Is Reproduction a Natural Right?

Originally Posted by Apollo

I think detaining people with out cause could be useful because a criminal will never be able to walk away. It could have good results.

That's not a very valid comparison. If we could examine someone and, through scientific evidence, determine that there is a high chance, or that is it guaranteed for them committing a specific crime, then maybe those would be valid causes. However, we cannot. I don't feel it is a valid comparison.

The comparison with Nazis doesn't really make sense.

We aren't advocating sterilization of people based on race or nationality.

If someone has sickle cell anemia, it would be ideal for them not to reproduce and pass on that particular genetic disorder.

We're motivated by statistics, facts, and logic. Not ideology.

I made a thread like this last year sometime, and this was my opening post:

I've noticed that whenever the subject of people with hereditary diseases or disabilities breeding comes up, one argument that arises is that it's their "right" to choose whether or not they should have children.

Likewise, whenver someone argues that there should be some kind of "test" for couples to pass to qualify them as being competent to start a family together, the word "rights" gets used, usually along with terms like "violation".

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to be free from interference in one's "private and family life", and this includes giving a divorced father the right to see his children, but I have no doubt that if the question of whether or not being allowed to have children was a right, the court would, subject to certain exceptions, agree that it is.

Given my recent state of health and financial troubles with regards to education, I'm not so sure that having children should be considered a right. Think about it - how is it a "right" to bring another life into this world under your care without any question as to your competence to care for that life? I have no doubt that all parents would have a right to be tested for their competence should one be introduced, but I find it fallacious to consider this right inherently vested in each and every one of us.

Part of the difficulty of introducing such a "test" would be the difficulty in enforcing it if someone hadn't yet taken the test or had failed - any accident or any inability to afford condoms or birth control (in the states, where these things aren't available for free from doctors) would result in a breach, and I'm sure not everywhere had as thorough a sex education as we did in our school (since some of my English friends clearly demonstrated their sex ed was not as competent as ours).

Another part of the difficulty is the idea that society needs as much new blood as possible, but again, people who hate immigrants and loose immigration policy keep complaining about mass unemployment and overcrowding - two problems which would be fixed by regulating the birth of children. Even in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party needed children to keep the system going for as long as possible - the children serve those in power when they grow up. But think about it - if there was a system in place where the poor couldn't have children that they couldn't provide for, and the upper classes need those children, eventually they'd need to make it so that provision for children was given by the state as further incentive to have children.

As the child of a poor family who is unable to continue his education for a year (AT LEAST) because of that poverty, and as a child of an ignorant mother and an apathetic father, I feel that I am a victim of this idea that having children is a "right", and I feel that the party who never gets considered in such arguments is the way the child will feel if he is born to incompetent parents who either cannot provide for him or are simply not fit to care for him but not negligent enough to warrant taking him into care. I have excelled academically, and I am unable to further that because my parents never even considered that I could get this far, and so never made provisions to save the money I might need when I was younger other than a couple of grand as "life insurance", which is nowhere near enough. Likewise, with rising healthcare costs, they never sought to put me on some kind of insurance plan or to encourage me to look after my health when I was much younger and unable to fully comprehend the consequences of my actions in order to avoid these costs, and now I, not they, am having to pay for it, which is going to hamper my attempts to obtain further education in the next year. I am having to pay for their negligence in a matter where I never really had a choice. Just because you don't beat your child doesn't make you a good parent.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That's not a very valid comparison. If we could examine someone and, through scientific evidence, determine that there is a high chance, or that is it guaranteed for them committing a specific crime, then maybe those would be valid causes. However, we cannot. I don't feel it is a valid comparison.

It's completely valid. Both are natural rights you wish to violate for the "greater good." If you think that income should ever be able to determine who can or can't have kids than you might as well start censoring them or choosing their beliefs for them.

Again those are rights that people have but you could suspend for "benefit." Censorship would keep things orderly and one religion would create a sense of nationalism.

Originally Posted by Great White North

We're motivated by statistics, facts, and logic. Not ideology.

Where do you draw the line though even if there is benefit to this where do you draw the line? Any such line would just be arbitrary.

This is getting somewhat close to the old abortion thread from January.

