Are children a right or a privilege?

[DropLogic]

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.

Psst.  Uh..China is kind of poised to take over the world right now.  Every industrialized nation owes them lots of money, especially the US.  If they were to cease artificial devaluing of their currency...it would effectively make theirs the only workable economy in the world.

IMO, we had our chance to prove that we could multiply unchecked...and we blew it.  Future generations will be better served if we limit how many are born.

[Whitney]

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?

No, my concern is strictly with keeping medical decisions between the doctor and the patient without intervention from the government or other regulatory agencys.  The right to decide what is done or not done to our bodies is way too important to be cut into in the name of controlling who can have a baby.  

I think there is also reason to be concerned about who would get to decide who is ready for a child...what keeps them from selecting for green eye'd red headed Irish catholics for instance?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Psst.  Uh..China is kind of poised to take over the world right now.  Every industrialized nation owes them lots of money, especially the US.  If they were to cease artificial devaluing of their currency...it would effectively make theirs the only workable economy in the world.

Psst ... we're not talking about geopolitics, but rather individual freedom.  To argue that the success of a system justifies its methodology is short-sighted at least, and amoral.  Or do you actually believe that ends justify means?  Or do you argue that economic success is more important than personal happiness?

Also, centrally-imposed limitations on family size imply either blind law steamrolling everyone, or government officials deciding who gets to have kids and who doesn't.  What is your preference?

IMO, we had our chance to prove that we could multiply unchecked...and we blew it.  Future generations will be better served if we limit how many are born.

I'm not arguing that we should mulitply unchecked, so you can discard that strawman.  I am, however, arguing that it is an invasion of personal liberty to inject the government into the decision to have children.

I brought up China not as a reproductive success, but as a political nightmare.  Perhaps you might address my point: when you grant the government such intrusive powers, how do you subsequently limit those powers?  Would you, or any other reader of this post, for instance, consent to be sterilized?  Would you consent to a forcible-sterilization law?  If such a law were passed over your objection, would you bow to it?  Who would decide who gets sterilized?  On what basis would such a decision be made?

I submit that placing power over reproduction in the hands of the government is an open invitation to the abuse of power, for the sake of extending and consolidating those in power.  When have you known humans not to abuse such power?  What makes you think it would not be so abused in this case?

[The Magic Pudding]

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'm surprised people are willing to give up on this principle so quickly.
It seems many of us want a quick and easy answer to a difficult problem.

There will be people down here happy to here of the new paradigm.
Taking the children from indigenous people wasn't wrong after all.

But now we are embracing authoritarian government why not mandatory daily blood tests?
More surveillance cameras, in the home and in the street.  If you do no wrong, there's nothing to fear.

With our new surveillance system we'll need to recruit a force to enforce order.
There will be many former drugoes available, give em a black suit and a stick, they'll work cheap.

And what is the cause of all this degenerate behaviour anyway?
Lack of faith obviously, so I better see you all in church.

[Sophus]

It should be a privilege because the kid should come first, however, realistically I don't think there's not much within reason the government can do about it. If someone wishes to adopt they must go through a rather great deal of investigation to see if they're fit to be a parent, yet John and Jane Doe get to have a kid and you don't know the first thing about them.

On the other hand, if the person has AIDS or a condition that will be inevitably be passed on to the child, then I say yes, the government should do something to prevent it. Does that make it a privilege versus a right? I guess so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It should be a privilege because the kid should come first, however, realistically I don't think there's not much within reason the government can do about it. If someone wishes to adopt they must go through a rather great deal of investigation to see if they're fit to be a parent, yet John and Jane Doe get to have a kid and you don't know the first thing about them.

I agree that when a pregnancy is diagnosed, classes should be mandatory.

On the other hand, if the person has AIDS or a condition that will be inevitably be passed on to the child, then I say yes, the government should do something to prevent it. Does that make it a privilege versus a right? I guess so.

What would you have the government do?  What other conditions do you have in mind?  What of genetic conditions which, unpredicatably, may or may not be expressed phenotypically?  Cancer killed 7 of my maternal grandmother's 8 siblings; her and my great-uncle Bert both beat it at least twice.  Obviously it's running in our family (my mother, too, has beaten it twice, as well as her sister) and I should be expected to get it sooner or later.  Ought I have been aborted?

eta:  PoopShoot, stfu.  

