Reproduction as a right...yes or no. , page 12

privacy

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 12:57 AM by lifeform11

reply to post by mwood

your right, nobody should have to look after you, but at the same time nobody has the right to say you cannot have children. if its the looking after people part that is the problem, then you change it, you do not tell people they have no right to have kids. you educated them so they can make the choice of their own backs, you change the systems so people can no longer depend on handouts without putting in some work and earning it, there really is no need to infringe on peoples rights, there are numerous things that can be done without enforcing things that effect peoples rights as human beings.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 02:42 AM by Maslo

reply to post by lifeform11

we were born with the ability to do so for a reason. it is an ability that the tools are given to you at birth for a later date. how is it not a right if god/creation/life gave you the ability.

We were also born with the ability to kill, rape and steal. Does this mean society cannot prohibit this god given ability, if it infringes on other peoples rights and produces more harm than good? Not everything what is natural is also good, just like not everything what is artificial is bad.

Yes, Every animal has the right to procreate...... What you don't have a right to is food for your offspring, free medical care, free housing, free clothes. If you can't support your litter whether it be 1 kid or 10 kids you and them should just die of exposure and starvation like any other animal in the wild. just because you want to procreate don't mean others should take care of you.

Wow..

We are NOT wild animals in the jungle! We are civilized people living in civilized 21st century society, we have morals and compassion (maybe except of you..). If we would not be taking care of other sufferring persons, what separates us from wildlife? Again, its "what is natural must be good, what is artificial must be bad" logical fallacy. Dont you ever use antibiotics after this argument!

Tell me one reason why do you think population regulation by starvation, wars, diseases and poverty is more appropiate and humane than regulation by laws. Almost everything is better than that IMHO.

Our bodies belong to us. No fascist or communist government should have the power to dictate who has children and how many children they can have.

You are right, our bodies belong to us. But only our bodies, not our children. They are other persons, not property. If you are going to infringe on other persons rights, society should intervene. Read Declaration of human rights, the part about rights of the children. Sometimes this rights come into conflict with the right to procreate, and we HAVE to choose one and infringe upon the other. In this case, I think rights of the children are more important.

Procreation should be denied to those who clearly cannot take care of their offspring, thus infringing upon their rights.

edit on 30/11/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 03:18 AM by lifeform11

reply to post by Maslo

We were also born with the ability to kill, rape and steal. Does this mean society cannot prohibit this god given ability, if it infringes on other peoples rights and produces more harm than good? Not everything what is natural is also good, just like not everything what is artificial is bad.

i just love the way many points i make earlier are ignored and you quote selective things, and do not address them.
if i apply your logic of preventing bad parent to your first point about, killing raping and stealing, then how come you are not calling for imprisonment of people who 'could' be potential criminals, who could be bad for society and who could effect children's lives after all it is not just the parents that can put children in danger. that's right we have to wait for a crime to be comitted first.

what is wrong with educating people? why is that not a option? is teaching children in schools to be responsible parents not a option? is changing the system into something that works so hard, you know making it so people are not dependent on handouts? why the leap into dictating the right to be a parent?

if you can stereo type bad parents, why not criminals, or potential drug users and potential protesters?
we could prevent everything before it happens, treat everyone like criminals, if we apply your solutions to everything.

i support education, and giving back opportunity's to people, by getting rid of the safety net of benefits and providing jobs.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 03:32 AM by Maslo

reply to post by lifeform11

if i apply your logic of preventing bad parent to your first point about, killing raping and stealing, then how come you are not calling for imprisonment of people who 'could' be potential criminals, who could be bad for society and who could effect children's lives after all it is not just the parents that can put children in danger. that's right we have to wait for a crime to be comitted first.

No, you do not understand what I am saying. The crime is commited when a person that cannot take care of its children procreates - a serious crime of irresponsible procreation, that the society and the child has to pay for. Only then, after this serious offense is commited, the punishment should come.

what is wrong with educating people? why is that not a option? is teaching children in schools to be responsible parents not a option? is changing the system into something that works so hard, you know making it so people are not dependent on handouts? why the leap into dictating the right to be a parent?

There is nothing wrong with educating people, etc. But that is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is whether reproduction is a basic inalienable right. It is not, and there is nothing wrong with denying it when appropiate, too.

i support education, and giving back opportunity's to people, by getting rid of the safety net of benefits and providing jobs.

