Reproduction: A right or a privilege?

[Atomist]

I just read a thread that got derailed into going about a topic on whether reproduction should require a license or not... and it seems like too good of a topic to leave in a random thread.

Topic of the thread:
should reproduction be a right or a privilege?

Some questions if a privilege
1) if reproduction is a privilege what does one have to do to earn the privilege to reproduce?
2) how do you stop people from reproducing that didn't earn the privilege?
3) what do you do about people that reproduced but don't have the privilege?

Some questions if a right:
1) should anyone be allowed to reproduce even if they share common "genetic defects"?
1a) If not what criteria do we judge "genetic defects"
1b) if so how do we deal with those who have genetic defects?
2) How do we deal with parents that can't afford to take care of their child?
3) Should the state place an emphasis on reproduction?

Those are just some ideas... feel free do bring up points and arguments for either side.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, you're not going to stop people from boinking either way.

 

[Skwim]

Considering the population problem facing the country, I believe that any child one has after the first two should not quailify as a tax exemption, and perhaps even be subject to an additional tax or penalty of some kind. And, if a woman has four children she should be required to have her tubes tied, or a similar form of birth control imposed on her.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Considering the population problem facing the country, I believe that any child one has after the first two should not quailify as a tax exemption, and perhaps even be subject to an additional tax or penalty of some kind. And, if a woman has four children she should be required to have her tubes tied, or a similar form of birth control imposed on her.

Not sure if I'm a fan of that. Unless the precedent set here is the same with both genders....meaning a man with more than x number of children should be required to get snipped for population control.

And again, not sure I like that. Who would pay for the procedures? And would the kids get reposessed if mom and pop can't pay their taxes on the them?

 

[Zadok]

I just read a thread that got derailed into going about a topic on whether reproduction should require a license or not... and it seems like too good of a topic to leave in a random thread.

Topic of the thread:
should reproduction be a right or a privilege?

Some questions if a privilege
1) if reproduction is a privilege what does one have to do to earn the privilege to reproduce?
2) how do you stop people from reproducing that didn't earn the privilege?
3) what do you do about people that reproduced but don't have the privilege?

Some questions if a right:
1) should anyone be allowed to reproduce even if they share common "genetic defects"?
1a) If not what criteria do we judge "genetic defects"
1b) if so how do we deal with those who have genetic defects?
2) How do we deal with parents that can't afford to take care of their child?
3) Should the state place an emphasis on reproduction?

Those are just some ideas... feel free do bring up points and arguments for either side.

It is a right? – Perhaps we should pass a law or change the constitution so that homosexuals and impotent heterosexuals are granted all the same rights as others. And the last consideration should be children – should reproduction actually happen. No way should there be any laws or social morals influencing the rights of anyone over about 10 years old being able to try out reproduction with whatever they want to reproduce with.

Zadok

 

[logician]

I do think they should take stop tax exemptions after 2 children.

 

[HonestJoe]

It's a responsibility. To be honest I'm not entirely sure what the practical consequences of that should be but the word is used far too rarely in this kind of discussion.

 

[Sunstone]

I do think they should take stop tax exemptions after 2 children.

Agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do think they should take stop tax exemptions after 2 children.

Maybe there should even be a subsidy for over 2 kids when the parents are particularly productive &
valued members of society, eg, engineers, landlords, groundskeepers, hot dancers & sober electricians.

 

[Atomist]

Considering the population problem facing the country, I believe that any child one has after the first two should not quailify as a tax exemption, and perhaps even be subject to an additional tax or penalty of some kind. And, if a woman has four children she should be required to have her tubes tied, or a similar form of birth control imposed on her.

additional tax is a HORRIBLE idea... your just harming all the children for their parent's stupidity.

 

[Skwim]

additional tax is a HORRIBLE idea... your just harming all the children for their parent's stupidity.

Just a "perhaps." And why would it necessarily harm children?

