Is having children a right or a privilege?
daffodilsoup
Posts: 1,972 Member
Do people have a right to reproduce, or is it a privilege? Bonus Question: Should people have to apply to have children?
You probably know my stance already (haha) but I'll be back after this class to put my two cents in
You probably know my stance already (haha) but I'll be back after this class to put my two cents in
0
Replies
-
I don't believe its a right or a privilege, but rather a natural path. That's like asking do we have a right or a privilege to eat (ok ok, not quite as extreme).
And I don't see how applying to have children would change anything? If someone has a baby do you take it away? Or is everyone forced to have something put inside them that stops reproduction?0 -
Neither. For some people it's a choice, for others it's something that just happens, or doesn't happen.
It's tragic that some people have children and aren't able to care for them well, but you aren't ever going to stop that.0 -
Personally, I think that having a child is a privilege. There are so many children born who are given up for adoption or kept in unsuitable homes where the parents either can't afford to raise them or are not emotionally/psychologically prepared to have a child.
I think as the world population reaches 7 billion, people need to start thinking about the consequences that having a child (or multiple children) brings on the rest of the world - and it's not "the miracle of birth" anymore if it's happened billions of times. A lot of people who want to go through sterilization at a young age often have to go through psychological counseling, etc. before the procedure happens. Why doesn't this happen with women who want to have children? It's a huge emotional, physical and psychological undertaking to have and raise a child. I guess it surprises me because it's not like the human race is going to die out anytime soon. Plus, having a baby is a HUGE impact on the environment - think of all the waste that comes with a newborn in diaper changes alone.
My opinion might be unpopular, but I think people should absolutely have to apply to have children. Couples who are looking to adopt have to go through an extensive (and expensive) application process to determine if they are suitable - hell, you have to apply to adopt a puppy - but anyone who has the desire can give birth to as many children as they please, regardless of income, history, anything. There are simply some people in this world who are not ready to have children, and may never be. I've just never seen reproduction as a human right, I guess.0 -
It's true it's tragic that some people aren't able to care for their kids.
However, there's something terribly wrong about having to apply to have kids. It reminds me of dystopian books such as Brave New World or 1984! Or communist China... How is the government supposed to enforce a child policy anyway? Do you suggest fines (which will probably be as efficient as in China where people bypass the one child policy all the time) or something more definitive (large scale sterilizations, forced abortions...). What is the government supposed to do about accidents? Who's going to decide what the criteria for having kids will be?0 -
There's been an interesting debate here in the UK recently about exactly that, in relation to providing IVF to single women - there's been a marked increase in the uptake of IVF through the National Health Service by this demographic - and the opinions that have come out are pretty extreme in both directions. At the same time, there have also been a number of articles in the press about how many (particularly but not exclusively, professional) women are not finding partners/husbands of equal education/career standing/similar background etc, who are also willing to commit, and so are putting off having children, if they wish to do so, until much later in life when the biological imperative starts to kick in.
Arguably, IVF is one way of ensuring valuable genetic material is not lost if a suitable life partner is not found, and that the right of a woman to have a child should not be compromised by a change in societal norms that has us marrying later, if at all. Others have argued that having children is a privilege, and the right of the child to a "normal, two-parent upbringing" should be sacrosanct and valued more highly than the right to become a parent on one's own.
Where do we all fall on that one?0 -
Others have argued that having children is a privilege, and the right of the child to a "normal, two-parent upbringing" should be sacrosanct and valued more highly than the right to become a parent on one's own.
Where do we all fall on that one?
Honestly, this makes me sad. "Normal, two-parent upbringing"? There's a big slap in the face to single parents and widows/widowers. Does this mean that adopted children can't be adopted by anyone other than "normal" couples? I know children brought up by fantastic single parents and children brought up in miserable two-parent households.
