# Should having children be a right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2000, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981 "2000-05-09T02:23:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2000, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/81 "2000-05-13T23:30:11Z")
**Smartass** “I thank the Lord there’s people out there like you.” — Elton John and Bernie Taupin, _Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters_, Honkey Chateau, 1972 ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2000, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/82 "2000-05-14T00:13:27Z")
**Libertarian:** _Oh, no I’ve said too much I haven’t said enough_ **-REM** -VM ---
**Author:** ![Sentinel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@Sentinel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sentinel)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2000, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/83 "2000-05-14T04:49:33Z")
**Vanix** (cool name BTW) You forgot to include the fact that some minorities tend to breed heavily to ‘increase the race’ or to ‘bring another soldier for the cause’ into the world. In some nations, breeding is out of control because male children are more valuable than female in them and a man will keep insisting his wife get knocked up until he has a son. In several nations, birth control is not used because of (1) ignorance, (2) mistrust, (3) poverty, (4) a religious belief to ‘go forth and multiply’ {though I don’t think it was meant that humans should multiply until there is standing room only on the planet} and (5) in some places, a woman must prove herself by having a child out of wedlock before being considered marriageable. It should also be noted that the deeper the area of poverty and the lower the level of education, the higher the birth rate. Areas where there is a lot of civil or national wars will have increased birth rates because it has been noted that wars seem to trigger an almost frantic urge to reproduce to replace the dead. ---
**Author:** ![ellis555](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e36b37/32.png) [@ellis555](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ellis555)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2000, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/84 "2000-05-14T18:15:00Z")
Smartass - > [@](#): > > \*\* > The point I was making is that, if you _are_ saying you want to protect the rights of theoretical people, you are overstepping your bounds by preventing them from being born–who wants that kind of protection? I would hate to think that my life was cancelled in order to protect me from potential abuse. > \*\* Gotcha. Kinda paradox, innit? (Which is my way of covering up the fact that I hadn’t thought about that angle.) I’m suffering from the problem that I agree with the basic angle of the points that you bring up, but I still can’t morally reconcile that agreement with the idea of knowingly allowing serious criminals to have children. And the fact that you keep on quoting from bands I like isn’t helping at all, either. I’ve got to head off right now. I’ll think about what you’ve said, and hopefully come up with an answer at some point. -ellis ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2000, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/85 "2000-05-14T21:31:04Z")
A limited proposal: Condition receipt of certain welfare benefits upon acceptance of some type of reversible sterilization procedure. If an individual is not able to care for their personal economic needs, and is asking the government to assist them in that respect, I question why they shuld enjoy an unfettered “right” to increase the price tag. When and if they are able to turn things around, reverse the procedure and breed away. If this modest proposal has merit, we can debate how and whether the slope slips away. ---
**Author:** ![ellis555](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e36b37/32.png) [@ellis555](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ellis555)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2000, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/86 "2000-05-14T23:25:34Z")
Smartass - If you’ll allow me to take things out of order… > [@](#): > > \*\* > Usually, when someone reproduces, another person is required. If this person feels strongly about doing it with your punished criminal, you are punishing them as well. Does this not disturb you? > \*\* No. There are probably plenty of people sitting on death row right now who have someone back home who still loves them. Executing these criminals therefore also punishes those innocents at home. But that doesn’t disturb me a bit. If you’ve killed five people in cold blood, I don’t give a damn if you have 50,000 people who love you, you’re still going to fry. And I feel that this analogy can be safely extended to the case that you proposed. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The point I was making is that, if you _are_ saying you want to protect the rights of theoretical people, you are overstepping your bounds by preventing them from being born–who wants that kind of protection? I would hate to think that my life was cancelled in order to protect me from potential abuse. > \*\* I still feel like Dukakis. My position does feel morally sound to me, but it comes out sounding awful when you word it in that manner. Nonetheless, since these hypothetical people will never know what they missed (whether it be a long life of joy and happiness or a short, brutal life of abuse), I don’t see any harm in denying their parents’ right to procreate. I understand the point that you are trying to raise about deciding what’s in their best interest. But, since they are hypothetical, I think that I am justified in using this level of “protection.” Look