Should their be a Limit on how many children people can have?

[sabrelime]

You do know how an abortion is done, right? To say it's not to do with woman's right is just stupid. It's a medical procedure that has the potential to be fatal if unlucky.



They come here with large amounts of kids and get money for it, not gonna happen within 20 years but with the current pace in Sweden it's gonna happen around 2050-2060.

The risks of an abortion have many variables related to it, if you die because of an abortion then you probably just have a really shitty doctor or there was some really unknown factor inovled. I once again agree woman have the right to end a fetus's "life" so i don't see your issue with what I said. My main point is about the fact that there isn't a RIGHT to have a child to begin with, the "force" abortion part is a completely separate issue not brought up by me. There has to be some justification for why having a child is a RIGHT. Just because the child is in a woman's body, does not justify having the child, so it isn't a woman's rights issue, it's an issue of why it's considered alright to play dice with someone else's future.

[Deleted]

The risks of an abortion have many variables related to it, if you die because of an abortion that you probably just have a really shitty doctor. I once again agree woman have the right to end a fetus's "life" so i don't see your issue with what I said. My main point is about the fact that there isn't a RIGHT to have a child to begin with, the "force" abortion part is a completely separate issue not brought up by me. There has to be some justification for why having a child is a RIGHT. Just because the child is in a woman's body, does not justify having the child, so it isn't a woman's rights issue, it's an issue of why it's considered alright to play dice with someone else's future.

My issue with what you said is that you want to control womens bodies by saying it's not their right to decide what happens with their own body. It's equally as bad as being "pro-life".

[Deleted]

My biology gives me the ability to do many things we consider immoral. Sex LEADS to sex, it does NOT lead to procreation, we have vast numbers of ways to have sex without having a child now, to the point it can nearly be a guarantee, you are conflating the two things, sex and procreation are two different things.

This still doesn't why having a child is a right, if it's based purely on biology, i should have the right to murder anyone i see fit, simply because i can do so.

No, it's you who are conflating with the someone's moral justifications in regards to their right to act and the inalienable rights a citizen should expect from it's state. You actually have no understanding what a right is; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights. Having children is a right because as a citizen of the state (in my case the UK) I expect to be accorded that right. It really is down to you to show otherwise, it doesn't have the UK, but show me some government mandate which restricts your right to having children.

[sabrelime]

My issue with what you said is that you want to control womens bodies by saying it's not their right to decide what happens with their own body. It's equally as bad as being "pro-life".

I don't really understand your point. We "control" people's bodies ALL THE TIME. That's why we have laws against murder,rape,general violence, etc etc etc.

Once again just because your body enabled you to have children, doesn't provide justification for having children. That's the contention. Just as having a fist doesn't justify using it against someone in violence.

[Deleted]

I don't really understand your point. We "control" people's bodies ALL THE TIME. That's why we have laws against murder,rape,general violence, etc etc etc.

Once again just because your body enabled you to have children, doesn't provide justification for having children. That's the contention. Just as having a fist doesn't justify using it against someone in violence.

You must be pretty stupid to draw comparisons to infringing upon someone elses right by attacking them and compare it to having a child.

[Deleted]

I don't really understand your point. We "control" people's bodies ALL THE TIME. That's why we have laws against murder,rape,general violence, etc etc etc.

Once again just because your body enabled you to have children, doesn't provide justification for having children. That's the contention. Just as having a fist doesn't justify using it against someone in violence.

You still say we don't have the right but have yet to show ANY evidence be it government or legal from ANY country which shows that wee don't have the right to have children.

[sabrelime]

No, it's you who are conflating with the someone's moral justifications in regards to their right to act and the inalienable rights a citizen should expect from it's state. You actually have no understanding what a right is; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights. Having children is a right because as a citizen of the state (in my case the UK) I expect to be accorded that right. It really is down to you to show otherwise, it doesn't have the UK, but show me some government mandate which restricts your right to having children.

Even if having children is a "natural" right, you still have to justify why this is, you can't just hand-wave it by saying natural right IS natural right, it's simply circular and provides no moral justification for it. The state is irrelevant, you still have to justify why it's ok to have a child. Once again, you are playing Dice with an entities future, why is it ok to do this? If you can't provide this justification, you are essentially saying we can have a natural right to do something immoral, and nobody should do anything about it.

[Yuyn]

Okay, so there's all these academic problems with overpopulation, and resources, and everything else. These can be debated all day, and have viable arguments for any side.

But that's just an academic debate.

What it comes down to, in the real world, is this: Are you willing to personally force an abortion on someone? Are you willing to personally force sterilization on someone? Are you willing to personally condemn an infant, who had no say in their being born, to absolute poverty?

If you said yes to any of these questions, then you might be a psychopath. The first two of these things are an invasion of someone's body against their will, something that is near-universally condemned in all its various forms. The third is condemning an innocent to a terrible life, with little-to-no prospects for their future -- I shouldn't even have to explain how horrid doing this is.

Think, really think about how you would feel if any of those were done to you. Someone takes you in the middle of the night, against your will, with you kicking and screaming. You wake up the next morning, no longer pregnant, no memory of what happened, just the knowledge that someone, somewhere violated your body. Or someone takes you in the middle of the night, gun to your head. You wake up the next morning having surgical scars on your genitals, and you're now permanently altered, sterile for the rest of your life, only knowing that someone decided that they had the right to do that to you. Or you're a young child living in absolute poverty, barely able to scrape together enough food to eat any given day, because someone decided you just weren't worth having a real chance at a life.

If you still say that you would do any of these things, then you probably are a psychopath.

[sabrelime]

You still say we don't have the right but have yet to show ANY evidence be it government or legal from ANY country which shows that wee don't have the right to have children.

