Reproduction as a right...yes or no.

Originally posted by Maslo
I believe they do.

Where do you believe that ''right'' stems from ? Government ? God ? You ? Other ?

Deplete as applicable.

Originally posted by Maslo
They do not seem arbitrary, but inherent to me. Your idea of procreation rights is as much arbitrary for me. Thats how it is in reality, rights are defined by human beings recognizing them, and this can differ among different persons.

But, I have already stated that I don't believe in any innate ''rights''.

My argument for the right to procreation is based on our current society's idea of basic human rights.

My points are based on logic, and yours appear to come from a mythical idealism that stems from nothing else, accept your arbitrary opining.

Originally posted by Maslo
I believe in absolute infallible morality, I just dont believe you or me or anyone has recognized it yet.

That is fair enough. As I say, I'm not sold on that idea, but your belief in moral absolutism is interesting.

Originally posted by Maslo
Maybe, maybe not. But I dont see how this is relevant.

It's relevant, because you claim that people who have sex, with no thought for their potential offspring, are ''selfish''.

Why do you define that act of selfishness as any worse than every single other selfish action that we take on a day to day basis ?

Originally posted by Maslo
Dead? You mean non-existent. You can be dead only after you are alive. Non-existence is not good or bad, it is neutral.

Alright, Percy Pedant.

I dare you to go up to a grown man that was raised in comparative poverty, and say to his face that he'd be better off if he had never existed.

In fact, I'll up the stakes and ''double dare'' you.

Originally posted by Maslo
It is funny how you are trying to prove that genetic factors matter to me, so you can say that I am an eugenicist, ergo I am nazi or god knows what, and that is evil. Genetics of the parents is not important for me.

Are you denying that genetic factors contribute to someone's propensity to be mentally stable ?

Nice counter-invocation of Godwin's Law, by the way.

Originally posted by Maslo
There are plenty of correct ways to raise a child, there are plenty of incorrect (addicted, abusive parents, poverty etc.) ways to raise a child. I believe that requiring parents to be psychologicaly and materially ready would save lots of children from the incorrect way.

Again, you put across your view, without actually justifying why you believe it.

There are no ''correct'' or ''incorrect'' ways to raise children, as far as I can see, it's only up to the parents, and the law of the land, to decide what is, and isn't, appropriate.

Originally posted by Maslo
I do not consider procreation to be basic human right, so even negative birth control is sometimes justified IMHO.

What do you think are basic human rights ?

Originally posted by Maslo
Again, you are making this up. There are other ways than sterilizing everybody. Just look at China. Sterilizations are quite rare, and are for repeated offenders.

I am not making this up.

If I decided to go out tomorrow and become a drug addict, then there is nothing to stop me having children if I became one.

The only logical way that you can prevent someone from having a child, is to prevent them from having the chance to. ie. sterilisation before puberty.

Originally posted by Maslo
False dichotomy.

No it's not.

It may appear that way, because I only offer up two possibilities, but if you think about it, they are the only two broad possibilities of this issue.

Unless you can come up with a third viable alternative, then I'll stand corrected.

reply to post by Maslo


Well, they are reversible. Vasectomies Reversible?

However, another question that I should pose is this: If a non-surgical method was found that would allow for effective birth control in males/females (once a year injection, medication), would that be more receptive than a surgical procedure?

Originally posted by Death_Kron
What a silly post

Of course limiting a human beings ability to have sex and reproduce is infringing on a humans right.......

Once again, you proved MY point. I've stated many times that my position is NOT to limit your ability to have sex. Of course, that is what EVERYONE thinks of when you talk about limiting reproduction. Maybe you think I'm advocating your member off.

Limiting reproduction has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your ability to have sex.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Maybe in a previous evolutionary state. But a lot of television shows and movies seem to highlight only the pleasure aspect of sex. I think sex for pleasure outweighs the desire to procreate nowadays.

Originally posted by epsilon69
I have a question for the OP where do you get the right (from what source) to open me up and perform a vasectomy to my body without my permission. I'm assuming that those who don't agree with your little plan here won't be able to opt out of the program so easily. What if i don't meet your eugenic's standards and I don't agree to have a vascectomy? Will i be detained? Forcibly sterilized? Or worse? This whole idea reeks of tyranny as you do not allow or even consider for that matter what the person's own choice would be you simply believe that you know what is best for him and that because of this you have the right to act. Collectivism is tyranny even if it is masked in the "greater good" mantra.

