Is Reproduction a Natural Right?

I was looking up a thread on another forum about whether or not adults with deadly inheritable diseases should have the right to reproduce. Naturally, I thought they should. However, I eventually ran into some cons not only for just reproduction of diseased people, but reproduction of all people. As of now, I feel I'm against the side of it being a natural right.

Under the Right to pursue our own happiness, one would think that two people who want to have sex with each other (and, obviously, aren't under the influences of drugs, alcohol, etc.) should have the right to do so. This is because they're engaging in acts that don't detriment each other against their own will (for example, rape and murder). The problem, however, is that reproduction doesn't involve just two people; it involves at least three.

Say someone with a considerably detrimental inheritable disease has a child. Now that child has to live with the disadvantages that come with whatever disease he has. Sure, he can learn to cope with them and survive, but what has that child done to deserve that starting position in life behind others? I can understand children with unexpected disabilities, but if it's pretty much confirmed that your child will inherit your disease/s, I'd say you're better off adopting another child instead.

Then there are those people who are not financially ready to raise a future child. Should children be brought into lives where their parents are unable to provide them with basic necessities?

ow that child has to live with the disadvantages that come with whatever disease he has. Sure, he can learn to cope with them and survive, but what has that child done to deserve that starting position in life behind others? I can understand children with unexpected disabilities, but if it's pretty much confirmed that your child will inherit your disease/s, I'd say you're better off adopting another child instead.

I think its less about the well-being of the child-to-be and more about producing a child that our system will have to support. Someone who can't live on their own, and needs constant care is inevitably a strain on the system. So no, I don't think people with verifiable disease should be able to bring a child into the world , considering they are placing a burden on society, as well as on themselves and the child.

People have a right to reproduce...but not all people should.

Brings to mind the modern medicine problem, where we save everyone we possibly can, and thus contribute to overpopulation and poisoning the gene pool with people who wouldn't naturally survive. Touchy business.

Seems to me like a more sociological perspective; I've always been one to place morals and whatnot above all else. To each his own, I suppose.

Yeah, it does come down to social responsibility in my eye; though I rely on morals for everything in my life. Like I said, everyone has a right, but not everyone should.

I mean, if I knew my child would be severely handicapped, I wouldn't have a child. Reproduction used to be about carrying on the family and adding to the family's honor, nowadays thats not as big a priority, and you'll find people having a child just for the sake of it.

I don't think it is justified if someone knows their child will be born with a disease, deformity, or into a bad life.

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.

I think morally speaking we're "supposed" to say no.

But restricting reproduction from those who would pass on defective genes is definitely something that would improve the general health of the population.

I don't believe in the existence of "natural rights" and therefore don't think reproduction can be one of them. However, I think that someone who does believe in the natural right to liberty would have to agree that consensual reproduction falls squarely within that right.

Law is a different matter altogether. Our laws already infringe on the natural right to liberty, if it exists at all. For example, in some states, it is illegal for two brothers to engage in consensual sex in the privacy of their own home. There's just no way to argue that such a law is consistent with natural law, if such a thing exists at all. Edit: My point being that natural law is not a useful defense against creating laws that prohibit certain people from reproducing.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I don't think it is justified if someone knows their child will be born with a disease, deformity, or into a bad life.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that people who have hereditary problems should be sterilized,.

This is not just directed towards you, I just didn't want to quote spam.

Leaving the poverty-line to one side for a moment. Where do you draw the line when it comes to people with (hereditary) diseases? We often can't tell whether a child will definitely have the same disease as the parent. In many cases, it's just a matter of increased risk. Which diseases do you single out? Which risk factors do you include? What is the risk threshold? Do you focus on preventing deadly conditions? Ones that are most expensive to treat? Ones that most affects a person's lifestyle? All of them? (then again, who decides which standard of life is acceptable?) When is the gene pool considered healthy?