But aside from that, There should be at least some regulation on who should and should not reproduce. Some examples:
-Mentally ill
-Financially unstable
- Known hosts of life-threatening diseases with no cure (this includes STD's like syphilis and HIV)
I could put something about people with noticeably low intellect, but the words aren't coming to me.

I would also poke some fun at Glenn Beck here, but this is serious discussion, not GCC.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that people who have hereditary problems should be sterilized, that people in who live in poverty and squalor should not be allowed to have children -- not forever, just until they are in a more advantageous position (perhaps certain income brackets? This is the more subjective pile), and that an assessment test should be mandatory for parenthood. Allowing a child to be born with such a deformity, in my mind, is tantamount to child abuse.

While making it illegal for individuals unfit for parenthood to have children may be a reasonable argument - although a rather templar-ish one (I neither support or oppose this idea) - I'm uncomfortable with the idea of mandatory sterilization. The idea of mandatory biological/genetic modification that isn't strictly beneficial and entirely consensual really bothers me.

Assuming that mandatory sterilization is off the table, there are no real effective measures to ensure that individuals unsuitable for parenthood do not reproduce. If the commonly-held belief that poorer communities translate to lack of education translates to a higher tendency for sex and - intentional or not - childbirth, then we can also assume that there simply won't be any significant change. Poorer communities are more prone to crime, and even if we fined or locked up the persons involved, you still have a child who is going to be born, unless you want to bring abortion into the discussion...which is another hot potato entirely. In other words, even if reproduction is not a natural right (which I have no strong opinion on), short of mandatory sterilization (which I disagree with), we should not expect any significant changes should we make it illegal for "unqualified individuals" to give birth.

Originally Posted by Great White North

The comparison with Nazis doesn't really make sense.

We aren't advocating sterilization of people based on race or nationality.

If someone has sickle cell anemia, it would be ideal for them not to reproduce and pass on that particular genetic disorder.

We're motivated by statistics, facts, and logic. Not ideology.

Much of Third Reich eugenics was based on this logic. People who had genes considered 'unfavorable' (that is, people with physical and/or mental deformities) were some of the biggest targets for sterilization, later extermination. The racism had to do with an underlying belief at the time that the only pure, perfect human was an Aryan and any other variations on that genome (Jews, etc.) would inherently give rise to genetic imperfections, hence societal imperfections.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I've noticed that whenever the subject of people with hereditary diseases or disabilities breeding comes up, one argument that arises is that it's their "right" to choose whether or not they should have children.

Yes, this is the general norm in our society.

Given my recent state of health and financial troubles with regards to education, I'm not so sure that having children should be considered a right. Think about it - how is it a "right" to bring another life into this world under your care without any question as to your competence to care for that life? I have no doubt that all parents would have a right to be tested for their competence should one be introduced, but I find it fallacious to consider this right inherently vested in each and every one of us.

Are you implying that a natural human biological function designed to serve humanity's ongoing goal: to preserve the species, is not a right that each and every one of us has? Who would judge whether or not a parent is "competent" enough to create life? Who's to say these judges would be "competent" enough to decide? I also would think it very difficult to come up with a set of criteria to decide whether or not a woman is healthy and rich enough to give birth. And certainly you don't think a government would be anywhere near 100% accurate in determining who's fit to be a just fine mother and who's not. This would take extensive research, more than the government has the time our resources to do, especially considering the ongoing preservation of the human species depends on said research being done quickly.

I understand why you would think this way. I am not a perfect, healthy human born to an entirely stable family (most of us are not). I have had my share of problems, but so have we all. Some poor kids do quite well. Some rich kids have a whole slew of problems and a miserable childhood. Most complications in a child's life are going to be unforeseen, with statistics having little bearing.

Part of the difficulty of introducing such a "test" would be the difficulty in enforcing it if someone hadn't yet taken the test or had failed - any accident or any inability to afford condoms or birth control (in the states, where these things aren't available for free from doctors) would result in a breach, and I'm sure not everywhere had as thorough a sex education as we did in our school (since some of my English friends clearly demonstrated their sex ed was not as competent as ours).

Yes, this would be quite difficult, seeing as every female in the world over the age of 13 or so would have to be monitored. I will also add, anyone who can't afford condoms is not a citizen in the western world.

