Do people have a right to have children?

I recently was part of a spirited discussion over the right to have children. The two sides of the argument basically fell along these lines:

Side A: Everyone has a right to have children if that is what makes them happy/will fulfill them. If they are not able to support these children financially, society is obligated to help them do so. The argument that children are solely the responsibility of the parent is classist and punishes people who are down on their luck through no fault of their own.

Side B: Everyone has a right to children if they can support them adequately on their own. Society is not obligated to fund other peoples' choices, but rather, individuals are obligated not to overburden society by deliberately choosing to have children whose basic needs they cannot meet.

What I would like to take out of the discussion is whether or not welfare in general is a good thing. I think we can all agree that there has to be a social safety net of some kind. Rather, I'd like to talk about the moral obligations of the individual to society and vice versa, and whether or not having a family is a fundamental right.

Any thoughts?

What it boils down to for me is that a woman has the right her own reproductive freedom. If we cannot take away her right to abort, we cannot take away her right to bring the fetus to term. End of story.

Her right to raise the children is another question, of course. And as much as I hate to see people raising five kids when they barely have the resources to raise one, I do not trust any group of people to be arbiters of how much money a person needs to make a good parent, or what constitutes a good childhood based on finances. There is too much room for abuse based on classist notions. And we already have CPS in place for when the children are going hungry and otherwise being neglected.

So, yes, people have the right to children.

All good points, Taumpy, but I think maybe I framed my question a bit wrong. Beyond what we do welfare-wise, because we believe that we aren't going to let children suffer from their parents' actions, what do you think is the correct moral/philosophical stance? Is it RIGHT for someone to choose to have children when they can't support them? Or are they doing a moral/ethical wrong by bringing children into the world that they know will be supported by society rather than themselves? Conversely, is it OK for society to say, look, we'll support your children (grudgingly) because we don't want them to starve, but seriously, you shouldn't be having kids you can't support.

That is, should the default be that people have kids if they want, without suffering societal disapproval, or should the default be that society uses some kind of social pressure to encourage people to wait and/or limit their families to what they can personally afford.

I guess I don't personally see societal pressure not to have children as useful. It always has been the default for people to be discouraged from having children out of wedlock, for example. But it never seemed to stop anybody, only cause people to get married when they probably shouldn't have, and foisted a lot of shame and ill will toward the child conceived that way.

If pressed I would say that it's ethically wrong in an abstract sense to bring a child in the world you can't provide for, but to me the distinction is pointless. The kids are coming either way, and it is society's obligation IMO to see that they don't starve.

My views match Tom's pretty well.

I will admit, as an individual, I've known people who were planning to have kids whom I wished would think again. Or even once. I know that I've put more thought and consideration into my desire to have a dog than some people I've known have put into having kids. But that's a private judgment, and one that I don't exactly share with the people involved, either: I can imagine no good coming from it, and much harm.

Having said that, I would oppose any societal sanction against people having children in situations I'd consider unwise, because I fear that the potential consequences of such would be far worse than the condition it is meant to cure. Just for an example, look to China's one child program: the intent, to keep from overpopulating the nation is one that I think was laudable - but the effect has been a nightmare with consequences that are going to be felt for ages. And the plan has still failed of its goal to halt population growth. I'm not sure its even done much to slow it down.

I believe the Chinese policy has worked but worked skewed unfortunately. They are predicting that India will overtake China soon for population. China's growth did clearly slow at least.

I strongly suspect I agree with Sarah on the issue as restated is post #3 but as she has not made clear it is her opinion, I am not sure. But I do take a dim view on people that bring kids into the world and cannot support them on their own. I take a much dimmer view on people that do it more than once.

Before anyone twists my words, I know circumstances change for the worse and the far worse. I am talking about those that bring kids into the world when in their current situation they are clearly not ready. Once is an accident, twice is asinine. If you are already on an aid program or relying on momma and poppa, get and use free condoms or abstain or do what you can to avoid pregnancy. (And of course being raped is not a choice, please don't bring up examples like that.)

OK, fire away, I am getting use to it.

