but I check news websites about once a day during the week. I saw a link to a story titled "Cambridge Girls Booze and Sex Shame," which, naturally, I had to investigate further. Midway through the article, the following list appears:

Other snaps to have emerged from Cambridge's bizarre boozing rituals show:

- a male and female student simulating oral sex simultaneously in front of a historic university building in broad daylight
- a male student proudly holding up two jugs filled with his own vomit and
- male and female students frolicking with midgets dressed as Oompah Loompas from the film Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

The vile photographs, taken earlier this year, illustrate the twisted initiation rituals students must go through to enter some of the top university's clubs and societies.

I think that list probably should have been looked over a second time; I'm pretty sure frolicking with Oompa Loompas doesn't qualify as a "vile" activity; twisted, maybe, but vile, not so much. There's a fairly large gap between the offensive quality of the first two examples and the third one.

I guess you could interpret it as offensive to vertically challenged individuals, but judging by the use of the word "frolicking," we must assume that it was a consensual activity. With the number of stories we read about people dying during actually dangerous initiation stunts, I think we can chalk this one up as relatively harmless...