Having Children, Right or Privilege
- Thread starter sly1
- Start date
My instinctive sense of morality tells me it is a human right.
My observations of human beings tell me it should be a privilege granted only to those fit for it.
But I'm not Baron Max, so I'll go with No1, because who am I to judge? There's people who would judge me as unfit to breed, because of the clothes I wear and the pieces of metal in my face.
My observations of human beings tell me it should be a privilege granted only to those fit for it.
But I'm not Baron Max, so I'll go with No1, because who am I to judge? There's people who would judge me as unfit to breed, because of the clothes I wear and the pieces of metal in my face.
its a privalage, not everyone can raise children, its a LOT of hard work with generally no thanks
Who would determine the guidlines by which one would be considered a "privileged" to have children? What would be some considerations for determining who is fit for children and who isnt?
Income? Living location? Family Structure? Religion? Criminal Record? Morals? etc etc.......
I agree there are many out there who should just not have children as it is not fair to the child or the rest of the people on the planet........but who is going to sit there and say ....."ok you can have kids.....and you cant have kids.
Income? Living location? Family Structure? Religion? Criminal Record? Morals? etc etc.......
I agree there are many out there who should just not have children as it is not fair to the child or the rest of the people on the planet........but who is going to sit there and say ....."ok you can have kids.....and you cant have kids.
Last edited:
China says it is a priviledge, and you can only have ONE.
Bells
Staff member
It is a human right.
But like visceral, there is a part of me that thinks it should also be a privilege. There are people out there who simply should never have children. People who take that right and then go on to abuse their children, or worse, kill them. It should not be based on looks, dress, income, disability, sexuality, where they live, or even their criminal record (unless of course that record indicates they have abused children in the past, etc).
I personally think that parents who have been found to have abused or killed their children in the past should not be allowed to have more and be allowed to keep them. IF there is a risk to the child in remaining in the parent's care, the child should be removed instantly.
Human rights dictate it to be a right to have children. It is, and should always be, however, a privilege to keep it.
:shrug:
It's a hard question. As they say, you need a license to drive a car but anyone can have a child.
But like visceral, there is a part of me that thinks it should also be a privilege. There are people out there who simply should never have children. People who take that right and then go on to abuse their children, or worse, kill them. It should not be based on looks, dress, income, disability, sexuality, where they live, or even their criminal record (unless of course that record indicates they have abused children in the past, etc).
I personally think that parents who have been found to have abused or killed their children in the past should not be allowed to have more and be allowed to keep them. IF there is a risk to the child in remaining in the parent's care, the child should be removed instantly.
Human rights dictate it to be a right to have children. It is, and should always be, however, a privilege to keep it.
:shrug:
It's a hard question. As they say, you need a license to drive a car but anyone can have a child.
I think a person’s family structure, religion, and morals are irrelevant, but a person’s income is definitely important. I can imagine some kind of test that would use many factors to determine if a person can afford to raise a child. For example, a person’s current income and net worth, their partner’s income and net worth, their profession, their living location, their education, their health, and any assets that they might inherit.
A person’s criminal record is another important thing. I don’t believe that child molesters and people that have had several convictions for violent crimes deserve to have children. I would support a law that forced anyone that was convicted of raping a child under the age of 12 to have a medical procedure that would make them sterile. I do not support the idea of castrating convicted male pedophiles because wrongful convictions do occur on a regular basis, and once your testicles are gone there is nothing that you can do to get them back. However, I do believe that males that were convicted of raping a child under the age of 12 should be forced to use medication that reduces their testosterone level if they are released from prison. You may be thinking why is 11 the magic number? Well, it is possible for a person that is 12 or 13, or 14 to have well developed body. It is perfectly natural for a man to be attracted to a female that with large breast regardless of their age, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I believe that 11 is an appropriate age because there is a high probability that anyone at that age will have the body of a pre-pubesant child. As for the people that are convicted of statutory rape, it should be factored into the process that would determine if met the minimum requirements to raise a child. I would also support some kind of point system to determine if a person is ineligible to raise a child. For example, anyone with 10 or more points could be ineligible. Raping an adult could be 5 points, assault could be 3 points, murder 2 could be 5 points, murder 1 could be 8 points, Ect.
Congress and your 'nads
Your proposal, and indeed the entire topic, begs a question: Why?
Why do we consider the question? Why would we devise such a system?
Specifically, is it about "the children"? Or, perhaps, "society"? What about "the species"?
If we wish to make it solely about the children, what is the guiding principle? Is it mere aesthetics? A perceived moral obligation? What is the basis of that moral obligation?
