do we have the "right" to reproduce

[pthalo]

so this topic came up in another thread and rather than take it on a tangent and hijack the thread, i will ask it here.

do we have the "right" to reproduce? by right i am talking about a protected behavior. in december of 1948 the united nations established the universal declaration of human rights. and while some may question the authority of the document, i do feel it is a fairly complete list of human rights (some things i don't feel are historically accurate rights but rather reflective of modern society).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

i have read them and no where do i see a right to reproduce. article 16 does come close in the idea of the right to found a family, but this is open to interpretation as a family can be a unit of just two or an extended family not tied by marriage or blood. a family unit is not necessarily reliant on a child. even with a child, a family could be comprised of two parents (gender not an issue) with an adopted child (meaning no reproduction has occurred within the family).

so i ask, and quite seriously, why is there a claim by so many that there is a human right to reproduce.

i would further ask that with the overpopulation that we face today, does unabated reproduction violate article 25 of the same document?

this is purely an academic exercise to see where people stand. unlike other forums i will not blast people for bringing in religion, but i would love to hear from more than just christians if we have any non-christians who are still religious.

[yoder]

I guess the legality of this would depend on what part of the world we are talking about. Or if we are talking about a global right, or lack thereof, who will be speaking and deciding for the whole of humanity?

I think this needs to be a regional decision. I think that western society's "suggestions" to Asia and Africa to practice birth control stir up more resentment than anything and only serve to magnify the west's own self destructive tendencies. "You say you want us to practice birth control, while you pollute and spread nuclear weapons and fear."

Ultimately, humanity is, and always has been, free to destroy itself by any means it feels necessary at the time.

[yoder]

And while my previous post may sound fatalistic, I believe humanity is resilient. I also believe humanity is fully capable of doing the right thing.

I also believe that if we are going to restrict rights, we might want to restrict the right of a person to amass enough weapons to arm a small army. But that is a discussion for a different website.

[pthalo]

I also believe that if we are going to restrict rights, we might want to restrict the right of a person to amass enough weapons to arm a small army. But that is a discussion for a different website.

so can i accurately infer by your statement here and your previous post that you do feel that it is a protected human right, to reproduce without restriction or governance?

just trying to get an answer to the question.

[yoder]

I guess I'd have to say yes, it is a protected right. Not that I agree with people having more children than they or the earth can support, but because I don't think it is enforceable (in any humane way) on a global scale. I can see wars fought over the right to reproduce. Those starting the war won't say as much. They will say it is over their right to sovereignty, and they will be right.

[yoder]

This is waaaaaaaay out in left field, but if wealth and opportunity were more equally spread out and people the world over were better educated and informed, we probably would not be facing our current population crisis. But I do not subscribe to a global redistribution of wealth either.

[Holy Solar]

This is an interesting one. I'm of two minds on this, since I strongly support birth control and population reduction through conscious lowering of the birth rate...and yet, I can't see granting any government the authority to restrict reproduction by coercion. It would seem to be fascist.

One idea I've been debating in another forum is the notion of incentivized sterilization.

While I think the idea has some PR problems, the pure logic of it is attractive...no force, simply a well-reasoned subsidy that would actually save the public a great deal of resources and save those who took advantage of it from the expense and difficulty of raising children without the wherwithal to support them.

Of course, many will protest that paying people to be sterilized is morally wrong. So the idea probably won't gain much steam until it is far too late.

As far as rights...they are a legal fiction worth precisely as much as the law respects them. I like Utah Philips on this, possibly quoting a third party [memory paraphrase] "Freedom is something you assume. Then, when someone tries to take it away, the extent to which you resist, is the extent to which you were free."[end memory paraphrase]

[Jackalope]

Reproduction should at least be harder than getting a drivers license and it should be limited to one per person. Driving is a privilege, reproduction should be as well since it is just as dangerous and more polluting.

The government in U.S. spends too much time babying all the irresponsible, just because someone is here I don't want my tax dollars to cover their $4000 hospital bill so they can have another baby but couldn't afford health insurance. I'm sure this will ** off all the bleeding hearts, but I'm not ready to let my quality of life go down to support the ever growing population.
(language/edit)

[yoder]

I agree that the population explosion needs to be addressed quickly and decisively. I just don't see how it can be done. Here in the states, we can't even get people to drive responsibly, and that's a licensed activity. We can't even effectively control people's ability to amass an armory in their homes. But we are going to tell people who can and cannot have children?