Yup. People have the rights to do with their bodies what they will in my book. Children also have the right to a healthy and stable childhood so DCFS is a pretty good idea, even if things get messed up sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

I believe the Chinese policy has worked but worked skewed unfortunately. They are predicting that India will overtake China soon for population. China's growth did clearly slow at least.

---

But population growth also slows as industrialism takes over in a culture. IMNSHO, the question isn't: Has China's population growth slowed? I agree that it has. The question is: Is the one child policy a major cause of the slow down in population growth? I'm less convinced that's clear. It may be, but the evidence for it is spotty from what I've read.

Even with India as a counter-example. India's social hierarchy is such that I'm not convinced that the general changes in society are reaching down to all levels of Indian society. I believe that India's continuing struggle with the effects of their caste differentiations make comparisons with other cultures suspect, at the very least.

Wasn't Singapore's program to slow population growth successful? Just as a third point of data? (They were already modernized and industrialized when they began their program AFAIK)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Wasn't Singapore's program to slow population growth successful? Just as a third point of data? (They were already modernized and industrialized when they began their program AFAIK)

---

According to this source - Singapore's program has been too successful, and now they're officially pushing for people to have three or more if they can afford the kids.

So, such a policy can work, with what I'd consider only minor problems, compared to the major ones highlighted by the Chinese policy.

I'm still leery of it, though.






The other thing I'd like to bring up: While I don't want to see general restrictions on child bearing, I should make clear I have no problems with cases where abuse, or simple incompetence, has been proven to trying to impose some kind of controls. As an example, if you and your partner are a pair of crackheads, living on the streets, and have had several kids already taken from you, I'm not going to object if the courts impose some kind of contraceptive order upon you. This is no longer a matter of general policy but a specific desire to prevent what is can be reasonably expected to be unconscionable conditions for any other children that might come along.

Again, that's based on a much higher standard than simply having "enough" resources to care for a child, though.

BTW: Just to clarify, I was not talking legislation, I was just talking my own opinion. I am leery of legislating reproductive rights.

As a practical matter, I think the question is best rephrased as "Does society have the right to prevent people from having children?" The answer to that one has to be a resounding "hell, no!"

So even though some people obviously abuse their "right" to have kids, and do it when they probably shouldn't, I see no means to stop them that I am comfortable with.

The advertisements in Singapore to encourage people to have children are hilarious, by the way. They show TV spots featuring Chinese Stepford families with plastic grins on their faces, putting Disney-esque adorable moppets to bed. It reeks of desperation and is horrifying enough to keep anyone from reproducing, since the unintentional message is "children = lobotomy!"

:Shake::Shake::Shake::Shake:...double post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

So even though some people obviously abuse their "right" to have kids, and do it when they probably shouldn't, I see no means to stop them that I am comfortable with.

---

Even in the case I proposed in post #10? That's not a hypothetical - it was taken from an actual Family Court case here in Rochester. Everybody, and their uncle, offered to help the couple appeal it, but when the case was up for review by the appellate court, neither primary party could be arsed to come to the hearing, IIRC.

Quote:

---

The advertisements in Singapore to encourage people to have children are hilarious, by the way. They show TV spots featuring Chinese Stepford families with plastic grins on their faces, putting Disney-esque adorable moppets to bed. It reeks of desperation and is horrifying enough to keep anyone from reproducing, since the unintentional message is "children = lobotomy!"

---

But you get $S 20,000 for the extra kids! I'm sure that makes up for everything. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

Even in the case I proposed in post #10? That's not a hypothetical - it was taken from an actual Family Court case here in Rochester.

---

I have no problem with that ruling, but it is a very specific case. I am not willing to generalize and have a blanket law that requires everyone who meets (or fails to meet) certain criteria use birth control.

Agreed, completely.

I say no. A child in the "care" of the wrong parents can be just as dangerous as any car driven by a person with no driving experience and little knowledge of the physics of getting from A to B.

We can devise tests to determine people's capacities in all walks of life; I don't believe one for parenting ability is beyond our imagination.

