It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When people desire to create a life, they have a right to create that life.
Your opinion. An opinion that 4.5 billion years of evolution goes against. Don't try to go against evolution, it only leads to extinction.
But by all means. You've got an idea to enforce it? Do tell.
Cause the fundamental right of sentient beings is the right to make more of thy self.
Saving the sick goes against evolution, too. And there is no guarantee that purely natural evolution is any better than such artificially influenced one would be. In fact, I believe the opposite is true.
Like we enforce other laws + maybe forced sterilizations for repeatable offenders (they could still have kids in vitro)
Chinese managed to prevent up to 400 million births, population control programs could be viable in practice, IMHO.
Thats BS. Can you support it by something? And no, arguments about evolution and nature does not cut it. There is no correlation between what is natural and what is ethical.
Such tactics can be done, but good luck getting your government to last more than a few months.
Ethics do not exist. Neither do morals.
Two people will themselves to make a company, they have the right.
As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.
They're societal creations.
Two people will themselves to make a company, they have the right. Two people will themselves to make art, they have the right. Two people will themselves to write a book, they have a right. Two people will themselves to create life, they have a right.
At the cost of a huge population swell between the young and old which is now beginning to bring down their government.
The chinese government did not collapse after a few months after enacting one-child policy.
And yes, I dont agree with their methods, if anything, they should at least raise the limit to 2 (its bad for the child to be single) and stop with late term abortions.
But I also dont agree with the other extreme - considering procreation a fundamental right which cannot be restricted under any circumstances, especially when its going to harm the child.
That in fact defeats the whole purpose of procreation - to raise children which will have a good life, and are able to contribute to the advancement of humanity
So there is no reason to not restrict it in such cases even from evolutionary, not just moral standpoint.
You have contradicted yourself. You cant have rights or laws without morality. Rights (laws) are based on moral systems, they are defined by it.
described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal
The basic tenet of morality and resulting law (and rights) is that behaviour which harms third person without his/her consent is forbidden. Creating life without caring of it is such case, and thus its not a right.
Dont confuse right with ability. I have a natural ability to kill, steal, rape or drive recklessly. I dont have a right to do it. Why? because it harms or threatens to harm another, third person.
The same with unresponsible procreation
- it harms third person
In all cases, someone who did not agree with the creation of another life in bad conditions would be negatively affected.
Our society evolved from our nature. You are making sort of artificial divide there. Also, I dont see any reason why would that make them less relevant even of they were purely societal creations. You are engaging in both kinds of naturalistic fallacy - implying that natural=good, artificial=bad, and trying to derive ought from is.
In the first three instances, there are only those two persons affected. In the last, there is also another, third person affected, deeply affected, without giving consent. Apples and oranges.
Originally posted by Maslo
The chinese government did not collapse after a few months after enacting one-child policy, in fact it is widely supported by the public according to official statistics.
You have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the law of the land.
When you use your rights to stop that right of another, it violates that person's rights.
Alas, this means wrong is not subjective. Wrong is both subjective and objective. Picking your nose is a subjective wrong. Murder is an objective wrong.
Ergo, the right to create life, an act of both liberty and happiness, the life derived gets the same rights. This is nor morality. This is logic, and a universal constant. It is fact. Ergo, leave your morality at the door. People have the right to create life.
Only if you believe it is so. The probability of this harm creating good or bad is purely chance.
Therefore children cannot be excepted to have anything but their lives as a right.
Sucks to be them. Doesn't matter though. Logic dictates a child doesn't know what's good or bad for them yet.
Morality, which is derived from our nature (or derived contrasting our nature), is therefor not universal.
Your opinion is one based off morality. Mine is one based off of simple common sense.
You would have us bend to your opinion, which is based off morality and flawed. I would have us be free to do as we wish, not being bound by some overlord's opinion. Mine, therefore, is better, because it allows individuality to continue.
That is a gross oversimplification. The law of the land is much more complicated and restrictive.
So now there is an objective wrong? I though you considered morals to be relative and created by society, there is no objective wrong then, not even murder. Or is it "objective" wrong according to your subjective morality?
Again, this is just your subjective view, no universal constant. And it is quite immoral, IMHO.
I do. We have lots of laws based on chance. People without driving licences have bigger chance to harm someone, therefore it is illegal for them to drive on public roads. There are countless laws like this.
Thats not true, there are many offenses a parent can commit in addition to killing their child. Children have right to not be abused psychologically or materially, they have right to education, right to healthcare, and I could go on and on..
And that is relevant how?
Indeed. So any arguments about evolution or purpose of humans to procreate according to nature are empty.
Nope, your opinion is also based on your own view on morality, and I dont think it makes much sense at all.
If you are an anarchist, then OK. If you are not, then you already advocate the same thing as I do, restriction of freedoms. We differ only in the details.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee
That, to me, is national socialism. Now I'm not saying its bad. I'm saying it is not acceptable to do that in America. We don't have the benefit of massive redundancies in people for workers, nor do we have the benefit of a government that at least tries to help. Nor do we have the benefit of a social elite group that are interested in managing the country responsibly. We also don't have the benefit of a population that cares about responsibility. Very simply put, it's a different culture. It works, barely, for them because that is their culture.
I like our culture in America. It's flawed, but its free.edit on 2-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
I like our culture in America. It's flawed, but its free.