Rights? Well, you gave them to me. Permission? Who says I need your permission? One of the conditions of your birth was to allow the state to perform effective birth control measures starting at puberty (whether it be vasectomy, tubaligation, injections, etc..) until such time that you can prove to the state that you are approved for reproduction.

Your choice to have sex for pleasure remains intact. You choice to love and find love remains intact. Your choice to get an education, a job and financial security remains intact.

When you are ready, you will come to the state, get approval and start a family.

Originally posted by calstorm
[I think I want to vomit.
So lets just punish the child for the mothers "crimes" shall we?

Aside from the fact that children are 11 times more likely to be abused and 7 times more likely to die in government care, who is to determine what that income level should be? Enough to keep them clothed and fed even if money is a little tight for non necessities or enough for them to wear high end clothing and go to summer camp abroad? There are some people are wise with their money and can raise a child extremely well on $1000 a month, and some people making $10,000 a month due to poor spending habits and going into debt for things they can not afford can't make ends meet.

Vomit away then. Whose stating anywhere that the government is raising the children? If a person can prove that they can raise a child on $1000/mo and meet the other criteria, then they would be approved. However, that same couple may not be able to raise 2 or more children. Conversely, a person who makes $10,000/mo. doesn't automatically qualify them to have 10 children.

Money is only one criteria. The major factor here is that the child is born wanted and has the best possible chance of a future.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by epsilon69
I have a question for the OP where do you get the right (from what source) to open me up and perform a vasectomy to my body without my permission. I'm assuming that those who don't agree with your little plan here won't be able to opt out of the program so easily. What if i don't meet your eugenic's standards and I don't agree to have a vascectomy? Will i be detained? Forcibly sterilized? Or worse? This whole idea reeks of tyranny as you do not allow or even consider for that matter what the person's own choice would be you simply believe that you know what is best for him and that because of this you have the right to act. Collectivism is tyranny even if it is masked in the "greater good" mantra.

Rights? Well, you gave them to me. Permission? Who says I need your permission? One of the conditions of your birth was to allow the state to perform effective birth control measures starting at puberty (whether it be vasectomy, tubaligation, injections, etc..) until such time that you can prove to the state that you are approved for reproduction.

Your choice to have sex for pleasure remains intact. You choice to love and find love remains intact. Your choice to get an education, a job and financial security remains intact.

When you are ready, you will come to the state, get approval and start a family.

I did not give you your rights and you do not give me mine. I have the right to my property including my body, and my liberty and if you think you can take those away then you are no better than Hitler. Look at what you just wrote, you say you do not need permission to take away my right to find a partner and produce a child, how totally sickening it is that you do not realize what you just wrote. Do you have the right to steal my car from my drive way? NO. You may have the ability but it does not mean you have the right, if you infringe on my rights I have the moral and legal responsiblity to stop you with force if need be.

Why should i have to prove to the state to gain the right to reproduce? Because some lawmaker says so? Or because the majority voted it in? If a Law is morally illegitimate you do not have to follow that law. If your country wrote a law telling you to discriminate against black people would you follow that law? Would you be wrong for not following it or would the government be wrong for enforcing it?

What you are doing here is treating rights as maleable and ever changing based on whatever moral reality you see fit. In your world the rights are given to us by the government and any law they write can take them away. In your world the government is the ultimate moral authority and executioner. If you wish to have a vasectomy then it is your right to do so but it is my right to say i will have no part of it and if you try to force me then i will defend myself with the same force you attempted to use to take away my rights.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Maybe in a previous evolutionary state.

What do you mean: ''in a previous evolutionary state'' ?

What biological, evolutionary leap do you possibly imagine that we've had in the last 50 years ?!

Originally posted by epsilon69
I did not give you your rights and you do not give me mine. I have the right to my property including my body, and my liberty and if you think you can take those away then you are no better than Hitler.

I just love the Hitler references. Never seems to be out of reach when talking about limiting reproduction.

Look at what you just wrote, you say you do not need permission to take away my right to find a partner and produce a child, how totally sickening it is that you do not realize what you just wrote.