at it this way. If they are born, they could a)be abused, or b)not be abused. b) is desirable, a) isn’t. By preventing them from being born, an alternative option, c), which is less desirable than b) but more so than a), is selected. I contend, however, that since these people are hypothetical, making the choice of c), which denies the option of b), does not constitute any improper use of authority on my part. It is a selfish decision to some extent, I’ll freely admit to that; but I think it is the better decision for society at large. By at large, I mean given 10,000 such cases; if you could run the experiment both ways [two timelines, one in which the child is born and one in which it is not], I believe that c) would be the proper choice, as more instances of a) would occur than of b). That was, of course, phenomonally convoluted. But I hope that you get the point. > [@](#): > > …for some people, able to recreate… I am able, and I’m going to exercise that right, as I don’t feel like staring at a computer any more just now. -ellis ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2000, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/87 "2000-05-14T23:46:35Z")
I find it simply a scream that, in analogizing this rather insidious proposal out, at least 3 people have posited that “we” prevent drunk drivers from driving anymore by taking away their licenses. Man oh man, that’s a good one. Hoo, boy. ---
**Author:** ![Loki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3be4f8/32.png) [@Loki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loki)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/88 "2000-05-15T00:58:57Z")
Eek, haven’t checked this all weekend. Ellis555: Thanks! (nice name/thread) By the way Andros, thanks for taking the side of some of my arguments but disagreeing with me on others, that’s precisely the kind of debating I hoped to start. I’m only advocating this idea because someone has to to keep the debate going - I’m not even totally convinced myself it’s perfect. I haven’t the time or inclination to do a point by point seeing as everyone else is waaaay ahead of me, so I’ll just post a general reply to the more notable stuff: Smartass: I think it was you who said that you had an abusive father, and fuck me for saying you shouldn’t have been born, or words to that effect. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have been born at all. I don’t think that your case holds any relevance however - the policies that I’m suggesting eliminate _potential_ problems - not definite ones. You must surely agree that, without the benefit of hindsight, that you were more likely to have had poor parenting than a child with a father with no history of abuse (apologies if I’ve given offence in any way, just trying to get my point across). In addition you must surely agree that there are far more cases where the hypothetical father continues to be abusive than not? Oh, and Pldennision, could you clarify your point slightly? I’m not entirely clear on what you’re getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Smartass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@Smartass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smartass)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/89 "2000-05-15T11:15:42Z")
**Loki:** It is a shame that I cannot convey facial expressions with text. You probably have this picture of me screaming “Fuck you!” and being all hurt. Actually, I was being ironic. Also, the purpose of my story was not to inspire any sort of sympathy or to try to make my case as any sort of poster child for the debate. My point is this: A likelihood is not a good enough justification for what you are proposing. If you assume that letting abusers give birth will lead to abused children, you are assuming an ability to predict the future that you don’t have. I offer my history in an effort to make sure that you don’t think this is an entirely theoretical position. Also, you seem to think that society should prevent child abuse based, I guess, on the notion that this abuse does some harm to society. Actually, I think the primary receiver of the harm is the child who is abused. Obviously, society displays a legitimate interest in stopping this sort of abuse. But to propose to do so by preventing the children from being born is to offer a solution that is, arguably, worse than the problem. The fact that you feel it would be better not to be born than to be abused is a legitimate position to take. What is not appropriate is to go ahead and draw this conclusion in advance for people who are not born. Once again, the reasoning is thus: 1. Unborn people are only theoretical citizens. It is ridiculous to try to protect the rights of people who don’t exist. 2. Even if we did want to protect the rights of theoretical people, you are making a value judgment for them that is way outside of the authority of anyone to make for another person. Hope this clarifies. -VM ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/90 "2000-05-15T12:10:55Z")
Loki, my point was that the penalties we enact on drunk drivers in no way prevents them from driving. I’ll bet that, for anyone on this board within 50 miles of a metro area, there was a repeat DUI offender without a drivers license driving within 20 cars of you on the way to work this morning. Aside from incarceration, we have NO way of preventing drunk drivers from driving. They merely do so illegally. Extrapolate that to the driving/childbearing analogy (which is an amazingly poor one anyway) however you prefer. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/91 "2000-05-15T17:14:36Z")