Granted, I am of the opinion that having children is a privilege, but I don't feel that that sort of situation affects the child's quality of life. In fact, I'd be all for people needing to apply to be parents - regardless of their marital status, etc. I feel like that would help a child's quality of life more than a "normal" scenario. I can't say I really personally agree with the idea of IVF - couples (or single parents) pay thousands and thousands of dollars for extensive procedures, regardless of whether or not they are successful. Personally, I would rather see that money go toward the adoption of a child than an attempt to bring yet another child into the world.0 -
I believe/think that having children is a gift from God and no one has the right to take that from you. yes, there are people who I think should not "breed" but you will never stop that even if you legislate it. There are people who have the brains to make millions of dollars but are evil down to their core. should the government regulate who can think well and make money? I guess my opinion has a religious connotation, but that is the way I believe. No matter how much you legistlate, regulate etc... there will always be those that do it anyway.0
-
Others have argued that having children is a privilege, and the right of the child to a "normal, two-parent upbringing" should be sacrosanct and valued more highly than the right to become a parent on one's own.
Where do we all fall on that one?
Honestly, this makes me sad. "Normal, two-parent upbringing"? There's a big slap in the face to single parents and widows/widowers. Does this mean that adopted children can't be adopted by anyone other than "normal" couples? I know children brought up by fantastic single parents and children brought up in miserable two-parent households.
Not to mention the many non-traditional two-parent households that exist... It's a direct quote from a panel show here in the UK. Rather alarming, and yes, completely fails to take into account those who are great single parents, or are parenting on their own in the best interests of the child or because of bereavement.
Not sure I agree with you on the IVF question. I can't quite think how to phrase this so that it doesn't sound like I'm suggesting eugenics or something horrific like that, but the statistics indicate that a lot of those using IVF or similar methods are highly-educated, upper-quartile individuals in regard to IQ - it would be a shame to lose that genetic material. That's not intended to cast aspersions at all on those who fall pregnant naturally, and not at all to suggest that the children they might otherwise adopt are in any way inferior, just thinking in terms of the genetic potential that might otherwise disappear. Scientists increasingly think that genetic inheritance plays a larger role than previously thought in inherent, rather than learned, intelligence.
Also, as a woman in my late twenties, without a husband or partner, or any sign of a potential father for my putative child, I can in many ways understand the emotional and psychological/biological urge to reproduce, using whatever means necessary. I don't know for sure - I'm not a mother - but my instinct is that I could learn to love an adopted child very much, but it would be a slightly different love than the love I might feel for a child I had physically carried. Not better or worse, just different.0 -
Unfortunately it's a right, however in my opinion it should be a privilege. In a perfect world we would be able to give a pill to sterilize someone until they reach a maturity and a financially secure enough level to take another pill to be able to have a child, for which they would apply and be screened to make sure they are ready and able..................*sigh* in a perfect world. But I am sure even if this was a possibility we would find a way to F it up.0
-
Having children is a gift from God. However, children (and the unborn who have been conceived) don't have a voice, so it becomes the responsibility of others in society and/or government to protect them. So "having" children is a God-given right. "Keeping" them should be determined by how they are cared for.0
-
Having children is a right that some people have no business exercising.0
-
Neither. Biological function. Even sh!tty parents have been keeping the human race alive since the dawn of time.0
-
Having children is a right that some people have no business exercising.
Bahet FTW!0 -
It's true it's tragic that some people aren't able to care for their kids.
However, there's something terribly wrong about having to apply to have kids. It reminds me of dystopian books such as Brave New World or 1984! Or communist China... How is the government supposed to enforce a child policy anyway? Do you suggest fines (which will probably be as efficient as in China where people bypass the one child policy all the time) or something more definitive (large scale sterilizations, forced abortions...). What is the government supposed to do about accidents? Who's going to decide what the criteria for having kids will be?
