Should having children be a right?

Great Debates
1

<delurk>

I’m rather curious to see what everyone thinks about this, and I don’t think I’ve seen it crop up in past threads, so here goes:
Should having children be a right? Driving a car is not a right (got to have a license), so why should having children be a right? The potential for screwing up your own life, the childs life, and other peoples lives if you’re an inadequate parent would appear to be pretty high. I’m not proposing people need to have 150+ IQs and have gone to University, but is it really all that fair for a child to be brought up by a violent rapist alcoholic with no job and a membership in the KKK? Alright, it’s a trifle 1984, but would it be that catastrophic? If a child can be taken off a parent on grounds that they are an inadequate parent, should they be allowed to have them in the first place?

Please bear in mind that I’m not talking about whether such legislation, once implemented, would work correctly, be abused, etc., but whether or not such legislation would be good for society if implemented carefully and correctly (and I know it never would be, but I wanna know!!).

Right… that ought to do it (lights fuse, runs for the hills). Hope my first thread grows into a bouncing and healthy debate and noone just screams ‘Troll!! Die!’, bans me and locks the thread.

2

No.

Main Entry: eu·gen·ics
Pronunciation: yu-'je-niks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Date: 1883
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Search the web (or go to the library) for a little history on your “idea”, and then rethink it.
Peace,
mangeorge

3

Alas, yes.

First, let me deal with something you said:

Driving a car and having children cannot even be compared reasonably. Having children is a natural part of life. Driving a car is not.

That said, are there people who I fervently wish would not reproduce? Yes. Millions of 'em. But that’s not up to me. Reproduction is one of the most basic rights there can be, IMO. Indeed, from a genetic standpoint, it’s the whole reason we’re here. You can’t get much more basic than that.

4

Mangeorge: Alright, it does fall under the general topic of Eugenics, fair enough, you go tme, but I’m not sure it’s really as bad as Hitler’s version (don’t call me Hitler!! Don’t call me Hitler!!) in essence - I’m just saying it’s not all that bad to restrict people from producing offspring who are incompetent to provide adequate parenting.

David B: I’m not so sure on the cars/children apples/oranges thing - I don’t think just because having children is natural it should be sacred. Similarly, in regard to your second point, I’m not sure it is the most basic right we have, or indeed the sole purpose we have for existing. Alright, it may have been in the past, but now, I’d say it’s taken second place to mankinds general advancement (ideally) or even just having an enjoyable existence. I’ve got no plans to have kids any time soon (admittedly I’m only 20), but if I die with no offspring, I wouldn’t say I’d failed in my basic purpose. Fighting for territory and rule by might are fairly embedded in the genetic code, and they are long obsolete - why not the right to have children?

Good post though. I’ll bet I’m going to get a sound thrashing on this one, but as long as it stays friendly, mission accomplished.

5

Yes, having children should be a right. Driving a car is also a right, however, using roads that the government built is only allowed with said government’s permission.

IMO, anything that does not initiate force or fraud on others is a right. Taking kids away from their parents is done to protect the kids from force. Not allowing parents to have kids is initiating force on the parents, and is tus wrong.

6

I would shout, “NO!” as loudly as possible, but for one slippery question:

WHO DECIDES?

I’m swell, and you’re swell, and the people (aside from the trolls) on this message board are swell. However, we all know that there are some folks in the world in who are not so swell. Where’s the line? Who will draw it? And who decides which side of the line you and I stand on?

7

Loki said:

Maybe not necessarily (for the purposes of this comparison) “sacred,” but nor should it be compared to driving a car. I wouldn’t even call it apples and oranges. More like apples and, well, cars. :slight_smile:

I did say, “from a genetic standpoint…” But even so, has it really taken second place to the general advancement of mankind? If nobody reproduces, there won’t be any mankind to advance. Yes, for some people, having an enjoyable existence is their main goal. That’s fine. Reproducing is a right – not something that is mandatory.

You wouldn’t be saying much of anything if you’re dead! :wink: However, on a more serious note, you would indeed have failed genetically.

Huh? You lost me there. I think you’re comparing apples and oranges again.

8

Loki also said:

Who would choose those who are “competent” and those who are not? I mean, some of the very people in charge of our government are the ones I don’t think should reproduce!

