Maybe we should spade?neuter humans?

[HYHYBT]

?

Do you have anything to say about the portion of the posts not referring to suicide?

Not yet. Perhaps after you attempt to justify that part, THEN I might be interested in addressing the rest.

YOU chose to include suicide.

[Sleepwalker]

Not yet. Perhaps after you attempt to justify that part, THEN I might be interested in addressing the rest.

YOU chose to include suicide.

I wondered how long it would be before someone resorted to aimless hostility. Scroll up to the words BEFORE the bit you quoted, hon.

[HYHYBT]

I wondered how long it would be before someone resorted to aimless hostility. Scroll up to the words BEFORE the bit you quoted, hon.

Baseless accusation. I read what you wrote. Either it's no answer at all, or it's an admission you were wrong. But it's too garbled to know which for sure, or even that you meant either one. So I asked for something reasonably clear.

[siead_lietrathua]

to be fair, attempted suicide was once.and in some countries still is, a criminal offence that could earn people a jail sentence. heck, i heard rumor once that in North Korea, if you commit suicide, your family is punished in your stead (don't quote me on this, it's rumor). also when someone wants assistance with killing themselves, from a doctor or otherwise, it usually ends with charges against the assister.
Right to Die, or Death with Dignity, laws are something still considered very controversial, allowing people with terminal illnesses a prescription for death so they won't have to suffer for months before dying anyway. a few states have put these laws in place, and quebec up here is debating on it. they are very heavily regulated, where you need two doctor's auth, a waiting period to reaffirm your decision, and of course being diagnosed with a terminal illness.

so, suicide is regulated in it's own way.

[Sleepwalker]

Baseless accusation. I read what you wrote. Either it's no answer at all, or it's an admission you were wrong. But it's too garbled to know which for sure, or even that you meant either one. So I asked for something reasonably clear.

So you don't understand it. What part do you not understand?

[HYHYBT]

This part:

Prevention from suicide/punishment for failed attempts or assisting others- forcing someone to commit suicide(would it still be suicide?) isn't really an issue, since simply killing them is far simpler, and the end result is the same.

[Sleepwalker]

...it's illegal to commit suicide, or assist another to commit suicide, and forcing someone to commit suicide is largely indistinguishable from murdering/executing them.

[s_stabeler]

...it's illegal to commit suicide, or assist another to commit suicide, and forcing someone to commit suicide is largely indistinguishable from murdering/executing them.

forced suicide IS murder, plain and simple.

[Sleepwalker]

forced suicide IS murder, plain and simple.

Yes, which is why I said that people being forced to refrain from suicide is the only widely applicable issue there, unlike reproduction where both reproducing and not reproducing can (and have been)be feasibly forced by society. The closest thing I can think of to enforced suicide has to do with the more cultish religions, none of which hold sway over large segments of the western world atm.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think oftentimes it gets lost in this debate (which obviously tends to reflect how people tend to get lost in issues like gencide and racism) is that the primary problem with Eugenics is natural selection. Human beings biggest foe isn't other people. It still remains germs.

Simply put, we're not wise enough to prune human genetic diversity without leavnig massive vulnerabilities in the genepool to disease. Because of that, I don't care if you have a kid borne out of two racist, homophobic, hate spewing morons with a combnied IQ of 82. If a disease comes in that THAT child's bizarre genetics are the key to, you can't afford to kill him off.

Now, if human medicine ever actually becomes adept at fighting infection on the fly and with more advanced techniques than simple chemical compounds, all bets are probably off. I think it's probably best when people think about humans pruning the genepool to look at the grand mess we've left purebred dogs in. Sure, we can make everyone look like Giselle and talk like David Mitchell but we'll probably cause a host of unfixable genetic problems in the process. We're idiots.

[cindybubbles]

How about only spaying/neutering those convicted of violent or sexual offences; not forcing them, but offering it as a requirement for parole or release?

We can hold sexual offenders indefinitely unless they have the surgery needed to remove their sexual urges. It won't be an alternative to counselling, but will instead be just one part of their rehabilitation and reintegration package.

We can also require people applying for positions of authority (like police or priests) to undergo this surgery or take a legally binding oath of chastity. If they break that oath by committing a sex-based crime, we can castrate them.

[Aethian]

We can also require people applying for positions of authority (like police or priests) to undergo this surgery or take a legally binding oath of chastity. If they break that oath by committing a sex-based crime, we can castrate them.

Police aren't allowed to have kids?

[Kheldarson]

We can also require people applying for positions of authority (like police or priests) to undergo this surgery or take a legally binding oath of chastity. If they break that oath by committing a sex-based crime, we can castrate them.

Wouldn't work for priests: they're not a civil institution.

[Sleepwalker]

Simply put, we're not wise enough to prune human genetic diversity without leavnig massive vulnerabilities in the genepool to disease. Because of that, I don't care if you have a kid borne out of two racist, homophobic, hate spewing morons with a combnied IQ of 82. If a disease comes in that THAT child's bizarre genetics are the key to, you can't afford to kill him off.

So you are working to preserve the sperm and ova of all human beings, in case they don't breed or their offspring die? Is the catholic priesthood dooming humanity to die of the superflu? Gays/lesbians? Those guys with RealDolls? I find it odd how this need to preserve genes only comes up in regards to sterilization/genetic counseling.

Purebred animal breeds are created by inbreeding for one or two bizarre cosmetic characteristics and ignoring all the accompanying traits in the offspring. Comparing that to sterilization or genetic counseling is apples and oranges- or do you think there's going to be an international push to round up all humans who exhibit dwarfism and inbreeding them for the next ten generations to produce a best in show?

[HYHYBT]

...it's illegal to commit suicide, or assist another to commit suicide, and forcing someone to commit suicide is largely indistinguishable from murdering/executing them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Prohibition, while it can be looked at as regulation taken to the extreme, isn’t really the same thing. It’s why some people arguing for legalizing certain drugs do so partly on the grounds that we can then regulate them.

The other thing, and I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear, is that I was trying to contrast “basic biological functions” with actions. Eating and having sex would fall under actions; digesting and gestating are the processes that follow, essentially of their own accord. I can’t think of any laws about what we can eat, outside of those against suicide and theft, though certainly there are some about what you can put into food for sale. Certainly there are laws about who you can have sex with and under what circumstances. But short of forced sterilization or forced abortion, that’s where the law would have to apply. Allowing sex but not reproduction would be like allowing people to eat but not digest.

How about only spaying/neutering those convicted of violent or sexual offences; not forcing them, but offering it as a requirement for parole or release?

Violent *or* sexual offenses? At what severity level?

We can also require people applying for positions of authority (like police or priests) to undergo this surgery or take a legally binding oath of chastity. If they break that oath by committing a sex-based crime, we can castrate them.

Why?

Breaking that down separately:

1) Why should *anybody* who has not been convicted of a serious crime be deprived of their bodily integrity?

2) Why should police, etc. be deprived of normal aspects of life outside work?

3) Why should even the subset of priests who take vows of celibacy be permanently deprived of their physical abilities, which they may have perfectly legitimate uses for if they happen to decide later to leave the priesthood?