Should having a child be a right.?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

WizardFusion
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:20 pm UTC

Should having a child be a right.?

Postby WizardFusion » Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:43 pm UTC

We all know that it's easy to have a child - a quick 5 minutes in bed and 9 months later.... :)
However to adopt a child, there are checks and tests to go though before a couple is allowed.

My question is, should those same checks and tests be performed for anyone wanting a child, adopted or otherwise.?

It would certainly cut down on single mothers, and the number of children up for adoption.

Your thoughts.?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Azrael » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:29 pm UTC

If you're proposing that it not be a right, you first have to come up with a palatable legal/ethical/philosophical way to remove any right to bodily autonomy. Any suggestions?

Not even China's One Child Policy restricts rights; instead it imposes fines after the fact.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:05 pm UTC

Not exactly China, more like individual provinces in China. Varies by region from fines, loss of state benefits, to your neighbors beating you senseless. Oh, and those with any sort of power are de facto exempt.

Oh, and yes, the policy has restricted rights. Unless forced sterilization isn't a loss of a right.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Azrael » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:06 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Unless forced sterilization isn't a loss of a right.
By methods the central government concede were prohibited.

That doesn't go a long way towards finding a legal/ethical/philosophical rationale supporting the acts.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby thc » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:01 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:If you're proposing that it not be a right, you first have to come up with a palatable legal/ethical/philosophical way to remove any right to bodily autonomy. Any suggestions?

Not even China's One Child Policy restricts rights; instead it imposes fines after the fact.

Well once your child is born, it's no longer your body. Having a child is different than having a child.

I don't really have a strong opinion, but I agree it's whack that adopting a child is (ostensibly) so much more restricted than being able to keep a child that you've given birth to. I think it puts undue emphasis on blood ties.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:01 pm UTC

I agree with THC on that point; adoption regulations/bureaucracy are ridiculous. I understand that the red tape is there to prevent things like being adopted into a brothel or some other horror, but with the crapsack that is foster care, I doubt that most people trying to adopt would be worse. Hell, a THIRD of foster children are sexually abused by their families, so it seems that the regulations/bureaucracy encourage the horrors it was there to prevent...

Tomo
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Tomo » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:15 am UTC

If there were a painless, reversible method of sterilisation available at birth, would people be against that?
"Pick a number between 1 and 10."
"0.9999...?"

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby morriswalters » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:31 am UTC

Adoption rules are there to minimize the problems for children who already have enough. The barriers to adoption are barriers that parents should think about before having children. Income, stability, and providing some bona fides as to their capacity to care for and rear a child. Surely you have heard of "buyers regret" as applied to adoption.

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Torchship » Tue Oct 11, 2011 11:34 am UTC

Azrael wrote:If you're proposing that it not be a right, you first have to come up with a palatable legal/ethical/philosophical way to remove any right to bodily autonomy. Any suggestions?

Not even China's One Child Policy restricts rights; instead it imposes fines after the fact.


I don't really see how this is (mainly) a bodily autonomy issue: having a child most definitely involves another party who has not consented to any of the goings on (namely, their birth and raising). Your right to bodily autonomy is almost always overruled (or countered) the moment it comes into conflict with anyone else's right to bodily autonomy, and I see no reason why this situation should be any different. Of course, practical considerations dictate that the child cannot consent before being born and raised, but the concept of attempting to optimise the quality of life for children (by removing bad parents from the breeding/child-raising pool) is not inherently unreasonable.

That all said, I think the practical difficulties associated with removing the "right" to parenthood will render the idea unfeasable, no matter how firm you believe its moral basis to be. Limiting the number of people who can legally be parents on some large-scale basis (whether through outlawing the birth or raising of a child) will be hugely abusable (declare anyone who the state doesn't like to be in violation of the law), create significant demographic and disenfranchisement problems (large sections of the poor and/or various minorities will likely be ineligible to be parents), and just generally be impossible to enforce on any kind of consistent basis.

Enokh
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:55 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Enokh » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:00 pm UTC

Absolutely yes: Partially because I wouldn't ever want the Government telling me I couldn't have a child (not that I would want more than the one I already have), and partially because I want to be as hard as possible for the Government to sterilize someone.

Azrael wrote:Not even China's One Child Policy restricts rights; instead it imposes fines after the fact.