As someone else pointed out, there are people who DO have to apply to have children. It's called adoption. You go through a crazy long application process, pay huge amounts of money, have someone invade your lives and your home to make sure it's suitable for a child, and then you MIGHT be approved to be able to adopt. I'd love to adopt but I can tell you right now, I don't think I'll ever be able to because I can't afford the adoption fees. But I can get pregnant and give birth because I have insurance that will cover those medical costs. Yet I can't give a loving and caring home to a child who needs and deserves it because I live in a 2 bedroom apartment with my husband who works nights so we're never home at the same time, and I don't have thousands of dollars to pay out of pocket to be able to adopt the child. Which now that I'm typing all of this out...adoption is starting to sound like the agency is sellling the kid. So just to argue the flip side of this (not that I am agreeing with either side), how is having to apply to adopt a child to ensure it has a good home okay but the application to give birth to a child for the same reason is not? Isn't the ultimate goal to ensure the child is loved and taken care of (regardless of the monetary status of the parents for arguments sake)?0 -
It's true it's tragic that some people aren't able to care for their kids.
However, there's something terribly wrong about having to apply to have kids. It reminds me of dystopian books such as Brave New World or 1984! Or communist China... How is the government supposed to enforce a child policy anyway? Do you suggest fines (which will probably be as efficient as in China where people bypass the one child policy all the time) or something more definitive (large scale sterilizations, forced abortions...). What is the government supposed to do about accidents? Who's going to decide what the criteria for having kids will be?
As someone else pointed out, there are people who DO have to apply to have children. It's called adoption. You go through a crazy long application process, pay huge amounts of money, have someone invade your lives and your home to make sure it's suitable for a child, and then you MIGHT be approved to be able to adopt. I'd love to adopt but I can tell you right now, I don't think I'll ever be able to because I can't afford the adoption fees. But I can get pregnant and give birth because I have insurance that will cover those medical costs. Yet I can't give a loving and caring home to a child who needs and deserves it because I live in a 2 bedroom apartment with my husband who works nights so we're never home at the same time, and I don't have thousands of dollars to pay out of pocket to be able to adopt the child. Which now that I'm typing all of this out...adoption is starting to sound like the agency is sellling the kid. So just to argue the flip side of this (not that I am agreeing with either side), how is having to apply to adopt a child to ensure it has a good home okay but the application to give birth to a child for the same reason is not? Isn't the ultimate goal to ensure the child is loved and taken care of (regardless of the monetary status of the parents for arguments sake)?
Never said a word about adoption processes. I know they're frustrating!0 -
Personally, I think that having a child is a privilege. There are so many children born who are given up for adoption or kept in unsuitable homes where the parents either can't afford to raise them or are not emotionally/psychologically prepared to have a child.
I think as the world population reaches 7 billion, people need to start thinking about the consequences that having a child (or multiple children) brings on the rest of the world - and it's not "the miracle of birth" anymore if it's happened billions of times. A lot of people who want to go through sterilization at a young age often have to go through psychological counseling, etc. before the procedure happens. Why doesn't this happen with women who want to have children? It's a huge emotional, physical and psychological undertaking to have and raise a child. I guess it surprises me because it's not like the human race is going to die out anytime soon. Plus, having a baby is a HUGE impact on the environment - think of all the waste that comes with a newborn in diaper changes alone.
My opinion might be unpopular, but I think people should absolutely have to apply to have children. Couples who are looking to adopt have to go through an extensive (and expensive) application process to determine if they are suitable - hell, you have to apply to adopt a puppy - but anyone who has the desire can give birth to as many children as they please, regardless of income, history, anything. There are simply some people in this world who are not ready to have children, and may never be. I've just never seen reproduction as a human right, I guess.
I personally feel that if you want to have, then go for it. If you don't, don't. It's your right as a person to give birth, if you can and so choose.
HOWEVER
You bring up some very, very good points, that I also agree with, on many levels.
I agree with everything you've said, but at the same time, I do have a problem with the government, or ANYONE, telling another that they are not allowed to give birth.
This is one of the very rare issues that I'm pulling the Sweden card in on.:ohwell:0 -
I gotta ask, what's the Sweden card?0
-
I gotta ask, what's the Sweden card?
Oh crap. Switzerland. My bad.