The test could be along the lines of "if you don't fulfil x, then you are going to be given no assistance with your child-rearing."

As said earlier, a woman has the right to do with her body as she sees fit. If that involves having multiple kids, then so be it.

Once the child has been born, then its a different matter. Someone who is incapable of caring for the child, should lose the privilege of being allowed to raise the child. However they should still be forced to pay for the care of the child, regardless of who is raising it. I can see a case for society helping out with the first one or two children to help replace the populatuion as it stands, but unless the parents can afford it, I don't see why the state should help out if they have more.

As for China, the one child policy has not worked as expected and there is a huge imbalance between the number of males and females in the country. Strangely enough, an experiment they did where they were allowed a second child if the first was a daughter has not led to a massive increase in population but it has remained steady.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

The test could be along the lines of "if you don't fulfil x, then you are going to be given no assistance with your child-rearing."

---

So if you're deficient as a parent, your kids are shit out of luck? :dubious: Yes, that will solve the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

As a practical matter, I think the question is best rephrased as "Does society have the right to prevent people from having children?" The answer to that one has to be a resounding "hell, no!"

So even though some people obviously abuse their "right" to have kids, and do it when they probably shouldn't, I see no means to stop them that I am comfortable with.

The advertisements in Singapore to encourage people to have children are hilarious, by the way. They show TV spots featuring Chinese Stepford families with plastic grins on their faces, putting Disney-esque adorable moppets to bed. It reeks of desperation and is horrifying enough to keep anyone from reproducing, since the unintentional message is "children = lobotomy!"

---

I was trying to avoid the issue of whether or not society has the right to prevent people from having children. I'm going to take that as a given that society does not have that right. My question is more about our society's attitudes about its role in raising children than whether or not we agree that the help has to be provided. The person I was talking to about it has a Marxist view (her own word). She feels that a parent's concern shouldn't be with financial support, that this should simply be provided if the parent can't be the one to provide it. Rather, the parent should be concerned only with whether or not they feel mentally, emotionally, and spiritually ready to be a parent, and that should be their deciding factor.

So Sarah, where do you stand on this? I think I can read it but so I don't put words in your mouth even in my head, what is your attitude on this?

(I think we basically share the same views overall.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

The person I was talking to about it has a Marxist view (her own word). She feels that a parent's concern shouldn't be with financial support, that this should simply be provided if the parent can't be the one to provide it. Rather, the parent should be concerned only with whether or not they feel mentally, emotionally, and spiritually ready to be a parent, and that should be their deciding factor.

---

[rant]

Marxism: Great in theory, not so in practice.

I know plenty of people where they are not only ready to be a parent, but also ready to milk the system in order to get a better lifestyle through having kids.

How has this come about, the state provides everything because they cannot. A house, benefits, new tv etc etc.

Have too many kids, then give up your jobs, and watch the state scramble to give you a large house and the benefits to feed and clothe them at everyone else's expense.

Who needs a job when all you have to do is have a kid every few years.

[/rant]

CatInASuit, is it really that bad in the UK now? That sounds like the nightmare description of the Welfare system before reform in the 90s and yet it was never close to that bad and I say this as an ex-Reagan Republican that thinks the old Welfare system was seriously screwed up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

CatInASuit, is it really that bad in the UK now? That sounds like the nightmare description of the Welfare system before reform in the 90s and yet it was never close to that bad and I say this as an ex-Reagan Republican that thinks the old Welfare system was seriously screwed up.

---

In certain areas, it is getting that bad.

It has already become more optimal for people to claim benefits than it is to get a low paying job and support yourself.

Of course, Marxists see these people as the downtrodden oppressed who should be supported by removing the wealth from the rich and distributing it to the poor. But that's for another topic.

