It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron
Doesn't work.
Look at welfare.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
You need to see the future.
Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Look at what you've given away.
Originally posted by Maslo
No, I dont think reproduction is a right, or should be a right.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Maslo
So in an ideal world, only people ready to have children would be allowed to have them.
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.
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.
Just as I called it, any argument in favour of eugenics falls foul of any semblance of logic.
Who grants that privilege ?
Who are they to decide that someone has the ''correct'' level of skill and responsibility required ?
And there we have it: 'iIn an ideal world''.
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.