[Asmodean]

A child is a miniature person, thus neithe right nor privilege.

Having children should be a privilege though. A well-controlled one, seeing how far too many are complete failures as parents. And that not even mentioning overpopulation.

[Sophus]

What would you have the government do?  What other conditions do you have in mind?  What of genetic conditions which, unpredicatably, may or may not be expressed phenotypically?  Cancer killed 7 of my maternal grandmother's 8 siblings; her and my great-uncle Bert both beat it at least twice.  Obviously it's running in our family (my mother, too, has beaten it twice, as well as her sister) and I should be expected to get it sooner or later.  Ought I have been aborted?

eta:  PoopShoot, stfu.  

A genetic risk for cancer? No. A life long disease like AIDS that will compromise the child's life so they don't spread it to others? I think so.

A child is a miniature person, thus neithe right nor privilege.

Having children should be a privilege though. A well-controlled one, seeing how far too many are complete failures as parents. And that not even mentioning overpopulation.

There are a lot of people who should never be parents, but usually they don't prove this until they're parents. That's why I find preventative measures from the government too risky.

[metaed]

State interference in reproduction? Yes, let's get started on that as soon as we are happy with state interference in religious practice.

I understand the desire to make the world a better place. But fascist solutions to social problems are about the last thing I would have expected to hear from atheists. Like any oppressed minority, we have a huge interest in minimizing state power to dictate personal thoughts, decisions, and actions.

Yes, let's help end non-sustainable consumption. Yes, let's help ensure that children are raised by loving parents. (We have very practical reasons to do so, which I imagine I do not need to elaborate on.) Let's educate; let's influence. But not at the cost of liberty.

Cheers,

MetaEd

[Kylyssa]

I think that the question is a good one and one which ought to be put to all potential parents before they have children.  But, I don't think it is the question government and society should focus on.

In my opinion, it's all about education.  When people are better educated they tend to, as a society, have fewer children and take better care of the ones they have.  I think that mandatory reproductive education (beginning in grade school) for all which includes education on birth control and education on the effects of having children, both personal and global, would do a lot to help fix the current situation.  I also think that some form of tolerance education should be mandatory.  Bigotry is responsible for a lot of child abuse.

[Asmodean]

But fascist solutions to social problems are about the last thing I would have expected to hear from atheists.

Does fascism dictate on individual basis who should and shouldn't have children?

That said, China seems to manage quite well with their one child policy thing. Oh, sure, there are a lot of kids being tossed in a river, with varying degrees of figurativity, but overall, it's not an ineffective measure of population control.

[SSY]

I am somewhat surprised by the number of people who, on seeing this discussion, immediately froth at the mouth about fascism, government invasion and the like.

No, my concern is strictly with keeping medical decisions between the doctor and the patient without intervention from the government or other regulatory agencys. The right to decide what is done or not done to our bodies is way too important to be cut into in the name of controlling who can have a baby.

I think there is also reason to be concerned about who would get to decide who is ready for a child...what keeps them from selecting for green eye'd red headed Irish catholics for instance?

Does the government not already interfere with what is permissible to do with owns body? Injecting drugs, though only affecting one's self, is illegal, be they narcotics or (in your country) steroids. Do you also disagree with this form of governmental control?

Of course, deciding the conditions that should be met for parenthood would be tricky, and undoubtedly divisive, but already have people who decide how much we are taxed, what laws we obey, the punishments associated with these laws, which medical treatments are allowed, how our tax money is spent etc etc, I don't this issue has being significantly more prickly than all of those.

Edit, not imply that you have been frothing at the mouth

[hackenslash]

I have a problem with the framing of the question and, after thinking about it for a couple of days, I have to say neither. They're a responsibility.

[pinkocommie]

I have a problem with the framing of the question and, after thinking about it for a couple of days, I have to say neither. They're a responsibility.

I agree with you and am a little weirded out by the fact that it took until the second page of comments for this to even come up.

[Asmodean]

I have a problem with the framing of the question and, after thinking about it for a couple of days, I have to say neither. They're a responsibility.

I agree with you and am a little weirded out by the fact that it took until the second page of comments for this to even come up.

It is indeed a bit weird... Even I thought of that, and I genuinely dislike kids. Especially babies.