Whose biology, Madame?
Not mine.
I won't let mere biology, or whatever the prevailing wind proclaims is biology, control me. And those who are truly evolved shouldn't either. :thumbsup:
Having Children, Right or Privilege
- Thread starter sly1
- Start date
Whose biology, Madame?
Not mine.
I won't let mere biology, or whatever the prevailing wind proclaims is biology, control me. And those who are truly evolved shouldn't either. :thumbsup:
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Where's the option for "Chore"?
Apologies for not having read any of the thread save the OP, if I retread the territory other have explored, my bad.
I do not think the words "right" and "privilege" have any absolute meaning. They are pretty much completely defined by the law, and do not have any objective existence apart from the law.
We plainly have a "right" to free speech in the U.S., because the Constitution says so. Still if you go to Germany and deny the Holocaust, you will go to jail. Go to China and download Falun Gong, material, and you will go to jail. So, in the end, calling is a "right" only means that the government you are currently dealing with can't punish you for engaging in the activity even if it vehemently wishes that you would not.
A "privilege" then is something that the relevant government does not necessarily frown on in the abstract, but still may or may not let you engage in it for a variety of possible reasons. Take driving. No government hates driving, but they restrict it in countless ways,including by only allowing the "licensed" drivers to do it. So driving is a privilege rather than a right.
So, with that said, is this an argument about what the law is? Whose law? U.S. law? Under U.S. law forced sterilizations can and do occur. "[T]hree generations of imbeciles is enough" as the Supreme Court once wrote before sending a young woman off to be sterilized. While that case (Buck v. Bell) has been carved up to the point where it's nearly cadaverous (particularly by the later Skinner v. Oklahoma), it's not been overruled so far as I know.
At present, there are still laws on the books that allow you to be forceably sterilized, though you generally have to be incompetent for them to be used.
As such, I would say "privilege" as a matter of law, since the right can be taken from you or denied to you whether or not you are hurting others in its exercise.
You can argue about whether it "should be" a right, since (in the U.S.) everyone has the right to discuss how they'd like to see the law changed.
Apologies for not having read any of the thread save the OP, if I retread the territory other have explored, my bad.
I do not think the words "right" and "privilege" have any absolute meaning. They are pretty much completely defined by the law, and do not have any objective existence apart from the law.
We plainly have a "right" to free speech in the U.S., because the Constitution says so. Still if you go to Germany and deny the Holocaust, you will go to jail. Go to China and download Falun Gong, material, and you will go to jail. So, in the end, calling is a "right" only means that the government you are currently dealing with can't punish you for engaging in the activity even if it vehemently wishes that you would not.
A "privilege" then is something that the relevant government does not necessarily frown on in the abstract, but still may or may not let you engage in it for a variety of possible reasons. Take driving. No government hates driving, but they restrict it in countless ways,including by only allowing the "licensed" drivers to do it. So driving is a privilege rather than a right.
So, with that said, is this an argument about what the law is? Whose law? U.S. law? Under U.S. law forced sterilizations can and do occur. "[T]hree generations of imbeciles is enough" as the Supreme Court once wrote before sending a young woman off to be sterilized. While that case (Buck v. Bell) has been carved up to the point where it's nearly cadaverous (particularly by the later Skinner v. Oklahoma), it's not been overruled so far as I know.
At present, there are still laws on the books that allow you to be forceably sterilized, though you generally have to be incompetent for them to be used.
As such, I would say "privilege" as a matter of law, since the right can be taken from you or denied to you whether or not you are hurting others in its exercise.
You can argue about whether it "should be" a right, since (in the U.S.) everyone has the right to discuss how they'd like to see the law changed.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
I believe It's a human right, Although I don't have kids. I believe that a person has to live with their choices. So if they choose to exercise that right, They will have to live with the consequences, Just like being able to speak out against bush freely (i think). If it is a privilege, than it begs the question, who decides who's unfit to breed. I've seen parents that are extremely into goth, but love their child with the most tender care. And if you can see this by just passing by, Who knows what could be the other side of people we thought unfit ?
But hey, don't mind me, Just another naive teenager..
But hey, don't mind me, Just another naive teenager..
The present environmental and social cost of it being a right is dangerous. But, the cost in personal freedom if it were made a privilage would most likely be unacceptable. Hopefully, individuals in this species will learn responsibility with this function after we recover from the inevitable pandemic.
Last edited:
While I agree that some people aren't raise children I don't believe anyone who is physically capable should not have a right to bear children. If children are being neglected or abused then the gov't may need to step in and remove them from their parents care, but I can't see governments having any right to legislate who can and who can't have children, unless that legislation is applied equally to all and for the good of all as in China's case (and I'm not even sure I support that). I think it is a basic right to be able to reproduce.
So do all the people who claim it is a privelege support forced sterilization for those not deemed competant to have children? It seems a rather slippery slope when you start trying to decide who should have the right to have children and who shouldn't.
So do all the people who claim it is a privelege support forced sterilization for those not deemed competant to have children? It seems a rather slippery slope when you start trying to decide who should have the right to have children and who shouldn't.
Thats biology too.
yes i do, what if the intented perant is a child abuser?
a drunk?
a wife/husband beater?
a mum/dad who has MSBP?
would you want a child to live in those conditions?
The mind boggling amount of people who shouldnt be allowed to operate a circular saw much less have kids, but seem to pump out 3-6 of them makes me think that it should no longer be a right.
I agree totally, but another $64000 question is, if having children was no longer a right, who decides who gets to have children and who doesn't? Because we all know that those people who shouldn't be allowed to operate a circular saw could somehow find themselves in a position to decide who can and can't have kids; that'd be like putting a child molester in charge of a day care.
Child bearing? A right or a biological imperative? I favour the latter.
Good parenting or bad perhaps that should be the question but it is hard to judge whether one is one or the other until one is one and then it's too late to legislate!
I find myself agreeing with DT here (argh!). Children can and do survive many things.
Good parenting or bad perhaps that should be the question but it is hard to judge whether one is one or the other until one is one and then it's too late to legislate!
I find myself agreeing with DT here (argh!). Children can and do survive many things.
But there's a difference between letting them give birth to children and letting them raise them. I believe the right here is the right to reproduce (or not).
Bingo.
So wtf we have 8 people so far(50something%) voting for the government granting us permission to screw someone? That's fucked. People on this board ARE FUCKED.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
While I'll be the first to state that quite a few people on this planet should never reproduce; those are the people who need a lot of chlorine added to thier gene pool, I also know that trying to have a government try to control who can and can't have children* would be a major cluster fuck.
It's kinda like the death penalty, I'm all for it but deep down I know it won't work in our system, due to the people that control it, and prosecute, judge and decide, are imperfect and prone to make mistakes.
*I think the restriction on children deal in China is a bit different. Aren't they just restricting families to one child, for population control reasons?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but you won't know that until they have them. If having children would be a privilege then people would have to be judged beforehand somehow. I think that is wrong..
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Lucy,
From my previous post:
Yes, but you won't know that until they have them. If having children would be a privilege then people would have to be judged beforehand somehow. I think that is wrong..
I'm a teenager too (17) although I don't tend to air that fact, because on a lot of forums older people who don't agree with you use it as an excuse to dismiss whatever you say instead of actually refuting it.