[d357r0y3r]

I define a good parent as one that is able to care for a child physically and emotionally. A sociopath, at best, will be able to put food on the table, but they will never be able to show genuine affection. An emotionally neglected child is more likely to commit crimes or abuse others.

I haven't suggested that there be some kind of mandated treatment for anti-social individuals, I just think we should try to have a better understanding of how a person can lack empathy.

Yes, this is based on assumptions and value judgments, mostly on this weird notion I have of not wanting to be killed or harmed by people that don't particularly care if they hurt others. Like, I don't hate lions or grizzly bears. I don't even think they're evil. I still would like to avoid living in close proximity to them.

[deciplex]

> I define a good parent as one that is able to care for a child physically and emotionally. A sociopath, at best, will be able to put food on the table, but they will never be able to show genuine affection.

They don't have to show genuine affection. A lot of sociopaths fake it, and probably most of them do a good job of it. Perhaps faking it is even the path to a 'cure' for sociopathy.

I haven't seen any studies showing that sociopaths are more likely to raise dysfunctional children. I do suspect that they probably are more likely, but unless the correlation is very strong, and the children are very dysfunctional, I don't think it is worth it to try and 'out' sociopaths and restrict them from having children.

Based on your language ('at best, will be able to put food on the table'), I think you are overestimating the negative impact of having a sociopath for a parent compared to having, for example, a really empathic alcoholic parent.

[throwawaytime]

It seems that the term "sociopath" isn't clearly defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy

There are various contemporary usages of the term. Robert Hare claimed in a 1999 popular science book that sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychosis, whereas in other cases which term is used may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder". Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.[81] Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.

The common denominator in most definitions of sociopath seems to be a lack of guilt or remorse. Contrast that with:

A sociopath, at best, will be able to put food on the table, but they will never be able to show genuine affection.

I don't understand how this follows from a lack of guilt.

Can it be true that a lack of ability to feel guilt makes someone an unfit parent, and that they should therefore lose their children?

Where does it stop? For example, if we can detect but not treat sociopaths, then should we abort children who we know will become sociopaths?

There are all kinds of issues that arise if people hold the view that sociopathy is a disease which should be treated. At some point, it's impossible to avoid the question of whether people should be treated against their will for the good of society. Doesn't it seem like "people should be able to live freely until they harm others" is somewhat more preferable to letting others define whether your personality should be modified before you've done anything wrong?

[furyofantares]

I don't see any indication in the posts you are replying to that people should be treated against their will.