Oh, I realize what I wrote...do you? I am NOT talking away your ABILITY to find a partner nor produce a child. You are fully capable of reproduction if you meet the criteria to do so. What is so hard about that? You don't just walk into a car dealership and tell them you want a car. No, you need to demonstrate to the dealer that you have the resources to pay for it. And if you wish to finance, then your credit history becomes the justification for said purchase.

If a couple wishes to adopt a child, they must have a home study done. And they must show that they are financially able to care for the child. Why shouldn't some form of like policy be applied to people who wish to procreate?

Do you have the right to steal my car from my drive way? NO. You may have the ability but it does not mean you have the right, if you infringe on my rights I have the moral and legal responsibility to stop you with force if need be.

Limiting reproduction is one of the most effective up-front ways of dealing with many of the issues that plague today's society. Rather that turning everyone lose to do as they please when it comes to procreation, we should have input as the whole of society to guide our ability to procreate responsibly.

I am not advocating murdering anyone as you have suggested by your rhetoric (and who is like Hitler?). I am suggesting that we need a standard, some measure to help us decide as a species who should be given the right to reproduce.

We can't undue what has already been done. We shall still care for the poor and meek among us, deal with the issues of teen pregnancy, welfare, drug addicts, abortion, gang violence, etc.. But, we can start to make changes regarding our future.

Yes, the change will not be easy. It is hard to understand why reproduction must be limited for a time. Perhaps in a future time, those limits shall be eliminated when man learns how to care for their fellow man in a way that past generations would be proud of.

Why should i have to prove to the state to gain the right to reproduce? Because some lawmaker says so? Or because the majority voted it in? If a Law is morally illegitimate you do not have to follow that law. If your country wrote a law telling you to discriminate against black people would you follow that law? Would you be wrong for not following it or would the government be wrong for enforcing it?

What you are doing here is treating rights as maleable and ever changing based on whatever moral reality you see fit. In your world the rights are given to us by the government and any law they write can take them away. In your world the government is the ultimate moral authority and executioner. If you wish to have a vasectomy then it is your right to do so but it is my right to say i will have no part of it and if you try to force me then i will defend myself with the same force you attempted to use to take away my rights.

If not the government, then some other advocating body. Do you have to prove to the state that you posses the ability to drive a car? Do you just tell the folks at the DMV to give you a license? Or do you have to pass a test in order to obtain the privilege to drive? Your not born with this right to drive a car, are you?

Black people...come on, stay on subject.

There are those here advocating the rise of social equality...to put it simply, redistribution. How is taking from one group and giving to another going to fix society's problems when the root of the problem has never been dealt with.

Fact it, there are some people entirely not capable of raising children. And these children are put into a lifestyle that often times creates a viscous circle that is not easily broken. And when the government step in with their programs designed to aid these people, the end result is a class of people dependent on the government for all of their basic needs all of their life. And when procreation is not limited, the circle widens, resulting in more programs, more violence, more poverty, etc.. The disparity between classes becomes even greater and then we hear the cries of social injustice and the need to redistribute the wealth.

If we are to evolve as a species, we must learn to manage our ability to reproduce more effectively.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Maybe in a previous evolutionary state. But a lot of television shows and movies seem to highlight only the pleasure aspect of sex. I think sex for pleasure outweighs the desire to procreate nowadays.

Doesn't change it's biological function...

Will try again, please explain why we shouldn't cut peoples hands off to prevent violence?

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
I just love the Hitler references. Never seems to be out of reach when talking about limiting reproduction.

This is a perfectly resonable reference considering both you and Hitler would reach the same ends. Instead of using vasectomies Hitler simply killed those off he wished not to reproduce. You on the other hand would sterilize those you do not wish to procreate. Please tell me where you and Hitler differ on overall eugenics policies.

Oh, I realize what I wrote...do you? I am NOT talking away your ABILITY to find a partner nor produce a child.

Yes you are taking away my ability to find a partner and produce a child. In your proposed system i could not find a partner and produce a child simply because i would be sterile and would have to prove myself to some illegitimite government panel in order to reproduce. So in all honesty you ARE taking away my ability to reproduce without the involvement of the state.

You are fully capable of reproduction if you meet the criteria to do so. What is so hard about that?