By instinct, I agree with CIAS. I was very careful not to have kids until I thought I could financially support them, and to me that was part of feeling mentally and emotionally ready to have them. I'm a fairly pragmatic and independent-minded person, but that is just me. I think the argument that there is a certain standard of living you must provide as a parent DOES sound a bit classist. There are some people who will never "make it" in this world...is it fair to say, too bad so sad, you can never reproduce? And if there is some kind of standard from an ethical standpoint, what should the standard be? That you have to at minimum, feed, clothe, and put a roof over the kid's head? Or is it ok to say, look, I'm always going to need to get food stamps, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The person I was discussing this with is quite radical...she believes that everyone should be able to do whatever they want, quite literally. If whatever they love to do isn't marketable, it should be OK to be supported in order to do it (including being a single, stay-at-home mom). This is taking it a bit far for me! But I do kind of see her point that there's something uncomfortable about the rich saying to the poor that they are not suitable to have children because of their financial state. On the other hand, there's real evidence that says that if you wait to have children, work up until that point, and stay with a parent partner, that the odds of ending up needing to be assisted is exponentially lower. So, I see that side too...that since it's far from impossible for someone to bootstrap their way into a decent living, that it's not wrong to expect people to try to do it.

Unfortunately, I think too few people put that sort of thought into having kids at all. For a lot of people having kids is part of the life script we're all supposed to follow, and there's little or no question of deviating from it. It would take a lot to convince me that it's not the number one thing that people in general think they're "supposed" to do with their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Unfortunately, I think too few people put that sort of thought into having kids at all. For a lot of people having kids is part of the life script we're all supposed to follow, and there's little or no question of deviating from it. It would take a lot to convince me that it's not the number one thing that people in general think they're "supposed" to do with their lives.

---

Interesting thought, I don't believe it was my first thought but I will say when I thought marriage I did think Kids & House. But before that I was thinking in terms of Career way more than kids.

My inclination is to say that people don't have any right to have children, but I think I pretty much agree with most of the people above, who have said that the government doesn't really have the right to stop them (at least except in extraordinary circumstances.) So I'm not sure it's really a meaningful question -- I mean, it seems like they must have the right, or else we would have the right to stop them.

I know this isn't the exact thrust of this thread but I was mulling over what circumstances justify the state stepping in and stopping someone from reproducing. Most people would probably say the government shouldn't be able to require women to be on Depo in order to get welfare, although personally I wouldn't have a problem with the government incentivizing it in some way (say a $50 a month bump in benefits or something like that.)

Do judges ever, as part of plea deals or sentencing, require people who are severely abusive or neglectful of their kids to be sterilized or use contraception? Is that legal? I can easily imagine circumstances where I think it would be appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Do judges ever, as part of plea deals or sentencing, require people who are severely abusive or neglectful of their kids to be sterilized or use contraception? Is that legal? I can easily imagine circumstances where I think it would be appropriate.

---

I doubt that is allowed at this point. There were past abuses and protests about using sterilization for even the severely mentally handicap. I love the idea of incentivizing birth control, but I suspect the religious right (not all religious people, I am talking about the theo-con types that push of ID in schools as science) would fight such programs.

As to the past abuses, I believe there were programs in the past that sterilized criminals and black men back before the Nazi extremes gave eugenics its final and well deserved death.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Do judges ever, as part of plea deals or sentencing, require people who are severely abusive or neglectful of their kids to be sterilized or use contraception? Is that legal? I can easily imagine circumstances where I think it would be appropriate.

---

As I said upthread, there was a local case where a pair of drug-addicted homeless people had had four kids, all of whom had been taken away by the state - one to a grandparent, and the other three in fostercare - who ended up being required to either go onto contraceptives, or to get an abortion, before having any other children. The order was written so that the order could be vacated when the parents involved had met the standards for CPS to return control of their children to them.

The order was immediately contested, by several groups acting on the behalf of the couple, or one of the two individuals: The ACLU and CFS make for odd bedfellows, in my mind - though I understand why each group would view the issues as being very important. Here's a summary of the original order.

The motion to get the order vacated failed, when neither member of the couple showed up for the scheduled session. At which point the order was confirmed - but enforcement is going to be just as spotty, I think, since that's also going to rely upon the couple remembering to follow it. And more importantly, while the appeal failed, none of the assumptions behind the order have been tested on a Constitutional basis. IOW, it seems to me that the issue is still very much a grey area, without any clear precedent, nor explicit law, to guide people to follow it.