Smartass: > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Once again, you are talking about protecting the rights of a theoretical person. I don’t think it makes sense to justify such an attack on freedom in order to protect the rights of a person who doesn’t exist. However, the argument can cut both ways: Who is doing the child more harm, the parent who abuses it? Or you, who prevents it from having life at all? If we’re protecting the rights of theoretical people, does that make you (or, the government) a murderer? \*\* No. You cannot murder a theoretical person. If that were so, birth control would be morally reprehensible, and the vasectomy I had would be akin to mass murder. The truth of the matter is that we, as a society, prevent births all the time, through birth control, abortion, and voluntary sterilizations. It is done for many reasons, stemming from personal situations to medical necessity. The prevention of birth is not so much your problem with the issue as _who_ does the preventing. > [@](#): > > \*\* > An adoptive child already exists and has certain recognized rights. A drunk driver is not prevented from driving; he is prevented from being licensed to drive on public streets. He is also not prevented from owning a car. What you are talking about is the moral equivalent of cutting the hands off of a thief. \*\* I don’t see this as an equivalent at all. In theory, license revocation is there to prevent the DUI from driving again. If there were a pill that made him unable to grasp a steering wheel we’d use it, but just because it’s more difficult to implement is no reason the analogy doesn’t stand. The intent is to prevent future crimes, which was the objection originally. As far as the “cutting hands off” analogy, it strikes me as being overblown. Sterilization, whether permanent or temporary, serves to restrict only a single activity, that of creating a child. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I think I am done with this thread, because I can’t–for the life of me–figure out where you people are coming from. It amazes me that so many people think that there is some set of solutions that will _prevent_ crime. Unless you have an extremely powerful totalitarian governmnent, it will always be possible to commit crime. You can take away guns and knives, and I can still figure out a way to kill you. You can outlaw abortions, and I can still figure out a way to have one (that is, if I were able to get pregnant). You can sterilize me and I can still figure out a way to abuse or molest a child. Justice should be about punishment for crimes committed on existing humans and should not be “cruel” or “unusual”. > > No one would argue that it is possible to have complete freedom. But the infringement being discussed here is profound, and the justifications for it are wholly unacceptable. We already have punishments for child abusers, rapists, etc. \*\* As to the argument that criminals will find a way to prevent crimes: Of course they will. No law, from a restraining order to license revocation, is going to prevent all the crimes they were intended to. That is not to say that they will not _reduce_ crimes of that nature, or make life tougher on the repeat offenders. > [@](#): > > \*\* > No one would argue that it is possible to have complete freedom. But the infringement being discussed here is profound, and the justifications for it are wholly unacceptable. We already have punishments for child abusers, rapists, etc. > You people just want to remove (and give up) freedom. > \*\* All government is an exercise in limiting freedom. Every law we make is a limit on what some group of people can do. Do I want to limit freedom to procreate for some people? Yes. I find that crack babies and beaten children to be more than acceptable as justifications. Add to that the oft-cited statistics that abusers are overwhelmingly likely to have been abused themselves, and it’s a done deal for me. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/92 "2000-05-15T17:38:58Z")
Hi, all. Sorry I’ve been away from the thread all weekend. I’ll clear up some loose ends, as it looks like the thread is on its way to achive oblivion. **Smartass** : > [@](#): > > There are two different ways of approaching thoughts on rights: > > 1. Any right that you want to claim, you must justify by a benefit to society, which appears to be your position. I believe that rights are a human construct, granted by consensus of society and guaranteed by government. They are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation by successive generations or manifestations of society. I further believe that there are no “God-given” or “natural” rights. This belief makes me singularly unfit to be a Libertarian. It also provides the answer to my question. I asked, > [@](#): > > Why is having children a right. And the answer is simply, “Because our society has said it is.” **ellis** : > [@](#): > > I have a right to do whatever I please as long as it doesn’t harm others. Therefore, unless you can prove that my having a child will harm others (either the kid or you as a taxpayer), I have a right to have as many kids as I want. Two issues here: Firstly, define “harm.” How many degrees of separation from act to harm are acceptable? How indirect can something be and still be harmful? Secondly, where’s the burden of proof? You can say that it’s on me, as you have the right to do anything you want in absence of proof. I can say it’s on you, as you have the right to do anything in presence of proof. Stalemate, I suppose, and you’re right–it’s not worth debating. Unless **sentinel** wants to back up his assertions with some evidence, I think he’s safe to ignore. **dinsdale** , welcome. You sed: > [@](#): > > If an individual is not able to care for their personal economic needs, and is asking the government to assist them in that respect, I question why they should enjoy an unfettered “right” to increase the price tag. I like it. It strikes to the heart of my argument (such as it is). While folks