You say i must meet criteria based on mental health and genetics therefore if i was born with a genetic disorder your government would not allow me to reproduce. What is so hard about that you say? Well based on your system unless i could wish away my genetic disorder i will never get the chance to reproduce in your society.
But this brings up another point. What is considered a genetic disorder to you? Would a 100 IQ be a genetic disorder? 100 is the average IQ today. Would you consider being albino a genetic disorder? What about being Black or Jewish? Hitler and many other people of his time and before him would have considered any other race but white as being genetically inferior. So we have to leave this criteria process up to your little opinionated governmental panel. No thanks Nazi germany already tried that and even though they had a majority government they still committed morally decrepit acts.

You don't just walk into a car dealership and tell them you want a car. No, you need to demonstrate to the dealer that you have the resources to pay for it. And if you wish to finance, then your credit history becomes the justification for said purchase.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Trading resources with one another like in the scenario you mentioned above is in no way similar to having a child with another individual. When having a child with another individual in most cases the two individuals agree to having sex and take on the full responsiblities of what comes with that sex, which may include the responsibility of raising a child.

If a couple wishes to adopt a child, they must have a home study done. And they must show that they are financially able to care for the child. Why shouldn't some form of like policy be applied to people who wish to procreate?

Again you are comparing apples to oranges. Adopting responsiblity of a child from one person to another is totally different than creating a child between yourself and a sexual partner. in which case you take on all responsibilities that are inherent with that child, if you do not you will be charged with negligence.

Limiting reproduction is one of the most effective up-front ways of dealing with many of the issues that plague today's society. Rather that turning everyone lose to do as they please when it comes to procreation, we should have input as the whole of society to guide our ability to procreate responsibly.

According to who? You? We should allow basic laws of nature and human economic laws to govern reproduction like they have for the history of our species. They seemed to have worked. Me and you are here aren't we?

I am not advocating murdering anyone as you have suggested by your rhetoric (and who is like Hitler?). I am suggesting that we need a standard, some measure to help us decide as a species who should be given the right to reproduce.

No you are not advocating murdering anyone but you are advocating infringing on peoples right to reproduce which is a horribly decrepit act of sadism considering how strongly our emotions are linked with this process.
If you want a standard to help guide reproduction then you needn't do anything nature already provided them. People will not procreate willingly with others they do not find physically attractive and people are not likely to procreate when resources are scarce.

We can't undue what has already been done. We shall still care for the poor and meek among us, deal with the issues of teen pregnancy, welfare, drug addicts, abortion, gang violence, etc.. But, we can start to make changes regarding our future.

I don't think i need to explain this to anyone you are basically telling people that you know whats better for them than they do.

Yes, the change will not be easy. It is hard to understand why reproduction must be limited for a time. Perhaps in a future time, those limits shall be eliminated when man learns how to care for their fellow man in a way that past generations would be proud of.

Of course it is hard to understand why reproduction must be limited, it is irrational, it is immoral, it is infringing on the natural right to procreate which every species has the ability to do free from any form of governing power. It is a fundamentalist view point that the whole of society will almost always disagree with.

Perhaps man can care for his fellow man by allowing him the basic inalienable rights and liberties he was born with?

If not the government, then some other advocating body. Do you have to prove to the state that you posses the ability to drive a car? Do you just tell the folks at the DMV to give you a license? Or do you have to pass a test in order to obtain the privilege to drive? Your not born with this right to drive a car, are you?

Apples and oranges the state owns the road system currently and therefore it forces us to get a license if we want access to this road system. It would be the same way if i owned a private highway. I wouldn't just allow anyone to come and drive on my highway i would have to make sure it was safe for the other people driving on it. So i would require a driving test or other similar licensing to drive on my private highway. The state however does not own your body therefore the state has no authority to perform acts on your body without your permission.
And yes you are born with the right to drive YOUR car on your property this is a very important point here. This right falls under the larger right of owning private property and the liberty to use your private property how you see fit.

Black people...come on, stay on subject.

This was on subject. i brought up an example to see if you would follow a law even if it was morally and philisophically inept and you dodged the point because i used black people in my example. But believe it or not there WAS a law in the USA that stated that black people who escaped from the south were to be returned back to their southern slave owners. It was called the Fugitive Slave act. And guess what? People in the northern states found this law to be morally disgusting so when a persoan was on trial for not returning a slave to the south the jury would find that person not guilty based on the fact that the law was not moral.

There are those here advocating the rise of social equality...to put it simply, redistribution. How is taking from one group and giving to another going to fix society's problems when the root of the problem has never been dealt with.