Another part of the difficulty is the idea that society needs as much new blood as possible, but again, people who hate immigrants and loose immigration policy keep complaining about mass unemployment and overcrowding - two problems which would be fixed by regulating the birth of children. Even in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party needed children to keep the system going for as long as possible - the children serve those in power when they grow up. But think about it - if there was a system in place where the poor couldn't have children that they couldn't provide for, and the upper classes need those children, eventually they'd need to make it so that provision for children was given by the state as further incentive to have children.

Forgive me, I really do not understand your last sentence. The lower classes support, and greatly outnumber, the upper class.

As the child of a poor family who is unable to continue his education for a year (AT LEAST) because of that poverty, and as a child of an ignorant mother and an apathetic father, I feel that I am a victim of this idea that having children is a "right", and I feel that the party who never gets considered in such arguments is the way the child will feel if he is born to incompetent parents who either cannot provide for him or are simply not fit to care for him but not negligent enough to warrant taking him into care. I have excelled academically, and I am unable to further that because my parents never even considered that I could get this far, and so never made provisions to save the money I might need when I was younger other than a couple of grand as "life insurance", which is nowhere near enough. Likewise, with rising healthcare costs, they never sought to put me on some kind of insurance plan or to encourage me to look after my health when I was much younger and unable to fully comprehend the consequences of my actions in order to avoid these costs, and now I, not they, am having to pay for it, which is going to hamper my attempts to obtain further education in the next year. I am having to pay for their negligence in a matter where I never really had a choice. Just because you don't beat your child doesn't make you a good parent.

You have two parents. Many of us don't. You have mistaken disdain toward your own parents for "incompetence" on their part. My own mother is far from perfect. She still did her job (supporting me through childhood), and if you're using a home computer, on an internet forum, telling us you did well in school for twelve years and went to college, apparently so did yours. You are far from the only person in the world who can't pay for college. May I recommend FAFSA? I also ask did your parents neglect you enough to put your own life at risk? What exactly are you suffering from? Did it ever occur to you that you could report your supposed neglect to the government? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that because you are unhappy with your own situation, you think that only children should be given life whose parents are perfect, happy, and rich. You wish you had been born to parents with more desirable personalities and more potent incomes. This is how the world is and nobody feels sorry for you.

edit:
Forgive me Lord Zero, I didn't see you are Welsh. Maybe there is some equivalent of FAFSA in Wales, maybe not. You can still take student loans for some extra money.

Originally Posted by Apollo

It's completely valid. Both are natural rights you wish to violate for the "greater good." If you think that income should ever be able to determine who can or can't have kids than you might as well start censoring them or choosing their beliefs for them.

I don't consider them to be natural rights. I do think it is for the greater good -- the good in general. I don't see what is so good about allowing parents to bring children into an environment which is tantamount to child abuse. A great deal of problems stem from bad homes, I'd imagine. Do I really need to get into those with severe disabilities which could have easily been prevented? Did they ever get a say in whether or not they were born with something that they would fight with for life? I want to attempt to replicate that say.

Again, I think the comparison is rather invalid given that one has sound scientific backing whilst the other simply does not. They serve the same logic, but they do not possess the same evidence -- the determining factor in my decision.

I'd like to touch on your comment about censoring them and choosing their beliefs for them. Whilst this is neither, I would be in favor of a voting test -- a political literacy test. I don't think people have the right to vote, either. Just thought I would toss that in.

Again those are rights that people have but you could suspend for "benefit." Censorship would keep things orderly and one religion would create a sense of nationalism.

The rights that they have are the rights that are defended by the state. I don't think the state should defend those "rights". That's all. I think the state should act in favor of the lives of children put at risk by the irresponsibility of their parents. After all, prevention is better than cure, as they say.

Out of curiosity, what makes these "natural rights"? Why should they be?

Originally Posted by Ysionris

While making it illegal for individuals unfit for parenthood to have children may be a reasonable argument - although a rather templar-ish one (I neither support or oppose this idea) - I'm uncomfortable with the idea of mandatory sterilization. The idea of mandatory biological/genetic modification that isn't strictly beneficial and entirely consensual really bothers me.

