Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
No reproductions is not a right.

But until a effective test for gauging the level of ones worth is made I it will be seen as one.




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent-ATS
 


Would you really let someone give your child a flu-shot or take out their tonsils or immunize them. Vasectomies are one of the safest and, reversible, forms of birth control.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Doesn't work.

Look at welfare.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Doesn't work.

Look at welfare.



No system is perfect...

The idea of limiting peoples natural ability to reproduce is ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Re-production is nature. Of course its our right, its our god given right. We are overpopulated but we are bacteria, we keep reproducing and use up every natural resource, move on and do the same wherever else we go.
edit on 18/10/2010 by jexmo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jexmo
 


I think it amusing how many people state that it is "our God-given right". Why, of all things, are so many of you so willing to acknowledge God when it comes to reproduction?

It is not a 'right'. It is a matter of biological function.

When push comes to shove, I think most people are afraid that I'm advocating a polict limiting sex, which I am not. The simple fact of the matter is that MANY of today's ills lie in the fact that children are being born in to situations where they REPEAT the lifestyles of their parent(s). This includes crime, drugs, unwed mothers, welfare, low education, etc..

LIMITING reproduction in young males until such time when this could be REVERSED has many advantages for today's society.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
People that believe in eugenics and the restriction of the right to procreate, fall in to two categories:

1. People that are ignorant of evolution and the processes of natural and sexual selection.

2. People who have a deep-seated inferiority complex about their own genetics, which leads them to try and ''control'' or ''dominate'' those that are even worse off than themselves, genetically.

Essentially, the nefarious result of their subconscious self-loathing.


Whichever the reason, eugenics fails on 4 levels: ethically, logically, philosophically and practically.

There is not one pro-eugenics argument that can stand up to scrutiny, without being shot to pieces by one of the above four factors.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You need to see the future.

Look at what you've given away.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by jexmo
 

LIMITING reproduction in young males until such time when this could be REVERSED has many advantages for today's society.


Sure, why don't we surgically seal their mouths until they are old enough to say something mature? Or how about remove their ability to urinate until they learn how to use the toilet without leaving any drips?

This must be one of the daftest idea's I've read here on ATS.

Of course reproduction is a right, it's the sole biological reason we exist.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Ah, but you bring up urination. Urination is a biological necessity. We need to elimiate in order to maintain our level of health, don't we? However, we have laws which state that we shouldn't urinate in public; that is to say that government has told us (aside from common sense) where we can excercise this biological function. And we might go so far as to say that it is a matter of public health, for if we allowed people to urinate wherever they wanted it could cause health issues.

Reproduction, in itself, is not necessary to maintain one's own health. It is necessary to maintain the population of the species but it is not a 'right'. Reproduction can only be a 'right' if it granted to you. And it can't be granted to you unless provisions were made to grant such a right.

Nobody grants you the right to breathe, or to eat. These are functions necessary for life.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
 

Reproduction, in itself, is not necessary to maintain one's own health. It is necessary to maintain the population of the species but it is not a 'right'. Reproduction can only be a 'right' if it granted to you. And it can't be granted to you unless provisions were made to grant such a right.

Nobody grants you the right to breathe, or to eat. These are functions necessary for life.


And who in your opinion would be the person to grant this right? Or withhold it, as per your opinion?

Our function nescessary for life, our biological existence, is to reproduce...



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


To maintain the species, yes. To maintain your individual life, no.

And if we as a species are going to lay down and allow the government to start making these decisions for us, then they will assume that authority. In the States, we've somehow assumed that the government will know how to best make the decisions for us in order to provide health care. Same for you across the pond. Even our mightly leader suggests to a 103 year-old woman who needs surgery that might prolong her life, to take a pain pill. Of course, he is lauded for his perspective.

I only suggest limiting (temporarily) reproduction in males using a procedure that is effective and reversible. The goal would be to bring about an understanding in our society that children are a gift, and should be treated as such.

I think perhaps people confuse my stance on reproduction with regulating copulation. Nothing could be further than the truth. In fact, my arrangement would allow for individuals to engage to their hearts content in this act without fear of pregnancy. If an individual or couple (married or partners) wishes to have a child, either by natural or artificial means, then they must submit to the checks necessary that would approve them for surgery (taxpayer paid) reversing the vasectomy or for insemination.

If a man, who has had a vasectomy reversed, impregnates a woman who is not his wife, then he shall be castrated while the child will be carried to term (prejudice applied to cases of rape or incest). Furthermore, the man shall be required to pay up to 50% of any future income towards the child he is responsible for fathering.

