Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Expand this...I am curious. Procreation existed before government or any form of "society" or "community" existed, so I am not sure how you can
say it isn't a right, as a human being.
I don't want to answer for someone else but I see the logic in your question and agree with you to a large extent. The human drive to procreate is a
biological one and a rather strong one as well; it is a fundamental right that existed long before the advent of government.
However, when it was simply a human right and practiced by individuals or family groups the exercise of that right did not infringe on the rights of
other humans, family groups or even other tribes with an organized structure of laws by draining their resources to support the offspring of those who
could not support their own.
The support, rearing and security of the offspring were the sole responsibility of the pair who chose to create new life. Certainly, there were cases
of in which charity and human decency resulted in individuals, pairs, groups or even tribal governments providing aid to aid women/children who lost
their husbands in war or to accidents or even in cases where a woman has been left to fend for herself and raise offspring alone.
The difference is that this was largely voluntary - also I'd wager that it was not infinite and open ended and largely contingent on the
understanding that further procreation or failure to provide some contribution to society would end the arrangement.
When it was a simple right a mated pair could procreate as they wished for sure; however, they could not expect or demand support in the way of food,
shelter or clothing for their offspring from other individuals, mated pairs or groups...
In modern society that is no longer the case a mated pair or even a single mother can pretty much make the unilateral decision to procreate absent any
deliberation or consideration on their ability/means to support their offspring. They act selfishly and independently but then they can expect to
receive almost unlimited aid taken by force from others (through taxation) to mitigate their poor decision to mate and create offspring for whom they
cannot provide the basic necessities - food, shelter and clothing.
This is when it ceases to be a basic human right as the old saying goes one person's rights stop where another person’s begin.
Why should people who make good decisions, delay mating and procreation until they have the emotional and financial means to properly raise and
provide for their offspring have their resources seized by force to provide for those who clearly have not done the same? So now those who have
saved and planned well so they had the means to support their own children have that ability reduced must involuntarily support the unplanned and
illegitimate offspring of others.
This doesn't seem quite like a simple human right any more. It is a decision made by one or two people that severely infringes on the rights of the
rest of us to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If it were a basic human right no one could expect that their inability to support their own offspring would fall to others.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
But I am more curious in how you see it to be theoretically conductive for government regulation. We are here to learn and expand so don't take this
as a jab. I am genuinely curious to your thoughts on this.
I personally don't want government regulation of the right to procreate. However, in the same regard I do not want the government to collect taxes
and manage programs to assist and aid individuals who have offspring they cannot support.
I am not heartless - people make mistakes; perhaps a onetime leg up program for teens who make a bad decision or a couple who falls on hard times, or
a family who loses a bread winner. However, that aid should come with some significant restrictions and very, very supervised circumstances not the
least of which would be mandatory temporary prohibition on further procreation until the current situation is rectified.
If we are going to have a role for the government to help people it should be harder to get, more strictly monitored and certainly come with strings
like mandatory birth control until the person/pair become self sufficient.
That is my position.
Again, not answering for Maslo just the question was too interesting to not comment.