Are children a right or a privilege?

[Sophus]

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.

I completely agree with this. And at the same time I think it would be good to encourage people to not have children they can't afford. It's difficult for me to determine if/when/how the government should really act in taking such preventative measures.

[DropLogic]

I think sex ed is part of the problem, as in, lack of.  I think kids do what comes natural and explore each other without understanding the consequences.  Certainly you run the risk of planting the seed of curiosity in a young child (that sounded bad..), but I think the benefit outweighs that risk.  In America especially we vilify sexuality, which I think has the opposite effect.

[Islador]

In my opinion the decision on who should and shouldn't be allowed to have children lies with whoever will be ultimately responsible for the welfare of that child. I don't believe that anyone has an right to have children and I also find the emotional blackmail which is used to justify state support for irresponsible parents who had children they couldn't support themselves disguisting.

The current attitude in the UK seems to be "I can have as many children as I want and if the state doesn't give my money to pay for them they'll die and it'll all be the states fault". I'm all for providing assistance to those who through circumstances out of their control are in a position where they are unable to provide adequate support for themselve and their children but I won't accept this system of support being abused.

Of course changing this would require imposing strict control over reproduction should as mandatory sterlisation, putting eggs and sperm into storage and then having to apply for a permit to have a child as there will always be irresponsible parents having children they can't support unless its made physically impossible. Morally controversiall? Yes but I don't see how its any more controversial than letting people breed uncontrollably and then passing responsibilty for their children onto the state.

[DropLogic]

The current attitude in the UK seems to be "I can have as many children as I want and if the state doesn't give my money to pay for them they'll die and it'll all be the states fault". I'm all for providing assistance to those who through circumstances out of their control are in a position where they are unable to provide adequate support for themselve and their children but I won't accept this system of support being abused.

How would it be decided that the circumstances were out of the family's control?  There's no good way to attack this issue.  We need to figure out the lesser of two evils.  Kind of like voting for politicians...

On the one hand, we have irresponsible breeding...but again, who gets to decide what irresponsible is defined by?  Should there be a decider?

On the other, we keep it the way it is...which obviously isn't working either.  Def a catch 22.

[Islador]

The current attitude in the UK seems to be "I can have as many children as I want and if the state doesn't give my money to pay for them they'll die and it'll all be the states fault". I'm all for providing assistance to those who through circumstances out of their control are in a position where they are unable to provide adequate support for themselve and their children but I won't accept this system of support being abused.

How would it be decided that the circumstances were out of the family's control?  There's no good way to attack this issue.  We need to figure out the lesser of two evils.  Kind of like voting for politicians...

On the one hand, we have irresponsible breeding...but again, who gets to decide what irresponsible is defined by?  Should there be a decider?

On the other, we keep it the way it is...which obviously isn't working either.  Def a catch 22.

By out of their control I am refering to events such as a partner dying, losing your job or becoming ill/disabled and so on. I would also add that I am only willing to support those who had children or were pregnant before requiring aid from the state and therefore had no intention of being dependent on the state when they had their children.

As I said the people who get to decide are the ones who are going to be ultimately responsible for those children. Its not fair on the taxpayer and the state that individuals can have children without any means of supporting them and then through emotional blackmail force the state and the taxpayer to provide. This is the current situation in the UK and it needs to stop because there are plenty of taxpayers out there who put off having children until they are in a position where they provide for those children and at the same time there are others who just breed without a second thought as to who is going to foot the bill.

If its the taxpayer and the state who are having assume responsibility for providing for a potential child then they have the final say on whether a person can have that child.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course changing this would require imposing strict control over reproduction should as mandatory sterlisation, putting eggs and sperm into storage and then having to apply for a permit to have a child as there will always be irresponsible parents having children they can't support unless its made physically impossible.

And to whom, pray tell, would you entrust such a broad group of powers?

If its the taxpayer and the state who are having assume responsibility for providing for a potential child then they have the final say on whether a person can have that child.

The problem with this otherwise sensible idea is that it presumes prescience on the part of bureaucrats.

[Islador]

Of course changing this would require imposing strict control over reproduction should as mandatory sterlisation, putting eggs and sperm into storage and then having to apply for a permit to have a child as there will always be irresponsible parents having children they can't support unless its made physically impossible.

And to whom, pray tell, would you entrust such a broad group of powers?

Private companies can already provide this service via sperm/egg banks. What remains of the civil service can provide the administrative services but its more likely that this will need to be outsourced to the private sector. There is already a pre-existing system inplace for determining whether or not an individual or couple is suitable to be a parent in the adoption agency. This would provide a good starting point.

