Is/should reproduction be a basic human right?

[Lenonis]

I've had many theoretical discussions with people about any number of topics but one that seems to be one of the most diverse in terms of opinions comes around the subject of human reproduction and whether or not people have a fundamental right to it.

Some of the morally grey questions around this topic:

• Should someone with a genetic disease be able to reproduce?
• Should someone with a substance abuse problem be able to reproduce?
• Should someone with crippling mental illness be able to reproduce?
• Should someone who lives on public assistance be able to reproduce?
• Should someone who already has 20 kids be able to have a 21st?
• Should someone who has had children forceably taken away be able to reproduce?

At the end of the day the discussion seem to boil down to "Do people have a fundamental right to have as many children as they want?"

I admit I hold a more extreme view. I believe that people do not have a fundamental right to children. You should have to prove you have the means and the ability to parent before you are allowed to reproduce. The only problem I see with this framework is the implementation and running of this sort of testing -- as we all know it'll get corrupted and twisted around before too long.

The world is populated. We are no longer living in an era where rampant reproduction is needed to sustain world population. Bearing children should be reserved to those who can take care of the kids. Want to have a kid? Get your life to where you can support one.

What do you think? Is it a right? Is there a limit to that right?

EDIT -- I'm not talking legally -- as that'll be a pretty uninteresting conversation with everyone saying no. I'm more talking ethically/morally? Is reproduction a moral absolute?

[Radux]

I don't think we'll ever get to a point where a group can legally cease another from reproducing.

That said, ethically I feel that I could agree with some various scenarios where I might say "damn they really need to NOT have babies". But at no point would I actively go out of my way to actually stop said people, or attempt to bar them from doing so.

[Hraklea]

Yes, people should be free to have children. My standards for "the minimum requirements to raise a child" are not better than someone else's standards just because I like mine better.

[Lenonis]

I don't think we'll ever get to a point where a group can legally cease another from reproducing.

I don't know about never. As the population increases and competition for resources gets problematic there will be increased pressure to not reproduce. And at some point the dam will burst and measures will be put into place to deal with it. But it's quite a ways off I'm sure.

[BLCalliente]

Nobody has a right to prevent anyone from having children.

[Lenonis]

Yes, people should be free to have children.

So there is never a situation where you feel someone should not be allowed to have children?

[Jinali]

Yes, you shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do when it concerns their own bodily functions.

[MMOmaxi]

Please differentiate between the norm and the law.

A society can create a situation in which all of these people are unable to have kids, because nobody in their right mind would consent to having kids with those people. That's the norm at work.

However, there is no real way to outlaw the ability of two grown adults to have kids if they both choose to, regardless of their other circumstances. Or rather there are, of course, ways, but all these ways quickly lead you to a very totalitarian state

[Radux]

I don't know about never. As the population increases and competition for resources gets problematic there will be increased pressure to not reproduce. And at some point the dam will burst and measures will be put into place to deal with it. But it's quite a ways off I'm sure.

World wide? Yeah. You're correct. China has/does already implemented something similar.
In the United States? Nah. I don't think it'll happen.

[Hraklea]

So there is never a situation where you feel someone should not be allowed to have children?

Yes, there is. Should laws be based on my feelings? No, they shouldn't.

[Lenonis]

Please differentiate between the norm and the law.

I intentionally didn't use the word legal or law -- as that implies government and people don't trust government. Also hence my comment that implementation of any sort of restriction on reproduction is problematic at best.

A society can create a situation in which all of these people are unable to have kids, because nobody in their right mind would consent to having kids with those people. That's the norm at work.

If only that worked. But (un)fortunately we live in a world full of people who have all sorts of attractions that someone can get laid if they want. Heck if nothing else they can pay for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, there is. Should laws be based on my feelings? No, they shouldn't.

I'm not necessarily talking about laws. I think 95% of people or more would agree there shouldn't be laws around it.

I was more looking for a moral/ethical debate -- is there an absolute right to reproduction...no matter how screwed up you or your life situation is?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Legally no way.