As near as I can remember, only one justice in this one Family Court had handed out these orders - and my quick Googling only found one other case where it was used. (Oddly enough the justice in question, Marilyn O'Connor is the mother of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. huh.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

So if you're deficient as a parent, your kids are shit out of luck? :dubious: Yes, that will solve the problem.

---

I'm saying "if you are deficient in x, you don't even get to be a parent". Why exactly should anyone be entitled to have children, without the society they are having them in having a say in it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

I'm saying "if you are deficient in x, you don't even get to be a parent". Why exactly should anyone be entitled to have children, without the society they are having them in having a say in it?

---

Because society is full of morons, and almost all parents will have some aspect or trait that some sections of society would deem unsuitable for parents (not enough income, "wrong" religious views, too much time spent at work, etc.)

Right to have children?
Yes!
Right to abuse that right? As in gaming the welfare system for having them, NO!

In general, I think we agree that people should have the right to have children.

Following on from this, is there a set of reasons or circumstances under which people should lose the right to have children either through enforced contraception, sterilisation or abstinence?

Yes, strictly speaking you cannot lose something to which you have a right, you know what I mean.

Here's how it works.

People have been having children, and are having children, therefore they have the right to have children. A debate arose once where people were arguing whether creating a computer simulation of a universe, full of simulated people who didn't know they were simulations, is ethically acceptable. It was decided that it was (as long as you didn't go crazy with the earthquake button) since it was not really any different from having children, on some level. Ignoring the flaws in that comparison, it raises a fundamental point.

In a society where everyone has always eaten meat, the idea that eating meat is immoral is rejected straight away. It's not immoral because everyone does it and always has. In ancient Mongolia, selling a wife the way you would sell a lamb is not immoral. It helps, by the way, if the idea in question is perceived as necessary - slavery is not "wrong" if your economy "needs" it, for example. Having kids is the same way - everyone has always done it and society needs people to do it so everyone has the right to keep doing it.

Which is a nice dodge.

Having children can be described as arrogant and selfish. If I built a sentient love machine to satisfy a particular urge people would see that as wrong, but if I created a human being to satisfy a different urge then that is okay. If you feel like you are able to look after a human being from the vulnerable years right through, then the arrogance of that opinion is quickly ignored. We are talking about creating and caring for an entire person here - the idea that the desire to do so is criminal has some merit to it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

Because society is full of morons, and almost all parents will have some aspect or trait that some sections of society would deem unsuitable for parents (not enough income, "wrong" religious views, too much time spent at work, etc.)

---

So, the right thing to do is allow these "morons" to make more morons?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

Having children can be described as arrogant and selfish.

---

That is the absolute truth and I wish more parents would admit it. People who say that they are "contributing" to mankind by having kids are out of their minds. Sure, your kid MIGHT grow up to be the next Jonas Salk, Albert Schweitzer, Einstein, or other great person, but they probably won't. And you don't get any special pats on the back for raising them to be responsible citizens - you have a kid, you damn well BETTER raise them to be responsible.

-- Hatshepsut, parent of a brilliant child who is going to solve global warming for us when he grows up. Maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

So, the right thing to do is allow these "morons" to make more morons?

---

The right thing to do is not to let morons impose their will on other morons. My original intent was to showcase the fact that not all people have the same definition of 'moron'. Should I never have kids because I'll probably never be able to afford to send them to private school? Should my sister not have procreated because she's not a stay-at-home mom? I don't think it's right for society to make these kind of ethical judgements about people's lives. And once you go down the road having an eligibility test for parenthood, that's what you end up with.

If we lived in Plato's Republic, with a benevolent philosopher-king and a ruling class of superhumanly-ethical guardians, then maybe they would have the right to make these kind of fundamental decisions about others' lives.

But we all know that Plato was an unrealistic wanker.

I have to come in with the B group:

Quote:

---

Side B: Everyone has a right to children if they can support them adequately on their own. Society is not obligated to fund other peoples' choices, but rather, individuals are obligated not to overburden society by deliberately choosing to have children whose basic needs they cannot meet.

