Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
It isn't a human right, but a need or desire. Being born shouldn't automatically give you "right" to procreate.

That's completely illogical, because all ''rights'' are needs and desires.

You have to make up your mind whether humans have inherent self-evident rights, or they don't.

I believe that ''rights'' are granted by the beliefs of the prevalent social attitudes of the time; and human rights tend to be based upon our most basic needs and desire, such as food, shelter and procreation.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
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?

You see, it's only your personal opinion that the direction that our society is heading in is towards eugenics.

I disagree with that totally. My personal opinion is that society is heading towards equality and more universal social conditions, which goes against the idea of eugenics.

Better education and social conditions leads towards better choices made by prospective parents.


What about gangs ? What about unwed mothers ? What about teen pregnancy ?

These have all been happening throughout human history. Don't fall into the trap of believing that we're heading for some doomsday scenario ( you only reach this conclusion because of unimaginable levels of information exchange that we enjoy nowadays ).

You mention abortion, but isn't that a good thing from your perspective ?

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Well, technically, you would grant yourself that priviledge by meeting the requirements to have a child.

Nice try, Percy Pedant.

Let me ask again:

Who would define the requirements that would make you eligible to have, or to not have, a child ?

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
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.

Well, you've just disembarked the logic train here. Your emotional disposition is your mental disposition.

I'll assume you just mean mental and financial.

Firstly, the financial circumstances that a child is born in to, are largely irrelevant.

If anything, being born in to a rich family can be largely detrimental to a child's upbringing, as they can have anything that they want, and are often spoilt, resulting in a not particularly well-rounded individual.

Placing importance on the financial well-being of a child is extremely materialistic and ignores many factors that most people would consider more important.

There are some children born in to abject poverty in Africa that enjoy a far better life than some people born in to opulence in the West.

Having a good childhood is so much more than just your parents being able to buy you your favourite lego set.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Isn't that what most of us are after?

Yes, most of us are after that.

The logical amongst us appreciate that the actuality of achieving that ideal, is in the realms of cloud-cuckoo land.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Wow, that's a stretch.

In what way is that a stretch ?

How many decent people do you think would willingly let their child be forcibly sterilised ?

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
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.

If you need to ask that question, then I think you need to have a good, long, hard rational think about this subject.

What happens when you leave a child's tonsils in their mouth ?

What happens when you leave an irritated appendix in their body ?

What happens when you leave their reproductive system in the same way as yours or mine ?


Think about it, man...

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Do we really need a tax increase to accomplish job creation? All that money we were taxed for the stimulus/bailouts, and where did it go? I'm for an effective utilization of financial resources, as well as already available resources on-site, and employees/interns/ community and/or student volunteers.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
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.

Just like removing peoples hands would be the best way to tackle domestic violence? Yes?

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
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.

I agree with some of what you said,these children are being born into the world to poor immature children still themselves not knowing how to care for themselves let alone a baby and the cycle repeats itself over and over.Placing restrictions on reproduction isn't enough when parents start to get a clue on parenting and start parenting all the laws in the world isn't going make a difference,besides who do you think will be foot the bill if the low income people breaks it??me and you.do you have sons??

reply to post by Death_Kron


Stick to the subject.

I answered your question.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Sex is a need, procreation is not.

Procreation is one result of our inate desire for sex and intimacy. So are sexually transmitted diseases, needless abortions, unwanted children, etc..

As a footnote,the human race is reproducing at extinction levels already.

Do some research of your own,it isn't anyone's job to teach you,you have to learn the truth yourself.

...And then,some smart guy said...The truth is different to every man....

Logic does not lie,numbers do not lie,but you must find information on your own.

Religion only teaches you what you want to hear,all nicey nice and fuzzy and happy...But it isn't all nicey nice and happy fuzzy feelgood hooey.

The media only teaches you anything in order to sell you something,or sell you THEIR ideas.

Busybodies,most of us.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
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.