If we have the RIGHT to have a child, it would HAVE to be a natural right, I don't give a fuck about what a state says on the issue, so i don't know why you are bringing it up. I'm trying to get you to explain why we have the right to have children, because it's all your contentions that it's biology, but that's not a justification, because i can justify anything by saying "well i'm human". Explain why it's ok to play dice with a child's future, without saying that it's just OUR BIOLOGY SO FAK IT WE CAN HAZ CHILD.

[Dezerte]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights

[Deleted]

Even if having children is a "natural" right, you still have to justify why this is, you can't just hand-wave it by saying natural right IS natural right, it's simply circular and provides no moral justification for it. The state is irrelevant, you still have to justify why it's ok to have a child. Once again, you are playing Dice with an entities future, why is it ok to do this? If you can't provide this justification, you are essentially saying we can have a natural right to do something immoral, and nobody should do anything about it.

It's not down to me to prove that it's a right. The fact that when I had my daughter and the government didn't question that right tells me all I need to know. The fact that you say the state is irrelevant is prove that you do not understand what a right is. "Playing dice with an entities future", well that's just the whole evolution of man right there. I shall repeat for clarity; rights are NOT what you think they are-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

[sabrelime]

It's not down to me to prove that it's a right. The fact that when I had my daughter and the government didn't question that right tells me all I need to know. The fact that you say the state is irrelevant is prove that you do not understand what a right is. "Playing dice with an entities future", well that's just the whole evolution of man right there. I shall repeat for clarity; rights are NOT what you think they are-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Why are you using the state for moral justification of action? That just doesn't even make any sense. A state can decide any number of things are rights, it doesn't make them moral, that's my point, even if something is a "right" it still has to have background justification, which you aren't giving.

Exactly, so why do we keep doing it? Is there justification in continuing to play dice with children, just to continue evolution? Does that not seem silly to you? To continue the human race for no reason?

---------- Post added 2013-03-23 at 11:12 PM ----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights

Alright, neat, now you still have to do the job of justifying why we should have these rights to begin with, and i'm talking about the child birth part. I don't care about abortion, i've already stated that numerous times.

[Deleted]

Alright, neat, now you still have to do the job of justifying why we should have these rights to begin with, and i'm talking about the child birth part. I don't care about abortion, i've already stated that numerous times.

Since you're so worried about child birth, why not take the lead and sterilize yourself instead of caring about a womans body and what she does?

[sabrelime]

Since you're so worried about child birth, why not take the lead and sterilize yourself instead of caring about a womans body and what she does?

I've already planned on not having children, i've stated multiple times that i see it as immoral to do so, and you continue to ignore that point, and go back to your gut reaction of "he's trying to take away my woman's rights fak him chauvinist pig", when you still haven't justified child birth to begin with.

[Stelio Kontos]

Why are you using the state for moral justification of action? That just doesn't even make any sense. A state can decide any number of things are rights, it doesn't make them moral, that's my point, even if something is a "right" it still has to have background justification, which you aren't giving.

Exactly, so why do we keep doing it? Is there justification in continuing to play dice with children, just to continue evolution? Does that not seem silly to you? To continue the human race for no reason?

---------- Post added 2013-03-23 at 11:12 PM ----------



Alright, neat, now you still have to do the job of justifying why we should have these rights to begin with, and i'm talking about the child birth part. I don't care about abortion, i've already stated that numerous times.

The preponderance of states, organizations, and even individuals accept that definition, therefore it is on YOU to back up your claim. The WHO is a global health agency, with wide-spread influence and access to people far more educated on these issues than you, so why don't you provide a sliver of backup for your claim?

[Deleted]

I've already planned on not having children, i've stated multiple times that i see it as immoral to do so, and you continue to ignore that point, and go back to your gut reaction of "he's trying to take away my woman's rights fak him chauvinist pig", when you still haven't justified child birth to begin with.

There doesn't need to be any further justification than nature. Child birth doesn't harm anyone.

You know why I'm reacting to it? Because men are equally responsible in creating a child yet you say nothing about them, only women and child birth.

[Deleted]

Why are you using the state for moral justification of action? That just doesn't even make any sense. A state can decide any number of things are rights, it doesn't make them moral, that's my point, even if something is a "right" it still has to have background justification, which you aren't giving.

Exactly, so why do we keep doing it? Is there justification in continuing to play dice with children, just to continue evolution? Does that not seem silly to you? To continue the human race for no reason?

---------- Post added 2013-03-23 at 11:12 PM ----------



Alright, neat, now you still have to do the job of justifying why we should have these rights to begin with, and i'm talking about the child birth part. I don't care about abortion, i've already stated that numerous times.

No, it's really your job to show us how we don't have those rights. You can't. Moral rights? Now your just getting into semantics. get this; moral rights are anything which society deems moral; guess society's stance on having children. On all accounts you have yet to show us how e don't have the right to have children except your own moral certitude.

[sabrelime]

There doesn't need to be any further justification than nature.

Once again nature gives me the ability to do many things. Why is that murder is wrong, why is that rape is wrong, why is that enacting violence is wrong. You will fairly quickly that appealing to nature is not going to provide you with any justification.

[Deleted]

Once again nature gives me the ability to do many things. Why is that murder is wrong, why is that rape is wrong, why is that enacting violence is wrong. You will fairly quickly that appealing to nature is not going to provide you with any justification.

You ignore the rest of my post. Great. Selective reading for the win I guess.

How does giving birth to a child infringe upon someone elses rights?

[Powerogue]

Depends on what the limit entails. I'd say restraint through taxes would be the most humane approach. I don't know exactly how the government benefits from having more children work, but having them slimmed with each child would work.

Preferably exempting twins/triplets and the like, as that is out of the parents' control.