Are children a right or a privilege?

[The Magic Pudding]

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

Welcome metaed, a sulphur crested cocky on the forum, I bare a scar, but no grudge, rarrk.
Oh and your post makes sense to me.
For society to implement something like this, it would have to have changed greatly.
I hate to think what else such a society would think reasonable.

[Tank]

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?

A 'right' is a  human intellectual construct. Reproduction is an inherent property of all organisms. It is fundamentally flawed to conflate the two conditions. It's like saying 'I don't like that shade of blue.', has no meaning with regard to the nature of the photons that we interpret as 'blue'. You can't take away the 'right' of a particular photon to be blue as it's a human intellectual construct.

The correct question is, should adults consider not reproducing for the benefit of themselves, others and the potential offspring? This may appear to be a very similar point but it isn't. Once we assign a 'right' to an activity we assign an ability to deny that 'right' to somebody. Unless we are going to forcibly sterilise people then the only thing we are ethically and morally allowed to do is to lay out our arguments to a person(s) why they should not use an inherent biological capability.

Having children is not a 'right' but an entirely natural process that we have evolved to do. Some would say it is the only point of existance and the only reason we exist in the first place. Reproduction is not a 'right' it is the function of life.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 took the framing to indicate this being considered from a philosophical and not practical angle.  Of course you're right in the above statement.

[Will]

Rights are only things upon which a society can agree and enforce as rights. Most societies have chosen to, perhaps without thinking about it, provide the right to reproduction.

Personally, I do believe in the right to free reproduction so long as it's accompanied by incentives not to procreate. Because we're living in a clearly overpopulated world with quickly-diminishing resources, free reproduction is ultimately a negative. What's more negative, however, would be regulated reproduction. Just as I believe the state has no business regulating abortion, similarly the state has no business regulating reproduction. What the state can do, however, is provide incentives for not reproducing or for adopting.

[TheWilliam]

if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

[DropLogic]

if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

Quit being a fascist Will!
:p

[Sophus]

if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

:hail:  :hail:

[pinkocommie]

if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but do you have any proof to back up the statement:

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

You're definitely right that some people do this, but most?  Really?  I don't think so, but I'd love to see the data that proves me wrong.  

It seems to me that any group of people are going to look pretty terrible if you choose to only focus on the worst of that particular group, which is what this post seems to exemplify.

Though people who have kids for welfare are horrible.  I'd just like to know how common that practice actually is.  I think there is an important difference between a poor person who has a kid and is on welfare and a person who has a kid to get welfare.

[Ihateusernames]

if it's to be their right to keep spitting out gremlins they can't afford,

then it should be my right to deny that any money comes out of my salary for their welfare check.

and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

I don't bust my ass at work and give up my cigarette habit and cut back on alcohol, and wear what's on the clearance rack to support these people and their irresponsible breeding.

peace

-William-

Your right.... You do it to buy your next joint.  *points at your "worlview"*
 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I notice his worldview has changed.

[TheWilliam]

It would be nice to conduct a study on what percentage of recipients are using ALL of the food stamps for food and not selling any, but I don't think people would put themselves out there to let everyone know they are doing this, as it would have the average tax payer mad as shit to find this out, and sure enough, next voting season it would be on the ballot and food stamps would be gone.

^^^^(talk about a run-on sentence)

       So it's just a combination of 1. not being naive.  2. going by what I've seen.

since the age of ten in 1993, anybody I've interacted with who's family received food stamps always sold a lot of them to people who didn't really need them but appreciated them more.

.....I know it will never end, at least not in my lifetime, because my species, loves to breed, and loves to bullshit even more.

well, I didn't mean to make this dragged out post this morning, but I didn't think anybody would actually read my first post,

It's almost 4am and I need to exercise and get to work,
If I don't then I'll get fat and somebody else won't be able to get those new sneakers
(and don't trip, I'm not mad, at least I have my joint for the games this sunday)

Peace

-William-

[Kylyssa]

When I was homeless and couldn't get food stamps, I bought them at 50 cents on the dollar or less.  That was twenty ish years ago.  However, I don't think people can easily sell them now because food benefits come on debit cards that get refilled each month.  If you think most people on food stamps in this economy are selling them I think you are wrong.

[The Magic Pudding]

It's shocking to see money wasted on food stamps.
Particularly when needy financiers need funding and more bombs must be bought.

[Prometheus]

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but do you have any proof to back up the statement:

TheWilliam wrote:
and if you didn't know most of those people sell those food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar and spend the cash on cigarettes, alcohol, drug habits and unnecessary namebrand clothes.

You're definitely right that some people do this, but most? Really? I don't think so, but I'd love to see the data that proves me wrong.

I'll back up will's statement. I grew up in a low income neighborhood. Literally 3 out of 5 working age adults where i lived had no real job. Most of them drew welfare and made money dealing drugs(The older folks sell their meds). Others grow pot(Some of it is found every year on my families land. We just recently finished combing our 15 acres for it so we could destroy the plants before they were harvested. Found 7 preharvest plants and took the scissors to them. Will's probaply crying now . Theres no telling how many we missed tho. Damn potheads.) and meth was big when i was a kid. 11 trailers burnt down in my neighborhood in 5 years and the cops never put two and two together. In all these families you have developing children(Myself included because i visited friends whos parents cooked.) being exposed to dangerous byproducts. I saw firsthand these kids barely getting enough food to get by on. If it weren't for free lunches at school and a few compassionate neighbors they might have starved. And Will is right, most of the stamps were sold at 50 cents on the dollar. They use the money to buy cigarettes, alcohol, and the stuff they use to make meth. They often offered to sell these stamps to my family. Every welfare family i know sold their stamps. What really sucks is when income tax comes around. Every year they get a few thousand dollars each(of our money) for sitting on their asses. Most of it is blown on the usual substances.

Someone said they thought this selling of stamps was hard. rofl! Naive. All they have to do is give the stamp recipient a grocery list. The recipient goes and buys the items, say 200's worth of groceries. Then the buyer pays 100 dollars for the items.

Birth rate regulation aside, does it really make sense to reward people for having kids they can't afford?
I think that if they can't feed the kids on their own the state should take them, if they aren't responsible enough to hold down a job(And aren't disabled) they likely aren't responsible enough to raise children .

[The Magic Pudding]

I think that if they can't feed the kids on their own the state should take them, if they aren't responsible enough to hold down a job(And aren't disabled) they likely aren't responsible enough to raise children .

I hope where you are the state is better at taking care of the children than they are here.
It may seem like the right thing to do, but taking children shouldn't be done lightly.

http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_s ... int_modo=1

From 1860 until the 1960s migration schemes saw youngsters and teenagers separated from families and sent to the ends of the earth to begin new lives.

Many were orphaned or had come from poor families who could no longer look after them and it was felt Australia and Canada provided better opportunities and a standard of life.

In November 2009 the Australian Government issued an apology to children who suffered in institutional care. The British Government also apologised to former child migrants in 2010.

In generations past, wise folk saw the indigenous people weren't doing a good job with their children, so they took them.
Some people defend the motivation for this, very few defend the outcomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Most notably, the study indicated that removed Aboriginal people were actually less likely to have completed a secondary education, three times as likely to have acquired a police record and were twice as likely to use illicit drugs.