Assuming that mandatory sterilization is off the table, there are no real effective measures to ensure that individuals unsuitable for parenthood do not reproduce. If the commonly-held belief that poorer communities translate to lack of education translates to a higher tendency for sex and - intentional or not - childbirth, then we can also assume that there simply won't be any significant change. Poorer communities are more prone to crime, and even if we fined or locked up the persons involved, you still have a child who is going to be born, unless you want to bring abortion into the discussion...which is another hot potato entirely. In other words, even if reproduction is not a natural right (which I have no strong opinion on), short of mandatory sterilization (which I disagree with), we should not expect any significant changes should we make it illegal for "unqualified individuals" to give birth.

Why?

I am talking about abortion.

I think we can expect changes, it's not as if people just pop a kid out in there home all of the time. They often see a doctor, first.

Originally Posted by SoL_

Yes, this is the general norm in our society.

Many norms need to be remedied.

Are you implying that a natural human biological function designed to serve humanity's ongoing goal: to preserve the species, is not a right that each and every one of us has?

A lot of human biological functions are ones we regulate – the use of physical strength, to name but one.

Who would judge whether or not a parent is "competent" enough to create life?

A court upon application by people willing to be parents.

Who's to say these judges would be "competent" enough to decide?

The same people who say that judges are allowed to decide whether or not to grant a divorce or whether or not to have children taken away from parents.

I also would think it very difficult to come up with a set of criteria to decide whether or not a woman is healthy and rich enough to give birth. And certainly you don't think a government would be anywhere near 100% accurate in determining who's fit to be a just fine mother and who's not.

If a court is able to decide who shouldn’t be allowed to continue parenting, they could be capable of deciding who is allowed to start.

This would take extensive research, more than the government has the time our resources to do, especially considering the ongoing preservation of the human species depends on said research being done quickly.

It would be decided on a case-by-case basis upon application. Or hell, as was suggested in my thread, it could just be a case of any people wanting to be parents should be forced to go on a course first - not necessarily to take tests, but they should be forced to attend seminars or classes in which vital information will be given to them, and if they fail to pay attention, it would better justify actions taken when they are proven to be negligent.

I understand why you would think this way. I am not a perfect, healthy human born to an entirely stable family. I have had my share of problems, but so have we all. Some poor kids do quite well. Some rich kids have a whole slew of problems and a miserable childhood. Most complications in a child's life are going to be unforeseen, with statistics having little bearing.

It is a good indication however that incompetent people may be incompetent parents, and it is better to be safe than to be sorry.

Yes, this would be quite difficult, seeing as every female in the world over the age of 13 or so would have to be monitored. I will also add, anyone who can't afford condoms is not a citizen in the western world.

They wouldn’t have to be monitored any more than they are now – it’s more or less illegal for them to be having sex anyway but we don’t monitor them for that.

Forgive me, I really do not understand your last sentence. The lower classes support, and greatly outnumber, the upper class.

What I’m saying is that a lot of middle- or upper-class people take the view that benefits should not be given to the poor to support them in raising children. If we reduced the population to such a point that middle-class people would have to start sending their own children to do lower-class jobs, there might be more impetus among the upper classes to allow provision for poor families to have children so that they don’t have to do the legwork.

You have two parents. Many of us don't.

So I can’t complain if I get my arm blown off, because somewhere in the world someone has had both arms blown off. He can’t complain because somewhere in the world someone has had all their limbs blown off. He can’t complain because somewhere in the world someone has been blown to pieces and is now dead.

This fallacy that just because someone else is worse off doesn’t mean I’m not also in a bad position irritates me.

Further, having two people who hate each other remain in the same building as a child they're both trying to bring up may end up doing more harm to the child than if the parents were separate and either one trying to bring the child up on their own. It isn't good for a child if it's brought up in a hostile environment, so the assumption that two parents are always better than one is also fallacious.

You have mistaken disdain toward your own parents for "incompetence" on their part.

No, I have mistaken my disdain towards their incompetence for disdain towards their incompetence.

My own mother is far from perfect. She still did her job (supporting me through childhood), and if you're using a home computer, on an internet forum, telling us you did well in school for twelve years and went to college, apparently so did yours.