Now let's extend that to other countries. How are Asian and African countries going to respond to dictates coming from the West, telling them how many children they can or cannot have? Unless we have some extremely diplomatic representatives, who are not afraid to fail repeatedly and be vilified for decades before gaining an inch, we will not be able to control, in any shape or form, what citizens of other countries are doing in their bedrooms.

I just don't see that as a viable option. Education, and relative prosperity are the answers. But I don't see that happening either.

[radeph]

Reproduction should at least be harder than getting a drivers license and it should be limited to one per person. Driving is a privilege, reproduction should be as well since it is just as dangerous and more polluting.

The government in U.S. spends too much time babying all the irresponsible, just because someone is here I don't want my tax dollars to cover their $4000 hospital bill so they can have another baby but couldn't afford health insurance. I'm sure this will ** off all the bleeding hearts, but I'm not ready to let my quality of life go down to support the ever growing population.

No, I'm a 'bleeding heart' and I think there should be a class people have to take to become parents and that they should be able to provide health care for the family. However, look at it from a feminist point of view. The right to choose is not just about being able to use birth control and to have an abortion if nessisary. The right to choose also gives the woman the right to keep the baby and not be forced to get rid of it or take birth control by her: parents, government, husband or anyone. It's her choice because it's her body and will be her responsibility.
So I'm in the middle I guess. I think that if someone wants a child then yes, they have a right to have one. But I also think that if they have no buisness haveing a kid then they shouldn't: ex) If the person can't afford health care for themselves let alone a kid, dead beat parents that don't pay child support for kids they already have.
I like the idea of giving incentives for people to sterilize themselves. Why not? The government gives incentives for other things, why not this?

[pthalo]

dead beat parents that don't pay child support for kids they already have.

tread lightly here please. the myth of the dead beat dad is grossly overstated. the vast majority of non-custodial parents pay support without any arm twisting. a few irresponsible parents do the wrong thing (men in this case) and NOW (National Organization of Women) label them as dead beat dads and do so in such a vocal and emotional manner, that all non-custodial fathers get labeled as such.

i know there are some examples but they are the visible ones in the situation. you don't hear about all of the 1000s of men who pay support without complaint.

i will refrain at this time as it is not the right forum from discussing the bias in the system that makes it 80% more likely that a mother will get sole custody than any type of joint custody or the father gaining custody.

back to the thread at hand.

i like the idea of incentivized sterilization to a degree, but what if we do it this way. there are currently tax incentives in this country for having children, what if we take those away and create a tax incentive for not having children (say after the age of majority). sterilization is a huge step and one that is unlikely to become popular without HUGE incentives, but to create a tax code that does the same thing without the surgery might just work.

[yoder]

Plus financial incentives to sterilize or not have children will be seen (rightfully so in my opinion) as class warfare at its finest. The poorest of the world would be given these horrible choices to make, while the rest of us are able to take it or leave it.

[mikebeavis]

I do think any individual has a right to reproduce so long as they are a socially functioning adult. (That is, you might restrict someone who is mentally handicapped, just as we restrict them from firearms purchases that theoretically are guaranteed to every adult US citizen)

I don't think any government scheme of sterilization will be a good idea. And unless someone has obviously gone too far off the deep end, has made 11 babies and pays no support and intends to make some more, there is no popular support for such a program anyway.

I do think we need to incentivize having fewer children. Say, full tax-breaks for the first two, and half for the third, and none for any after that. It gives people a reason to have fewer without requiring them to do anything. Thus freedom is preserved while incentivizing the end result. Not everyone will follow the guidelines but more will than with our current system.

[yoder]

I do think we need to incentivize having fewer children. Say, full tax-breaks for the first two, and half for the third, and none for any after that.

I think that would be a great idea for here in the States.

I still think that to help Asia and Africa, we need to substantially expand our assistance to the poorest nations to be used (only) for education. When the poorest people in the world are given the chance to an education, then many (but not all) will see incentives to remain child-less until later in life, and then only as many as they can support.

[bent1]

I still think that to help Asia and Africa, we need to substantially expand our assistance to the poorest nations to be used (only) for education. When the poorest people in the world are given the chance to an education, then many (but not all) will see incentives to remain child-less until later in life, and then only as many as they can support.

The stats show that the poorer the economy, the higher the birthrate. That could be caused by anything from raising more children in hoping that they reach adulthood, or poor sex ed, etc. Unfortunately, there are more mouths to feed, etc. Sounds like the chicken egg thing. Better economy is needed to bring out of 3rd world status, but they need education for that to happen, but they are too poor to get a good education....