Is/should reproduction be a basic human right?

[Stir]

There's plenty of people of whom I think they should not reproduce.
I just don't believe anyone should make it illegal for some people to reproduce. That'd be an incredibly bad idea.

[Lenonis]

Should incestuous couples be allowed to have children?

I think this is going to end up being a hurdle to legalizing incest (if nothing else)

[vindicatorx]

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.

I think it should I see way too many shitlords who have kids and either treat them like shit, exploit them for welfare, or abuse the shit out of them. I personally feel you should have to have some sort of license to have kids and issue fines or cut them off government aid. People like this woman in the following video are a prime example. She has 15 kids her boyfriend got arrested and is in jail she has been living in this house for free as the people who are the owners were kind enough to help her out and she has trashed the place and was fighting eviction. In the end of the video she rants how someone needs to pay for her 15 kids :they need to be held accountable". This woman should not have been allowed to have 15 kids seeing she can't afford to have 1. Just because you can have kids, doesn't mean you should have kids.

[Underverse]

Define "genetic issues". I have myopia, are you saying I should not have kids?

The contribution of genes to myopia isn't really clear yet. The biggest observation we've made is that the eyes adjust to their environment during development - so kids who read books and play video games are much more likely develop myopia.

[Hraklea]

All laws are based off peoples feelings. Someone earlier said there should be know law against the way someone uses their own bodily functions. People cant walk around naked everywhere though, or publicly urinate. That's because as a majority we feel it is wrong so we outlawed it.

And that's wrong. A lot of people "feel it is wrong" to be gay. A lot of people "feel it is wrong" to be black. I can keep going, but I think my point is clear. Laws should be based on the basic right of freedom, not on someone's personal feelings. My feelings are not better than yours and I should not be able to push my moral code onto you.

[Underverse]

Should incestuous couples be allowed to have children?

Yes. Especially with our modern abortion practices.

[Itisamuh]

I'd say if you've got issues that mean your children probably won't be healthy, or you aren't financially able to support them yourself with no assistance, you shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Of course there's really no way to enforce that, and people would go ballistic if we tried.

[Radux]

I think it should I see way too many shitlords who have kids and either treat them like shit, exploit them for welfare, or abuse the shit out of them. I personally feel you should have to have some sort of license to have kids and issue fines or cut them off government aid. People like this woman in the following video are a prime example. She has 15 kids her boyfriend got arrested and is in jail she has been living in this house for free as the people who are the owners were kind enough to help her out and she has trashed the place and was fighting eviction. In the end of the video she rants how someone needs to pay for her 15 kids :they need to be held accountable". This woman should not have been allowed to have 15 kids seeing she can't afford to have 1. Just because you can have kids, doesn't mean you should have kids.

And I said earlier that I do agree that there are situations where it might be better if people just didn't have kids (for various reasons). I shouldn't have a say if you have kids or not.

If you aren't financially stable, or a substance abuse junkie, or have a fatal genetic disease to pass on, I would hope you could think it through logically to make that decision for yourself.

That's all I'm getting at.

[Hraklea]

I would argue that if it is a situation where your children would be taken away then that's a pretty good bar (at a minimum) for stating that you should not have kids.

That's not really an answer. Why my standards to remove your children from you are better than your standards to remove my children from me? Not everything should be solved by pure democracy.

The contribution of genes to myopia isn't really clear yet.

Don't get to attached to the example. Let's generalize it: if I have an genetic issue that can be solved (with glasses, for instance), should I be prohibited from having kids? What if I had an uncommon characteristic (like boldness)? You must agree that "genetic issues" is just too vague for a debate like this.

[Duridi]

But it is the case, always, in the case I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about those cases, not "not being perfect." Also, are you one to make the decision for someone, that they should live their life with a disorder or disfigurement that could've been taken care of before their birth, just because "they don't have to be perfect?" You think those people would agree with you?

No, I think that is a choice the parents have to take for the unborn child. Personally, I don't know which choice I would have made if I got told I was expecting a sick child, but it would certainly not be a given "keep it". This is exactly why I responded to you, we can never know what they case will really be, before it's there. It's rolling a dice.

[Underverse]

Don't get to attached to the example. Let's generalize it: if I have an genetic issue that can be solved (with glasses, for instance), should I be prohibited from having kids? What if I had an uncommon characteristic (like boldness)? You must agree that "genetic issues" is just too vague for a debate like this.

Yes, I do agree. I think, as with everything, the question can be asked in the context of propagative potential. If a certain genetic trait reduces net propagative potential - if you cannot contribute to society and are reliant on others without giving anything back because of this genetic trait - you should not pass on this genetic trait. One might even go so far as to say we should enforce a law preventing you from passing on that trait (enforcement also has a cost in terms of propagative potential, which must be factored into the equation).

Because we have abortion and genetic testing, and we only really want to prevent this one gene from being passed on, we can min/max the net propagative potential by allowing reproduction to occur, but requiring testing, and then abortion if the trait is present.