If its the taxpayer and the state who are having assume responsibility for providing for a potential child then they have the final say on whether a person can have that child.

The problem with this otherwise sensible idea is that it presumes prescience on the part of bureaucrats.

Not in light of the above. Once sperm and eggs are available for collection they would be collected, checked for quality and the individual sterilised. If this is done at an earlier enough age then the odds of someone getting pregnant without authorisation are very slim indeed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Private companies can already provide this service via sperm/egg banks. What remains of the civil service can provide the administrative services but its more likely that this will need to be outsourced to the private sector. There is already a pre-existing system inplace for determining whether or not an individual or couple is suitable to be a parent in the adoption agency. This would provide a good starting point.

Given the extremely spotty record of corporations given responsibility over other deeply personal decisions (cf. healthcare in America), I'd be very skeptical of this solution.  I don't think adoption agencies provide a meaningful analogy because the differences in scale are so vast.  In 1992 (the last year I could find adoption stats for America), 127, 000 adoptions took place.  In that same year, there were 4,084,000 live births.  Assuming the proportion to remain roughly the same, you can easily see that the adoption bureaucracy, already noted for its red tape, would be overwhelmed without a huge increase in the administrative sector, with concomitant increases in inefficiency, unjust decisions, and opportunity for corruption.

Not in light of the above. Once sperm and eggs are available for collection they would be collected, checked for quality and the individual sterilised. If this is done at an earlier enough age then the odds of someone getting pregnant without authorisation are very slim indeed.

Personally, I'd rather die free than live in a Brave New World.  While this is admittedly a personal opinion, it is one that I'm sure most Americans, at any rate, would share, aside from any argumentation based on my points above.

[Islador]

Private companies can already provide this service via sperm/egg banks. What remains of the civil service can provide the administrative services but its more likely that this will need to be outsourced to the private sector. There is already a pre-existing system inplace for determining whether or not an individual or couple is suitable to be a parent in the adoption agency. This would provide a good starting point.

Given the extremely spotty record of corporations given responsibility over other deeply personal decisions (cf. healthcare in America), I'd be very skeptical of this solution.  I don't think adoption agencies provide a meaningful analogy because the differences in scale are so vast.  In 1992 (the last year I could find adoption stats for America), 127, 000 adoptions took place.  In that same year, there were 4,084,000 live births.  Assuming the proportion to remain roughly the same, you can easily see that the adoption bureaucracy, already noted for its red tape, would be overwhelmed without a huge increase in the administrative sector, with concomitant increases in inefficiency, unjust decisions, and opportunity for corruption.

Not in light of the above. Once sperm and eggs are available for collection they would be collected, checked for quality and the individual sterilised. If this is done at an earlier enough age then the odds of someone getting pregnant without authorisation are very slim indeed.

Personally, I'd rather die free than live in a Brave New World.  While this is admittedly a personal opinion, it is one that I'm sure most Americans, at any rate, would share, aside from any argumentation based on my points above.

This is the problem when everything is labelled a right. It makes it nigh impossible to made any changes to society regardless of whether or not the change proposed is more morally and ethically acceptable than allowing people to exercise their 'right' without also taking responsibilty afterwards and emotionally blackmailing the state/taxpayer into taking up said responsibilty.

We legislate against flaws in human behaviour all the time because we recognise that absolute personal freedom is not in the best interests of society as a whole. Tell me why irresponsible reproduction should not be controlled or if you accept that there is a need to control reproduction what would your prefered method be?

[hackenslash]

And would you be willing to submit to sterilisation by the state?

[Tank]

I'm having problems with the use of the word 'right'. I see a right for example as something like the 'right to freedom of expression', the 'right to assembly'. I don't see the act of procreation as anything like as tawdry as this sort of 'right' that is a codification of human behaviour. Reproduction is the bedrock of life, all life, without exception. It is far more innate to existance than a behavioural condition, I simply do not equate it to a 'right'. Humans are obliged to reproduce because they are alive, it comes with the territory whether one likes it or not. Reproduction is not a right or a privilege it is a function of being alive.

That being said unfettered reproduction leads to over exploitation of resources, the destruction of the ecosystem as it becomes lop sided and the ultimate population crash of the dominant spices. Humans are unique in their capability to foresee this demise and to do something positive about it.

The question facing humanity is 'should we try to beat natural selection for the good of myself, others and future members of our species?' It is the thoughtless and selfish that reproduce carelessly and thus that trait will survive all others, it has to or Darwin was wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is the problem when everything is labelled a right. It makes it nigh impossible to made any changes to society regardless of whether or not the change proposed is more morally and ethically acceptable than allowing people to exercise their 'right' without also taking responsibilty afterwards and emotionally blackmailing the state/taxpayer into taking up said responsibilty.