---

With rights come responsibilities. We have a right to free speech, but we have the responsibility to use it correctly: don't yell FIRE in a theater, etc. Same with kids. If you cannot provide a stable home with two caring parents and the basic necessities of life for the kids, then don't have the kids. It really is just that simple.

retract.

Oh, and about the OP... what happens if I make a slight alteration to the argument?

Quote:

---

Side A: Everyone has a right to play tennis if that is what makes them happy/will fulfill them. If they are not able to support this habit financially, society is obligated to help them do so. The argument that tennis club memberships are solely the responsibility of the adult is classist and punishes people who are down on their luck through no fault of their own.

---

Looks. Ridiculous. It isn't society's job to support the whims of each and every individual. If you want to play tennis but can't support the habit financially, my advice would be to rethink your dreams. If it is important to you, do whatever it takes to get the means together, otherwise it's time to put that dream on hold. Creating a human being as 83 million times as much riding on it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

The right thing to do is not to let morons impose their will on other morons.

---

Well, seeing as I never suggested that... < pushes strawman over >

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

My original intent was to showcase the fact that not all people have the same definition of 'moron'. Should I never have kids because I'll probably never be able to afford to send them to private school? Should my sister not have procreated because she's not a stay-at-home mom? I don't think it's right for society to make these kind of ethical judgements about people's lives. And once you go down the road having an eligibility test for parenthood, that's what you end up with.

---

Being a stay-at-home-mum wouldn't discount a person. Being unable to provide a loving environment, and having to rely totally on state benefits to provide for it, would

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

If we lived in Plato's Republic, with a benevolent philosopher-king and a ruling class of superhumanly-ethical guardians, then maybe they would have the right to make these kind of fundamental decisions about others' lives.

---

We've had 2,000 years more experience to learn from, so we should be able to fare a little better than they could.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

But we all know that Plato was an unrealistic wanker.

---

And that Socrates never bought a round of beer in his life, I heard!

Just out of curiosity, for the people who lean toward the B option. Are you referring to people who get pregnant while on welfare or other goverment aid, knowing that they will have to continue on government aid to support the resulting children? What would be the proposed solution for this, IUDs inserted with the commencement of benefits, mandatory abortion...? Are you saying that the safety net should not be in place for those who did start off their reproduction in a position to provide a home and support, but found their life circumstances unexpectedly changed?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

Looks. Ridiculous. It isn't society's job to support the whims of each and every individual. If you want to play tennis but can't support the habit financially, my advice would be to rethink your dreams. If it is important to you, do whatever it takes to get the means together, otherwise it's time to put that dream on hold. Creating a human being as 83 million times as much riding on it.

---

That there's so much more riding on it is why your analogy is, frankly, absurd.

Unless you're advocating forced sterilization, birth control or, abortion there is no way to stop people from procreating. (China's one-child policy didn't stop the procreation, it just led to a lot of aborted female children)

If a potential tennis player can't support his dream, but he tries to anyway he generally only screws up only his own life. And the number of people in his situation are fairly small. Whereas, there are kids born to some jerk that couldn't afford it every day. There's already social pressure for them not to do it. They are already seen as irresponsible and selfish. It doesn't change anything. People will still have unprotected sex.

Not seeing that those kids have basic care and education is going to screw up a lot more lives than just theirs in the long run. Society stepping in isn't about catering to the whims of the idiot parents that shouldn't have had the kids. It's about the resulting children having a chance in life, because it's better for all of us that they do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

Oh, and about the OP... what happens if I make a slight alteration to the argument?



Looks. Ridiculous. It isn't society's job to support the whims of each and every individual. If you want to play tennis but can't support the habit financially, my advice would be to rethink your dreams. If it is important to you, do whatever it takes to get the means together, otherwise it's time to put that dream on hold. Creating a human being as 83 million times as much riding on it.