[Arewn]

I think there should be some restrictions put in place, but I find it difficult to image a situation where gene-based discrimination of reproductive rights could actually be implemented.

Sydanyo's mention of screening brings up a good point where I feel they could start putting regulations. Make such a screening non-optional, check for serious but fixable issues, and then give the option: no baby or you have it fixed. Because it's immoral to purposely bring someone into the world who's screwed from the get go when you have the ability to un-screw them.

China did have that whole "1 child per couple" thing going on to deal with their over-population problems mind you. Bit different from what we're talking about here, but it does show that restrictions on birthing rights aren't completely unheard of.

[Duridi]

All laws are based off peoples feelings. Someone earlier said there should be know law against the way someone uses their own bodily functions. People cant walk around naked everywhere though, or publicly urinate. That's because as a majority we feel it is wrong so we outlawed it.

Actually, that's a hygienic issue aswell... It's not just what people "feel" about it. It's a public health question. Nudity aswell. Sit on a public bench naked? Want to share your fluids with the next person sitting down? + Nudity causes sexual tension. Partly built by society, but also an instinct.

[Lenonis]

Why my standards to remove your children from you are better than your standards to remove my children from me?

Well...there is this thing called critical thinking and common sense.

If you are beating your kids every night they should be taken away.
If you are smoking crack and stoned out of your head every night they should be taken away.
If you can't afford to feed or clothe them they should be taken away.

I will admit there is a large grey area, but there is definitely some base conditions that we don't have to put to a moral relativity test. Hence my comment that if the state would take your kids away this is a bar that can be set for standards.

[Duridi]

China did have that whole "1 child per couple" thing going on to deal with their over-population problems mind you. Bit different from what we're talking about here, but it does show that restrictions on birthing rights aren't completely unheard of.

It's also heavily backfired. They are lacking girls within fertile age at this point, because female babies were killed or sent away because everyone wanted a male to support the family. I can't remember exactly what they are evaluating right now, but I think they were considering allowing a second child, if your first one was a boy, or simply allowing everyone to have two. Currently, a lot of fertile women and girls have been kidnapped or sold to men with the power to do so, so that they can reproduce. Well, that's what I read in the news anyways, but I can certainly imagine something like that happening.

[Katchii]

I mean, some countries will not allow you to have a child from their country unless you are married, and there's probably more social requirements of that kind.

I am only referring to US adoption laws, and even more specifically California state laws as those are the only ones I'm even remotely familiar with.

The thing is: should I be the one to say the requirements for you to have your kids, or should you be the one to say the requirements for me to have my kids? What makes my criterias better/worse than yours?

And this is the crux of the dilemna, and why any country/ state with human rights laws will most likely never be able to implement something like this. I do believe that not all people should be able to have children, but the restrictions would be far too difficult to define and regulate.

I could give examples of some criteria that MIGHT work imo, but I don't think it would be constructive because there will always be a counter argument that starts with "what if..."

TL;DR- No I dont' believe reproduction should be a basic human right, but I can think of no lawful or fair way to enforce that belief at this time.

[Lenonis]

So if people have the right to reproduce does the state have the right to take away their kids?

And if their kids can be taken away, thus indicating that they are not fit to be parents, why do they have the right to reproduce?

There seems to be a logical disconnect there. If human reproduction is absolute, then shouldn't it be illegal to take kids away from their parents?

[Duridi]

Well...there is this thing called critical thinking and common sense.

If you are beating your kids every night they should be taken away.
If you are smoking crack and stoned out of your head every night they should be taken away.
If you can't afford to feed or clothe them they should be taken away.

I will admit there is a large grey area, but there is definitely some base conditions that we don't have to put to a moral relativity test. Hence my comment that if the state would take your kids away this is a bar that can be set for standards.

Yes, but you can't really know that before you've tried.... I mean, you cannot beat a non-existing child. You can't really tell if a "crackhead" wills tay a crackhead after havinga child either. Most likely you will though, but there's also plenty who got their act together. Afford it... again... circumstances change, and having a child works as motivation on some. A lot of people manage with little aswell, so in the last case it would have to be really extreme.

[Lenonis]

Yes, but you can't really know that before you've tried.... I mean, you cannot beat a non-existing child. You can't really tell if a "crackhead" wills tay a crackhead after havinga child either. Most likely you will though, but there's also plenty who got their act together. Afford it... again... circumstances change, and having a child works as motivation on some. A lot of people manage with little aswell, so in the last case it would have to be really extreme.

Ah, yes, but you can know if someone cannot feed or clothe a child before they give birth, and you can tell if someone is addicted to a substance (and frankly that's just an issue with the pregnancy as a whole...crack babies and such).

9 months of pregnancy is not likely to make a crack addict quit the day the baby is born, or win the lotto.

[Halyon]

With the population numbers as they are now, I'm strongly for regulated reproduction until it declines to were it's free for all again. The planet has finite resources.