It was the school system in this country that taught me everything I needed to know in life. My parents were too stupid to, which is why I keep having to try and stop them from doing stupid things against their own interests. And they don’t listen to me, which is why they keep screwing themselves over. As I said, my parents never accounted for the possibility that I might actually succeed in life more than they have, so it certainly isn’t down to their best laid plans that I did.

Although I can thank them for never trying to give me "The Talk".

You are far from the only person in the world who can't pay for college. May I recommend FAFSA?

I would actually be in a far better position now than I would have been if I hadn’t had to pay all of my earnings last summer on dental fees, which I wouldn’t have had to pay if they hadn’t fostered bad habits in me from birth. I don’t mean they didn’t stop me, I mean they actually did not encourage me to brush my teeth properly and did not realize the harmful effects of the diet they allowed me to partake in and actually fed me. I had to consciously realize that **** was bad for me, by which point it was too late.

I also ask did your parents neglect you enough to put your own life at risk? What exactly are you suffering from? Did it ever occur to you that you could report your supposed neglect to the government?

I already stated that the negligence I suffered does not cross the legal threshold to be considered negligence by the legal authorities, which is wrong given that I suffer great physical and psychological pain every day because of it. Yes, there are people in worse positions, but see above for the example of injured soldiers as to why I’m not going to shut up just because of that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that because you are unhappy with your own situation, you think that only children should be given life whose parents are perfect, happy, and rich. You wish you had been born to parents with more desirable personalities and more potent incomes. This is how the world is and nobody feels sorry for you.

I know no one feels sorry for me, and I don’t expect them to. I expect them to understand that stupid people who are too poor to be able to give their children a decent chance in life shouldn’t be bringing a child into the world, because that child will suffer more than they will profit because of it. And they will be expected to buy into your mentality – “that’s just how the world is”. That’s why I hate my parents, and that’s why I have a problem with people like you. The reason there is injustice in the world is because people accept it as a natural part of life. People who accept injustice are the problem. People who can’t even IMAGINE that the world could be a different place to what it is are the problem. Throughout history humans have adapted the world around them to their needs, rather than adapting to the world around them and letting the hostile environment win, and suddenly we have people like you coming along and saying “that’s what the world is like – deal with it”.

Earlier in your post you tried to appeal to human nature, and it is human nature to change the world around them when it doesn’t suit them. It is human nature to try and make the world a better place for us to live in - and not having children because of our own selfish need to validate our own existence by thinking we can give our little genetic offspring all the things we never had (when we can't) would be a good start.

edit:
Forgive me Lord Zero, I didn't see you are Welsh. Maybe there is some equivalent of FAFSA in Wales, maybe not. You can still take student loans for some extra money.

For the bar course, I can't. I can only take a standard Career Development Loan or a Bar Loan which are both a lot of money which I might not be able to pay back if I can't get a job immediately after finishing it. And I don't want to have to put my parents in the position of carrying any part of the burden of the bar course for me - the less I owe them, the more justified I'll be in finally cutting them off if they continue to think they can behave they way they do when I no longer have to rely on them.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I don't consider them to be natural rights. I do think it is for the greater good -- the good in general. I don't see what is so good about allowing parents to bring children into an environment which is tantamount to child abuse. A great deal of problems stem from bad homes, I'd imagine. Do I really need to get into those with severe disabilities which could have easily been prevented? Did they ever get a say in whether or not they were born with something that they would fight with for life? I want to attempt to replicate that say.

What guarantees any sort of environment is "tantamount to child abuse?" And no, generally people do not get to choose what they are. As I've said before, many diseases are difficult to predict.

I'd like to touch on your comment about censoring them and choosing their beliefs for them. Whilst this is neither, I would be in favor of a voting test -- a political literacy test. I don't think people have the right to vote, either. Just thought I would toss that in.

Now we are getting into politics. The working class--the class most prone to suffering due to bad laws and lawmakers--usually doesn't have the time to become politically involved, but does this mean they shouldn't have any say in a system that already exploits them?

The rights that they have are the rights that are defended by the state. I don't think the state should defend those "rights". That's all. I think the state should act in favor of the lives of children put at risk by the irresponsibility of their parents. After all, prevention is better than cure, as they say.

Out of curiosity, what makes these "natural rights"? Why should they be?

What makes our right to free speech a natural right? What gives you the right to be voicing this opinion?