There are many diseases that are caused by a combination of inheritance and and environmental factors, too. For example, kidney disease runs in my family, particularly among the women. And the majority of the men in my family have died of heart disease. It's not certain, but there is an increased possibility that my kidneys will fail me too. Dialysis 3 times a week is very expensive and could certainly be considered a "strain" on the system.
What about obesity? Asthma? Inflammatory bowel disease? There are many rather common problems that run in families which require fairly expensive regular treatments or give way to a multitude of other diseases that do, and decrease the person's quality of life, etc.

The issue is, most of this is completely uncertain.

Originally Posted by Dearly Beloved

I was looking up a thread on another forum about whether or not adults with deadly inheritable diseases should have the right to reproduce.

Yes, if the mother and father take an oath that they'll take care of the child to the best of their abilities. (The importance of marriage)

Originally Posted by Dearly Beloved

Should children be brought into lives where their parents are unable to provide them with basic necessities?

No. That would be selfish on the parents' behalf.

Originally Posted by Lazer_Falcon

I mean, if I knew my child would be severely handicapped, I wouldn't have a child. Reproduction used to be about carrying on the family and adding to the family's honor, nowadays thats not as big a priority, and you'll find people having a child just for the sake of it.

Extremists who share your opinion practice infanticide. A loophole to get around such misfortune. Not that I'm accusing you of such provocative acts.

For me it's a threefold problem:

1 - We can make no legitimate, objective claim as to the "worth" of someone's life;
2 - Parents have a responsibility to bring children into the world in a healthy living environment;
3 - The State has a responsibility to ensure that people are capable of securing a healthy living environment for themselves and their families

Based on 1, we really have no place to say "this person has no right to bring a child into the world because of circumstances X and Y." People who suffer from genetic diseases, live in poverty, etc. are perfectly capable of living happy lives. That is not to say that we should not work to ensure that those who are impacted by disease and poverty should not be cared for, just that we cannot make the blanket judgment that a life of disease and poverty is not a life worth living.

2 and 3 are closely interconnected. Should a parent lose his or her right to have children because the State has not fulfilled its responsibility of ensuring equity for all? After all, if the State did fulfill its responsibility fully there would be no poverty and adequate healthcare would be a universal right. At the same time, however, potential parents should be mindful of the circumstances of their own lives and do their best to ensure that they do not bring a child into an unstable environment.

While I certainly wouldn't want to reproduce if I knew for a fact that my child would be born severely plagued by illness or mental incapacity, the first question that comes to mind when I try to answer the OP's question is "where do we draw the line with respect to determining what kind of a situation is not worth living in?"

Certain conditions hamper the ability to have a normal life, but don't necessarily render someone useless. Say, for example, there was a 75% percent chance that your child could be born with an autoimmune disease that renders them deaf by the age of, say, 4. Although they would have to grow up with assistance and a degree of frustration, they still have the potential to make substantial contributions to society. Knowing that this could be your child, would you want to go through with reproduction, or not? Just a thought...

Originally Posted by Nénuë

This is not just directed towards you, I just didn't want to quote spam.

Leaving the poverty-line to one side for a moment. Where do you draw the line when it comes to people with (hereditary) diseases? We often can't tell whether a child will definitely have the same disease as the parent. In many cases, it's just a matter of increased risk. Which diseases do you single out? Which risk factors do you include? What is the risk threshold? Do you focus on preventing deadly conditions? Ones that are most expensive to treat? Ones that most affects a person's lifestyle? All of them? (then again, who decides which standard of life is acceptable?) When is the gene pool considered healthy?

There are many diseases that are caused by a combination of inheritance and and environmental factors, too. For example, kidney disease runs in my family, particularly among the women. And the majority of the men in my family have died of heart disease. It's not certain, but there is an increased possibility that my kidneys will fail me too. Dialysis 3 times a week is very expensive and could certainly be considered a "strain" on the system.
What about obesity? Asthma? Inflammatory bowel disease? There are many rather common problems that run in families which require fairly expensive regular treatments or give way to a multitude of other diseases that do, and decrease the person's quality of life, etc.