I'm all for social equality but not if it requires force to take from some to give to others. Maybe you can tell us what the root of the problem is? I hope you won't use debunked eugenics claims that were tried in the early 1900's.

Fact it, there are some people entirely not capable of raising children. And these children are put into a lifestyle that often times creates a viscous circle that is not easily broken. And when the government step in with their programs designed to aid these people, the end result is a class of people dependent on the government for all of their basic needs all of their life. And when procreation is not limited, the circle widens, resulting in more programs, more violence, more poverty, etc.. The disparity between classes becomes even greater and then we hear the cries of social injustice and the need to redistribute the wealth.

The fact is this phenomenom is caused entirely by government programs designed to help the poor but do exactly the opposite. This problem is not because poor people are having babies but because poor parents are on welfare which ahs bred a culture of welfare.

If we are to evolve as a species, we must learn to manage our ability to reproduce more effectively.

We are evolving as a species and doing what you propose would impose your will over other people causing them to lose their right to make decisions on whether or not to have a child, you would instead impose your opinion on them to manage society as you see fit. Not according to their best interest but accodring to your common good mantra. Collectivism is a form of tyranny dressed up to look morally appealing.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Where do you believe that ''right'' stems from ? Government ? God ? You ? Other ? Deplete as applicable.

They stem from society recognising them and granting them to you. It is not ideal, but this is reality and it is the best we have.

It's relevant, because you claim that people who have sex, with no thought for their potential offspring, are ''selfish''. Why do you define that act of selfishness as any worse than every single other selfish action that we take on a day to day basis ?

Because this one violates the right of another person, the future child. Thus it should be illegal, like plenty of other selfish acts involving two people are, for example stealing, abuse etc.

Are you denying that genetic factors contribute to someone's propensity to be mentally stable ?

All I am saying is that mentally stable people can have babies, mentally unstable should not. Whether the reason is genetic or something other is irrelevant to me.

There are no ''correct'' or ''incorrect'' ways to raise children, as far as I can see, it's only up to the parents, and the law of the land, to decide what is, and isn't, appropriate.

You just said it - correct and incorrect ways to raise a child are determined by parents and the law of the land. I propose to include my ideas in the law of the land.

What do you think are basic human rights ?

Right to personal liberty, property, safety and right to grow up in good conditions (!). There may be more, but this is from the top of my head.

Right to procreate? I do not recognize such a right. Why should there be such a right?

The only logical way that you can prevent someone from having a child, is to prevent them from having the chance to. ie. sterilisation before puberty.

I disagree. It is an option, but current medical science is not up to the task, because there is no reversible non-invasive method to sterilization.

Just use a combination of education, fines, tax cuts and increases, mandatory birth control pills etc. There are plenty of options besides sterilization.

We have a law against murder or stealing, but that does not prevent people from commiting it. But it helps to lower its rates. The same idea is behind my procreation control system - you do not need to sterilize all people to make unlawfull procreation illegal, period.

reply to post by Freenrgy2

Well, they are reversible. Vasectomies Reversible?

It depends on how you define reversible. 90 % succes rate reversibility is reversible enough? Certainly not enough to implement in such a wide-scale procreation control program, in my opinion.

If a non-surgical method was found that would allow for effective birth control in males/females (once a year injection, medication), would that be more receptive than a surgical procedure?

Absolutely. Medical birth control could be up to the task. The research in birth control medication is ongoing, and sky is the limit.

Hey guys,

All of us right-minded folks can agree that the anti-human, forced sterilization types hold extremely abnormal views right? And they pose a danger to our freedoms, yes?

If our children are sterilized or have their ability to reproduce infringed upon it will be by such people.

*We all know there are limits to Freedom of Speech: One cannot legally slander, libel or incite violence. Why not make it illegal to use one's speech to attempt to limit the freedoms of others? Ultimately, this can only be done through violence and the threat of violence, so it should not be tolerated.

Those who use their speech to attempt to limit the freedom and restrict the rights of others should be treated like those who use their speech to incite violence.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Those who use their speech to attempt to limit the freedom and restrict the rights of others should be treated like those who use their speech to incite violence.

What about those who use their speech to attempt to justify toleration of child abuse which can be prevented, shoudnt they be treated like those who use their speech to promote child abuse? Be careful, this logic cuts both ways

reply to post by Maslo


Inciting violence is already a crime is it not?

Anyhow child abuse is a continuum issue.