You bring up a lot of valid points.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

A lot of human biological functions are ones we regulate – the use of physical strength, to name but one.

I think the natural, involuntary process of creating new life that results from fertilization is a different thing from the voluntary application of physical force to subdue another person. One is a right people have, to use their own bodies to create a new person, the other is not a right, the harming of someone else.

The same people who say that judges are allowed to decide whether or not to grant a divorce or whether or not to have children taken away from parents.

I find this, as someone else said, very dystopic. A judge having legal control over a woman's right to bear a child with her own body.

If a court is able to decide who shouldn’t be allowed to continue parenting, they could be capable of deciding who is allowed to start.

When a court decides parents are incapable of parenting, it is because they have been given the chance and have proved they are incapable.

It would be decided on a case-by-case basis upon application. Or hell, as was suggested in my thread, it could just be a case of any people wanting to be parents should be forced to go on a course first - not necessarily to take tests, but they should be forced to attend seminars or classes in which vital information will be given to them, and if they fail to pay attention, it would better justify actions taken when they are proven to be negligent.

While I don't think it's a bad idea to educate people on how to take care of children, I am not for the idea of would-be parents having to pass a trial to prove they have the right to give birth.

It is a good indication however that incompetent people may be incompetent parents, and it is better to be safe than to be sorry.

Some people who are rather incompetent in some areas prove to be fine parents.

They wouldn’t have to be monitored any more than they are now – it’s more or less illegal for them to be having sex anyway but we don’t monitor them for that.

So you are saying these proposed motherhood laws shouldn't be strictly enforced. Which makes me wonder why you'd want them in the first place. I am also against the idea that teenage girls cannot decide whether or not they want to have sex, but that's for another thread.

What I’m saying is that a lot of middle- or upper-class people take the view that benefits should not be given to the poor to support them in raising children. If we reduced the population to such a point that middle-class people would have to start sending their own children to do lower-class jobs, there might be more impetus among the upper classes to allow provision for poor families to have children so that they don’t have to do the legwork.

This, I still find slightly confusing, so maybe I'm just too dense to take this one apart.

So I can’t complain if I get my arm blown off, because somewhere in the world someone has had both arms blown off. He can’t complain because somewhere in the world someone has had all their limbs blown off. He can’t complain because somewhere in the world someone has been blown to pieces and is now dead.

A valid argument. I was trying to give a little perspective so maybe you wouldn't think of your own life as bleak and hopeless compared to many people's.

Further, having two people who hate each other remain in the same building as a child they're both trying to bring up may end up doing more harm to the child than if the parents were separate and either one trying to bring the child up on their own. It isn't good for a child if it's brought up in a hostile environment, so the assumption that two parents are always better than one is also fallacious.

Yes, but one parent versus two of similar economic status makes for less income. I was under the impression you were complaining mainly about your lack of income. I am aware the situation you described is hostile and difficult to live in. I sympathize.

It was the school system in this country that taught me everything I needed to know in life. My parents were too stupid to, which is why I keep having to try and stop them from doing stupid things against their own interests. And they don’t listen to me, which is why they keep screwing themselves over. As I said, my parents never accounted for the possibility that I might actually succeed in life more than they have, so it certainly isn’t down to their best laid plans that I did.

I would actually be in a far better position now than I would have been if I hadn’t had to pay all of my earnings last summer on dental fees, which I wouldn’t have had to pay if they hadn’t fostered bad habits in me from birth. I don’t mean they didn’t stop me, I mean they actually did not encourage me to brush my teeth properly and did not realize the harmful effects of the diet they allowed me to partake in and actually fed me. I had to consciously realize that **** was bad for me, by which point it was too late.

I already stated that the negligence I suffered does not cross the legal threshold to be considered negligence by the legal authorities, which is wrong given that I suffer great physical and psychological pain every day because of it. Yes, there are people in worse positions, but see above for the example of injured soldiers as to why I’m not going to shut up just because of that.

This is an unfortunate problem, but I will hold to my argument. If your parents took care of you, which they did, however badly, then there is little reason to take away their right to care for you. You are not the only person I know of who has bad teeth because your parents didn't teach you enough. Better education in schools would do well to prevent this, not limiting who can give birth.

