Are children a right or a privilege?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 debit-card system only fuels a side-market.  My neighbors regularly offer to buy groceries on their card for me for an up-front payment.  While I disagree with TWs premise, I can say that at least here some of his facts are straight.

[Explorer]

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.

Tank: 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.

These two quotes more-or-less sum up my position on it.  Innocent until proven guilty applies here, I think.  Breeding is fundamental to the human condition, just as freedom of thought, action and association are, and as such is recognized by human society as a 'right'.  However, like action and association, breeding can be used to the detriment of others.  In such cases sanctions can reasonably be applied.  

Just as those who abuse the freedom of action to devastate the lives of others are denied further access to that freedom (by being locked in a small room made largely of concrete and steel), so those who misuse the right to breed should be denied further right to breed.  The right should be denied when to do so constitutes the lesser harm.  To my mind that's actually a fairly low threshold, since it doesn't restrict behaviour, only the outcome of a small subset of behaviours.  Ultimately of course, where the line lies, is an arbitrary decision, but that's what we have judges for.

[DropLogic]

Just as those who abuse the freedom of action to devastate the lives of others are denied further access to that freedom (by being locked in a small room made largely of concrete and steel), so those who misuse the right to breed should be denied further right to breed.  The right should be denied when to do so constitutes the lesser harm.  To my mind that's actually a fairly low threshold, since it doesn't restrict behaviour, only the outcome of a small subset of behaviours.  Ultimately of course, where the line lies, is an arbitrary decision, but that's what we have judges for.

I like this position actually.  It makes sense because I have known some people to snap out of their awful habits once a kid came along, and they are now great parents.  So innocent until proven guilty makes sense in this application.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just as those who abuse the freedom of action to devastate the lives of others are denied further access to that freedom (by being locked in a small room made largely of concrete and steel), so those who misuse the right to breed should be denied further right to breed.  The right should be denied when to do so constitutes the lesser harm.  To my mind that's actually a fairly low threshold, since it doesn't restrict behaviour, only the outcome of a small subset of behaviours.  Ultimately of course, where the line lies, is an arbitrary decision, but that's what we have judges for.

I like this position actually.  It makes sense because I have known some people to snap out of their awful habits once a kid came along, and they are now great parents.  So innocent until proven guilty makes sense in this application.

Yes, he stated my position much better than I myself did.

[jduster]

It is certainly a Catch 22.

On one hand, it is wrong for the state to force people, at their will, not to have children.

On the other hand, it is wrong that an irresponsible parent can create a child and allow them to suffer.

[Tank]

It is certainly a Catch 22.

On one hand, it is wrong for the state to force people, at their will, not to have children.

On the other hand, it is wrong that an irresponsible parent can create a child and allow them to suffer.

Would one rather be alive and suffering with the potential not to suffer or never to have lived?

Personally I would contend the potential suffering of a child, provided there is no significant mental or physical congenital condition, is not a reason not to have a child from the child's perspective because while there is life there is hope. IMO limiting population is a selfish necessity for those already alive, those yet to be born and the environment they will inherit.

[theantithesis]

Are children a right or a privilege?

Curse.

[Tank]

Are children a right or a privilege?

Curse.

That's not completely fair  

[pinkocommie]

It's always interesting to see how quickly anecdotal evidence is accepted instead of rejected when the conversation among atheists has to do with anything but religion.  

[DropLogic]

It's always interesting to see how quickly anecdotal evidence is accepted instead of rejected when the conversation among atheists has to do with anything but religion.  

The OP was posed as a "what do you think about blank?" question.  What evidence would you offer to answer this question?  This issue isn't so black and white as religion is.

[TheWilliam]

I'm glad you guys answered the debit card question for me.

that one was a little too simple.

It's really easy to just go to the grocery, show the receipt and pay 50 percent of that in cash.

my niece's mother (by marriage, i'm not related to this broad) does that every month.  so did my old boss.

in the end I say if they are gonna keep spitting out kids. they have to come up with their own money to raise them. and not just take my money or your money or the dude down the street.

it's their problem. NOT MINE.

if the kids go hungry. TOO DAMN BAD.

It wasn't my choice for them to be allowed to breed the species.

[The Magic Pudding]

Just a moment while I adjust my halo...

If you don't feed them they will steal, or steal more.
If they steal they get what? ten cents in the dollar and probably break a car window, so the percentage is maybe 5%.
This is an inefficient way to feed the hungry, and you'll have to pay more cops as well.

I think the police in South America had their own way of dealing with this sort of thing, but it's not pretty.

Have attempts to lift the poor from their squalor been tried, failed and rejected?

[Tank]

{snip}
Have attempts to lift the poor from their squalor been tried, failed and rejected?

The Victorian phrase was 'the residuam'. That group of society that was beyond help but would always require help. Those people who simply would not or could not contribute to society. Ignoring the residuam will not make it go away, in all probability it will cause more damage to society than it costs to manage it. Which I think is the point you were making.

Unless one wants to take positive steps to eradicate the residuam one's only real option is to manage it.

[The Magic Pudding]

Unless one wants to take positive steps to eradicate the residuam one's only real option is to manage it.

So have some societies (let's not say eradicate) done a better job improving the lot of their residuam?
What happens when there is a pool of residuam ready to flow across borders?

[pinkocommie]

The problem with the position of "if they're going to keep spitting out kids, let them pay for them" is that it's the innocent kid who ends up being the real victim.  Not caring about the welfare of the helpless seems monstrous to me.

Also, I still in no way believe that "most" people on food stamps sell them for 50 cents on the dollar for booze and smokes and drugs.  That is a ridiculous claim to make - regardless of how the shitty people in your life happen to behave.  I would believe that most people on food stamps have at some point used them as a currency to get what other people may consider a luxury item at some point, but why get all pissy about that?  The idea that if there were less people on welfare, you would have a bigger paycheck or somehow have more money yourself is laughably naive.