9

Jo3sh: Aha - that’s not the subject of the debate :wink: </cunning evade> Seriously, I don’t know, it’s not really what I’m debating. I’d say for the sake of argument, go with a nice liberal viewpoint, or maybe just use the same criteria that decides whether folks can keep the kids they currently have.

Waterj2: But isn’t allowing the hypothetical bad parents the right to have kids applying ‘force’ to the as yet unborn children? They’re ‘forced’ to live in substandard conditions, and turn out mass murdering psychopaths. Or something.

David B: “However, on a more serious note, you would indeed have failed genetically.” Maybe so - but who cares (no offense)? I believe such things are largely irrelevant to today’s society. If the entirety of mankind is rendered both sterile and immortal, have we then failed as a species, or can we still be productive and take part in a healthy society?
“I think you’re comparing apples and oranges again.” Oops, should have been clearer. I’m just calling into question your argument that, since it is part of our basic primal nature, having children is still relevant to society and sacred (can’t think of a better term for now). The concept of Alpha Male determined by combat or strength is just as embedded, but I wouldn’t vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ok, maybe I would, but only because he’s cooler than any politician :wink:

10 
 Go back on the net and check out Eugenics again. It was tried in this country in the early part of this century. Mainly it was the poor, habitual criminals, and the mentally incompentant that were sterilized in the United States. It was bad in the United States in the early part of the 1900's and it would be bad if we did it now.
 I can just picture it now. Only party members are qualified to bring up the children of the state. How do you enforce this restriction?

Marc

11

MGibson: The enforcing of the policy isn’t really the crux of my debate (see OP), but rather whether a well administered and even-handed approach to it would be A Good Thing. Once I’m Emperor and I’ve made it law, I’ll figure out how to enforce it :slight_smile:
I’m not sure that just because something failed in the early 1900s is sufficient grounds that it would fail now - times do change, after all. In addition, I strongly suspect that all these instances of failed Eugenics I’m having quoted at me have failed due to bad policies, and not because the concept itself is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps I could have been clearer in my OP - I’m asking whether a fair and even-handed, hypothetical ‘non-failing’ version of sprog-having licences would be A Good Thing, or a bending over and subsequent rogering of human rights. I’m leaning into the Good Thing camp at the moment, but I’m not set in my views, and I’m open to opposing viewpoints.

12

First off, I do feel bearing children is a right, though like all other rights, it has some limitations. That’s because the child is born with the same rights and one person’s rights cannot supercede another.

What you are arguing doesn’t seem to fall into the realm of the parent’s rights superceding the child’s.

You are basing your idea on the assumption that children who are raised in a dysfunctional enviroment are doomed to a life of crime. Is there anything about the Columbine parents that would have made you say, “you can’t have children”? Probably not, yet their kids turned into mass murderers.

Also, what qualifies as even handed? To me, it’s acceptable for a mixed race couple to have children, but some argue that it’s unfair for the children. It means they will have trouble fitting into either racial group.

Some would argue that only people above a certain income level should reproduce. Yet, growing up, my friends were all pretty poor. A lot lived in old single wide trailers and had only one parent living with them. None have ever been arrested and are leading pretty stable and happy lives. Yet, the student class president, who had two parents who owned a successful business, was busted for cocaine.

First, you have to prove that there is a 100% chnace that the child will be hampered by the circumstances before you can restrict birthing rights 100%. Even then, yoiu have to demonstrate that circumstance are not fixable by society. Poverty is not an immutable condition and sometimes can be overcome with a decent education and a solid local job market.

13

Ok…the government has decided that only competent people can have children. They appointed me as the person who decides who is competant or not.

So here are my decisions:

Mr. and Mrs. X, you seem to be decent people. But you know what? You do not make the minimum amount of money a year. I’m sorry, anybody who doesn’t make at least 36,000 a year can’t possibly provide children with a good home. Sorry.

Mr. and Mrs. Y, you also seem to be good people. But I’ve noticed that Mr. X served time in jail for a DUI about 2 years ago. I realize that it did happen 2 years ago, but responsible people don’t drive under the influence. Sorry

Mr. and Mrs. Z, you are atheists. I can’t in good conscience let you have children.