So close, and yet so far away.....

Also, you keep waving around subsequent irresponsibility, but you have yet to present cogent answers to my questions about how the state can deem which couple will be good parents and which irresponsible. Criminal record?  That won't work; it's a clear violation of 5th Amendment rights.  History of drug abuse?  If you don't have a conviction, then you are punishing without a trial.  If you do have a conviction the above objection applies.

Also duly noted is your refusal to rebut my point about infrastructure, or even  acknowledge it at all.  I will not let you forget this.  Please explain how you would overcome these difficulties without installing a massive bureaucracy subject to red tape, human error, and corruption undermining its mission.

We legislate against flaws in human behaviour all the time because we recognise that absolute personal freedom is not in the best interests of society as a whole.

The only biological imperative we legislate against is defecation, and that only in public.

Tell me why irresponsible reproduction should not be controlled or if you accept that there is a need to control reproduction what would your prefered method be?

I have already done so, but for your benefit I will do so again:  I would rather die free than live in a Brave New World.

To answer your last question, I'm comfortable leaving that to natural selection.

[Islador]

And would you be willing to submit to sterilisation by the state?

As long as my sperm was stored at several secure sites for redundancy purposes then yes. It also has the added bonus that myself and my partner can have sex without using a condom to ensure that we don't have any unwanted pregnancy. This doesn't mean that others don't need to use condoms as the STI issue still remains.

[Islador]

This is the problem when everything is labelled a right. It makes it nigh impossible to made any changes to society regardless of whether or not the change proposed is more morally and ethically acceptable than allowing people to exercise their 'right' without also taking responsibilty afterwards and emotionally blackmailing the state/taxpayer into taking up said responsibilty.

So close, and yet so far away.....

Also, you keep waving around subsequent irresponsibility, but you have yet to present cogent answers to my questions about how the state can deem which couple will be good parents and which irresponsible. Criminal record?  That won't work; it's a clear violation of 5th Amendment rights.  History of drug abuse?  If you don't have a conviction, then you are punishing without a trial.  If you do have a conviction the above objection applies.

Also duly noted is your refusal to rebut my point about infrastructure, or even  acknowledge it at all.  I will not let you forget this.  Please explain how you would overcome these difficulties without installing a massive bureaucracy subject to red tape, human error, and corruption undermining its mission.

You are right and I apologise for failing to address all which you said.

I admit that determining who will make a good parent is a very difficult thing because there are so many factors involved, including those which can be hidden from any assessment or won't become apparant until after the child is born and the parents have assumed responsibility. We're also from different cultural backgrounds as you are apparantly an American and I'm British so I have no grown up with the US constitution and therefore do no think within its frame work.

There are some things which I would want to be part of any assessment such as the households financial situation, their views on education, whether or not there is a work ethic, whether or not either of the parents has any previous convictions and suchlike which are immediately relevent to their wish to have a child. There would also have to be the right to appeal.

I find your attitude towards bureaucracy and its associated problems interesting as it applies equally to the infrastructure currently inplace which manages and delivers state welfare in the UK. For the most part the Welfare system does its job but innevitably there are human and computer mistakes which cause much frustration and upset for those who it affects but that doesn't mean we don't bother providing the most vulnerable of society with welfare because its problematic.

Red tape, human error and all that are a reality of life. Personally I'd rather have that than children being born to irresponsible parents who the state is then obliged to pay for, just as I'd rather there be those things than people having no state welfare safety net to fall back on when times are hard.

Incidently I do have some experience working in such bureacracies and I can assure you that there are departments dedicated to reducing error and ensuring that staff aren't doing anything which they shouldn't be.

We legislate against flaws in human behaviour all the time because we recognise that absolute personal freedom is not in the best interests of society as a whole.

The only biological imperative we legislate against is defecation, and that only in public.

Laws exist (Some of them at least) exist to provide an standard to measure individuals behaviour against in order to indentify where it falls short of what is deemed acceptable. It goes a little bit further than just stopping people crapping in public.

Tell me why irresponsible reproduction should not be controlled or if you accept that there is a need to control reproduction what would your prefered method be?

I have already done so, but for your benefit I will do so again:  I would rather die free than live in a Brave New World.

To answer your last question, I'm comfortable leaving that to natural selection.

The slippery-slope arguement isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

You do realise that by leaving things to natural selection we would withdraw all welfare support for the most vulnerable in society? This would be a truely despicable act and would cause far more harm than anything I've proposed in this thread.

[elliebean]

The slippery-slope arguement isn't very convincing I'm afraid.

It is when the slope runs such a short distance.