A RIGHT to have children?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Having children is a right and a duty..

JM

From a civic perspective? Uh-uh. And let's not start a religion threadjack...

WRT the main topic, I'm not sure how you would work a legislation out in which the solution was not worse than the problem. How do you enforce this? Mandatory abortions for single parents? Forced fostering? The removal of state aid for parents altogether?

The nicest outcome I can imagine is if you required people to have a partner of some sort in order to qualify for financial aid. And even then, many could just pretend with a friend. Result: same waste of money, plus the added bureaucratic waste of ensuring that everybody was on the "buddy system." Worse yet, some nutty women would probably just start a relationship for real, so instead of a single-parent family you have a dysfunctional two-parent family when it all falls apart--IMO, probably worse.

So I think you just have to bite the bullet here and call it a necessary evil.

[Jon Miller]

no, my statement is from a civic perspective

JM

[Sava]

People should have to get licenses in order to have children. They put people through rigorous screening processes in order to adopt children. Why the hell shouldn't those same standards be applied to all potential parents?

[Jon Miller]

For adoption the children are the states, so the state makes the rules.

How are naturally born children the states?

JM

[Proteus_MST]

I absolutely agree with Sava.

It shouldn´t be like "If you don´t acquire a Raising Kids-Licence you aren´t allowed to have any"
but there should be mandatory courses for perents who are going to have their first children.
At the end of these courses there should be a test and parents who don´t pass the test should get regular visits by the Youth welfare office, to check if they really don´t have any difficulties in raising their kid.
Of course even such couzrses don´t assure that parents will be good parents, but as many parents even lack the basic knowlöedge about raising children, it might still have a positive impact if parents would be forced to visit these courses.

Oh and people who going to have children are citizens of a state and therefore are subject to the rules laid out by this state.

Originally posted by 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.

Of course, it is almost as selfish thinking as people who get pregnant despite knowing that they have gene defects and the kid will carry these gene defects into the next generation.

But, all in all, wanting to have kids IMHO is nearly always motivated by selfish motives.

I don´t think there are many parents who want to have children because they think on how this might benefit society as a whole.

I´d rather think that most people want to have children because they see them as a way to improve their own lifes, for example because they think of the fun you can have with your offspring, or because all of their friends are already having a little something with their genes in it, or perhaps becauise they fear that they will miss something if they don´t have a kid before it´s too late.

[Jon Miller]

And that relates to the fallacy in Sava's argument how?

When the state removes kids from the home, they become wards of the state. They belong to the state, the state is responsible for their welfare, etc.

Of course the state would need to be very careful about who they were turned over to, and would need to make careful background checks and the like (and honestly, and unfortunately, in many cases they aren't careful enough).

Kids which are born to parents are born of the parents free will. The state doesn't own the parents, why should it own the children? Additionally, at least in the US we have something called reproductive rights.. which goes much farther than haveing a life exist to having a life's existance end...

This would be ripe for abuses and beacratic meddling. As well as the social engineering of people's ideology to match the states (oh, you don't agree with us? no children for you).

This would be a tyranny of almost the highest order.

In the US, and most western countries, the state doesn't own it's citizens.. despite some what some who are against freedom wishes. Instead we give up some of our rights, in exchange for certain benefits that we all need. We give up our right to taxation, to pay for the government and because we aren't charitable enough (despite libertarrian claims). We give up our right to complete freedom of action, to keep others from removing our freedom of action (by killing us) or our property (By stealing from us).

Besides the scaremongering of pseudo-intellectuals (greens, and 'liberal' and 'conservative' protofacists alike) what reason is there to give up our rights of reproducing and genetics? Rights that we have had for 100k's of years? Having children is a genetic imperative.. it is the natural order.. it is how nature works.

To remove this is unnatural and inhuman. It is truly a crime against humanity. Others who have thought this way favored steralizing the undesireables.. 'retarded', homosexuals, blacks.. This is the position of exclusion and intollerance.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Can you imagine it? "Oh, is Mary-Sue fat, or is she pregnant?" Whispered by the neighbors.

Knock, Knock, "It is the reproductive control agency, we need to you take this pee test"... "Oh, looks like you are pregnant, we have the abortionamatic in the truck, wait a minute"

Or "Oh, I think I saw a kid at the Spencers.. they don't have a permit did they? She really is so fat, you can't tell with some people all the time you know."

Knock, knock, "We are reproctive control agency, we have come to take your child."

Really, this sounds like it belongs in a distopian nightmare. Not out of the mouths of American citizens.

I beleive that even China no longer has the draconian policy they use to. And they are an authorative government.

Jon Miller

[Proteus_MST]

I agree,
drastical measures like the ones sava mentioned are probably impossible to conduct if you aren´t in a totalitarian state or unless you mix contraceptive chemicals into the food or water (or make it mandatory for women to take the pill) so that you can control, to a certain degree, when women will get pregnant.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Of course a single woman has a right to have a child.

But she doesn't have a right to government financing for the endeavor.

The fact that you've confused the right to do something with the right to get the State to pay for it is the surest sign that you're in Europe.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Of course a single woman has a right to have a child.

But she doesn't have a right to government financing for the endeavor.

The fact that you've confused the right to do something with the right to get the State to pay for it is the surest sign that you're in Europe.

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?

[Eli]

The fact that you've confused the right to do something with the right to get the State to pay for it is the surest sign that you're in Europe.

[Zoid]

Re: A RIGHT to have children?

Originally posted by 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.

Meh, 1/10. Try again Pekka

[Rufus T. Firefly]

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?

No (though talk to me again after a few more years of GOP rule).

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about rights. And while people may have access to government financing, that's different from having a right to it.

Let's put it this way: the US congress could not (edit: completely) legislate the end of free speech or a fair and speedy trial, because those things are rights. But they could vote all social programs out of existence tomorrow, and their actions would survive any court challenge.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Of course a single woman has a right to have a child.

But she doesn't have a right to government financing for the endeavor.

Well, if a state grants that she has that right there then.

[RGBVideo]

Re: Re: A RIGHT to have children?

Originally posted by Zoid
Meh, 1/10. Try again Pekka

Since Pekka is trolling in that outrageous criticizism of his about this obviously justifiable program, you should be able to make the state pay for treatments needed for you having a baby all on your own, right?