---

Well and good, but it doesn't have anything to do with reality because the kids we're talking about aren't planned. It's not really a useful comparison, since having sex rarely leads to people being unable to stop playing tennis for 18 years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

Being a stay-at-home-mum wouldn't discount a person. Being unable to provide a loving environment, and having to rely totally on state benefits to provide for it, would

---

I think you misread me. My point was that NOT having a full-time at-home parent is something that a lot of people find detrimental to ideal child-rearing. And once you open the door to having governmental committees determine who can and cannot procreate, many interfering busybody types would try to get their particular boogiemen on the 'no-procreation' list. And some of them would probably succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

We've had 2,000 years more experience to learn from, so we should be able to fare a little better than they could.

---

"We're so much more advanced now! We can make this eugenics thing work, dammit!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

Unless you're advocating forced sterilization, birth control or, abortion there is no way to stop people from procreating. (China's one-child policy didn't stop the procreation, it just led to a lot of aborted female children) ... Whereas, there are kids born to some jerk that couldn't afford it every day. There's already social pressure for them not to do it. They are already seen as irresponsible and selfish. It doesn't change anything. People will still have unprotected sex.

Not seeing that those kids have basic care and education is going to screw up a lot more lives than just theirs in the long run. Society stepping in isn't about catering to the whims of the idiot parents that shouldn't have had the kids. It's about the resulting children having a chance in life, because it's better for all of us that they do.

---

I am not particularly clear in my writing. Taumpy is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Taumpy

That there's so much more riding on it is why your analogy is, frankly, absurd.

Unless you're advocating forced sterilization, birth control or, abortion there is no way to stop people from procreating. (China's one-child policy didn't stop the procreation, it just led to a lot of aborted female children)

If a potential tennis player can't support his dream, but he tries to anyway he generally only screws up only his own life. And the number of people in his situation are fairly small. Whereas, there are kids born to some jerk that couldn't afford it every day. There's already social pressure for them not to do it. They are already seen as irresponsible and selfish. It doesn't change anything. People will still have unprotected sex.

Not seeing that those kids have basic care and education is going to screw up a lot more lives than just theirs in the long run. Society stepping in isn't about catering to the whims of the idiot parents that shouldn't have had the kids. It's about the resulting children having a chance in life, because it's better for all of us that they do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Well and good, but it doesn't have anything to do with reality because the kids we're talking about aren't planned. It's not really a useful comparison, since having sex rarely leads to people being unable to stop playing tennis for 18 years.

---

Okay... we seem to be talking about different things.

I was talking about people who are unable to provide for their children, but because they want want want to have children have them anyway and hope society will pick up the tab. Frankly, I'm sorry if "Everyone has a right to have children if that is what makes them happy/will fulfill them" somehow refers to unwanted pregnancies, but my reading of the sentence involved, you know, reading the sentence.

For the record, my point stands whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. People have the right because there's no ethical way to take it from them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

Okay... we seem to be talking about different things.

I was talking about people who are unable to provide for their children, but because they want want want to have children have them anyway and hope society will pick up the tab. Frankly, I'm sorry if "Everyone has a right to have children if that is what makes them happy/will fulfill them" somehow refers to unwanted pregnancies, but my reading of the sentence involved, you know, reading the sentence.

---

Right, well, what does it mean to assert that someone doesn't have "the right to children" unless you're also asserting that the government has the right to stop them?

I never said people don't have the right to have children. What I said is they can't automatically assume society will help them out if it is difficult for them. The tennis analogy - whether a person plays tennis or not is up to them, but the powers that be aren't going to pay for their lessons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllWalker

I never said people don't have the right to have children. What I said is they can't automatically assume society will help them out if it is difficult for them. The tennis analogy - whether a person plays tennis or not is up to them, but the powers that be aren't going to pay for their lessons.

---

But if you're bad at tennis, all that happens is that you suck at a game and waste your time. Bad parents abuse their children and kill them. Poor tennis players can't afford rackets. Poor parents can't feed their children.

The difference here is that a tennis player is the only one feeling the impact of his decision to play. Parents are grownups and can make whatever decisions about their own lives they want, but why should society let children suffer because of the decisions of their parents?