A RIGHT to have children?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


What do they do where you live if a woman with a little kid cannot pay for the costs of living?
Are they letting her starve and living on the street without giving her state sponsored welfare?

I know this post wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to make a point.

I don't really care about welfare and the cost of the state supporting single mothers. I care about stupid, irresponsible people being allowed to have children.

Stupid parents raise stupid kids. WE MUST STOP THE CYCLE OF STUPIDITY SOMEHOW!!!11

[Jon Miller]

Who is to say who is stupid and irresponsible? Base it on a test? Base it on IQ? Base it on income? Base it on the color of their skin?

JM

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Who is to say who is stupid and irresponsible?

me

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by 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.

The Commonwealth of Virginia repealed a law mandating the sterilization of retarded people in the 1970s.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Sava
me

The logic being "takes one to know one?"

[GePap]

Reproduction is the biological imperative behind every single human being. If any "right" has a basis in human biology, it is reproduction. I find it absurd to claim that society would have the ability to deny people their chance to reproduce but then claim that this same state does NOT have the ability to rightfully deny them say their ability to smoke, or to own certain tools, or to make certain ideological statements.

[Sirotnikov]

Gep's - there's a huge difference between the state "denying" a couple of the ability to have children, and between the state "promoting" or "rewarding" unresponsable family planning.

E.g. there's no reason to give away free resources to people for no good reason.

Having children, is a responsability - and while I support giving everyone a fair chance - I don't see it "Fair" if the state uses my money to promote childbirth that it knows I will have to keep supporting for the rest of my life.


The situation in Israel is that every secular Israeli is paying tons of money in taxes, which goes to sponsor dirt poor, uneducated and non-contributing factions that like having 7+ children, such as the ultra-orthodox Haredim, or muslim Israeli arabs.

That is money that is never invested back in the system.
That is money that only expands the poverty in the sponsored community (them having more children than even the state can support).

That is money that expands the poverty in the sponsoring community (secular israelis paying huge taxes, having lower net income).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Gep's - there's a huge difference between the state "denying" a couple of the ability to have children, and between the state "promoting" or "rewarding" unresponsable family planning.

The simple question asked was if there is a "right" to have children. State policy on payments to mothers is a different question.

[Traianvs]

there are enough people already, please don't let it be a right!

Either you have kids, or you don't. If you can't have kids unless with a very expensive treatment either pay it yourself or adopt a kid; there's plenty of children in the world available for adoption.

ps: having more than 5 kids in a western society should be taxed or something. It's simply too expensive for the state

[Wycoff]

Re: A RIGHT to have children?

Originally posted by Pekka
Do you consider having children a basic right?

I consider it a right. Every person has a right to conceive and birth a child / children. That's as far as I think that the right goes.

No, I haven't read the rest of the thread.

[Pekka]

"Gep's - there's a huge difference between the state "denying" a couple of the ability to have children, and between the state "promoting" or "rewarding" unresponsable family planning."

Yes. This is what I'm after. I'm not after this in a sense of right as in you can have a baby. As in no one can stop you having one. Because in this sense, I do think people have right to have kids. We can't stop them, nor should we try that. What I mean by right is 'if I can't get one, I should be provided one by any means necessary, and society should help me'.

"The simple question asked was if there is a "right" to have children."

Yes but the spirit and context was not

In your terms, yes, people have right to have kids.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
Reproduction is the biological imperative behind every single human being. If any "right" has a basis in human biology, it is reproduction. I find it absurd to claim that society would have the ability to deny people their chance to reproduce but then claim that this same state does NOT have the ability to rightfully deny them say their ability to smoke, or to own certain tools, or to make certain ideological statements.

Great post, GePap. I like you're usage of the term "biological imperative." I've been kicking that one around for myself.

[Addled Platypus]

there should be some kind of minimum requirement

IQ (dont neeed more democrats)
income (1 kid per 30k ?)

[VetLegion]

What about a RIGHT to have sex with women I want? When will someone stand up for that? When you're a young white male anglo saxon protestant catholic Croat nobody cares about your rights!

[Cort Haus]

No-one has a 'right' to have children any more than they have a 'right' to be rich and happy.

They certainly don't have the right to use the force of the state to take money out of other people's pockets to get what they want at extreme expense. If they want to pay for it themselves - fine.

Nor do I agree with the force of the state interfering with parents. Jon's little satire about the 'reproductive control agency' was spot on.