Which leads to society, and eventually to species. Each new generation represents the future of the society, and therefore our own self-interest as we age. For instance, among my generation there is a split. Many feel conceptually abandoned by their parents. These are the children of parents whose support was contingent upon parental satisfaction. Why, for instance, did a friend's parents push him through expensive music lessons with expensive instruments ('cello) if they didn't want music to be part of his life? They would only support him in college, or at all, if he went to a school they wanted him to go to, and majored in a subject they approved of. In the end, they resent that his music became such a large portion of his life.
My own parents were a split on this. My father, during those years, grudgingly helped with my college education; he made it abundantly clear that he didn't want me in college. As with many things, though, my mother's unfailing support won out. Fast-forward a decade and a half: I dropped out of college, and my father realized he did not feel vindicated on that point. My mother is still my biggest fan, and her love and support are undying.
My friend and I stand on opposite sides of a curious line. He speaks of a generation that will look at aged parents and dump them in homes. The lesson they taught was self, self, self. Family is great and all, but what have they done for me lately? so to speak.
Tragic.
But this is the thing: children, for some people, are all about the parents. I see it in my daughter's mother. My child is, for her mother, primarily a status symbol. Thankfully, it's not the same kind of status symbol my friend's parents seem to hold dear. My friend could not afford to finish at a prestigious British arts school. His classmates are now making money by the truckload. My friend's opinion is that he would have no problem taking care of his parents in their old age ... if he had the money. But his folks got their way. They convinced him to go to school at a "regular" university, setting him up for a fraction of what he could be making. They got what was important to them: the appearance of normalcy. And that's what raising children was about for them.
So why do we protect the children? And how far do we go? Presently, a fourteen year old can murder someone, yet escape the death penalty because adolescent brains operate differently than those of adults. Decisions are made differently, and according to unstable criteria. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged this in Roper v. Skinner. Yet at the same time, if a fourteen year old is operating under a religious delusion, he has the apparent clarity of mind to choose to die. This, at least, according to a Seattle judge just last week.
The question of why we protect the children is at least as important as how much we should protect them. How do we justify forced sterilization, or legal prohibitions against certain people reproducing? What are the ramifications in the larger scheme of human rights in society?
I suppose in this case, the simple slogan would be, Remember the lawyers. We must be careful about how we do whatever it is we decide to do. It's been one hundred forty years, and some people are still smarting about the Fourteenth Amendment; its application in Loving v. Virginia shocked many, and still outrages a good number of people—including some who weren't even born when the decision came down—forty years later.
It would seem to me that we would have to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to reserve such regulatory power to Congress or the States, which of course seems insidious. On the one hand, diverse standards between, say, Alabama and California would prove mildly entertaining on the best of days while rendering such regulation nearly useless; at the federal level we must decide just how much control Congress should have over your gonads.
Is raising children a right or a privilege? Depends on what nature says. For those who can reproduce via functions of their own bodies, it's a right. For those who would clean up the mess created by a bunch of irresponsible, oversexed morons who produce in excess of 100,000 American children annually who need homes, it's a hard-fought, expensive privilege. Well, unless, of course, you meed a certain, arbitrary, bigoted standard.
Life goes on.
q0101 said:
Your proposal, and indeed the entire topic, begs a question: Why?
Why do we consider the question? Why would we devise such a system?
Specifically, is it about "the children"? Or, perhaps, "society"? What about "the species"?
If we wish to make it solely about the children, what is the guiding principle? Is it mere aesthetics? A perceived moral obligation? What is the basis of that moral obligation?
Which leads to society, and eventually to species. Each new generation represents the future of the society, and therefore our own self-interest as we age. For instance, among my generation there is a split. Many feel conceptually abandoned by their parents. These are the children of parents whose support was contingent upon parental satisfaction. Why, for instance, did a friend's parents push him through expensive music lessons with expensive instruments ('cello) if they didn't want music to be part of his life? They would only support him in college, or at all, if he went to a school they wanted him to go to, and majored in a subject they approved of. In the end, they resent that his music became such a large portion of his life.
My own parents were a split on this. My father, during those years, grudgingly helped with my college education; he made it abundantly clear that he didn't want me in college. As with many things, though, my mother's unfailing support won out. Fast-forward a decade and a half: I dropped out of college, and my father realized he did not feel vindicated on that point. My mother is still my biggest fan, and her love and support are undying.
My friend and I stand on opposite sides of a curious line. He speaks of a generation that will look at aged parents and dump them in homes. The lesson they taught was self, self, self. Family is great and all, but what have they done for me lately? so to speak.
Tragic.