I of course do not believe these reasonings have anything to do with good parenting. But somebody might…and if the government was to make up a certain criteria, what would it be?
It certainly can’t be based on morals or religions, because that would be infringing on people’s personal believes.
It can’t be based on pass jail time, because once they serve their time, they are considered free to continue their lives, having paid their debt to society.
It can’t be based on income, because money has very little to do with happiness.
It can’t be based on intelligence, because you measures intelligence? IQ and aptitude tests?
What else measures competence?

Even if the criteria was established, how would it be enforced. I can’t think of a practical method to enforce birth control, and I doubt abstinence (SP?) is an option. What do we do to people who have children? Take the kids away? Throw them in jail?
Who would patrol and find out who is having kids? The hospitals? Would there be certain forces, something like Hitler’s Secret Service to enforce these policies?

I can’t think of a single rational or logical reason to say that making children is not a right.

14

Beakerxf: On Columbine - I can’t say, but don’t you feel that good parenting could have stopped the problem? I would call into question the competence of the parent when they fail to notice that their children are outcast from society and are plotting to massacre the school’s students. Of course, that’s just what I’ve gathered from the media’s coverage, I haven’t done any serious research. Perhaps the parent’s lack of good parenting (assuming this was the case) could have been detected with a psychological exam of some sort? (Or maybe they could have given them a puppy for a week and seen how it turned out at the end).
On Even Handedness - Again, that isn’t really what I’m debating - I’m more referring to a sort of hypothetical, agreed to by the masses version of even-handed. So I don’t seem to be avoiding the question, I’d say the criteria would be more based on psychological examinations and criminal records than stuff like income, single parent status and so forth. Would you allow a convicted child molester to raise a child? I don’t believe I would.
Regarding the 100% law - I wouldn’t say so - surely the welfare folks don’t have to prove the child in question has a 100% chance of turning out bad before they take it from the parents?

15

Wow, I can’t believe I got this many responses. Woo! Anyway:

Pepperlandgirl: Again, I think I’m being taken a little too literally - I’m not debating the criteria that would hypothetically used (though I’ll offer my opinions on what I believe it would be for the sake of interest), for the purposes of the argument the criteria is assumed to be fairly solid. Don’t convicted felons, however, lose some rights and privileges (correct me on that one)? At the very least child molesters don’t get to live near preschools and so forth? If I was hypothetically asked to create this criteria (not that I’m qualified to do so), I believe I’d make it based on psychological examinations and convictions of serious crimes (rape, murder).

The enforcing falls in the same area - not part of the debate. I believe this was in a prior GD, and noone could think of a suitable solution to a birth-control-by-default situation.

16

**
Beakerxf: On Columbine - I can’t say, but don’t you feel that good parenting could have stopped the problem?**

Oh, of course. However, what identifying characteristics did the parents have at the outset that would have made you say “no, you can’t have children”?

My post was all about perception of good parenting and not good parenting. The parents of the student president probably made huge parenting mistakes. They most likely didn’t spend much time with him, didn’t get to know his friends very well, provided him with too much cash and never thought to learn what he was spending it on. However, to the powers to be, they appear to be the ideal set of parents, intelligent, clean police records, steady income, church goers.

Whereas, with my friends, their situations were not ideal. In some cases there was a single parent, insufficient income, and none seemed to ever attend church. However, each had incredibly strong friendships with their parent(s), they never went hungry, were clothed, and grew up to be smart enough to make the proper decisions. However, to the outsider, their situation was not ideal and doomed to be harmful.

As for a psychological profile…hmmm. Perhaps that could be used to determine who should have children. However, I still have a feeling that bad parenting is too complex to be detected with tests.

** I would call into question the competence of the parent when they fail to notice that their children are outcast from society and are plotting to massacre the school’s students. **

I think that goes beyond just competance. It is not in a parent’s nature to distrust the child and suspect murderous intent. Honestly, did your parents ever suspect you of commiting a crime? Did they regularly search your room? Do background checks on your friends? Or did they trust their parenting and your sense of right and wrong to give you some space to make your own mistakes?