The issue is, most of this is completely uncertain.

You're right, that is uncertain. I wasn't exactly talking about things like that, though. I was talking about severe hereditary issues that severely influence one's quality of lifer starting at birth.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I don't think it is justified if someone knows their child will be born with a disease, deformity, or into a bad life.

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.

You see, to do this would mean they'd have to be under heavy surveillance, probably also meaning you'd want them to live close together, so it'd be easier to keep track of them. So you move all the poor, sick, and handicapped (by birth) into a small area and keep watch over them.

That, my friend, is how you end up with Ghettos.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I don't think it is justified if someone knows their child will be born with a disease, deformity, or into a bad life.

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?

Originally Posted by Great White North

I think morally speaking we're "supposed" to say no.

But restricting reproduction from those who would pass on defective genes is definitely something that would improve the general health of the population.

These arguments are possibly the most dystopina things I've heard in a long long time. Are you seriously going to suggest a government that has the power to say who can and can't have kids is in any way good?

^ Well, if you look at India, for example - the government/hospitals regularly sterilize people to keep down their massive population. It is widely seen as a good thing, considering the situation there. Nowadays we do have a population issue, and to a degree the governments should act to decrease its effect. In the past this would have been unnecessary, today is a different story.

What is the carrying capacity of the Earth? Population is set to be at least 9 Billion by 2050, and at that point, if trends continue, some half of the worlds fisheries will have collapsed and THEN we will have a real problem.

I definitely don't see an issue with sterilizing people who are unfit for reproduction. As has been said, some reproduction does not benefit anybody, and is only a strain on the system and society.

Originally Posted by Apollo

These arguments are possibly the most dystopina things I've heard in a long long time. Are you seriously going to suggest a government that has the power to say who can and can't have kids is in any way good?

I wholeheartedly agree. This particular aspect of Nazism was one of the ugliest.

Originally Posted by Lazer_Falcon

^ Well, if you look at India, for example - the government/hospitals regularly sterilize people to keep down their massive population. It is widely seen as a good thing, considering the situation there. Nowadays we do have a population issue, and to a degree the governments should act to decrease its effect. In the past this would have been unnecessary, today is a different story.

What is the carrying capacity of the Earth? Population is set to be at least 9 Billion by 2050, and at that point, if trends continue, some half of the worlds fisheries will have collapsed and THEN we will have a real problem.

I definitely don't see an issue with sterilizing people who are unfit for reproduction. As has been said, some reproduction does not benefit anybody, and is only a strain on the system and society.

Simply untrue the earth not only has the space and food to support more than we have.

As far as what they're doing, I've never heard of that before and that it horrible. The first solution should be addressing the problem poor distribution of food/water and land. Even if keeping the people lower is working it's treating a symptom not the bigger problem.

Originally Posted by Twilight King

You see, to do this would mean they'd have to be under heavy surveillance, probably also meaning you'd want them to live close together, so it'd be easier to keep track of them. So you move all the poor, sick, and handicapped (by birth) into a small area and keep watch over them.

That, my friend, is how you end up with Ghettos.

I wouldn't think so, actually. Most people go in to the doctor regularly when pregnant, do they not? Prevention could be initiated then.

Originally Posted by Apollo

These arguments are possibly the most dystopina things I've heard in a long long time. Are you seriously going to suggest a government that has the power to say who can and can't have kids is in any way good?

I think it would have some good results.

Originally Posted by SoL_

I wholeheartedly agree. This particular aspect of Nazism was one of the ugliest.

Godwins law, anyone? Are you suggesting I am a Nazi, or something related to one?

I see it as unnecessarily risking the introduction of undesired lives to children. Some may be able to have the strength to overcome their disadvantages, while others may not be so lucky (depending on the disease). If there exists a problem that could reasonably risk worsening the quality of a child's life, I feel it's best to do whatever's necessary to prevent that problem. I'd rather there be no life involved at all than to increase the odds of the aforementioned scenario.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I think it would have some good results.

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.