Just like removing peoples hands would be the best way to tackle domestic violence? Yes?

If hands could be as easily reatached as getting out anticonception implant or patching up vasectomy, why not?

reply to post by fraterormus

I agree with you completely.

However I would add. With reproductive RIGHTS comes RESPONSIBILTIY. No Country should have a job title called Unwed/Welfare Mother. If you want the kid fine - YOU support it do not expect ME to support Chester's 52 illegitimate welfare kids. And yes Chester does exist and Yes Chester did produce his 52nd welfare baby two years ago.

I am about ready to feed Chester some tacos made of Epicyte spermicidal corn The corn is even grown in my state, North Carolina, so is readily available.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
LIMITING reproduction in young males until such time when this could be REVERSED has many advantages for today's society. I agree with some of what you said,these children are being born into the world to poor immature children still themselves not knowing how to care for themselves let alone a baby and the cycle repeats itself over and over.Placing restrictions on reproduction isn't enough when parents start to get a clue on parenting and start parenting all the laws in the world isn't going make a difference,besides who do you think will be foot the bill if the low income people breaks it??me and you.do you have sons??

Yes, two. Both are NOT ready to be dads.

How would low-income people "break it"? Back room vasectomy reversals with a coat hanger?

As I stated earlier, if someone is found in violation of procreating without authorization, they would be castrated.

Then they could still fulfill their "right" for their "need" of sex.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Stick to the subject.

I answered your question.

I am sticking to the subject, it's a simple analogy to compare your feelings against...

If you think all young males should have the snip to prevent unwanted pregnancies then why is it unreasonable to suggest that all young males should have their hands chopped off to prevent violence and then reattached when maturity has been reached????

reply to post by Maslo


If the whole idea is that easy and brilliant then why haven't you chopped your own kids hands off?

reply to post by Death_Kron


Sorry, not being baited.

Stay on subject, which is limiting reproduction and not cutting off hands.

reply to post by gandhi


Tell that to the Communist Chinese Goverment then . Especially if you bare Female Children . It's ONLY a Right if the MIGHT thinks so over there .

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

not at all I do not agree with this idea,what I was referring to is that putting more laws into place is not the answer,I believe in educating self control and helping people out of these kinds of scenarios. whats being done now is not enough and handing out more money is not going to help in the long run.see what I'm trying to say?I'm not attacking anyone I believe there is a bigger problem going on,I think the bottom line is that parents need not be afraid to parent especially when it comes to their children having sex.















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)

I find it humorous to see how few of you actually realize the true meaning of the sexual urge.

I think those critters in the woods have a better grasp of the realities of existence than most of you do.

We are created to re-create ourselves,If only we weren't such a greedy and selfish species,there would be so many less problems with us excersizing our natural tendencies.

Your entire life,you live to be taken advantage of without realizing it.

Gee,no wonder you have no REAL rights,and discuss such silly things at all.

reply to post by Death_Kron

If you think all young males should have the snip to prevent unwanted pregnancies then why is it unreasonable to suggest that all young males should have their hands chopped off to prevent violence and then reattached when maturity has been reached????

Its a faulty analogy in many important ways, too important to be relevant to the subject in any way:
1. by limiting procreation you dont infringe on other rights and bodily functions, like ability to have sex or make dinner You can precisely target only unwanted thing and nothing esle. Chopping hands off would surely prevet domestic violence, and myriad of other unrelated things in addition
2. chopping off hands is not reversible, techniques which we propose are.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Sorry, not being baited.

Stay on subject, which is limiting reproduction and not cutting off hands.

Same principle and your lack of an answer only proves my reasoning

Good night.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Because its simply a faulty and irrelevant analogy, read my other post.

reply to post by Freenrgy2

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

Vasectomy is not reversible. It is a surgical procedure with possible (minor) complications. Except for sterilization of people who repeatedly unlawfully procreate, it is not appropiate.

In my opinion, mandatory birth control pills are currently the best choice for procreation control program.