Isn't. . .that the definition of restricting a right: punishing someone for exercising it? Wouldn't fining an American a thousand dollars for saying something negative about the President restrict the Right to Free Speech? Or are you drawing a line between fines and other punishments, like prison/death (honest question)?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Роберт » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:15 pm UTC

Enokh wrote:Absolutely yes: Partially because I wouldn't ever want the Government telling me I couldn't have a child (not that I would want more than the one I already have), and partially because I want to be as hard as possible for the Government to sterilize someone.

Azrael wrote:Not even China's One Child Policy restricts rights; instead it imposes fines after the fact.


Isn't. . .that the definition of restricting a right: punishing someone for exercising it? Wouldn't fining an American a thousand dollars for saying something negative about the President restrict the Right to Free Speech? Or are you drawing a line between fines and other punishments, like prison/death (honest question)?

Well, honestly, taxing and fines aren't necessarily that different.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Azrael » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:40 pm UTC

Torchship wrote:I don't really see how this is (mainly) a bodily autonomy issue: having a child most definitely involves another party who has not consented to any of the goings on (namely, their birth and raising)

You're saying that an unborn child has a right to not be born; you've expressly given them rights before they exist such that you protect their right not to exist?

You can't consent to your potential existence before you exist, and the non-existent do not have rights.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

WizardFusion wrote:We all know that it's easy to have a child - a quick 5 minutes in bed and 9 months later.... :)
However to adopt a child, there are checks and tests to go though before a couple is allowed.

I'm... not sure if the first line is a joke or what? Pregnancy is hardly a walk in a park; the fact that you need to either go through it or find someone else willing to go through it for you indicates that it is anything but easy to have a child.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Роберт » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:12 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
WizardFusion wrote:We all know that it's easy to have a child - a quick 5 minutes in bed and 9 months later.... :)
However to adopt a child, there are checks and tests to go though before a couple is allowed.

I'm... not sure if the first line is a joke or what? Pregnancy is hardly a walk in a park; the fact that you need to either go through it or find someone else willing to go through it for you indicates that it is anything but easy to have a child.

I'm fairly certain this was intended be a light-hearted way of saying there is no certification process that one must complete to be eligible to have kids.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:34 pm UTC

This is one of those ideas that sounds really good if you don't think too hard about the implications of it. Raising a child is a big responsibility, and there certainly are people out there who are almost certainly unfit to be parents for a variety of reasons--and in such cases where evidence is available, we do what we can to protect the children, after they're born, to the extent that we are able. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that there is no practical way to enforce such a law without trampling over the rights of large numbers of people. Tomo's suggestion of a (hypothetical) perfectly reversible sterilization procedure might present a plausible avenue for how such a thing could be done, but you're still messing with people's bodies without their consent, and you're flirting very close to 1920s-style Social Darwinism. It's a slippery slope, but it's not that much of a slippery slope to go from "hey, maybe we should make a test to see if people know how to be good parents" to "hey, maybe we should design the test in such a way that people we don't like will almost never pass".

I do think that a simple, useful, and non-invasive option would be to include parenting as part of a mandatory life-skills course for children/young adults in schools. It wouldn't be perfect, but at least making sure that everyone (in principle) has some understanding of what is involved in child-rearing would probably be a pretty sensible approach.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby kazvorpal » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:51 pm UTC

Having a child IS a right. A natural right.

The question is whether the State should be allowed to violate that natural right.

The answer is that government, when it attempts to meddle in such things, has a history of doing far more harm than good...so even if one believed that The End Justifies the Means, the state should not intervene, in this case, except to enforce contracts and natural rights.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Роберт » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote: It's a slippery slope, but it's not that much of a slippery slope to go from "hey, maybe we should make a test to see if people know how to be good parents" to "hey, maybe we should design the test in such a way that people we don't like will almost never pass".

For example: no, your finances are a mess, you can't afford a kid. Sounds like a good idea to me, but I know it's terrible.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Plasmic-Turtle
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:17 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Plasmic-Turtle » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:10 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
LaserGuy wrote: It's a slippery slope, but it's not that much of a slippery slope to go from "hey, maybe we should make a test to see if people know how to be good parents" to "hey, maybe we should design the test in such a way that people we don't like will almost never pass".