I support education, too!

Jobs will not be provided just because you and I support it. Sometimes a job is not available, and to have some basic safety net is important in these cases. There is lots to improve in current safety net, often abused, but getting rid of it is not the way to go, IMHO. It would make some children suffer even more.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 04:08 AM by lifeform11

No, you do not understand what I am saying. The crime is commited when a person that cannot take care of its children procreates - a serious crime of irresponsible procreation, that the society and the child has to pay for. Only then, after this serious offense is commited, the punishment should come.

but if the crime is commited when they have proved they are a bad parent they had to be a parent to begin with, so i am now not getting your point about reproduction as a right. my understanding is reproduction is a right for everybody currently, and that this thread was supporting taking away peoples right of reproduction before they had even had a chance of being a parent. if you are proposing only stripping away that right after it has been proved the parent is incapable of looking after kids, then i would agree, abit like when somebody has been proved to treat animals cruelly, their right to keep animals is taken away.

There is nothing wrong with educating people, etc. But that is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is whether reproduction is a basic inalienable right. It is not, and there is nothing wrong with denying it when appropiate, too.

it may not be the topic of the thread but it is a equally possible solution to the problem the thread proposes, the education does not have to stop at children, i am all for first time parent having to attend a sort of 'class' once a week in a time slot that suits during the pregnancy, to educate them them about the childs needs etc, and what being a parent entails and means.

I support education, too! Jobs will not be provided just because you and I support it. Sometimes a job is not available, and to have some basic safety net is important in these cases. There is lots to improve in current safety net, often abused, but getting rid of it is not the way to go, IMHO. It would make some children suffer even more.

i agree jobs are not on demand instantly, but over time it could be done. i am not proposing cutting of money, but i am proposing not getting it for 'free', some people will live of benefits because it is just there and they do not need to do anything for it, so by making them put in hours that would cover their benefit at minimum wage, they are both having to do something, and not opting to be on benefits because they do not want to work.

benefits can be a trap the way it is currently, even if you do not want to be on it.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 04:32 AM by Maslo

reply to post by lifeform11

if you are proposing only stripping away that right after it has been proved the parent is incapable of looking after kids, then i would agree, abit like when somebody has been proved to treat animals cruelly, their right to keep animals is taken away.

Yes, thats exactly what I am proposing.

i agree jobs are not on demand instantly, but over time it could be done. i am not proposing cutting of money, but i am proposing not getting it for 'free', some people will live of benefits because it is just there and they do not need to do anything for it, so by making them put in hours that would cover their benefit at minimum wage, they are both having to do something, and not opting to be on benefits because they do not want to work. benefits can be a trap the way it is currently, even if you do not want to be on it.

I fully agree with this, too. The safety net should be for those that happen to be in problems, but want to work and contribute. Every welfare recipient should become something like a part-time employee of the public (state) that funds it, and do some simple jobs when required. It would help to retain working habits, too. And of course, to procreate when you cannot even take care of yourself is wrong.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 04:56 AM by dawnstar

yes, it's a right, and like all "rights" it comes with responsibilities.
there's this strange fact of life, maybe it's a natural law, maybe it's just a human condition....
but when too many people start abusing those rights, or neglecting the responsibilities that come with them, well....people start losing those rights...usually because another...be it person or institution...is forced to to reduce the damage that is being done to society as a whole..
I mean, we all have the right to walk down the street, don't we.....
or wait a minute, how many people do we have locked up in jail????
they don't have that right, do they, wonder why??
oh, ya, they either abused thier rights, or neglected the responsibility that comes with them in some way...
or in some cases, society has done them an great injustice and found them guilty of a crime they didn't do.

the trick to keeping your rights is to act responsibly with them....otherwise they will slowly fade away. either through chaos or authoritarian moves by the state.

edit on 30-11-2010 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 05:15 AM by sara123123

reply to post by Maslo

How would you propose the government control people's pro-creation, Maslo? What if people did not obey the government and had children the law forbade?

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 10:15 AM by Maslo

reply to post by sara123123

How would you propose the government control people's pro-creation, Maslo? What if people did not obey the government and had children the law forbade?

