Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Well, come up with a better form of birth control for girls then.

Vasectomies are simple and reversible. Maybe scientists can come up with a better form for both males and females. Heck, we probably already have it from the crap McD's puts in their food.




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post 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. 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.


I disagree that our purpose is to pass on life is as important that it would justify us to infringe on a right of child to grow up in good conditions with prepared and responsible parents. There are plenty of childless people that still have purpose in life.

It is utterly selfish to try to fulfill this need of passing genes without considering how would the resulting child grow up.




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.


Eugenics? I did not mention genes, nor do I consider them important. Material and psychological readiness of the parents is what I consider important, not genes.




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


There is not a "correct" way to raise a child, I agree. But there are plenty of incorrect ones, and it is justified do deny the privilege (!) of reproduction for example, to a drug addict, IMHO.




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


As I said, I am arguing primarily from an ideological standpoint. In practice, there are plenty of ways to do something like this, not just outright sterilization. Tax increases, cuts, fines, government provided birth control, or even education about the issue comes to mind.




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


Says the person that made up this whole tale of druged nine year old children being forcefully sterilized, when all I said was that people that cannot take care of their children do not have a right to bring them to this world.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Well, come up with a better form of birth control for girls then.

Vasectomies are simple and reversible. Maybe scientists can come up with a better form for both males and females. Heck, we probably already have it from the crap McD's puts in their food.


Don't need to, I don't think anyone should mess with a humans right to reproduce, as I said before it's the sole biological reason we exist but you seem to keep missing that fact?

Why don't you try better education and parenting skills?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 





Why don't you try better education and parenting skills?


Who says he does not.. but the topic of the thread is different.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


So, you'd rather be reactive than proactive?

It is better off to let people reproduce and worry about the repercussions later?

Tell me, do you do preventative maintenance on your vehicles or do you drive them until they break down and then fix them? And would you be able to afford the bill from a major repair or would it have been more cost-effective to spend a few dollars up front to prevent a major repair?

This is how I see our society. Even though we profess to educate and bring awareness to today's young people, the fact is that they aren't getting the message. A lot of parent(s) aren't getting the message either. And society is paying quite dearly on the back end to try and fix the results of this.


edit on 18-10-2010 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


So, you'd rather be reactive than proactive?

It is better off to let people reproduce and worry about the repercussions later?

Tell me, do you do preventative maintenance on your vehicles or do you drive them until they break down and then fix them? And would you be able to afford the bill from a major repair or would it have been more cost-effective to spend a few dollars up front to prevent a major repair?

This is how I see our society. Even though we profess to educate and bring awareness to today's young people, the fact is that they aren't getting the message. A lot of parent(s) aren't getting the message either.


Yeah, I agree that the "message" isn't getting through but who are you or my Goverment to tell me they are going to take away my natural human right to reproduce?

Your using blanket logic, maybe we should have everyones hands removed at birth so physical violence isn't possible...

Whilst you may have good intentions, your looking at the wrong solution.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Those wishing to reproduce would then be subject to criteria used to determine the viability of the individual(s) in raising a child. Along with this would be genetic screening once conception had occured to determine risk factors later in life.

Certain risk factors would result in automatic termination of the pregnancy. Other factors deemed acceptable (as they wouldn't strain the government run healthcare system) would be assigned a penalty depending on severity. Prospective parents would either have to pay this penalty based on amount of risk or chose to terminate the pregnancy. Prospective parents would be allowed one "natural" attempt to concieve. After that, they would need to undergo artificial insemination from genetically cleared ovum and sperm in order to conceive.


Wow, I can't imagine a circumstance under which I'd agree to allow some random person to decide based on some "risk factors" whether a child of mine, should I ever be blessed enough to conceive, "should" be allowed to live! I hope anyone attempting to convince themselves that they should do this is vigrously and unambiguously opposed.

What would they even begin to base it on? The whole 'genetic defects' argument doesn't really hold water. Many with Downs Syndrome live truly happy lives with productive work, loving families, and great friendships.

Turner Syndrome certainly shouldn't be on that list, either. Just based on that genetic diagnosis, you can't even begin to predict how seriously the person will be impacted, especially prenatally, other than signs of heart defect. Sorry, but you don't destroy a person's life over a heart defect. You fix the issue if possible. And these are girls and women who live perfectly normal lives, with nobody even really knowing that they have this condition unless they choose to tell. The only fairly universal signs are infertility and being petite.

Would it be based on a genetic predisposition to cancer? Where would they draw the line? I would never, ever want to find out the answer to that question.

You don't destroy them, taking away their families, their friendships, their spouses...everything in the lives they will build. Over what, the health care industry's bottom line?