For example: no, your finances are a mess, you can't afford a kid. Sounds like a good idea to me, but I know it's terrible.

See even those first things to me seem to create huge issues, without slipping anywhere. You'd need to define a "good parent" - who's definition would it be? Because an atheist might think it bad parenting to indoctrinate your child with religious concepts, while a religious person might think it bad parenting to deny your child the access to God that being raised in a church environment provides. How would one define finances being a mess? Someone without much money can raise their kids on much less than the amount a wealthy family tends to spend on their offspring. Sure you miss out on the family vacations to foreign countries and the plethora of shooting/ballet/music lessons, but does that make it in any way a worse upbringing? Who will decide where these lines are drawn?

The less contendable notion that sexually abusing, neglecting, or beating your child is bad parenting DOES have consequences in my country in that your children are taken from you, and I believe that if you become pregnant again while you are considered to be clearly at risk of re-offending or failing to protect your child from offending then future children will also be removed from your care shortly after birth. But even in such cases I would argue against forced sterilisation, Ifeel that that is a violation that no-one should be subjected to, partly due to the risk of opening up this slippery slope I suppose. Yes, it still leaves us with the issue of a lot of children in foster care, but perhaps we could ease that somewhat if more able people would consider foster-parenting, rather than leaving it to those who will abuse the children in their care. Giving foster children a safe, loving environment from as early as possible might prevent those that are themselves at risk of becoming abusive parents from doing so. Also, further support available to prevent abuse occurring in the first place and enable these children to stay with their biological parents may be of some use?

User avatar
Feddlefew
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:47 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Feddlefew » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:16 am UTC

From the evolutionary perspective, raising a child IS the parenthood test. You can take it as many times as you have children. Of course, this isn't ethically acceptable if you believe children are autonomous beings from their parents before they become able to fend for themselves (Which... I hope everyone here does.).

Personally, I think that couples who are unable to conceive without invitro or fertility treatments should adopt, because there are many children in the foster care system and they might pass on genetic causes of infertility. Basically, people who are bad parents shouldn't raise kids and infertile people shouldn't make kids, but we can't stop bad parents from making kids and we shouldn't let infertile people have kids. Personally, if I was going to set it up, a couple that is unable to conceive* would be able to sign up for a waiting list, and then children less than a year old who are put into the foster care system could be randomly given to them. There would be problems, of course, such as older children being unable to benefit from it and problems with tracking family medical histories, but the idea is still in the "dough" stage.

* Including same-sex couples, couples where one or both parents are infertile, couples where the mother needs to be on medications which cause serous birth defects, ect.
My spelling is abysmal. Just saying.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:34 am UTC

Let's see what you say if it was you that was having trouble conceiving.

Anyway, my personal feeling is that child benefits through welfare should be greater, but stop after the first child (possibly second). In vitro should be available through welfare for the first child only. I don't believe that government should tell you how many children you can have, but that doesn't mean it has to support them.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:39 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Feddlefew
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:47 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Feddlefew » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:38 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Let's see what you say if it was you that was having trouble conceiving.

Already considered it. I'm on an antidepressant which causes serious, serious birth defects. I'd have to be off it for 4+ months (the time it takes for me to switch to another antidepressant, with different nasty side affects) before I tried to have a kid. :(

This way would actually be better for my health, and there wouldn't be a chance of the child inheriting my depression.
My spelling is abysmal. Just saying.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:45 am UTC

Роберт wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
WizardFusion wrote:We all know that it's easy to have a child - a quick 5 minutes in bed and 9 months later.... :)
However to adopt a child, there are checks and tests to go though before a couple is allowed.

I'm... not sure if the first line is a joke or what? Pregnancy is hardly a walk in a park; the fact that you need to either go through it or find someone else willing to go through it for you indicates that it is anything but easy to have a child.

I'm fairly certain this was intended be a light-hearted way of saying there is no certification process that one must complete to be eligible to have kids.

No, there isn't, but there's nevertheless a strong disincentive to having children on a whim. Nobody will step in to make sure that your reasons are good reasons, but you yourself have a natural reason to do the due diligence. Perhaps part of the reason for the screenings associated with adoption is that, unlike with pregnancy, adoptive parents have no inherent short-term incentive to think their decision through.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Torchship » Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:46 am UTC

Azrael wrote:You're saying that an unborn child has a right to not be born; you've expressly given them rights before they exist such that you protect their right not to exist?

