Is procreation a right?

[JBeukema]

Buck v. Bell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

The point out that with 9 Billion people spread out over the 6 inhabitable continents the worlds population density would be slightly more than half of Frances today. Have you been to France? Not exactly over populated.

Sure but their math includes Antarctica, Siberia and Canada as land mass. Once you exclude that land mass the world's population would be equal to the pop density of France.

Is France a net importer or net exporter of food, oil, water?

It hasn't been that long ago that somebody put that to pencil and paper and determined at that time, when there were 5 billion people on earth, you could put them ALL in the State of Texas with a population density no greater than that of San Francisco. We would probably have to add New Mexico now to accomplish the same thing.

Now admittedly we don't want to live shoulder to shoulder with our fellow humans with no open space to escape to.

But again, population control happens naturally when people become prosperous. Or at least that has been the pattern so far.

Also cultural concern for man and beast beyond oneself and enviromental concerns comes with prosperity and through no other method so far as I can see. Desperate people interested only in survival or where their next meal is coming from don't care about much else. People who have their rights respected and their basic needs secure have the luxury of caring about things beyond themselves.

If you don't want an overpopulated world. the focus should be on creating a world environment in which all prosper.

 

[eots]

The point out that with 9 Billion people spread out over the 6 inhabitable continents the worlds population density would be slightly more than half of Frances today.

Not all land across the 6 inhabited continents is suitable to sustain human life. There are further issues with having enough room in which to sustain the supplies of human life. Humans need room for agriculture, for example. It's just not as simple as you're making it sound.

Well excuse us all Mr. Know it all. How about you let us know what we all should do, and when to do it? Let us all know when we can be graced with your utter knowledge?

~BH

I believe ,unlike you. he gave his well reasoned opinion

 

[shintao]

It hasn't been that long ago that somebody put that to pencil and paper and determined at that time, when there were 5 billion people on earth, you could put them ALL in the State of Texas with a population density no greater than that of San Francisco. We would probably have to add New Mexico now to accomplish the same thing.

Now admittedly we don't want to live shoulder to shoulder with our fellow humans with no open space to escape to.

But again, population control happens naturally when people become prosperous. Or at least that has been the pattern so far.

Also cultural concern for man and beast beyond oneself and enviromental concerns comes with prosperity and through no other method so far as I can see. Desperate people interested only in survival or where their next meal is coming from don't care about much else. People who have their rights respected and their basic needs secure have the luxury of caring about things beyond themselves.

If you don't want an overpopulated world. the focus should be on creating a world environment in which all prosper.

You said something worth notice, more than the rest.

People are going to eat, and they are not going to let anything stand in the way of that goal. There is no doubt the population of Earth is going to grow towards the food source. In fact we are finding new and better ways to grow food all the time, even making food out of nongenetic materials. So we are one of the sources where desperate people who do not care will come. Pretty simple logic huh?

And that is why (one reason why) I say continuously here, we need to build a 40X40 foot reinforced concrete wall on the Southern border. It is for the day the desperate come like the walking dead.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Sterilization should NEVER be forced to citizens. Procreation can be argued as a right or not. The government not be able to force you to make changes your body IS. I'm never cease to be amazed at what rights more and more Americans are willing to give up. If the government limited who can have children or not-I don't care what party/who did it, I'd join the protests that day.

 

[Charles_Main]

If you support Abortion as a right, how can you justify believing procreation is not a right?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Is the right to spawn children a God given or constitutional right?

I ask because a guy in LA voluntarily submitted to castration this week to qualify for parole as a sex offender.

I also ask because the Chinese one child policy doesn't recognize any natural right to bear children.

I also ask because some decade soon most of the world will be embracing all manner of cloaked and overt emphasis toward reversing the population explosion.

I also ask because we don't need 6 billion, or 9 billion or 12 billion people sucking the life and resources out of the planet. Or at least I can't think of a single reason why we need or want so many people choking the life out of the planet.

And I ask because the castration tactic may be a final solution for a LOT of our social ills. It may be adopted as a voluntary option if you want parole as a sex offender, or if you want to receive public services, or for other reasons, criminal offenses as just one example. But I think the day is coming when most of the world will be selecting who can and who can not breed.