I like the way China enforces their population control program, with a few modifications. After first offense that would be some combination of fines or increased taxes, low amount of jail time, or public work. This would get progressively harsher, up to forced (reversible) sterilizations for repeated offenders (these do happen, but are quite rare in China).

But I dont agree with late-term abortions, like in China.

Chinese policy is very succesful according to official numbers, it has prevented 300 million births.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 09:41 PM by sara123123

reply to post by Maslo

In reading your response, Maslo, you so gross me out and disgust me with your inhumane and anti-freedom world view that it is best I just leave it there.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 10:02 PM by lifeform11

Originally posted by Maslo

I like the way China enforces their population control program, with a few modifications. After first offense that would be some combination of fines or increased taxes, low amount of jail time, or public work. This would get progressively harsher, up to forced (reversible) sterilizations for repeated offenders (these do happen, but are quite rare in China).

But I dont agree with late-term abortions, like in China.

Chinese policy is very succesful according to official numbers, it has prevented 300 million births.

i must say that is not how i envisage your last response to me. by taking away the right to be parent after proving that you are incapable of looking after your kids (which does not include living on benefits), but actually causing harm through actions that are in your control (losing a job or lack of jobs is not something some people can control)
then it would be right to take away the right to be a parent, just like with pets.

but to limit peoples rights? or fine them? , increased taxes? make profit out of restricting peoples rights?

and the first thing you say is population control.

so your vision is not about making parents responsible and good parents and punishing bad ones, its about population control. which is wrong and is still taking away peoples rights to be parents regardless of their situation or how good they are at being parents or how responsible they are as a citizen.

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 10:13 PM by rabbigoldstein

i agree its a right, but i think its ridiculous how some family are having tons of babies,
the world is definatly over populated

reply posted on 30-11-2010 @ 11:15 PM by lifeform11

reply to post by rabbigoldstein

i agree about that, but think enforcing laws that infringe on peoples rights is just the easy way out because people lack the imagination to solve problems through more humane ways.

education is the key all the time, but it is not being used to help solve the problem, i am certain that educating people from school age about the problems we face in the world, and what effect certain things have and how that will effect us, may change peoples decisions later on in life when it comes to having kids.

the only reason some people have so many kids is either because they live in a country with high death rates and poverty, or they love kids and are simply unaware how them having 13 kids impacts the earth and quality of life, or they are after extra benefits.

which is why education and taking away the safety net of free benefits seems like a more humane way to curb birthrates, if people understand the full ramifications of the impact too many people has on the earth, most will decide through their own choice to have 1 or 2 less for the sake of the quality of life, especially if they are not benefiting from having more and instead have to put in extra hours doing some work to earn any extra benefits they would be entitled to. more kids = more hours, may deter some but without infringing on their rights.

edit on 30-11-2010 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-12-2010 @ 11:40 AM by Maslo

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by Maslo

In reading your response, Maslo, you so gross me out and disgust me with your inhumane and anti-freedom world view that it is best I just leave it there.

Reproduction anarchy is inhumane. Pseudohumanists gross me out, so the feeling is mutual.

reply to post by lifeform11

i must say that is not how i envisage your last response to me. by taking away the right to be parent after proving that you are incapable of looking after your kids (which does not include living on benefits), but actually causing harm through actions that are in your control (losing a job or lack of jobs is not something some people can control) then it would be right to take away the right to be a parent, just like with pets. but to limit peoples rights? or fine them? , increased taxes? make profit out of restricting peoples rights? and the first thing you say is population control. so your vision is not about making parents responsible and good parents and punishing bad ones, its about population control. which is wrong and is still taking away peoples rights to be parents regardless of their situation or how good they are at being parents or how responsible they are as a citizen.

Just to make things clear, I am not talking about taking away someones right to be a parent, but to procreate. Thats a profound difference. When the child is already present, then it is of course better to support the family through welfare so the children can grow up with their parents in good conditions.

The right to procreate is not an inalienable right, and can and should be limited in some cases. There is nothing inhumane with it, IMHO. Deny ignorance, people!

reply posted on 21-12-2010 @ 04:31 PM by Freenrgy2

reply to post by lifeform11

Nope, please re-read.

What you are espousing does not mean you would lose your children.

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 >> ^^TOP^^