You can't consent to your potential existence before you exist, and the non-existent do not have rights.


In the purest, most abstract moral sense, yes, the child does have that right (it would be a subset of the right to self determination, I suppose). Obviously child does not possess this right pre-birth (or pre-personhood, to be more precise) and the right is violated the moment that the child is born, but the right to non-existence seems like the natural extension of the right to die (another subset of self-determination).
In any event, the main focus of the passage that you quoted was not on the 'birth' part of right-violation (which is violated regardless of the quality of the parents), but the 'raising' part (which is parent-dependant, and thus much more relevant to the discussion at hand).


TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:No, there isn't, but there's nevertheless a strong disincentive to having children on a whim. Nobody will step in to make sure that your reasons are good reasons, but you yourself have a natural reason to do the due diligence. Perhaps part of the reason for the screenings associated with adoption is that, unlike with pregnancy, adoptive parents have no inherent short-term incentive to think their decision through.


Unfortunately, the popularity of contraception-less sex and the stigma associated with abortion means that the decision to become a parent is often made on a whim, despite the disincentives associated with it.

User avatar
Aiea
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:43 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Aiea » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:07 am UTC

Feddlefew wrote:Personally, I think that couples who are unable to conceive without invitro or fertility treatments should adopt, because there are many children in the foster care system and they might pass on genetic causes of infertility. Basically, people who are bad parents shouldn't raise kids and infertile people shouldn't make kids, but we can't stop bad parents from making kids and we shouldn't let infertile people have kids. Personally, if I was going to set it up, a couple that is unable to conceive* would be able to sign up for a waiting list, and then children less than a year old who are put into the foster care system could be randomly given to them. There would be problems, of course, such as older children being unable to benefit from it and problems with tracking family medical histories, but the idea is still in the "dough" stage.

* Including same-sex couples, couples where one or both parents are infertile, couples where the mother needs to be on medications which cause serous birth defects, ect.


My question here is what level of fertility treatments are you talking about? And why draw the line? If all someone needs is chlomid or metaformin to get pregnant, what is the harm? I needed to take drugs to be able to get pregnant with my son. It took me 2 years before I was able to convince a doctor to give me those drugs. Yes, I did consider adoption, but my husband and I decided against it. Plus, yes there is a cost in adoption, where the medical treatment was covered. I would not change a thing, even though yes, I have inheritable diseases that my son could get, it was worth it, he is the light of my life and is what keeps me getting up every morning. Besides inheritable diseases are just a could problem, not a will problem. There is no guarentee he will get any of them or pass any of them onto his children. Genetics is still very much a gamble on what will happen.

However, the adoption system is not that easy. I have a cousin and his wife that were unable to concieve and they chose to go the adoption route. I think it took them 3 years to get a child, and that is considered short. They lucked out and got a sibling group of 3 between the ages of infant-3.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:46 am UTC

Torchship wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:No, there isn't, but there's nevertheless a strong disincentive to having children on a whim. Nobody will step in to make sure that your reasons are good reasons, but you yourself have a natural reason to do the due diligence. Perhaps part of the reason for the screenings associated with adoption is that, unlike with pregnancy, adoptive parents have no inherent short-term incentive to think their decision through.


Unfortunately, the popularity of contraception-less sex and the stigma associated with abortion means that the decision to become a parent is often made on a whim, despite the disincentives associated with it.

Sure. But that doesn't show that we need to construct additional barriers.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Ulc » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:12 am UTC

Torchship wrote:I don't really see how this is (mainly) a bodily autonomy issue:


The thing is, you can't enforce the ban without violating bodily autonomy. Lets have a look at what having a child involves.

Two parties that aren't sterilized
Above two partners having unprotected sex
Carrying the pregnant to term.

Are you proposing to forcible sterilize someone? That most defintely violates bodily autonomy.
Or are you proposing a complete ban on unprotected sex unless you have passed a test? Entirely besides the issue of it absolutely not working, it also violates the right to bodily autonomy.
Or is it forcible abortion you're planning? In which case, bodily autonomy is definitely violated

The point is, there is no way you can enforce "not allowed to have children" without committing a atrocity somewhere in the process.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Outchanter » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:07 am UTC

This is called "eugenics". It didn't end well.