 

[Smoke]

Considering the population problem facing the country, I believe that any child one has after the first two should not quailify as a tax exemption, and perhaps even be subject to an additional tax or penalty of some kind. And, if a woman has four children she should be required to have her tubes tied, or a similar form of birth control imposed on her.

Strongly disagree with that. If a woman wants to have six children or sixteen children, that's up to her. I like your idea about taxes, though. I don't think we should be rewarding people for having a bunch of kids, even if the "rewards" don't really cover the cost of the kids.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

It's an ability, what more do you want?

 

[Atomist]

Just a "perhaps." And why would it necessarily harm children?

your taking resources away from the parents that would be used for the children. Therefore the children get less... and they're already not going to get much as the amount of children increases. I mean do you really think that parents have enough foresight to be like "Oh I don't want another child because of higher taxes".

 

[Smoke]

What you really need is comprehensive sex education and cheap (or even free), readily available contraception. Most people don't really want sixteen children -- or even four.

If any woman could have a free tubal ligation on demand, and any man could have a free vasectomy on demand, I'll bet you'd have a lot of takers. You're always going to have religious people and irresponsible people who breed like rabbits, but I think a lot of people would limit the size of their families if it were easier and cheaper.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think I would like to live in a place where they tell who you can have sex with and if you can have a baby or not.

 

[Gloone]

I remember how much fun it was when I got my license to drive, I bet it would be just as much fun to get a license to reproduce. I could only imagine how long that thing would last me before it gets taken away. :thud:

 

[Atomist]

I remember how much fun it was when I got my license to drive, I bet it would be just as much fun to get a license to reproduce. I could only imagine how long that thing would last me before it gets taken away. :thud:

what are you going to do arrest people if they try to reproduce without a license and force them to get an abortion?

 

[Skwim]

your taking resources away from the parents that would be used for the children.

If household monies are so tight that an additional tax would harm the child then the parents are morally irresponsible to bring a child into their life in the first place.

I mean do you really think that parents have enough foresight to be like "Oh I don't want another child because of higher taxes".

One could only hope.

Just as a matter of interest here's how China is trying to control its population explosion.

China's population control policy. The Chinese government has used several methods to control population growth. In 1979, China started the "one child per family policy" (Juali Li 563). This policy stated that citizens must obtain a birth certificate before the birth of their children. The citizens would be offered special benefits if they agreed to have only one child. Citizens who did have more than one child would either be taxed an amount up to fifty percent of their income, or punished by loss of employment or other benefits (Hilali 10). Furthermore, unplanned pregnancies or pregnancies without the proper authorization would need to be terminated (Hilali 9). In 1980, the birth-quota system was established to monitor population growth(Jiali Li 563). Under this system, the government set target goals for each region. Local officials were mainly held responsible for making sure that population growth totals did not exceed target goals. If target goals were not met, the local officials were punished by law or by loss of privileges.


Other population control methods. Other methods that have been used by the Chinese government to restrict rising population totals include birth control programs and economic changes. In the early '80's, sterilization target goals were set and made mandatory for people who had two children (Hilali 19). At its peak in 1983, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and abortions amounted to thirty-five percent of the total birth control methods (Hilali 20). In addition, the economy changed from primarily one of agriculture to industry (Hilali 22). The government used this to its advantage; spreading the view that economic growth would hinder population growth (Hilali 22).
source
​

 

[Atomist]

If household monies are so tight that an additional tax would harm the child then the parents are morally irresponsible to bring a child into their life in the first place.

So you're saying it's not possible for the money to be just enough without the tax but too much with...

besides I don't even get what you mean by that... how can it be morally irresponsible to bring a child into their life if money is tight. I mean there is no definition of money being tight that is coherent... If it's not morally permissible to bring a child into life say making x amount of money... in say America... where X is in the even 50% percentile in the world (a very conservative number imo) then that implies nearly all of africa/india/china shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

My point is you can't set the standard on whether someone isn't "financially able to reproduce", but taking resources away from children that exist is just absurd.