I know no one feels sorry for me, and I don’t expect them to. I expect them to understand that stupid people who are too poor to be able to give their children a decent chance in life shouldn’t be bringing a child into the world, because that child will suffer more than they will profit because of it. And they will be expected to buy into your mentality – “that’s just how the world is”. That’s why I hate my parents, and that’s why I have a problem with people like you. The reason there is injustice in the world is because people accept it as a natural part of life. People who accept injustice are the problem. People who can’t even IMAGINE that the world could be a different place to what it is are the problem. Throughout history humans have adapted the world around them to their needs, rather than adapting to the world around them and letting the hostile environment win, and suddenly we have people like you coming along and saying “that’s what the world is like – deal with it”.

Earlier in your post you tried to appeal to human nature, and it is human nature to change the world around them when it doesn’t suit them. It is human nature to try and make the world a better place for us to live in - and not having children because of our own selfish need to validate our own existence by thinking we can give our little genetic offspring all the things we never had (when we can't) would be a good start.

I myself have no desire to reproduce. I agree that some people just shouldn't. Sometimes, it is very selfish. But as is the case with abortion, this doesn't give our governments the authority to take the right away from us. Many changes have been made throughout history, most of them probably for the better. I remain unconvinced this would be wise change for humanity. It would give the government too much control over our bodies.

As for what you say about me being closed-minded, be aware I have given this much thought before. I have even taken your position when I was younger. I am very open to changes, but I cannot support a change that is going to tighten the control the government already has over every person. I am against drug prohibition. I don't believe in the age of consent. I am entirely anti-censorship. I believe in gay marriage. When I say 'that's how the world is' I am saying it's nothing you can hope to completely eradicate, unless it is at the expense of our own liberty. So long as there is human society, we will have to work. We will have financial, social, and political problems. I can imagine a better place for us to live in, but that place is not governed by an Orwellian machine that tells us whether or not we're fit to pass on our genes.

For the bar course, I can't. I can only take a standard Career Development Loan or a Bar Loan which are both a lot of money which I might not be able to pay back if I can't get a job immediately after finishing it. And I don't want to have to put my parents in the position of carrying any part of the burden of the bar course for me - the less I owe them, the more justified I'll be in finally cutting them off if they continue to think they can behave they way they do when I no longer have to rely on them.

Then I am wrong. I sympathize but again, your parents have the right to give birth to you. This is a problem you can overcome.

Originally Posted by SoL_

What guarantees any sort of environment is "tantamount to child abuse?" And no, generally people do not get to choose what they are. As I've said before, many diseases are difficult to predict.

As I said before, and as Lord Zero also stated, bringing a child into the world that you don't want, aren't ready for, can't afford, or that will have severe physical problems will suffer more than they gain, in all likelihood. It is tantamount to child abuse because one is willingly allowing a child to suffer with the misdeeds of the parent. Just because you aren't thumping it's skull against the wall doesn't mean it isn't being harmed, you know.

Now we are getting into politics. The working class--the class most prone to suffering due to bad laws and lawmakers--usually doesn't have the time to become politically involved, but does this mean they shouldn't have any say in a system that already exploits them?

Well, I didn't intend for this to be it's own little topic, I just went on a tangent for the fun of it. If you care to make a thread about it I'll participate -- maybe I'll go make it. Regardless, I'll tackle your point quickly.

They shouldn't have a say. Being busy doesn't excuse you from not being informed/educated. It's one of the most important things to everyone that people know what they hell they are doing when they vote. I'll add a quote to sum this up:

"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." John F. Kennedy

What makes our right to free speech a natural right? What gives you the right to be voicing this opinion?

It isn't a natural one, and we don't have that right anyway. Can you legally scream "Fire!" in a crowded building? Sorry to say, but I don't think so.

What gives me the right are the people willing to defend those rights and states willing to guarantee and preserve them. This is why we can't scream "Fire!" in a crowded building. It infringes on the rights of others. This is why I am in favor of birthing requirements and a political literacy test. All of these "natural rights" have victims which need their rights protected as well.

I was born with a ventricle in my heart missing, the wall between my atria had a hole in it, my oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor blood were being pumped to the wrong areas, and my pulmonary artery was so skinny nothing could get through. I have had to have 4 heart surgeries and I'm barely able to do any real physical activity.