I think I have discussed this to the limit of my ability. I don’t know enough psychology to argue the merits of testing. Nor do I know all the causes of bad children. Nor can I fully explain to you what makes for a happy childhood. I can only pull from my own experience, which is in no way refelctive of an entire society.

However, I do think what you are suggesting is not only too complex and to prone to error to be realistic. I also feel that the effects on society will cause more harm than good.

17

Beakerxf: You’re probably right. By the way, I probably know less about psychology than you. I should have used the <GeneralisationWithNoResearchToBackItUp> tag or something :wink: Whether bad parenting can be detected with psychological examinations is probably a whole different debate in itself. Your comment about the effects on society, however, is more what I was getting at in the OP (I was actually largely unconcerned with questions regarding the criteria and enforcement) - would you mind elaborating?

18

**
Your comment about the effects on society, however, is more what I was getting at in the OP (I was actually largely unconcerned with questions regarding the criteria and enforcement) - would you mind elaborating?
**

Okey doke. I’ll give it my best shot.
It’s late and have tried several times to put this in words, but it’s harder than I thought.

In one case, child rearing will move from being a choice to a responsibilty. Loki, you’re not ready to have children, but your testing has indicated you will be an ideal parent. There will be a pressure for you to reproduce.

In another example, married couple Mike and Sarah are tested. Mike does not pass his test, but Sarah is deemed an ideal parent. Do you let Sarah continue to live with Mike and thereby forfeit her valuable parenting talents, or do you pressure her to marry a candidate that is more suitable?

Or, let’s say that you don’t pass the testing, Loki. How do you think others will view you? Damaged goods? A draw on society? I know some people will wonder what exactly is wrong with you. If you can’t raise children, are you incapable of doing other things as well?

It also seems to place a value on individuals in society. It makes sense that the government will favor breeders with its laws and resources. Non-breeders have a lesser value to the government, except maybe as workers. If their only value to society is as workers, isn’t there a risk at some point in the future that non-breeders would be slaves to breeders. Ok, that last one is really doomsday sounding and possibly implausible, but there is some risk there.

I was going to argue gene pool, etc. However, we have such a such a large population now, that the odds of shrinking gene pool isn’t too pressing.

It just seems to me, that you run the risk of placing value on human life and removing free-will. That doesn’t sound like an ideal society to me. Well, it depends on which side you end up on.

Like, I said it’s late and it’s really hard to put everything down on paper without coming across like I’m ripping off 1984 or something.

19

maybe we could do it like the chinese & allow everyone at least 1 kid, more if you are “exceptional”. Maybe there would be a standard written test, or something.

I have no idea if we could do this, but I do know one thing,
they have tests & classes to buy guns, and in some areas to but them, but a set of bad parents can do a hell of a lot more damage than a lone nut with a gun…hmmm, and where do we think that nut came from? Could it be…BAD PARENTS?

20

Well, with tongue firmly in cheek, I will say that I too have frequently thought that there ought to be licensing restrictions for parenthood, the same way as there are licensing restrictions for driving a car.

However, we have police agencies to keep tabs on unlicensed drivers, and a court system set up to prosecute and punish them.

Loki, you said, “The enforcing of the policy isn’t really the crux of my debate (see OP), but rather whether a well administered and even-handed approach to it would be A Good Thing.”

I disagree–I think the enforcing of the policy IS the crux of the debate. How in the world would you ever enforce something like this? What sort of “police agency” would you set up?

Also, how in the world could you ever imagine that a “well-administered and even-handed approach” could even EXIST for such a fundamental human need, human nature being what it is, let alone be a “Good Thing”?

Take the problem of food distribution, also addressing a fundamental human need. In America, we generally speaking have a “well-administered and even-handed approach” to this. However, in Somalia, they don’t. The warlords keep the food. Everybody else starves. What would keep a “population control” solution from deteriorating like this, with only the warlords being allowed to breed?

The last time anyone ever successfully implemented a “well-administered and even-handed approach” to the problem of population control was the Nazis. Was that a “Good Thing”?

Nope, Loki, as long as you’re dealing with homo sapiens, you’ll be dealing with Greed, Lust, Vanity, Pride, Sloth, and Anger, and once you add “DNA-generated hormonal storms” to the mixture, all bets are off.