For Example: Is it child abuse to put your kid to work, when the alternative is that he starves? The answer is no, because death is the alternative.

Most people in the decadent west might take a different viewpoint, as they have the luxury of not having to deal with this reality. Many westerners would say, 'someone could adopt the child' - not realizing (or pretending not to realize) that there is often a 'surplus' of children where such circumstances come to pass and that adoption is not an option. The only alternative to factory work is child prostitution. . . Or death.

But you cannot incite people to kill and assault other people and children are people. So if some 10 year old takes yer job, you cannot incite a violent riot against him on his lawn.

Originally posted by epsilon69
This is a perfectly resonable reference considering both you and Hitler would reach the same ends. Instead of using vasectomies Hitler simply killed those off he wished not to reproduce. You on the other hand would sterilize those you do not wish to procreate. Please tell me where you and Hitler differ on overall eugenics policies.

Nope, I am not advocating murder. What I am advocating is that SOCIETY as a whole make a determination for what qualifies a person for reproduction.

Yes you are taking away my ability to find a partner and produce a child. In your proposed system i could not find a partner and produce a child simply because i would be sterile and would have to prove myself to some illegitimite government panel in order to reproduce. So in all honesty you ARE taking away my ability to reproduce without the involvement of the state.

How? Please explain how limiting one's reproduction impedes on your ability to find a partner.

You say i must meet criteria based on mental health and genetics therefore if i was born with a genetic disorder your government would not allow me to reproduce. What is so hard about that you say? Well based on your system unless i could wish away my genetic disorder i will never get the chance to reproduce in your society.
But this brings up another point. What is considered a genetic disorder to you? Would a 100 IQ be a genetic disorder? 100 is the average IQ today. Would you consider being albino a genetic disorder? What about being Black or Jewish? Hitler and many other people of his time and before him would have considered any other race but white as being genetically inferior. So we have to leave this criteria process up to your little opinionated governmental panel. No thanks Nazi germany already tried that and even though they had a majority government they still committed morally decrepit acts.

How about having an income above the poverty limit. Probably a good idea. This would not be ONE person's (like Hitler) point of view. This would be set by SOCIETY. For all of you in favor of community, this is right up your alley.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Trading resources with one another like in the scenario you mentioned above is in no way similar to having a child with another individual. When having a child with another individual in most cases the two individuals agree to having sex and take on the full responsiblities of what comes with that sex, which may include the responsibility of raising a child.

Sure it is. You have resources (sperm, ovum) that you wish to exchange with another individual. And you assume that EVERY child born is the result of careful deliberation and that it is planned. What about the woman who has 8 children by 8 different father's? Perhaps she planned it this way so that she could live off the government the rest of her life. And what example did she set for her kids? What percentage of those children will go on to repeat her behavior?

Again you are comparing apples to oranges. Adopting responsiblity of a child from one person to another is totally different than creating a child between yourself and a sexual partner. in which case you take on all responsibilities that are inherent with that child, if you do not you will be charged with negligence.

How is creating life different from taking on a life? Whose to say that just because you can create a child automatically qualifies you to raise that child. There is a double standard with this and there shouldn't be.

According to who? You? We should allow basic laws of nature and human economic laws to govern reproduction like they have for the history of our species. They seemed to have worked. Me and you are here aren't we?

And so is poverty, gang violence, drug users, the welfare state. I say it has failed and time for society to intervene.

No you are not advocating murdering anyone but you are advocating infringing on peoples right to reproduce which is a horribly decrepit act of sadism considering how strongly our emotions are linked with this process. If you want a standard to help guide reproduction then you needn't do anything nature already provided them. People will not procreate willingly with others they do not find physically attractive and people are not likely to procreate when resources are scarce.

I am suggesting the SOCIETY enact criteria which a person(s) should meet in order to create/raise a child. From what I see a lot of young people care more about the pleasure aspect of sex rather than creating a child. Those who wish to reproduce I'm sure will live their lives in a way that allows them to do this.

I don't think i need to explain this to anyone you are basically telling people that you know whats better for them than they do.

I believe SOCIETY has already answered this. If someone born into poverty is able to meet the criteria to reproduce, so be it. They would not be discreminated against.

Of course it is hard to understand why reproduction must be limited, it is irrational, it is immoral, it is infringing on the natural right to procreate which every species has the ability to do free from any form of governing power. It is a fundamentalist view point that the whole of society will almost always disagree with.