Do I wish I was never born? Hell no.

-JEB

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I don't consider them to be natural rights. I do think it is for the greater good -- the good in general. I don't see what is so good about allowing parents to bring children into an environment which is tantamount to child abuse. A great deal of problems stem from bad homes, I'd imagine. Do I really need to get into those with severe disabilities which could have easily been prevented? Did they ever get a say in whether or not they were born with something that they would fight with for life? I want to attempt to replicate that say.

Let me get this correct. People would rather have not been born than live hard lives?

I don't think most people wish they were never born, some may have a much harder time in life to the point where they can't function with out constant aid, but who are you to tell that person that they were better off never being born?

If you believe this to be an issue than testing and informing of parents who carry certain genes would be a much better more reasonable idea.

Again, I think the comparison is rather invalid given that one has sound scientific backing whilst the other simply does not. They serve the same logic, but they do not possess the same evidence -- the determining factor in my decision.

Censorship helped keep the USSR going for decades, imagine how good America would be if we censored everything.

There's your evidence right there. Evidence is incredibly subjective.

I'd like to touch on your comment about censoring them and choosing their beliefs for them. Whilst this is neither, I would be in favor of a voting test -- a political literacy test. I don't think people have the right to vote, either. Just thought I would toss that in.

I think this means we will never be able to agree on these issues, if you think that one man should make choices for another, with out his consent.

The rights that they have are the rights that are defended by the state. I don't think the state should defend those "rights". That's all. I think the state should act in favor of the lives of children put at risk by the irresponsibility of their parents. After all, prevention is better than cure, as they say.

I believe the state is a tool of the people and if it doesn't protect their rights it's at it's core flawed.

Out of curiosity, what makes these "natural rights"? Why should they be?

Honestly I can't make a good generalization on this. I can only tell you what I believe is a natural rights and they help make a person human. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Originally Posted by Apollo

Let me get this correct. People would rather have not been born than live hard lives?

You misinterpreted what I was saying. What I was saying was: given the choice between a high risk or a guarantee of disability (etc.), that someone would like to be born without that risk, or with a lesser risk.

I don't think most people wish they were never born, some may have a much harder time in life to the point where they can't function with out constant aid, but who are you to tell that person that they were better off never being born?

Well, I'd tell them were better off being born without that terrible condition.

If you believe this to be an issue than testing and informing of parents who carry certain genes would be a much better more reasonable idea.

Censorship helped keep the USSR going for decades, imagine how good America would be if we censored everything.

Perhaps they were sustained, but they certainly didn't flourish as America did. America would be far worse off were everyone censored, those kinds of freedom (within reason) are paramount to the success of a people.

There's your evidence right there. Evidence is incredibly subjective.

What is it that makes medical evidence subjective? The evidence you presented me didn't really reinforce any coherent point I would make out.

I think this means we will never be able to agree on these issues, if you think that one man should make choices for another, with out his consent.

That's what voting is already, and will always be. I am simply suggesting that people who are qualified make the choices, rather than everyone.

I believe the state is a tool of the people and if it doesn't protect their rights it's at it's core flawed.

It is, given that it is not protecting the rights that demand protection. I am simply stating that I do not feel this is one of them.

Honestly I can't make a good generalization on this. I can only tell you what I believe is a natural rights and they help make a person human. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Isn't the right not to have suffering willingly inflicted upon you also a natural right, then? Giving birth isn't a right, it's a responsibility -- a responsibility to the child, as well as to your species.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Isn't the right not to suffer also a natural right, then?

It's not, nor can it be. You have a right not to have suffering inflicted upon you either willfully or due to unreasonable negligence and (theoretically) to medical treatment to alleviate physical pain, but there is no way to guarantee the right not to suffer. (How would one go about suing God/the Universe?)

Originally Posted by Lex

It's not, nor can it be. You have a right not to have suffering inflicted upon you either willfully or due to unreasonable negligence and (theoretically) to medical treatment to alleviate physical pain, but there is no way to guarantee the right not to suffer. (How would one go about suing God/the Universe?)

Ah, thank you for correcting me. That is what I was eluding to. I'll correct my post to reflect that.