Any person convicted of sexual assault (DNA evidence required) against a child shall be subject to castration and or permanent sterilization.

Children have a 'right' to be brought into this world under the best possible circumstances.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
No, I dont think reproduction is a right, or should be a right. Reproduction affects two people, you and your future child. When someone who cannot take care properly of children he brought to this world reproduces, I see it as a child abuse.

Reproduction should be a privilege, for example like driving a car is a privilege because of great deal of skill and responsibility it requires. So in an ideal world, only people ready to have children would be allowed to have them. Sure, this idea is harder to implement in practice (and that is a genuine reason to doubt it), but from and ideological standpoint, it is entirely justified, in my honest opinion.
edit on 18/10/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
You need to see the future.


You are just reaffirming the points I make above.

Namely: a lack of understanding of evolution, and a point lacking in any kind of logic.


None of us know what the future will hold, and what challenges our species may face, so consequently none of us know which genetic traits will be useful in the future.


What if there's a deadly virus that effects humanity in 30 years time, killing off 95% of humans ?

What if the immune system inherited by our potential offspring is not capable of dealing with this virus, yet the immune system of a ''crack fiend'' is ?

With that in mind, and in retrospect, it would be better to sterilise you and me, rather than a crack addict.



Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Look at what you've given away.


I haven't given away anything.

As far as we can objectively gauge, there is no definitive ''purpose'' to our existence; ergo, our species will continue on without the need of any interference, and the process of natural selection will eventually eliminate humans that are not adapted to the relevant environment.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


I suspose that it is a right to have children. I also think our social policy with respect to children is misguided.

You should no longer receive any tax benefits from having children. Upon having a third child, you should actually receive a tax penality. This notion that the general public should assist others having children via tax policy is absurd. How am I benefited from someone having children? If the society was in population decline, like Japan and there was a social reason to incent having children, that is different - that is certainly not the situation in the US, where we have population growth.

You should receive a significant tax benefit from adopting a child, however. Placing a child who is unwanted or in a family who is unable to care for it in a loving home saves society a significant amount of cash in the long term. The current tax deductions for adoption is paltry. I know as I have an adopted child. The law surrounding parental rights in the US is also misguided. Regardless of the situation of the parent, when a child is given up there should be no way for the parent to find out where the child is, let alone have any rights to visitation what so ever. The law regarding the extension of rights given to birth parents in many jurisdictions in this country is what drives people to adopt internationally.

You have no "right" to have children whom you can not properly house or feed. Parents on public assistance when conceiving should immediately have that child removed from the home. We don't need any more kids being born into familys who have already demonstrated irresponsibility. In the same theme, no additional assistance should be given to someone on assistance simply because they have had a second child, or third, or fourth. This should also be applied for kids who are receiving school lunches for longer than a year. If you can not afford to feed your kid lunch, that kid should be taken from you. Clearly there needs to be considerations for folks who become disabled or are in the middle of structural unemployment, but someone who works at a 7-11 as a long time job and has 4 kids, all receiving school lunches should have those kids removed from the family.

The entire objective of children services, which is family reunification should be abandoned. One strike in the maltreatment of a child and the child is gone, no questions asked, all parental rights removed.

You certainly have the "right" to have a child. You have no right to my paying for it. Emperical statistics demonstrate that kids born into poor and single parent familys have a significantly higher rate of incarceration, school drop-out and underachievement, drug and alcohol abuse, yet our current tax and social policy actually incents people to have more children.

That is not a reasonable policy for the parents who are incented to have more kids for which they can not support, thus preventing them from becoming self-reliant and no longer a burden on society, it is not good for society at large to continue to incent the production of kids who are statistically shown to be problematic and a drain on society and it is absolutely not good for the children who are raised in environments where they are given insufficient attention, resources and proper parental support.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Okay, why do you assume males are the "problem"?

What about the numerous amount of promiscuous girls? Why target the males and not the females?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reproduction isnt only a right, it's a natural process that defines life. Having said that, public welfare for those that choose to have children they are unable to care for is not a right. If you are going to pay someone to help them take care of their kids, why don't we just offer people money if they dont have kids. Kills two birds at once



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Whoa.. what am I reading.. removing children from families that happen to be in financial problems? Do you even care for the wellbeing of the child, or just for the wellbeing of your own wallet? There are few things more cruel than removing a child from his/her family, and it needs to be done in cases of abuse. But to do it when the parents happen to be in financial trouble? That is totaly heartless.. how would you feel if you were removed from your parents in such way?