Again, just because you are born with this ablity, should not make it automatic for you to use this ability. I was born with the ability to urinate, but I am restricted on where I can.

Apples and oranges the state owns the road system currently and therefore it forces us to get a license if we want access to this road system. It would be the same way if i owned a private highway. I wouldn't just allow anyone to come and drive on my highway i would have to make sure it was safe for the other people driving on it. So i would require a driving test or other similar licensing to drive on my private highway. The state however does not own your body therefore the state has no authority to perform acts on your body without your permission.
And yes you are born with the right to drive YOUR car on your property this is a very important point here. This right falls under the larger right of owning private property and the liberty to use your private property how you see fit.

But if your actions (procreation) causes harm to the state, shouldn't they be allowed to limit the damage? And, I can own a gun (private property), but I certainly CAN NOT use that property as I see fit.

This was on subject. i brought up an example to see if you would follow a law even if it was morally and philisophically inept and you dodged the point because i used black people in my example. But believe it or not there WAS a law in the USA that stated that black people who escaped from the south were to be returned back to their southern slave owners. It was called the Fugitive Slave act. And guess what? People in the northern states found this law to be morally disgusting so when a persoan was on trial for not returning a slave to the south the jury would find that person not guilty based on the fact that the law was not moral.

No, this was race baiting. The topic is limiting reproduction.

I'm all for social equality but not if it requires force to take from some to give to others. Maybe you can tell us what the root of the problem is? I hope you won't use debunked eugenics claims that were tried in the early 1900's.

That's not what limiting reproduction is all about.

The fact is this phenomenom is caused entirely by government programs designed to help the poor but do exactly the opposite. This problem is not because poor people are having babies but because poor parents are on welfare which ahs bred a culture of welfare.

Exactly, and one of the reasons for limiting reproduction.

evolving as a species and doing what you propose would impose your will over other people causing them to lose their right to make decisions on whether or not to have a child, you would instead impose your opinion on them to manage society as you see fit. Not according to their best interest but accodring to your common good mantra. Collectivism is a form of tyranny dressed up to look morally appealing.

Again, stop trying to insist that it would be just MY will. It would be the WILL of the PEOPLE.

I think many of you are assuming that my position is to permanently sterlize huge swaths of the population.

Pehaps medical birth control methods might be an easier pill to swallow. This is TEMPORARY and is entirely dependent on YOU as a human being to present yourself capable to create/raise a child. Most people would gladly do this. For those of you against such measures, well it already tells me a lot about you. Are you a member of the population that thinks you deserve a handout; that you don't need to work?

In order to create a better SOCIETY we need to create better PEOPLE.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Nope, I am not advocating murder. What I am advocating is that SOCIETY as a whole make a determination for what qualifies a person for reproduction.

What if someone from a society wants reproductive freedom and everyone else wants sterilization?

What would you have happen to that one person?

reply to post by Exuberant1


What if I want elected leaders to follow the Constitution but a huge portion of the population wants the government to take care of them cradle to grave. What should happen to me?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey guys,

All of us right-minded folks can agree that the anti-human, forced sterilization types hold extremely abnormal views right? And they pose a danger to our freedoms, yes?

If our children are sterilized or have their ability to reproduce infringed upon it will be by such people.

*We all know there are limits to Freedom of Speech: One cannot legally slander, libel or incite violence. Why not make it illegal to use one's speech to attempt to limit the freedoms of others? Ultimately, this can only be done through violence and the threat of violence, so it should not be tolerated.

Those who use their speech to attempt to limit the freedom and restrict the rights of others should be treated like those who use their speech to incite violence.

edit on 19-10-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

What makes them EXTREMELY abnormal? Because they aren't YOUR views?

And what is your point? Do you really think you can restrict my RIGHT to free speech? Who are you to restrict my RIGHTS. Has my opinion incited violence? If true, then this thread would be wiped from ATS in a heartbeat.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
What makes them EXTREMELY abnormal? Because they aren't YOUR views?

And what is your point? Do you really think you can restrict my RIGHT to free speech? Who are you to restrict my RIGHTS. Has my opinion incited violence? If true, then this thread would be wiped from ATS in a heartbeat.

edit on 19-10-2010 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)

The irony is amazing....

Who are you to restrict a humans right to reproduce?