:blushing:0 -
whats the Switzerland card haha..................showing my ignorance.0
-
Switzerland is politically neutral. So "pulling the Switzerland card" is like refusing to answer, or refusing to take a side.0
-
Switzerland is politically neutral. So "pulling the Switzerland card" is like refusing to answer, or refusing to take a side.
ahh thanks! I learn something new everyday haha.0 -
This opinion might be unpopular here, but a lot of people are bringing up "communist China" as a reason to shy away from the idea of a one-child policy, or government interference in population. I'm simply going to speak as an American living in China at the moment. This might be a novel - sorry.
A lot of things that happen in China, I just can't wrap my brain around, but honestly, the one-child policy here is one of the most forward-thinking initiatives that China has put into place. It's not heavily enforced in rural areas, where families (usually farmers) have multiple children, but in Beijing where I live, almost every family is a one-child family. And honestly it had to be done. A lot of what foreigners see about China is very skewed - the Olympic grounds, the high-rises of Shanghai, the booming industry - but the sheer amount of people here has wreaked havoc on Beijing in every way. Pollution is unbelievable, the roads are too small for the number of people with cars, and there is not a single street you can go on that isn't crowded. There are just too many people.There is a lot of propaganda here, so many adults, while sad that they cannot have bigger families, understand that a sacrifice is being made for a greater good - by the current "breeding generation" having one child, they are avoiding a lot of population-related problems for the future. It's interesting to note that even the more free-thinking youth, who generally oppose a lot of government ideas, see this as a necessary sacrifice to ensure that the future of China is a brighter one. I won't ignore the idea that it does create problems with the balance of boys and girls (and treatment of girls), but I feel that this is a necessary step in China's (and other countries) population crises. It is also important to note here that if a family REALLY wants two children in a larger city like Beijing or Shanghai, they can - if they have the money to pay taxes and fees for a second child. Besides, the US government decides every day who can and cannot have a child - it's called the adoption process.
Isn't it more responsible to have fewer children (or none) and guarantee a brighter future for a (hopefully smaller) next generation, rather than forcing them to inherit the consequences of our own selfishness? For this reason, people who allow "God to decide how many children they have", or view it as their right to have a moving van full of kids, make me think that they are only thinking of themselves in the here and now - not how their consequences will affect the future. It's not just having more kids that's an issue - it's the waste those children create, from diapers to food waste to gasoline.
That being said, (and bear with me here, because this is kinda out there) why is it so important that we continue the human race? What good have we done for the planet or the species we share our Earth with?
Phew, sorry for that novel, haha.Having children is a gift from God. However, children (and the unborn who have been conceived) don't have a voice, so it becomes the responsibility of others in society and/or government to protect them. So "having" children is a God-given right. "Keeping" them should be determined by how they are cared for.
Gotta disagree with you here. According to your beliefs, children are a gift from God, but what about those who question or deny the existence of God? I have an issue with people believing that something as impactful as children to be rights (or gifts, for that matter) from an unproven, questionable being.0 -
Well, just because you don't believe it to be so doesn't mean that it's so. That's your issue to work out. In regards to the question at hand, why are you so arrogant regarding other's ability to have children? Why do you talk as if you're "superior" than those you deem as undesireable to have children? I would highly recommend you do some research regarding Margret Sanger and frankly the whole eugenics movement history, including that of the Nazis. Becausse frankly your thinking isn't too far from their logic and in some instances in lock-step with their logic.Having children is a gift from God. However, children (and the unborn who have been conceived) don't have a voice, so it becomes the responsibility of others in society and/or government to protect them. So "having" children is a God-given right. "Keeping" them should be determined by how they are cared for.
Gotta disagree with you here. According to your beliefs, children are a gift from God, but what about those who question or deny the existence of God? I have an issue with people believing that something as impactful as children to be rights (or gifts, for that matter) from an unproven, questionable being.0 -
Having children is a gift from God. However, children (and the unborn who have been conceived) don't have a voice, so it becomes the responsibility of others in society and/or government to protect them. So "having" children is a God-given right. "Keeping" them should be determined by how they are cared for.
