A RIGHT to have children?

[Pekka]

Do you consider having children a basic right?

It seems Finns do. I disagree.

Now we passed a new law that lesbians and single women can get them fertility treatments and babies.

I don't have such a big problem with lesbian couple having a baby, what I do have a problem is single women getting state support to have a baby. Because supposedly it's their RIGHT.

Since when did that become a basic right? I don't get it. That sounds selfish beyond imagination to me. What about the baby? The baby has no right to two parents then? I'm sure we have many folks here raised by single parent and they did a great job at it. That's not my point. My point is, why should we make it a rule that it's a great way to go at it?

And who is supposed to support that baby and household? There's no way a pregnant woman can support herself, raise the baby and work. So the state ends up paying for it ANYWAY. And is that baby going to be born in a poor single parent family? Yes. In 99% of cases, absoutely yes.

Because mommy wanted some love. She should have gotten a freaking puppy for that.

What about single men? Why don't they have a right to a child? Or gay men? Where is there RIGHT to have a kid? Oh, they don't? So this is only concerning women. In the name of equality, I don't see how this is so great.

Like I said, I don't care if lesbian couple gets a baby, they'll prolly do a great job. But single people, I'd say to them sorry, no children for you in the shop today.

And if people want babies so bad anyway, why don't they start adopting more? Why don't single people adopt like a 7 year old, at least then they could not skip any work and possibly support the household.

Me says, having children is no right. It's a privilidge.

[Pekka]

I mean most who voted YES to this were folks who thought great, this shows how tolerant we are of all family combinations. If I vote yes, it means I am tolerant and modern.

Screw that. I'm not in it for the values of what ever. I'm in it for the practical way. Just because it's more .. liberal.. it doesn't make it a good idea. Just because you can get a baby all on your own, it doesn't make it a good idea.

And I don't think that in itself this would concern me so I don't oppose this from that point of view. After all I'm Libertarian, this has nothing to do with me so why would I oppose? because single women now popping new babies to poor households will automatically mean that state has to support that housheld and as such, it WILL be out of our collective pockets and I dont' want to pay a single dime for that. Like I said, they should get a puppy. Or a man, OR a woman if they are lesbian. Or they should be at least rich enough to be able to support it 100%.

[Nubclear]

Pekka hates children and women. Quite the anti-supercitizen, if you ask me.

[Pekka]

I obviously hate women and children.

But let's face it. Most single people who would want a baby is because

Their best friend just had a baby. They feel like wanting one too.

Because they are lonely.

Because they are in bad economic situation, thus getting a baby will guarantee them years worth of financial help.

Basically if a person goes in and says I want to buy a baby, it is already showing they aren't responsible and thinking the best of the baby, but being selfish.

[Dinner]

Everyone should have a chance to have children. The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for the people who have problems. If you're gay and whine about not having children then **** off. You made the choice now live with it. Fertility treatment is the same sort of case; the last thing I want to do is have to pay for some genetically unfit couple get the state to pay so they can have 5 children at $500,000 per child.

[Zkribbler]

Maybe a hundred years ago, maybe a few decades less, Texas had a law permitting sterlization of people of substandard intelligence.

IIRC, this practice got to the Surpreme Court twice, with the ringing phrase in the earlier case being "Three generaltions of morons is enough!" but the second time the Supremes looked at it, they decided there was a fundamental right to have children.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
But let's face it. Most single people who would want a baby is because

Their best friend just had a baby. They feel like wanting one too.

Because they are lonely.

Because they are in bad economic situation, thus getting a baby will guarantee them years worth of financial help.

Bull****.

[Pekka]

Spiffor, I preferred when you didn't have the internet.

Oerdin, you seem like a nice enough fellow, why don't you join our Libertarian thought of school?

[Proteus_MST]

It´s a very fundamental desire to have children,
as it means that you pass your genes to the next generation.
And not all people are strong enough to withstand this desire

As for single men, they can do this, too.
It is called donating sperm
(but it, of course, means that you need some luck so that your sperm gets chosen [but on the other hand, you don´t need to get thicker and thicker like these women do and you don´t have to stay away from your job during the time of pregnancy and some time afterwards])

So, to sum it up, I have no problem with it.But perhaps the finnish state should give this support only to the first child of the woman. If she already has born a child, there should be no more support for fertilisation treatment.

[Pekka]

Hte new law does NOT support the fertilisation with state money. In which case I'd be against it.

Now, I'm just against the idea that a person can decide all by themselves to have a kid one day and expect to get paid because they can't afford it most likely.

I have argued that this is selfish thinking. This is not for the benefit of the baby.

[Zkribbler]

BTW: In the U.S., we have the Temporary Help to Needy Family program. I think you can get on it if you're not working, but if you don't work at least 30 hours/week, you're benefits are slashed.

Pekka, which are you ticked about...
The right to have a bady...
The right to have furtility treatments....

I agree with you if you're point is: There should not be government handouts to permit people to conceive babies that they cannot then financial support.

[Pekka]

Exactly. Like I said, I don't have a problem people doing what they do if it doesn't concern me. I am a Libertarian. You want to do something? Go ahead, good for you.

But.. I don't want to pay a single dime on a decision that was obviously going to need that support from the get go. That is clearly an issue of personal responsiblity. If you're getting a baby, it wasn't an accident, you thought about it and got it, then damn well you should be able to support it. IF not, then you are being irresponsible and selfish and I don't think the society should stand for that.

If you can afford it, go ahead. This is not an issue of equality in economy. This is simply can you support the baby or not? Don't expect me to give any money to support a family that will not have a chance to function. If you have bad luck in the process, if it was an accident, sure, we can't leave babies behind in support. If there's a baby like that, I think we oughta support.

And that's why I'm against putting babies in that position willingly in the first place. Just give it a theoretical chance even.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
Spiffor, I preferred when you didn't have the internet.

:Pekka:

[Tattila the Hun]

Hum, there really should be some sort of psychology tests done before granting a permission to have a child... I mean, I get a test if I apply for a place to study... And that's only 3 or 4 years, nothing compared to the 18+ parents get...

[Jon Miller]

Having children is a right and a duty..

JM