Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

Auqakah · 2002-11-14 14:19:07

Now, I have been reading through. What is this assumption that the only way to control the population is to put controls on births per person (or couple, whichever)?

Whatever happened to taboo?

Surely, a law is useful... but society itself isn't held up by laws, really. The reason we don't kill each other with impunity is not because if we do so then we will be punished by the state; its because of the taboo that has built up around killing other people. The law just reinforces that taboo.

And in recent times, all that has been seen is old taboo's falling down, and ending. Is this really a good thing? Every culture, and every society, is built on what we aren't allowed to do, or what is not socially acceptable.

For example, if I steal a car, the majority of the people around me will look upon me with derision, and quite possibly not wish to talk to me - after all, I'm anti-social, because I have broken a taboo. Now, naturally, there are always people who are willing to break taboo - but those people have usually had the same done to them, resulting in the usual circle of anger.

If we are removing taboo's which are no longer useful, then surely they should be replaced with ones that are? Otherwise, society is going to be rather damaged. And it already is. Heightened rates of teenage pregnancy (in countries that should find it a simple matter of throwing resources into reducing the problem, that is) is just one thing that was caused by the breaking down of taboo.

So.

Why not just make it socially unacceptable to have more than say, two children? No law against it - simply make it distasteful, just as with car theft or killing.

Wouldn't that be preferable?

Also, on a mildly different subject, I rather think that any Martian colonists would be told to breed as much as possible - the gene pool would need to be widened as quickly as possible, after all.

Auqakah · 2002-11-14 14:33:33

No, you don't have the right to climb Everest. You have the right to try to climb Everest, which is an altogether different thing. Everyone is capable of at least trying - but virtually everyone will fail. But they still have the right.

When some people aren't capable of something, it can't be a basic right - basic rights are something that everybody is (edited, was formerly 'deserved' - sorry, used the wrong word) entitled to, without exception. Thats the definition of the word, in a nutshell, is it not?

And not everybody is (unfortunatley) capable of procreation. Therefore it cannot be a right; as by default it is not obtainable to provide said right to everybody. And if not everybody can do something, then doing it becomes a privelige; for example, not everybody can afford to buy a luxury jet, but some people can - and those are the priveliged few.

Pat Galea · 2002-11-14 15:22:27

When some people aren't capable of something, it can't be a basic right - basic rights are something that everybody is (edited, was formerly 'deserved' - sorry, used the wrong word) entitled to, without exception. Thats the definition of the word, in a nutshell, is it not?

No, that's not what it means.

A right is something that you are allowed to do (or pursue) without someone else stopping you.

I think the confusion comes with the modern usage of the word 'rights'. It's now used colloquially to cover things like a "right" to free health care, a "right" to education, a "right" to clean water. But these are not rights at all; they are 'entitlements' i.e. obligations upon other people to provide them.

You're right (no pun intended) to say that you have a right to try to climb Everest. But that means exactly the same thing as saying that you have a right to climb Everest.

Think of it this way: if the two concepts really were different, then it would be impossible to establish ahead of time whether you had a right to do something. You could set out to climb Everest, and a policeman could stop you, saying "You have no right to climb this mountain". You'd retort "Ah, but I have a right to try to climb this mountain!".

At this point, before we know whether you will succeed or not, do you have the right to climb the mountain or not?

The important point is that a right is something you just have. No-one has to grant it to you. The only obligation upon other people that your right imposes is the obligation to leave you alone to exercise your right. An entitlement, on the other hand, requires at least one other person to help provide you with it.

(OK, with procreation you need to have one other person involved, but this only causes a problem because of the simplicity of my analysis here. A more in-depth approach would have examined the nature of consensual agreements etc. and it would show that the argument is the same. A couple (as individuals) have a right to reproduce if they may not be stopped by someone who is not party to their agreement.)

Auqakah · 2002-11-14 16:12:22

Are you talking of a legal right, or a natural right?

Biologically, we all have the right to do whatever we wish to. Nobody else has the right to stop us. Which is pretty much how animals live; instinctivley. I can, so therefore I do.

Although actually - I think this is just a matter of semantics. Getting back to my point, and trying not to make it just a matter of wording, collectivley, each individual human being in humanity does not have the right to have children.