Gotta disagree with you here. According to your beliefs, children are a gift from God, but what about those who question or deny the existence of God? I have an issue with people believing that something as impactful as children to be rights (or gifts, for that matter) from an unproven, questionable being.
Well, then I suppose anyone questions the existence of God and don't believe life is a gift from God, then they can just go murder or dispose of people as they "feel" like it. Is that what you wanted to hear?0 -
Well, just because you don't believe it to be so doesn't mean that it's so. That's your issue to work out. In regards to the question at hand, why are you so arrogant regarding other's ability to have children? Why do you talk as if you're "superior" than those you deem as undesireable to have children? I would highly recommend you do some research regarding Margret Sanger and frankly the whole eugenics movement history, including that of the Nazis. Becausse frankly your thinking isn't too far from their logic and in some instances in lock-step with their logic.Having children is a gift from God. However, children (and the unborn who have been conceived) don't have a voice, so it becomes the responsibility of others in society and/or government to protect them. So "having" children is a God-given right. "Keeping" them should be determined by how they are cared for.
Gotta disagree with you here. According to your beliefs, children are a gift from God, but what about those who question or deny the existence of God? I have an issue with people believing that something as impactful as children to be rights (or gifts, for that matter) from an unproven, questionable being.
And just because you don't believe it to be so doesn't mean that it's so, either. I also like how you assume that's an "issue" for her to work out. I don't see children as gifts from God, either, but that doesn't mean I have an issue to work out.
If she were being arrogant in her argument, she'd be saying "well I think blah blah so that's how it should be"...but she's offering up some good stuff to back up her argument, whether you agree with her argument or not.
You don't get your point across with thinly-veiled insults, while throwing stones in your glass house. All I got from your post is that you disagree with her because you think she's an arrogant nazi.0 -
Having children is a gift from God. However, children (and the unborn who have been conceived) don't have a voice, so it becomes the responsibility of others in society and/or government to protect them. So "having" children is a God-given right. "Keeping" them should be determined by how they are cared for.
Gotta disagree with you here. According to your beliefs, children are a gift from God, but what about those who question or deny the existence of God? I have an issue with people believing that something as impactful as children to be rights (or gifts, for that matter) from an unproven, questionable being.
Well, then I suppose anyone questions the existence of God and don't believe life is a gift from God, then they can just go murder or dispose of people as they "feel" like it. Is that what you wanted to hear?
I can't speak for her, but I took it as, those who are, say, atheists or agnostics, don't believe their children are gifts from God, simply as that, since they don't believe in God. I definitely never got the feeling that she was advocating murder of people already born.0 -
Oh jeez, here we go with God again. Rights and privleges are just fancy words for the same thing. And rights are even rights because they are never guaranteed. No such thing as God given rights, there is gun given rights, that is why we have to fight for them. If a God gave us rights, we'd all have them, but instead we have to have revolutions.
Having a baby should be a right because we have a constitution that is supposed to protect our civil liberties in the USA. I never heard the forefathers add an adendum to the Bill of Rights that said "unless things get tough". If we were truly concerned with over population (not just being selfishly concerned with resources), then educating and employing the poor would be our top priority since there is a high correlation between being poor and having tons of kids. It's a survival mechanism as much as it is the cheapest form of entertainment when your bored, added to the fact that we are comulsively driven by biology to do it.0 -
Oh jeez, here we go with God again.
I have my opinion on whether having children was a right or a privilege. I'd ask you to please refrain from insulting religion and just stick to the debate. I am a Christian, so all my answers will be based on God. I don't think you'd appreciate it if every time I disagreed with you, I called you out for being an atheist.0 -
I can't speak for her, but I took it as, those who are, say, atheists or agnostics, don't believe their children are gifts from God, simply as that, since they don't believe in God. I definitely never got the feeling that she was advocating murder of people already born.
I was using hyperbole.0 -
i think people have a right to reproduce, but i think their rights should be revoked either temporarily or permanently if they are proven to be abusive or neglectful0
This discussion has been closed.