are debating rights, the fact remains that _I have to support people who can’t support themselves._ I accept that as a function of government (and again, I’ll never be a card-carrying citizen of Libertaria). But while I support governmental support of the indigent, I do not care much for being taken advantage of. And anyone who has a child without being able to support it is taking advantaghe of me. Neener neener. **phil** : > [@](#): > > at least 3 people have posited that “we” prevent drunk drivers from driving anymore by taking away their licenses. Man oh man, that’s a good one. Hoo, boy. And I’m one of them. Of _course_ DUI is a poor analogy. And of _course_ we don’t completely prevent idiots from driving. _But there are laws in place._ Unless you can tell me that the laws have **no** effect at all, that **everyone** who has had their license taken away continues to drive, then the “we don’t catch everyone” argument doesn’t hold much water. We don’t prevent murder, either, or theft, or . . . Not to mention that driving is not a right. That part of the (admittedly silly) analogy holds, ACAICT. I reckon I’m about done here. I’ve gotten two “you are Hitler” emails already. I guess I should expect that sort of thing when I’m arguing a distasteful position. Shame, though. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/93 "2000-05-15T18:47:53Z")
> [@](#): > > It also provides the answer to my question. I asked, > > ## quote: > > Why is having children a right. > > * * * > > And the answer is simply, “Because our society has said it is.” So, which other biological imperatives do I now need society’s permission for? Breathing? Defecation? Growth? ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/94 "2000-05-15T19:14:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > So, which other biological imperatives do I now need society’s permission for? Breathing? Defecation? Growth? > \*\* The difference is that the others are not matters of choice, while reproduction is. Come to think of it, there are already laws that curtail where you may defecate. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/95 "2000-05-15T20:25:59Z")
The fact that we can choose to foil or own drive to reproduce makes it no less a biological imperative than the others. And, while society may dictate _where_, they cannot dictate _whether_. ---
**Author:** ![sixseatport](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sixseatport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sixseatport)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/96 "2000-05-15T20:59:51Z")
> [@](#): > > So, which other biological imperatives do I now need society’s permission for? Breathing? Defecation? Growth? False analogy. If you stop breathing or defecating (and arguable growing) you’ll die. If you stop having children you will continue to live. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/97 "2000-05-15T21:01:05Z")
**Phil** : So biological imperative = right? OK, I can see that in your defecation example. You’re absolutely right–no law or societal constraint will keep people from shitting. Or breathing. Or dying. Those are going to happen, regardless. Death is the only altenative to not shitting. I have yet to encounter anyone who died from not making a baby. -a- ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/98 "2000-05-15T21:41:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > The fact that we can choose to foil or own drive to reproduce makes it no less a biological imperative than the others. > > And, while society may dictate _where_, they cannot dictate _whether_. > \*\* Whether we choose to foil a drive is _exactly_ the point. Denying someone reproduction is no more fatal than caging a duck and keeping it from flying south for the winter. Of course, we do take away the right to all the biological imperatives you describe above whenever the state decides to execute someone for their crimes. Taking away a single right, reproduction, is hardly incompatible with the laws of a society that favors capital punishment. Also, the idea that “natural” equals “right” is not particularly convincing. ---
**Author:** ![ellis555](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e36b37/32.png) [@ellis555](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ellis555)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2000, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/99 "2000-05-15T21:50:00Z")
Forgive me, **Ptahlis** , but I just found this slip of the tongue (or finger, as it were), rather amusing. > [@](#): > > \*\* > As to the argument that criminals will find a way to prevent crimes: Of course they will. > \*\* Those damn criminals, always trying to catch each other and put the poor police out of a job. **andros** > [@](#): > > \*\* > Stalemate, I suppose, and you’re right–it’s not worth debating. > \*\* I agree. Phil seems to be making some effort to revive this thread on the car issue, but the opposing views on the OP appear to have come to a draw. If we were all together physically, we could just have a brawl over it. Some people appear to think that the alternative is Hitler emails, and I’m sorry to hear that. It’s been fun, and I’m bowing out. ---
**Author:** ![Loki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3be4f8/32.png) [@Loki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loki)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2000, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981/100 "2000-05-16T00:27:59Z")
Ellis555: Agreed - everyone’s said what they wanted to say, and no-one’s opinions are going to change any more than they have already. Gentlemen, ladies, it’s been fun. Hope to debate with you all again on some other controversial issue 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-having-children-be-a-right/18981.md?page=6)