Is/should reproduction be a basic human right?

[Masark]

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

You mean "ever go back to a point". Several countries, the USA and Canada included, have already been there, mostly early last century when eugenics was thought to be a pretty kickin' idea.

Then we got on the whole "human rights" thing and stopped that.

[Vizardlorde]

As someone with a ridiculously large family I hate modern ridiculously sized families that keep growing cause they dont believe in condoms... ( my grandfather had 18 siblings, grandmother had 9 and my other grandmother had 7 and my other grandfather had 6 siblings.) But they ones with bigger numbers were born in the countryside where they helped their parents work the fields and stuff like that. Almost none of them or their siblings had more than 4 children.

[Duridi]

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.

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.

These two first responses pretty much cover it for me. It's not a debate I feel anyone has any right to take. The issue with overpopulation is a bit more complex than just stopping people from having children, but that's a subject I don't have the energy to enter right now.

Having children taken away however... There's plenty of people who should have had that.

Honestly, I have never really understood why "Having children should not be a human right". We basicly live to reproduce. Every single being does that in one way or another as far as I know. We can choose what we want to fill our lives with, and if that's children(and you are actually capable of not causing them heavy damage), you should be allowed to make that choice on your own.

[Rukentuts]

Then we got on the whole "human rights" thing and stopped that.

We'd just need to be in a dire enough situation that certain other rights outweighed the right to reproduce. We're just not close to anything like that right now.

[Radux]

You mean "ever go back to a point". Several countries, the USA and Canada included, have already been there, mostly early last century when eugenics was thought to be a pretty kickin' idea.

Then we got on the whole "human rights" thing and stopped that.

Yeah I guess I was (poorly) implying current laws/trends.

[Katchii]

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.

I'll respectfully disagree with this, even though I know there is no way to ever enforce it. Not everyone should be allowed to have children, for various reasons. I always bring up the opening sequence of the movie "Idiocracy" as to why, because it sums it up pretty nicely.

My belief was reinforced when I learned that the process for adoption required the prospective parent(s) to go through background checks and complete an application asked some pretty serious questions about how the child would be raised, schools and education, family life, income, etc....

If a prospective adoptive parent for an already born child has to go through background checks and a pretty rigourous application process to show they are prepared and willing to raise a child....why is it that any moron, whose only qualifying attribute is the ability to have an orgasm with someone of the oppostie sex, can just make one of their own regardless of their ability or willingness to actually raise the child?

[Duridi]

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

"Shit and misery", isn't always the case. You don't have to be perfect, to be able to enjoy what you actually have.

[Goondicker]

While I don't quite think it's right to tell people they can't have kids, this is pretty relevant...

http://youtu.be/Aiyo2K7DvfA?t=7m5s

People who shouldn't have kids are the ones breeding like gerbils.

[Tradewind]

"Shit and misery", isn't always the case. You don't have to be perfect, to be able to enjoy what you actually have.

Well some genetic diseases do result in shit and misery then death

Colorblindness is hardly anything to be worried about. Tay-Sachs on the other hand...is fucking brutal. Nervous degeneration, excruciating pain, followed by blindness, deafness, muscular atrophy, paralysis and death by the age of 4.

[Duridi]

If a prospective adoptive parent for an already born child has to go through background checks and a pretty rigourous application process to show they are prepared and willing to raise a child....why is it that any moron, whose only qualifying attribute is the ability to have an orgasm with someone of the oppostie sex, can just make one of their own regardless of their ability or willingness to actually raise the child?

Actually, different countries have different laws regarding this. The adopting parents have to follow both the requirements of their home country, and the country to pick to adopt a child from. I haven't looked too much into it, but China, which is a country where many norwegians used to adopt from, has become so extremely strict on their adoption rules, that hardly any norwegian couples are allowed to adopt from them anymore. People get told to not even bother trying, because our social norms aren't supported by chinese social norms.

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.

[Revi]

I can't come up with any morally sound way to regulate who can and can not reproduce. So no, I don't think there should be laws regulating it in any way (other than the ones in place deciding who you can legally have sex with, those we need).

I do judge people who have children if they're not able to support them financially, raise them in a healthy environment or bring a child with a crippling illness into the world.

The illness part can be screened for, and I think all people at risk should take the necessary test and terminate if the child has a severe illness. You can always try again. If it's something that is high risk but can't be discovered until it's too late, they should adopt or get eggs/sperm from a family member if they wish to be biologically related.

Oh, and then there's people who have kids simply because they're bored or are trying to save their relationship but end up regretting it.

If you're not prepared to have a child and give it a happy life, don't have one.

[Hraklea]

I'll respectfully disagree with this, even though I know there is no way to ever enforce it. Not everyone should be allowed to have children, for various reasons.

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?

[Blur4stuff]

if you can't support a child or have genetic issues then you shouldn't reproduce. it should certainly be illegal. but, it would be nearly impossible to enforce without some serious jumps forward with technology.

i have some personal experience with this. my grandmother had nf1. my grandfather didn't, so that means their kids had a 50/50 shot of getting it. even though i wouldn't exist, she shouldn't have had kids. sure enough, half of her children got nf1. they had health complications and both died from brain cancer early in life, but not before they also had kids. those kids, of course, ended up with nf1 as well and some of them led very miserable lives.

if it could be enforced i would 100% support making it illegal for folks with genetic issues to reproduce. there would have to be a serious discussion of where to draw the line, but it needs to be done.

[Deleted]

"Shit and misery", isn't always the case. You don't have to be perfect, to be able to enjoy what you actually have.

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?

[Vizardlorde]

Should incestuous couples be allowed to have children?

[nextt03]

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

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.

The problem with this topic is that, though there are circumstances many of us would say "oh they shouldnt reproduce" a lot of great people and generally good people have come from rough situations. Situations where we would say, nothing good can come of that so lets outlaw it. Outlawing reproduction is a tough one.

[Hraklea]

if you can't support a child or have genetic issues then you shouldn't reproduce

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

[Lenonis]

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?

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.

[Underverse]

Reproduction should absolutely not be a basic human right. Even if we assume that rights can and should exist (which we cannot do), this one would deny logic on many levels.

[Duridi]

Well some genetic diseases do result in shit and misery then death

Obviously, but that choice is already there. The problem is really that we don't know the person that carries it. Many severly brain damaged people are seemingly quite happy. Others with less brain damage, but still plenty.. just enough so they can communicate, also often share with the world that they are very happy with who they are and what they have. Then there's pain... who can predict pain? It's really a though decision, which either has to be decided by parents during pregnancy, not society themselves. It's simply a chance one has to chose to either take, or not. Well, in my opinion it's not up to society as a whole to make decision what is worthy and what is not.