In relativley recent times, couples who are not able to have children have been able to pursue other avenues - if possible, such as artificial insemination. And in each and every country where these other avenues are available, the population has risen rather dramatically. To make matters worse, who-knows-how-many people never get to see their first daylight - not because of disease - but because of abortion. Keeping away from the moral issue of that - its a lengthy subject - the mere fact that so many lives are extuingished is dangerous for humanity (who knows who will now not discover this, or that, that will benefit who-knows-how-many-people, because they never got born) and proves that there is no right to have children. There is a right to live; and a right to exist; but not a right to have children. As I said - not everybody can. So the right would become (or whichever word you choose to use other than right) 'the right to bear children, if capable of such, and able to find another partner also capable'. But even that doesn't work. Not everybody could have children, even if everybody were capable. It would be ridiculous if it were so. Granted, it would be delightful if everybody could have children - but it would be utterly devastating to our society.

Too many children are being born; and as such society is devaluing the old, in favour of the 'future of humanity'. The future of humanity begins now, not ten generations hence. But society doesn't recognize that, because we all have the right to have children, and because of that right, we do, and because we do, we place additional importance on children. And because there are too many children, we are even trying to make them into adults younger - just look at the styles of childrens clothes now, as opposed to say, twenty years ago. They aren't childrens clothes anymore; they're young adults clothes, really, but smaller versions. They are all symptoms of 'the right to have children' - and that is why it is not a right at all. A right does not hinder, or harm - it helps. What help is a damaging right?

Auqakah · 2002-11-14 16:39:24

I was trying (not very well, I'm afraid) to point out the problems that the 'right to children' viewpoint causes (or appears to cause, at any rate, in the interest of being thorough). Sorry if I waffled a bit.

AltToWar · 2002-11-14 18:53:51

Do human individuals a right to procreate?

We seem to have reached a stalemate over the semantics of the term "Right."

Let's first define what we are discussing, then perhaps we can keep the debate from moving all over the map.

What is a right?

Unfortunately the word 'right' has many diverse meanings.

I think this debate could be summed up by 3 questions.

1: Does each individual family have an ethical, moral obligation to balance the needs of the community with their own needs for reproduction?

2: Does the reproduction practices of individual familes fall within the jurisdiction of the government?

3: Does reproductive freedom fall within the catagory of Inalienable Human Rights?

Byron · 2002-11-15 06:27:38

I think the reason people have such a hard time answering the question concerning the 'right to have children' is that until quite recently in human history, it's been more of a question of having the right not to having children, i.e., having control over one's reproductive ablility.

Having children is such a natural and ingrained part of the human psyche that it's difficult for people to take into account the ways having children has on the community...and it really hasn't been a problem, except in some thirld world countries..and even than, it's been primarily a matter of women having access to contraceptives so they can choose to have fewer children, which in the vast majority of cases, they choose to do so.

The past few decades have clearly shown that once birth control is made widely available, women tend to self-regulate the number of children that are born, and indeed, just yesterday, the Pope was begging the people of Italy to have more children, as they now have one of the lowest birthrates in the world...

Given this tendency for women to have fewer and fewer children once they have control over family planning, this question of the 'right to have children' may indeed be turned around to 'the moral obligation to have children, if you can.'...after all, the human race needs to maintain a fertility rate of 2.1 to maintain a steady population. If this figure drops too low, like it has in Italy and Japan (< 1, I think), you start running into problems of having too many old people, and not enough young to take their place...

B

AltToWar · 2002-11-15 07:14:35

Indeed byron.

In fact if you explore the math of a Colonization scenerio, it is much more probable that a high birth rate will need to be incouraged, not discouraged.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-24 13:41:04

an old topic made relevant by news?

Alabama’s Embryo Ruling Throws Fertility Treatments into Limbo
https://coyotechronicle.net/csusb-commu … nto-limbo/

Eugenics and Compulsory sterilisation in Swedish land.

https://archive.fo/18vJy

Perfection of the Nordic race through sterilization isn’t new, and neither is granting compensation to those affected. In 1999, Sweden granted 175,000 kronor in damages to women who had been sterilized under an infamous eugenics program that lasted 40 years.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-03-24 13:41:27)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-11-14 14:19:07

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#52 2002-11-14 14:33:33

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#53 2002-11-14 15:22:27

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#54 2002-11-14 16:12:22

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#55 2002-11-14 16:39:24

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#56 2002-11-14 18:53:51

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#57 2002-11-15 06:27:38

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#58 2002-11-15 07:14:35

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

#59 2024-03-24 13:41:04

Re: Right to have children - should those rights have limitations?

Board footer