Bill,

re your terrorist prevention you missed one step: if indeed Steve found him 'with a hand in the cookie jar' he will still not be prosecuted for terrorism and murder, but only intended terrorism and murder. The two sentences are light-years apart.

As I found out when a distant friend was brought before a court because she defended herself against a would-be rapist whom she'd beaten into the hospital. The fact that he unquestionably intended to rape her did not weigh in her favor, as he did not succeed. And her ability to prevent him from rape was used against her as she was obviously physically and emotionally capable of disarming him without beating him to a pulp. He got off with three month on parole for attempted rape and sexual harrassment and some counseling (what a joke), she was sentenced to 12 months in jail which was deferred to 6 months social services (which luckily she could serve at our local women's center) and 6 months on parole.

Same would go for your drunk junkie - the potential to harm a child does not necessarily result in the child's harm. Maybe when the child is actually born he'll take one look at his beautiful baby-girl and goes cold turkey? Or more realistically he'll blacken her eye or break her arm in a drunken stupor, which would get him parole and supervision by child services, but would still not prevent him from having children.

I hate to make this argument, but in the interest of objectivity I have to ... if it were up to me I'd still sterilize them ... I might even help the girl get her revenge - which would out me as a violent initiator-of-force ;)

Bill,

if we argued what would be the objectively correct punishment for planned attempt, failed attempt and successful attempt, we're in agreement, that the latter two should be prosecuted exactly the same. However that's us two and maybe another handful who think so. The majority still considers a failed attempt, that has not resulted in the intended harm, to be less culpable than a successful attempt. So failing to abuse your own child because you cannot look into those baby-blues and still hit it qualifies as excuse to let them have children.

And it does happen, that violent adults reform their ways for their children - however that's not what children are for and personally I think the risk to the child is not worth the benefits to the adult (and the child if it gets a happy childhood after reformation). In objective terms however, we'd still be back to the argument where the initiation-of-force takes place: in the possibility or the actual fact. If it's the actual fact, we have to wait until they hit a child before we can take away the rights to that child. If it's the possibility, then we're back to the movie 'Minority Report': punish anyone with intent to crime the same as if he committed the crime, which would include planned and not just failed attempt. After all: who's to say if I actually go through with it if I'm not stopped, but have moral qualms of some sort at the very last moment?

In my opinion we're arguing a 'false issue' here: if humans are prone to violence we cannot stop that violence. We can only argue about the degree of 'damage-control'. The only solution to this walk on a tight-rope is curing mankind of violence. And what I've read and seen in movies of such imagined attempts, humans themselves don't really believe they can be cured of violence, even shouldn't be cured as it's an integral part of the human species, a requirement for it's survival in adverse circumstances. Some even go so far as to demand to teach our children about violence, so they can grow up fully realised humans and make successful use of violence - of course with the moral fig-leaf to use it 'only' for protection ... yet it never stops there: next for punishment, next for retaliation when a wrong is not punished by the system/society/clan/whatever (revolutions abound in our history) ... and we're back with the full realization of violent potential.

PS: before I get reminded again of the topic of this post ;)

How does Transhumanism deal with violence in man? Is it even a topic considered to 'cure' mankind of violence or do they only focus on physical enhancements?