I would gladly pay taxes to support a united family with children.


On the other hand, to make additional children when you cannot take care by yourself of those you already have, that is definately utterly wrong, and the world would be a better place if it would be illegal, IMHO.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
No, I dont think reproduction is a right, or should be a right.


First of all, I'm not entirely sure that I believe in the concept of self-evident ''rights''.

That being said, as we're in the business of declaring some things as a ''human right'', I find it hard that anyone can argue that procreation is not one of these rights.

Regardless of one's personal, philosophical or religious take on life; the one ''purpose'' that most of us would agree on from an objective perspective, is our need to survive and pass on life.

In this respect, the ability to have children is every bit as much of a ''right'' as having food, water and shelter.


Originally posted by Maslo
When someone who cannot take care properly of children he brought to this world reproduces, I see it as a child abuse.


Just as I called it, any argument in favour of eugenics falls foul of any semblance of logic.

And here we have Maslo disembarking from the logic train.


There is no such thing as ''child abuse'', unless there's a ''correct'' way to raise a child. There isn't.


Originally posted by Maslo
Reproduction should be a privilege, for example like driving a car is a privilege because of great deal of skill and responsibility it requires.


Who grants that privilege ?

Who are they to decide that someone has the ''correct'' level of skill and responsibility required ?


Originally posted by Maslo
So in an ideal world, only people ready to have children would be allowed to have them.


And there we have it: 'iIn an ideal world''.

Pull your curtains back, have a look out the window, and observe... It's not exactly an ideal world we live in, is it ?


Originally posted by Maslo
Sure, this idea is harder to implement in practice (and that is a genuine reason to doubt it), but from and ideological standpoint, it is entirely justified, in my honest opinion.


You are entitled to your opinion, but you hit on the reason why this policy would never be practical.

If we ignore the ethical objections for a minute, some children are capable of having children at the ages of 9 or 10, which would mean that any sterilisation would have to occur when they were 8 or younger.

This is where I don't think the likes of you have intelligently thought about this:

Most parents would not willingly let their young child be sterilised, for a number of reasons. One being that it might be a potentially dangerous operation for their young child to undergo ( especially as it's unnecessary ).

That means that you'd have to have a governmental agency forcibly entering the child's home, restraining the agitated parents, and then proceeding to kidnap, drug and operate on the child without any consent.

This will never happen in a civilised society, and no decent doctor or surgeon would undertake such an operation, because they would contravene the Hippocratic Oath.


People really need to think before they print their warped, fantastical garbage.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

That being said, as we're in the business of declaring some things as a ''human right'', I find it hard that anyone can argue that procreation is not one of these rights.


It isn't a human right, but a need or desire. Being born shouldn't automatically give you "right" to procreate.


Just as I called it, any argument in favour of eugenics falls foul of any semblance of logic.


Is it logical for society to keep moving the direction it is. Answer me this: Do we now have more or fewer people on welfare now than we did 30 years ago? What about gangs? What about unwed mothers? What about teen pregnancy? What about abortions? What are the trends...rising or falling?


Who grants that privilege ?


Well, technically, you would grant yourself that priviledge by meeting the requirements to have a child.


Who are they to decide that someone has the ''correct'' level of skill and responsibility required ?


They, are us. And it would boil down to three key areas: financial, emotional and mental. Much like an individual or parents have to go through in order to adopt a child.


And there we have it: 'iIn an ideal world''.


Isn't that what most of us are after?


If we ignore the ethical objections for a minute, some children are capable of having children at the ages of 9 or 10, which would mean that any sterilisation would have to occur when they were 8 or younger.

This is where I don't think the likes of you have intelligently thought about this:

Most parents would not willingly let their young child be sterilised, for a number of reasons. One being that it might be a potentially dangerous operation for their young child to undergo ( especially as it's unnecessary ).

That means that you'd have to have a governmental agency forcibly entering the child's home, restraining the agitated parents, and then proceeding to kidnap, drug and operate on the child without any consent.

This will never happen in a civilised society, and no decent doctor or surgeon would undertake such an operation, because they would contravene the Hippocratic Oath.


Wow, that's a stretch.

Unless science can come up with a better birth control method, a vasectomy seems the simplest method. How would this differ than remove tonsils or tubes in the ears or removing an appendix.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join