[Sunseeker]

I don't think there's a universal solution to the world. If we're trying to reduce our population, reducing reproduction in Europe isn't going to help while China, India and Africa are still ballooning.

As far as developed worlds go, I'm in the middle. I don't think you have a right to reproduce as much as you like. I think for the developed world, where we don't have an overflow of population, that we ought to have a two-successful pregnancies rule.

Why pregnancies and not children? Because you can plan for a pregnancy, but you can't guarantee that you'll only get one kid out of the deal and the second is to cover accidents and people who do only get one, but want a second.

[Tradewind]

I think some people should step back for a second and think "should I have a kid?" Factoring in things like financial concerns and health concerns. That said, I don't think anyone else has a right to tell that person that they can't. Some people are dumb enough to just reproduce like fucking rabbits and luckily that's what child services are for.

[Serem]

After 3, if the parent(s) is/are unable to care for them without state assistance, then they should no longer be allowed to have additional children until they are off of it.

[Hraklea]

I'm not necessarily talking about laws. I think 95% of people or more would agree there shouldn't be laws around it. I was more looking for a moral/ethical debate -- is there an absolute right to reproduction...no matter how screwed up you or your life situation is?

You're right, you didn't talk about laws, I'm sorry about that. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "it is not about laws, it is about morality". I don't know how morality is useful if not to tell us what the rules of society should be.

Anyway, of course I have some restrictions about some people having kids. I don't think that someone should have a kid when they are too poor to support that child, for instance. Of course that the poor parents disagree with me. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe my opinion about this debate is more important than theirs - I mean, why am I the one who should say if poor people can have kids or not? Why am I the one who will decide how much poverty is "too poor"? Of course I think my opinion is the best one, but I'm obviously biased about it.

There's no situation where it would be right to prevent someone from having kids.

[Deleted]

Once we are in a situation where screening zygotes and fetuses for genetic disorders and such is routine, will a parent or the parents of a potential child have the right to not fix those genetic disorders before going ahead with the pregnancy, sentencing the child into a possibly very short and painful life?

In other words: if in a routine screening of the zygote/fetus it is determined that the child will be born with something like MS, Parkinson's, early onset Alzheimer's, or something even much worse, will the parents have the right to refuse any (at that point most likely very minor and commonplace) procedure to fix those problems? For example, because of their religion?

Do parents have the right to sentence their child into a life of shit and misery, is what I'm asking.

[Tziva]

There are definitely plenty of people I feel shouldn't have children, and there are contexts in which I feel it is immoral to do so. But governments being in charge of who gets to reproduce ranks pretty high on my list of "worst ideas ever."

[crakerjack]

I'm against people who continue to have kids when they can't even support themselves when they're already on welfare/food stamps. Those people deserve to have their children taken away assuming they're still infants and won't remember what happened. That, or people who have kids and are on welfare should be forced to become sterilized, but then people would rant about their freedoms etc. I'd really love to sucker punch someone in the face when they already have 2 kids, a couple more on the way and they're busy spending their welfare/food stamps on luxury rather than necessities.

[Radux]

Once we are in a situation where screening zygotes and fetuses for genetic disorders and such is routine, will a parent or the parents of a potential child have the right to not fix those genetic disorders before going ahead with the pregnancy, sentencing the child into a possibly very short and painful life?

In other words: if in a routine screening of the zygote/fetus it is determined that the child will be born with something like MS, Parkinson's, early onset Alzheimer's, or something even much worse, will the parents have the right to refuse any (at that point most likely very minor and commonplace) procedure to fix those problems? For example, because of their religion?

Do parents have the right to sentence their child into a life of shit and misery, is what I'm asking.

That's where the discussion can get tricky. On one hand, I doubt anyone would disagree with the idea of wanting to eradicate diseases, or have the best possible (healthy) lives for their children. On the other hand, that kinda stuff gets into the whole... genetic superiority experiments ala WW2... thing.