this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
74 points (76.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43971 readers
843 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see a future where you'll need a contract to have a child and it will include support for 21 years between both DNA donors. Most people will lack the financial availability and would not qualify for parenthood. Illegal pregnancies would result in 21 years minimal prison sentence for both DNA donors.
With that, two person contracts will replace the religious concept of marriage. It will require an equal support for both partners financially. The contract would allow separation for domestic violence or failure to produce a human child. No Divorce would be authorized under any other circumstances. No new contracts would be authorized for a new partner if a DNA donor child is under the age of 21.
So yes, if you enter into a contract to produce a child, your stuck with that choice for 21 years.
What a wonderful dystopian future where rape victims (of any gender, mind you!) get punished.
And no divorce either, because humans are very well known for doing well-calculated and all around perfect long-term decisions.
Look, I know why would you want to have something like this in place. But what you have written won't work (and for several reasons, yes there are more that I just stated above), and more so - it will backfire massively.
I would have thought that in the instance of rape the burden of punishment would fall entirely upon the perpetrator, i.e. the rapist. Fair point about divorce though
Currently in most of the Western world we have very stringent standards that have to be met in order to adopt a child (and quite rightly too in my view). But in order to conceive a child naturally? Nothing, nada, zilch. Full blown neo-nazi? Meth addict? Huge track record of violence? Rapist? Paedophile? All of the above? Find a partner of the opposite sex and you're good to go! This is a massive inconsistency that I can see we will have to face up to sooner or later, maybe not to the extent you propose, but some sort of minimum standard needs to be put in place for being able to reproduce, for the sake of those children that will otherwise be brought up in horrific, abusive nightmare environments if nothing else.
@waterbogan @YoBuckStopsHere Genuinely curious, how the fuck would we enforce such a law? How many children will be hidden and illegitimate because they were born to someone not allowed to conceive?
I suppose child protective services or your local equivalent exists for this reason - you could expand their ability to take kids away from birth onwards if the parents meet those definitions.
Its a fair question. I think the best approach actually is not to make it illegal for deeply unsuitable individuals to reproduce, but to incentivise them not to. Make contraception freely and easily available, and actually pay them not to have kids. Using a carrot rather than a stick approach like this will be far easier to get across the line and will present less enforcement challenges