Should reproduction be a human right?

As a spin off to the 'Children' thread, it is clear that a lot of people should never have children. So many children suffer from bad parenting and many futures are ruined because of it.

Some people say there's nothing we can do about it. Others suggest a parenting liscense, kind of like a driving liscense.

Personally, I'm undecided. What do you guys think?

I think licensing will do nothing to curb stupidity, neglect or cruelty. Government should not be involved in people's bedrooms or with people's reproductive rights.

You should neither be FORCED to have children or disallowed. Period. It is a personal choice. No one else should have any say whatsoever.

~phos

How would one even enforce a gov't intrusion such as this? When did any license ever stop a willful act?

But government being what it is, I would not be surprised.

[See China]

I think it would be difficult to enforce it anywhere BUT China, really.

I don't think a regulation like that could ever get passed, or if it does, the Supreme Court would probably strike it down as unconstitutional, just like they have struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, sodomy between consenting adults, etc.

LOL. Drivers licenses don't stop idiots from hitting eachother in cars, and they won't stop parents from being idiot parents.

It's just something we as humans have to deal with. Some of us are better parents than others.

No one should have a say what you do with your life. Not with something like THAT, anyways.

Let me play devil's advocate for a second:

What about HIV positive couples? Who would want to stop them from conceiving and who think they're simply making a selfish choice? Should convicted paedophiles be allowed to have children? If yes, should the childrens' upbringing be monitored?

I don't think a regulation like that could ever get passed, or if it does, the Supreme Court would probably strike it down as unconstitutional, just like they have struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, sodomy between consenting adults, etc.

the problem with that, is that the supreme court is EXTREAMLY Conservative right now. They are on the verge of taking away a woman's right to choose weather or not she wants to have a child. I think in the current political atmosphere the court will make descions based on just how many rights the government can take away from it's people. (maybe it's because I teach government that I have NO FAITH in government)

The flip side of it is, some people just SHOULD NOT become parents, regardless of how badly they want children. My parents should NEVER have become parents. By the time my youngest brother was born all 4 of my grandparents were throwing a fit saying "They don't want to take care of the ones they already have!" (granted there were only 3 of us!)
By the time my parents divorced, they had both bored of having children. My father left, and didn't have anything to do with my brothers and I untill we became teenagers, and my mother had all she could handle with parenting by the time I was 13 and left us in the care of our grandmother. Granted we were never beaten or abused, but we were neglected (both of my parents would have been guilty of abandoment or neglect, you can't leave 9 year olds alone for days at a time with only enough money to order a pizza!)

Another example is a great friend of mine, I love this person and his fiance dearly, but honestly if there were ever two people in the world that SHOULD NOT PROCREATE it's them!!!
He has: turret's syndrome, ADHD, dyslexia and is bi-polar.
She has: ADHD, Bi-polar, anxiety disorders and is diagonosed paranoid-schizophrenic. (been in and out of hospitals most of her life, but is okay when medicated)
Both of there families have learning disablities and personality disorders.
I shudder to think of the problems their children will have (aside from a horribly long unpronouncable last name!)

Hmmm I don't think reproduction is a human right. I think you should reproduce if you can afford to have a kid, not because some law somewhere said it's your right. But you shouldn't need a parent license either. If you make parenting dependent on a license, then I think you're basically killing democracy. What would the requirements of a license be? What must you do to get a license? Will the government require you teach your kids certain things? Way too much possibility for abuse or indoctrination.
But I balk at calling reproduction a right. Some people, like repeat rapists or sex offenders probably should be forcibly sterilized (if not executed).

I'm not sure about this one, but only because I have to admit I don't know enough about HIV/AIDS to really say, but one thing I do know is that for some strange reason, an HIV positive woman can conceive and give birth(by cesarian I believe) to an HIV negative child. I suppose some would say in that case, it isn't selfish, but at the same time, it's extremely risky. I personally wouldn't bring a life into the world fully knowing I could pass on a horrible disease to that child. So I guess you could say I think it's selfish.


Mouse is right. I don't know the details but I read an HIV+ woman can bear an HIV- child too. I think you have to give the kid some medicine or a drug cocktail at birth, I'm not sure if C-sections figure into it.

I will say though that while I feel procreation is a right, it's also a privelidge(sp?) that too many people take for granted, and quite often abuse.

So true.

Mouse is right. I don't know the details but I read an HIV+ woman can bear an HIV- child too. I think you have to give the kid some medicine or a drug cocktail at birth, I'm not sure if C-sections figure into it.

Back a buncha years ago there was scientific evidence that giving certain AIDS drugs to HIV positive pregnant mothers and to the baby for 14 months AFTER it was born had a HUGE impact on reducing the number of HIV born babies and that even if they tested positive at birth, the coctail knocked the disease down in these babies within the first 2 years of life.

So, I don't think prohibiting HIV positive women from having babies is fair. There was this Lifetime special a few years ago about two disabled adults who had cerebral palsy wanting to have a child and having social services REFUSE to allow them as they were both disabled. They ended up going through courts, etc, and HAD a baby and had to fight like hell to keep it. It was very disturbing movie (based on a true story, of course.)

~phos

I'd wonder about my own mother if she did something like that, and I don't know how one can justify doing that and explaining it to the child when they're older, whether they're HIV+ or not.
"Congratulations Junior, your inheritance is Grandma's 20 acre farm- if you live until you're 21."
Hopefully common sense would rule.

As far as allowing certain people to have babies and not others, it would never happen. Whether it should or shouldnt, it never will. The government would either have to start extremely large centers that would raise children born to people deemed unfit to be parents (which it couldnt afford and would screw up if it could afford it), or would have to sterilize everyone deemed unfit (which it also couldnt afford and would never be very efficient at enforcing, afterall at what age would they make the determination?).

The who can and cannot have a baby idea is kind of a funny thing to debate when right now there are so many people fighting to ensure that every child ever concieved is born. We had a group protesting abortion at school today (they compared it to genocide, how they got THAT comparison I'll never know). If people cannot even agree on whether or not to allow a parent to end the life of an unborn baby, how could they ever agree on how to enforce rules limiting parenthood?

Screw gov't.

gen·o·cide ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Thats why I said I didnt understand. It would be different if they were forcing certain groups to have abortions. As it is, you can call it murder if you want, but its not genocide.

Agreed.

Sadly enough I know not one but 3 women who should have been forced to have their tubes tied. Nature took care of the first one and she won't have kids ever again.

The second one I grew up with has just given birth in western Canada after fleeing Ontario to have the 8th yes ,I said the 8th baby. She thought, that by leaving this province she could get away with it. Children's Aid was at the hospital doorstep before she was even fully dialated. So now we have 8 children in the foster care system that don't need to be there and by sterilization could have been prevented.

The babies will not be adopted out. They will stay in the system for life. By contesting the removal of her babies she stalls all chances of those babies being adopted. By the time the courts rule in the C.A.S's favour the babies are almost school age.

The 3rd has just had a set of twins. Making babies 4-5. But, she only has custody of 3 and really hasn't been "caught" by the children's aid yet. She will and then we will have another 4 (the first son is with his dad) in the system.

Again, sterilization could have stopped that.

I don't think I need to comment on the whole pedophile's,rapist's and murderes having babies. They simply shouldn't and if the govvy has to step in? Then so be it.

As for having a baby when you are HIV+? I wouldn't risk it. I've read and seen both sides mom is + and baby - and both are +. Not to mention that even if baby is negative why would someone bring a life into this world when they are on their way out? Pure selfishness is all I can see for the reason behind that.

Can it be done? No, not likely. Should it be done? Yes, in some cases. Here a woman can have an abortion but she can't have her tubes tied unless she fights tooth and nail before she's 40 or has more than 2 kids. What's wrong with that picture?

~Jenna

I have no intentions of turning this into an abortion debate, but making a certain group of people have abortions technically wouldn't be genocide, because the ones having the abortions aren't being killed. I'm thinking that 47 million fetuses are a certain "group" and that's where the genocide comes in. If someone killed 47 million kids you'd call it genocide even though it doesn't fit into your little definition.:rolleyes:
Perhaps I was alittle harsh on the group and their stance, but I really hate the gruesome pictures of partial birth abortions. I dont want to see that first thing in the morning, makes me cranky.

Sorry to interrupt the thread.

Sadly enough I know not one but 3 women who should have been forced to have their tubes tied. Nature took care of the first one and she won't have kids ever again.

The second one I grew up with has just given birth in western Canada after fleeing Ontario to have the 8th yes ,I said the 8th baby. She thought, that by leaving this province she could get away with it. Children's Aid was at the hospital doorstep before she was even fully dialated. So now we have 8 children in the foster care system that don't need to be there and by sterilization could have been prevented.

Personally, I'd do away with the welfare, but if we're going to have welfare, welfare cases should get clipped or tied after the first or second kid.

Personally, I'd do away with the welfare, but if we're going to have welfare, welfare cases should get clipped or tied after the first or second kid.
That would solve SO many problems.

Personally, I'd do away with the welfare, but if we're going to have welfare, welfare cases should get clipped or tied after the first or second kid.

See? I knew I liked you. You always agree with me:D

But seriously? I can't get into the welfare thing right now. Wish I could. I do agree with you poll. 100%

WELFARE IS A SAFETY NET NOT A FUCKIN' HAMMICK!!

~Jenna

Ladies, no reason to argue over the term genocide. It has snuffed out the life of 47 million babies, but the correct term would be infanticide. I don't know why ya'll got so huffy. Just simple really.

Trying to be a peacemaker.

Shan

Ladies, no reason to argue over the term genocide. It has snuffed out the life of 47 million babies, but the correct term would be infanticide. I don't know why ya'll got so huffy. Just simple really.

Trying to be a peacemaker.

Shan
Thats what I was thinking the term was. Regardless of the term or the issue, the particular group I mention just bothered me because of their lack of information on the subject.