--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Charles Howard
<ozarkheretic@y...> wrote:
> Good points, Tracy. Notice how we are debating the meaning
> and connotation of words. What does it mean to "regulate"?

This does not seem an important aspect of our discussion, to me.

> If the government passed a law that said women would not
> be allowed to give birth after age 40, that would be a law
> regulating reproduction, would it not?

Yeah, it would.

> [Of course, I probably should expect that you won't agree.
> But for right now, I will assume you agree.]

So, did my answer confound your expectations, or not? ;)

> But instead of that law or regulation, the legislature
> enacted a law that said women must pay half of their
> incomes as taxes after they reach the age of 40. Would
> that be a law that regulated reproduction (in some sense
> of the meaning of regulate)?

In the sense that intentional interference can count as regulation,
sure. However, if intent to manipulate procreation decisions is
lacking, and the effects on those are merely incidental results, no.

It is worth mentioning that often the best word for "intentional
interference" is "oppression."

> It would affect the decisions that some women would make
> about getting pregnant, would it not? Would it be
> considered an indirect way of regulating reproduction?
> When the government promises to pay a regular sum of money
> to women below a certain level of wealth if they have
> children out of wedlock (or even in wedlock), does that
> law (to pay the money etc.) constitute a form of
> regulation of reproduction? Does it encourage women to
> have babies? [Regulate - to bring under the control of
> law or constituted authority, to bring order, method or
> uniformity to (something), to fix or adjust the time,
> amount, degree, or rate of].

I think we should focus on intent when there is a need to determine
whether or not some sort of regulation is going on. If there is no
intent to manipulate or control, it doesn't count as regulation.

>
> If regulate is not the right word, then maybe "manage"
> would be a better word.
> Should the government "manage" the reproductivity of the
> people?

No, I think it should not.

Just last night I was in a discussion where somebody was arguing
that unless people take deliberate action to reduce how many
children are born (and live to maturity) there will be disasterous
consequences, including large-scale suffering from famine.
Certainly concerns of this sort suggest why some people come up with
a "yes" answer to your question. (There are, of course, any number
of other reasonings as well.) Even if the worry expressed was
reasonable, having a reasonable fear does not by itself make
endorsement of such "management" possible. One also must see that
as falling within the acceptable range of governmental authority.

There is room for interesting debate here, but we can start by
noting that Thomas Szasz has championed a vision of governmental
authority that has not, traditionally, seen such impositions as
within the rightful scope of legal restriction.


Tracy B. Harms