User avatar
Feddlefew
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:47 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Feddlefew » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:16 pm UTC

Aiea wrote:
Feddlefew wrote:Personally, I think that couples who are unable to conceive without invitro or fertility treatments should adopt, because there are many children in the foster care system and they might pass on genetic causes of infertility. Basically, people who are bad parents shouldn't raise kids and infertile people shouldn't make kids, but we can't stop bad parents from making kids and we shouldn't let infertile people have kids. Personally, if I was going to set it up, a couple that is unable to conceive* would be able to sign up for a waiting list, and then children less than a year old who are put into the foster care system could be randomly given to them. There would be problems, of course, such as older children being unable to benefit from it and problems with tracking family medical histories, but the idea is still in the "dough" stage.

* Including same-sex couples, couples where one or both parents are infertile, couples where the mother needs to be on medications which cause serous birth defects, ect.


My question here is what level of fertility treatments are you talking about? And why draw the line? If all someone needs is chlomid or metaformin to get pregnant, what is the harm? I needed to take drugs to be able to get pregnant with my son. It took me 2 years before I was able to convince a doctor to give me those drugs. Yes, I did consider adoption, but my husband and I decided against it. Plus, yes there is a cost in adoption, where the medical treatment was covered. I would not change a thing, even though yes, I have inheritable diseases that my son could get, it was worth it, he is the light of my life and is what keeps me getting up every morning. Besides inheritable diseases are just a could problem, not a will problem. There is no guarentee he will get any of them or pass any of them onto his children. Genetics is still very much a gamble on what will happen.

However, the adoption system is not that easy. I have a cousin and his wife that were unable to conceive and they chose to go the adoption route. I think it took them 3 years to get a child, and that is considered short. They lucked out and got a sibling group of 3 between the ages of infant-3.


I understand. I know genetics is a gamble- I'm not saying that people with inheritable diseases shouldn't have children. I should have made it clearer that this would be an optional system, which would make it easier for people who were incapable of conceiving for medical reasons to adopt, so that they are less likely to opt for invitro or other treatments. I don't know where I would draw the line between who qualified and who would not, but I would think it would depend on how long a couple has been trying (unless it is obviously impossible for them) and how easily correctable the problem is.

So, for people that opt to use the system, it would be faster and have reduced fees, but children are randomly assigned.
My spelling is abysmal. Just saying.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby kazvorpal » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:19 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:This is called "eugenics". It didn't end well.


The only really evil thing about "eugenics" is its expression as a form of coercion.

In other words, if you and a bunch of other people decided to only strive for certain traits in your babies, there's nothing more wrong with that than any other personal planning or choices people make.

The problem is that eugenics has only become prevalent in an evil way, through governments or other organizations trying to force people to do things...sterilization, genocide, et cetera.

But were an organization to be formed, of people who thought that humanity should all have curly hair, and their solution was for their members to voluntarily have babies in ways that promoted that, there'd be nothing evil about it.

Dumb, maybe, but not evil...and there is no more important right than the freedom to do stupid, unhealthy, or "wrong" things.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:The only really evil thing about "eugenics" is its expression as a form of coercion.

This thread is about rights (see topic line). So, I imagine the coercive kind is the only relevant kind.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Роберт » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

I have two words that will hopefully explain what I meant about "it sounds like a good idea". Nadya Suleman.

However, it's impossible to morally implement and even if there was a completely safe and noninvasive reversible sterilization procedure such that "bodily autonomy" wouldn't be a significant issue, it still has so many problems that I wouldn't want it implemented in real life.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby kazvorpal » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:11 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I have two words that will hopefully explain what I meant about "it sounds like a good idea". Nadya Suleman.

However, it's impossible to morally implement and even if there was a completely safe and noninvasive reversible sterilization procedure such that "bodily autonomy" wouldn't be a significant issue, it still has so many problems that I wouldn't want it implemented in real life.


You can state specific examples of ANY freedom of choice failing.

That some small percentage of people will mess up is never, ever a valid argument for violating the right to choose of ALL people, through simple Guilt by Association.

It's not just unacceptable in this case, and especially not simply because it's impractical. Even if you could sterilize people with perfect safety, it would be evil. And it's evil in any other case where it's imposed, as well. YOU shouldn't have your choices violated because some small portion of the populace screws up.