Lives are infinitely more important than dollars.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Ariel
 




Lives are infinitely more important than dollars.


And quality of lives is more imporant than amount of lives.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating murder in any way, only preventive measures like abortion, contraception, voluntary sterilization, embryonal genetic screening or denying procreation to certain individuals where risk of child damage is very high, like drug addicts or people with history of child abuse.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Yes, quality of life is important. Like I said, these are people who have that. And anyone else you can mention, we as compassionate human beings can provide that for them.

As far as the measures you mention, abortion does destroy a human life, and the way it's done would be absolutely abhorrent to do to a newborn, or any other human being. Really, it doesn't matter if the child has already been born or not. It brutally destroys that life.

Instead of destroying that person, why do we not focus on giving that person quality of life? There's no reason not to remove a child from an abusive family, or to try to prevent abuse by monitoring especially closely those who have already abused. Why not provide extra parenting support to help them become safe, effective parents? Why not have extensive parenting training beginning at an early age, and especially during a pregnancy to end the cycle of abuse and prevent further abuse? And if someone is known to be a drug addict, instead of forcibly sterilizing someone, why not ensure that they can have a drug-free pregnancy to give that child and mom the best care? And then take whatever measures to keep that child safe once born?


edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Ariel
 


Yes, I wrote that position to play devil's advocate with the people who are pro-abortion.

My position is that of giving a vasectomy to male children.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Ariel
 


Yes, I wrote that position to play devil's advocate with the people who are pro-abortion.

My position is that of giving a vasectomy to male children.


And why not female children?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ariel
reply to post by Maslo
Instead of destroying that person, why do we not focus on giving that person quality of life?
edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)


Which is EXACTLY why limiting reproduction until such time that an individual, couple or partnership can prove that they are able to sufficient care for a child. Would that not help to ensure the best quality of life for EVERY child while minimizing the number of needless abortions?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Perhaps you know more about birth control with regards to young girls. Tubaligation?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Perhaps you know more about birth control with regards to young girls. Tubaligation?


Perhaps your avoiding my questions?

Huh?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 
sorry don't think I want the government in my bedroom or in anyones bedroom.what I do feel needs to be addressed is the amount of welfare the gets dished out to alot of single parents that have more unwanted children to collect more money.And yes it does happen in all races,I've seen people using food stamps buying groceries dripping in gold around the neck on the fingers and bracelets,and driving brand new cars,how does this happen?I know if I was that strapped for cash that would be the first thing to go...don't get me started



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Primarily, I was discussing my opposition to the whole eugenics thing. Not that I'm a fan of forced sterilization, either. It's not always reversible, and it's invasive. You just don't mess around with fertility.

Instead, maybe we should be more careful about the hormones that we're putting in our food, to eliminate one cause of people going through puberty younger than they otherwise would.

But here's the thing. We need to address the root causes of the issue, to decrease the unwanted pregnancies. But we also need to focus on the societal options for the ones who end up with an unplanned pregnancy. Counsel toward adoption. Hey, unemployment is a major issue, and here's one idea to increase jobs! So how about make it mandatory for all schools and other places of employment to have a childcare facility? And make it reasonably affordable and cost-effective. That way, mom can finish school, finish her education as far as she wants to go, and work...and be able to have childcare as she does all of this.
edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-10-2010 by Ariel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


No, not at all.

It is strictly my opinion that a vasectomy is the easiest and safest way to surgically limit reproduction.

Of couse, wasn't there a 5-year birth control device developed for women that was actually implanted under their skin?

Maybe you're on to something with the whole sterilizing girls thing.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TWILITE22
 


So, according to you, they wouldn't pass the test based on their finances. Would it have been o.k. to have limited their right to have children at that particular point in their lives?

edit on 18-10-2010 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Ariel
 


And you'd be for a tax increase to cover the expense of such facilities?

You also prove my point that she probably wasn't financially able to support a child to begin with. So, the answer is for everyone else to pay for child care while she can work and then continue to have more children?

Where do you draw the line? Or is that what "it takes a village" all about?
edit on 18-10-2010 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Right?,why don't you honestly look around you and think about how many you still have.

A piece of paper only gives you a privilege.

A license is only a privilege.

If you have to pay for it,it is reduced to a privilege.

Rights are inalienable,they cannot be revoked at the whim of an authority figure without due process.

Your question,and a lot of the answers to the OP only prove we don't have any rights,and wouldn't know what to do with them if we did.

Hence our current state of affairs.

We are a lot further down the slippery slope than we realize.
edit on 18-10-2010 by chiponbothshoulders because: Missed something





top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join