But this is the thing: children, for some people, are all about the parents. I see it in my daughter's mother. My child is, for her mother, primarily a status symbol. Thankfully, it's not the same kind of status symbol my friend's parents seem to hold dear. My friend could not afford to finish at a prestigious British arts school. His classmates are now making money by the truckload. My friend's opinion is that he would have no problem taking care of his parents in their old age ... if he had the money. But his folks got their way. They convinced him to go to school at a "regular" university, setting him up for a fraction of what he could be making. They got what was important to them: the appearance of normalcy. And that's what raising children was about for them.
So why do we protect the children? And how far do we go? Presently, a fourteen year old can murder someone, yet escape the death penalty because adolescent brains operate differently than those of adults. Decisions are made differently, and according to unstable criteria. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged this in Roper v. Skinner. Yet at the same time, if a fourteen year old is operating under a religious delusion, he has the apparent clarity of mind to choose to die. This, at least, according to a Seattle judge just last week.
The question of why we protect the children is at least as important as how much we should protect them. How do we justify forced sterilization, or legal prohibitions against certain people reproducing? What are the ramifications in the larger scheme of human rights in society?
I suppose in this case, the simple slogan would be, Remember the lawyers. We must be careful about how we do whatever it is we decide to do. It's been one hundred forty years, and some people are still smarting about the Fourteenth Amendment; its application in Loving v. Virginia shocked many, and still outrages a good number of people—including some who weren't even born when the decision came down—forty years later.
It would seem to me that we would have to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to reserve such regulatory power to Congress or the States, which of course seems insidious. On the one hand, diverse standards between, say, Alabama and California would prove mildly entertaining on the best of days while rendering such regulation nearly useless; at the federal level we must decide just how much control Congress should have over your gonads.
Is raising children a right or a privilege? Depends on what nature says. For those who can reproduce via functions of their own bodies, it's a right. For those who would clean up the mess created by a bunch of irresponsible, oversexed morons who produce in excess of 100,000 American children annually who need homes, it's a hard-fought, expensive privilege. Well, unless, of course, you meed a certain, arbitrary, bigoted standard.
Life goes on.
Last edited:
Its not a right or privilege...its a necessity for the continuation of the species. If you start regulating reproduction, you might as well tell someone they arent allowed to breathe or eat or drink....
As far as some being unfit for parenting..yes..that is true, and some might wish to tell them they cannot have kids because of that, but that is because of the human instinct to meddle in others affairs.
Man, however DID we get along before Child Services (or whatever they call it nowadays).
As far as some being unfit for parenting..yes..that is true, and some might wish to tell them they cannot have kids because of that, but that is because of the human instinct to meddle in others affairs.
Man, however DID we get along before Child Services (or whatever they call it nowadays).
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
lol Did I inspire you to make this thread ?
It's a human right btw and I really don't understand why most here say it's a privilege... :bugeye:
It's a necessity which has nothing to do with rights or privileges.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Do you think someone should be able to forbid you to have children ?
:bugeye:
Bells
Staff member
I think it stems from the abuse cases we hear of or know of. It is a human right to have children. But then you also need to differentiate between 'having children' and raising them. For example, most people can pop out children. But can all of those people actually parent or be parents? Sadly, the answer to that is no. Therefore, if you abuse or harm your children, the State can and will step in and remove the children from your care. In that, having children becomes a privilege. Yes you can have them, as in give birth to them. But if you harm them or deliberately put them in harm's way, that right is no longer yours to have.
If you can take care of a child by being able to provide food, shelter,
clothing and health care then I would think it is your human right to have a
child. It's only when you cannot afford a child and cannot provide the care
for the child is when I think it wouldn't be prudent to have children and
when something should be done to prevent someone from reproducing when
they can't provide. Who is going to care for an unwanted or uncared for
child?
clothing and health care then I would think it is your human right to have a
child. It's only when you cannot afford a child and cannot provide the care
for the child is when I think it wouldn't be prudent to have children and
when something should be done to prevent someone from reproducing when
they can't provide. Who is going to care for an unwanted or uncared for
child?
Breathing, eating, and drinking are NOT the same as being allowed to bring another life into the world which breathes, eats, and drinks as well. People will continue to have children even in the direst of poverty. All that does, ultimately, is create alot of pain for people (the children) that really shouldn't be there.
However, there's often alot of stubborn religious dogma and "conservative" values pushing people to have more children. I once even saw an article by a conservative, family-values type Christian woman entreating others of a like mind to outbreed the seculars, liberals, atheists, etc. who she said were choosing to have only a few or *gasp* no children at all. The reasoning went that if non-Fundies only have an average of 1.5 children, then within a generation or two, at 4-5 children per household, "Family Values" would win out by numbers alone.
Sickening when that's all they care about.