Guilt by association is wrong, whether it's prejudice or prohibition.
Last edited by kazvorpal on Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aiea
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:43 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Aiea » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:17 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I have two words that will hopefully explain what I meant about "it sounds like a good idea". Nadya Suleman.

However, it's impossible to morally implement and even if there was a completely safe and noninvasive reversible sterilization procedure such that "bodily autonomy" wouldn't be a significant issue, it still has so many problems that I wouldn't want it implemented in real life.


Even though I agree Nadya was a bad idea, I think it was a bad idea because it was dangerous to the mother, the children, and her other children. As much as that whole situation makes me a bit squemish, I still wouldn't say, no she can't have any kids.

Turtlewing
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:22 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Turtlewing » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:19 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:
Torchship wrote:I don't really see how this is (mainly) a bodily autonomy issue:


The thing is, you can't enforce the ban without violating bodily autonomy. Lets have a look at what having a child involves.

Two parties that aren't sterilized
Above two partners having unprotected sex
Carrying the pregnant to term.

Are you proposing to forcible sterilize someone? That most defintely violates bodily autonomy.
Or are you proposing a complete ban on unprotected sex unless you have passed a test? Entirely besides the issue of it absolutely not working, it also violates the right to bodily autonomy.
Or is it forcible abortion you're planning? In which case, bodily autonomy is definitely violated

The point is, there is no way you can enforce "not allowed to have children" without committing a atrocity somewhere in the process.


Wouldn't confiscating unlicensed children at birth and putting them up for adoption solve the issue of unfit parents without violating bodily autonomy?

Obviously that solution is impractical for logistical reasons, but I think it's unreasonable to assume that preventing/terminating pregnancy is the only way to regulate parenthood.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Роберт » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:42 pm UTC

Turtlewing wrote:
Wouldn't confiscating unlicensed children at birth and putting them up for adoption solve the issue of unfit parents without violating bodily autonomy?

Obviously that solution is impractical for logistical reasons, but I think it's unreasonable to assume that preventing/terminating pregnancy is the only way to regulate parenthood.

As I have stated previously, even if you work around the bodily autonomy issue, it's still problematic. As much as people who name their kids [Godwin] and similar edge cases make you think "they shouldn't be allowed to have kids", except in the case of demonstrable, substantial abuse, I don't think we should be choosing who can parent and who can't.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby kazvorpal » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:59 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:As much as people who name their kids [Godwin] and similar edge cases make you think "they shouldn't be allowed to have kids"


In some of the more socialist European countries, governments actually have violated the right to name your own child. You must go to them to get approval...and not just to ensure that you don't name them "Dweezel" and "Moon Unit", but for a whole list of categories, even to ensure that you chose an ethnically appropriate name. No naming a Flemish child Pierre.

Is Godwin bad?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Роберт » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:
Роберт wrote:As much as people who name their kids [Godwin] and similar edge cases make you think "they shouldn't be allowed to have kids"


In some of the more socialist European countries, governments actually have violated the right to name your own child. You must go to them to get approval...and not just to ensure that you don't name them "Dweezel" and "Moon Unit", but for a whole list of categories, even to ensure that you chose an ethnically appropriate name. No naming a Flemish child Pierre.

Is Godwin bad?

I was editing "[a]s much as people who name their kids Hitler and similar edge cases [...]" myself, so no one yelled "Godwin's Law!".
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby folkhero » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:47 pm UTC

Hitler -> [Goodwin] would be a good word filter.

Back to the topic, sending someone to prison is a de facto temporary sterilization. If you are separated from the opposite sex, then you aren't going to be producing very many children.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Feddlefew
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:47 pm UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby Feddlefew » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:24 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:Hitler -> [Goodwin] would be a good word filter.

Back to the topic, sending someone to prison is a de facto temporary sterilization. If you are separated from the opposite sex, then you aren't going to be producing very many children.


Conjugal visits exist, but I'm not certain about the restrictions surrounding them in different prisons, states, and countries.
My spelling is abysmal. Just saying.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Should having a child be a right.?

Postby folkhero » Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:28 pm UTC

From what I understand, conjugal visits are fairly rare and are used to reward prisoners for good behavior. They are certainly not a right granted to all prisoners.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests