Are children a right or a privilege?

[SSY]

I cam to consider this when I heard news of a program where drug addicts were offered money in order to submit to sterilisation (a discussion worthy of another thread perhaps). There were several conflicting viewpoints, some raising the point that having children is a right, and that  denying these people this right was cruel (their contention being that these people were unable to make an informed choice).

So, I ask HAF, do you think having children is a right?

My own thoughts on the matter, lead me to conclude that children are not a right. For starters, there are more people involved than just the parents, the child and the society it is born into. I believe that the parents, are effectively obliging the child to exist (an odd sounding concept I admit, and one with some interesting corollaries), and as such, are responsible for making sure the child is well cared for etc. If this is not the case, then I believe having a child, is tantamount to forcing the child to live in an unsuitable environment. There is already a precedent in this matter, for if people neglect children, they are taken away, and in the case of foster or adoptive parents, very strict conditions indeed are placed on them before they are allowed children (it would appear that foster kids are not a universal right at all).

Secondly, since we live in a society (in the UK at least), which will provide assistance if a child needs it, in various forms, by having a child, and then failing to care for it, then society is obliged to step in, which is unfair on them (avoiding the more unsavoury option of letting a child live in unsuitable conditions).

I think that since the child deserves a loving, stable home, and since society should not have to step in and clear up a mess you made in order to spare the pain of an innocent child, having a child has all sorts of conditions and responsibilities attached. I think this turns it from a right into a privilege.

Your thoughts?

[Whitney]

Children ought to ethically be considered a privileged by anyone who is able to have children but since denying the ability to have children treads on one's right to do as they wish with their own body I think I can only logically go with saying it is a right.

[DropLogic]

Privilege.
Abortion has become a bad word.  The women/couples who choose to go through it are vilified by society at large, and are forced to feel shame.  It's amazing how much we care about unborn children, yet once they are born, the caring seems to go down 1000%. Once they are 18 and might actually be of some use to society we throw away lives in wars and dangerous professions.  The more children we bring into this world in awful living conditions, the more suffering there will be, the more society will have to take care of them.  I know it seems Orwellian, but I think you should have to apply to have children, much like a home loan.  You would need to prove that you could meet certain minimum requirements for raising a child.  Think about what having a child at age 14 does to women and the families involved.  I grew up in an especially rough neighborhood, and by 6th grade, there were three pregnant girls in my class.  In 7th grade there were six. Not one of them has gotten by without some form of social assistance.  I know this because I worked at the local grocer as a teen, and they each kept popping out kids and getting more money from the man.

Certainly this will offend some people...because they know someone who made it just fine, and everything is cool.  Well, that's not the norm, and generally, teen pregnancies leave nuclear damage paths around every life they touch.

On the other side of the spectrum...you have the people who might be able to afford children, but should not be allowed to have them.  The people who are married to their jobs, who work 70 hours a week because they want to.  This is the category my mom and dad fit into.  My mom does her job very well, and that's it.  She told my sister recently that she never even wanted kids, but did so to appease my dad...that it might make him stop fucking other women.  His job required him to go all over the world for most of the year.  So by my standards, I should not exist.  And I'm fine with that because I am a mess of an adult.  I'm so angry at any form of authority it is very hard for me to keep the jobs I have.  I've been lucky so far to keep my current job for the last 3 years because I'm a great liar...learned from the best.

[SSY]

Children ought to ethically be considered a privileged by anyone who is able to have children but since denying the ability to have children treads on one's right to do as they wish with their own body I think I can only logically go with saying it is a right.

I think it would be fine if the women just went through pregnancy (ie, what you do with your own body), but the fact that it creates a child is the difficult bit. A child is brought into being here, which makes it different, as the child is a consequence, along with the subsequent life of the child as well, both of which extend beyond the remit of doing as you wish with your own body.

Would you still think it a right if all the parent had to do was spit in a bucket and keep it in the freezer overnight to make a baby?


I broadly agree with DropLogic.

[Prometheus]

Definately agree with you. There are other factors to consider here. Overpopulation and scarcity of resources are a serious threat to everyones standard of living. We are driven by our instincts to produce as many healthy offspring as possible(Of course most people don't let this drive completly control their actions). Enlightened self interest might argue for a reasonable number of offspring per person so as not to overtax available resources and space. I'd say 2-3 per couple would be enough to maintain current populations. Of course many people have more than this. I know a guy who can't even keep his bills payed who has over 10 kids and has another on the way. It seems that often our drive to procreate and pass on our genes as much as possible wins out over common sense.

Considering that we have evolved to better pass on these genes and that this seems to be our goal(at least as a species if not as individuals) it doesn't make much sense for those who are least valueable to society to contribute disproportionately to the gene pool. Anyone here seen idiocrasy? I think that's where we're headed.

I think that as our rising population becomes more of a threat to social stability(Perhaps a few centuries from now) governments will be forced to regulate births. Sort of a slap in the face to the personal freedom we Americans hold dear but experience has shown us that as a species we are not capable of managing this problem any other way.

I'd suggest a "flat birth rate" to ensure fairness. More technology would be needed for this to work. After an individual contributes to their allotment of offspring, they would be court ordered to recieve sterilization unless some preferable method were available.

Adoption seems very strange to me. It kind of makes sense for an intelligent, consciencious person to adopt rather than to have children of their own if their community is overpopulated. It seems to make the most sense for the community. Of course it makes the most sense for the individual to want to only use his/her resources toward their own offspring. I'm considering adoption once I get to that point in my life but I will definately want to have some children of my own. Its a strange case indeed to see where instinctual self interest clashes with "Enlightened self interest". I think that this competitive breeding still to make the most sense for the species as a whole. Otherwise the gene pool will surely stagnate and we might be left with ugly, idiots who can't walk to the fridge without sitting down for 2 or 3 breaks. Don't believe me, visit the bible belt, we're 2/3's of the way there already.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a right, to my mind; but legal sanctions ought to be much steeper for those who fail to carry out the concomitant responsibilities.

Also, I don't think that hours worked should be factored in so much, otherwise you will leave the right to give birth solely to the rich.  Poor folk often have to work 60 or 70 hours a week just to make ends meet, at least here in SoCal.

[Prometheus]

Droplogic, you may very well be a psychopath. You sound like a textbook example from what I'm hearing. I have a few in my family but they no longer refer to them that way.

[SSY]

It's a right, to my mind; but legal sanctions ought to be much steeper for those who fail to carry out the concomitant responsibilities.

Also, I don't think that hours worked should be factored in so much, otherwise you will leave the right to give birth solely to the rich.  Poor folk often have to work 60 or 70 hours a week just to make ends meet, at least here in SoCal.

Why do you think it's a right?

I think hours worked are certainly a valid thing to consider when having kids, that's why so many people give up some/all work on becoming parents.

[DropLogic]

Droplogic, you may very well be a psychopath. You sound like a textbook example from what I'm hearing. I have a few in my family but they no longer refer to them that way.

I feel guilt when I do wrong, remorse when friends die.  I've never cheated on a gf or my wife for instance.  The sight of animals being harmed makes my stomach turn.  I am hardly a psychopath, no matter how much I loathe humanity.

What exactly about my response gave you this impression?  Apathy toward the unborn?

[Prometheus]

And I'm fine with that because I am a mess of an adult. I'm so angry at any form of authority it is very hard for me to keep the jobs I have. I've been lucky so far to keep my current job for the last 3 years because I'm a great liar...learned from the best.

These traits:

Difficulty with authority figures

trouble controling actions(Impulsiveness)

Trouble keeping jobs

Pathological lying

superficial charm

Grandiose sense of self-worth

Easily bored. (The fact that you post here)

I'm not insulting you, I actually have more markers for this than you do it seems. I'm just saying it might be worth looking into as it seems to be  a threat to your ability to function in society. A person should know himself and be comfortable with is "shadow". We all have one.

[Prometheus]

Also, why are your friends dying? This sounds a bit suspicious to me.  

[DropLogic]

And I'm fine with that because I am a mess of an adult. I'm so angry at any form of authority it is very hard for me to keep the jobs I have. I've been lucky so far to keep my current job for the last 3 years because I'm a great liar...learned from the best.

These traits:

Difficulty with authority figures

trouble controling actions(Impulsiveness)

Trouble keeping jobs

Pathological lying

superficial charm

Grandiose sense of self-worth

Easily bored. (The fact that you post here)

I'm not insulting you, I actually have more markers for this than you do it seems. I'm just saying it might be worth looking into as it seems to be  a threat to your ability to function in society. A person should know himself and be comfortable with is "shadow". We all have one.

I know you're not insulting me.  I do fit all of those above...There is no treatment for psychopathy, and its quite difficult to actually diagnose.  Look at what wikipedia lists as factors for the second type of psychopathy.

Socially deviant lifestyle
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsiveness
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavioral problems
Revocation of conditional release

Does this list not describe the 20-25 year old male, and sometimes female?  I personally have 3 or 4 friends who fall into that category.

I did take offense to the accusation however...so maybe that just proves it further, I'm not sure.  What is "normal" behavior anyway?  Isn't normal just relative to the observer?

[The Magic Pudding]

In Australia the government pays a baby bonus to encourage people to have babies.
I don't agree with it.

You will get a cash gift of up to $4,000 each for your 1st and 2nd child and $6,000 each for your 3rd and 4th child.

As for the right/privilege option, I would say bringing a child into the world is a right.
Society can place conditions on this, reasonable or not.
I have misgivings for both the poverty perpetuated by large families and draconian actions to control them.
Enlightened people seem to advocate education, they say it works.

The practice of taking the children of young unmarried mothers used to be common, it's no longer considered a civilised thing to do.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 042758.htm

"The trauma is so deep, so complex that over 40 per cent of us never risked having another child. Children have suffered believing their own mothers callously gave them away," she said.
"Hearts have been shattered. Lives have been taken."
Sue said the rights of mothers were ignored.
"Single, unsupported mothers were treated like breeders, denigrated, dehumanised and de-babied," she said.
"Until a trauma is acknowledged and validated it can't begin to heal."

The West Australian Government apologised today for the practice.

[hismikeness]

I've long considered this a privilege. In fact, I wrote a paper, and read it in front of my class in college, which outlined a plan to effectively license people to have children. The class was Socioeconomics and Children for my Early Childhood Education degree (which I don't use, but hangs on my wall). I proposed that a program be offered which if completed would offer hefty tax incentives to those who had children. A refresher would be required every 2 years. The program would consist of classes alerting expectant parents of issues with pregnancy and infancy. The refresher 2 years hence would cover toddlerhood. Two more years, early childhood; later on, pre-teen, etc.

Make no mistake, I was in no way wishing to take rights away from anyone to procreate. I merely outlined a plan to educate and provide breaks to those that wished to enroll. I was raked over the coals for my opinion. It may have been my paper, it may have been my opinions, it may have been the fact that I was literally the only male in the class, but whatever it was, it was me against everyone else in trying have a discussion.

To this point:

a program where drug addicts were offered money in order to submit to sterilisation

I think this is brilliant. I think you could make the case to provide money for voluntary sterilization to anyone, and mandatory sterilization for many things, including severe mental illness, mental retardation, low IQ, inheritable diseases, etc.

In a somewhat related story, I used to work in the mental health field, with adolescents. There was a certain medicine that the physician prescribed to almost all of the kids- and anti seizure drug called depakote or valproic acid, and it worked really well for its mood stabilizing effects. There was a concern brought up by a lawsuit somewhere that it could cause sterility, and as a knee jerk reaction she (the Dr.) titrated all the kids off the med as soon as possible. There has never been (to my knowledge) a confirmed documented case of it. The period of adjustment to the new mood stabilizers was rough in the facility in which I worked. The new meds didn't help as much as the depakote.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why do you think it's a right?

Because I hold as axiomatic the right of the individual to manage his or her own body.  I regard governmental control of a person's bodily functions, in the absence of a conviction for a crime, to be repulsive.  I don't believe that society has any right to demand that the needs of the society take precedence over the desires of the individual in the absence of a criminal act.

I think hours worked are certainly a valid thing to consider when having kids, that's why so many people give up some/all work on becoming parents.

Those who are well-off enough to afford this, you should say.  You haven't addressed my point that this idea of yours would strip many working poor of the chance to know the love of a child.  Do you honestly think such a class-based discriminatory system (be it intended or accidental, that may well be its result) would result in a stable society?  Do you honestly think that people will voluntarily forgo children?

Look at China.  If you're comfortable with such an intrusive government, have at it.  Just please leave it in the UK.