We don't have much of a problem with mass murder, not as a species or as a society. We embrace genocide and war regularly and usually with very little persuasion required to "bring us onboard". So I won't take any moral arguments posited as serious discussion. We are, after all, an immoral species and we always have been an immoral species. We have no problem denying people their God given rights, enslaving them, brutally murdering them or condemning them to starvation. We are so casual in committing these crimes that we ordinarily don't admit that they are occurring or measure them with the same moral compass we would apply if A) somebody had done the same to us or B) if we were committing this crime against somebody who we consider one of US.

So as a matter of opinion, principle, law, pragmatism is procreation a God given or constitutional right?

Of course. Having someone else support the children you created is not however, contrary to what mental midgets like Shintao, Mascale and Jbeukema may believe.

 

[skeptic]

The point out that with 9 Billion people spread out over the 6 inhabitable continents the worlds population density would be slightly more than half of Frances today.

Not all land across the 6 inhabited continents is suitable to sustain human life. There are further issues with having enough room in which to sustain the supplies of human life. Humans need room for agriculture, for example. It's just not as simple as you're making it sound.

Granted, but it is also not as dire as some make it sound.

Just look at the leaps we have made in agriculture alone. Massive increases in yields etc. Have some faith in mans ingenuity and ability to solve problems.

Those leaps in agricultural science have reversed. Our yield/acre is decreasing now, our farm science is dependent on oil and natural gas and our food supply is dominated by a handful of basic crop strains that place us at serious risk of crop failures.

 

[skeptic]

The point out that with 9 Billion people spread out over the 6 inhabitable continents the worlds population density would be slightly more than half of Frances today. Have you been to France? Not exactly over populated.

Sure but their math includes Antarctica, Siberia and Canada as land mass. Once you exclude that land mass the world's population would be equal to the pop density of France.

Is France a net importer or net exporter of food, oil, water?

It hasn't been that long ago that somebody put that to pencil and paper and determined at that time, when there were 5 billion people on earth, you could put them ALL in the State of Texas with a population density no greater than that of San Francisco. We would probably have to add New Mexico now to accomplish the same thing.

Now admittedly we don't want to live shoulder to shoulder with our fellow humans with no open space to escape to.

But again, population control happens naturally when people become prosperous. Or at least that has been the pattern so far.

Also cultural concern for man and beast beyond oneself and enviromental concerns comes with prosperity and through no other method so far as I can see. Desperate people interested only in survival or where their next meal is coming from don't care about much else. People who have their rights respected and their basic needs secure have the luxury of caring about things beyond themselves.

If you don't want an overpopulated world. the focus should be on creating a world environment in which all prosper.

I hear you, but that is a correlative link, not a causative link. Even experts are not sure if birth rates decline because of education, prosperity, increased survival rates, change in basic lifestyles and values, a combination of the above, or something else.

Besides there clearly are not enough resources for everybody to be wealthy. Only a few billion people can be wealthy at our current resource consumption rate and we don't have any reason to believe that even that is sustainable long term.

 

[Polk]

I'm very leery of expanding the definition of what is considered a right, but I'd also be very leery of a bill banning procreation by certain groups.

 

[editec]

Is procreation a right?

I don't know.

But I do know that according to right to lifers it's an OBLIGATION.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure but their math includes Antarctica, Siberia and Canada as land mass. Once you exclude that land mass the world's population would be equal to the pop density of France.

Is France a net importer or net exporter of food, oil, water?

It hasn't been that long ago that somebody put that to pencil and paper and determined at that time, when there were 5 billion people on earth, you could put them ALL in the State of Texas with a population density no greater than that of San Francisco. We would probably have to add New Mexico now to accomplish the same thing.

Now admittedly we don't want to live shoulder to shoulder with our fellow humans with no open space to escape to.

But again, population control happens naturally when people become prosperous. Or at least that has been the pattern so far.

Also cultural concern for man and beast beyond oneself and enviromental concerns comes with prosperity and through no other method so far as I can see. Desperate people interested only in survival or where their next meal is coming from don't care about much else. People who have their rights respected and their basic needs secure have the luxury of caring about things beyond themselves.

If you don't want an overpopulated world. the focus should be on creating a world environment in which all prosper.

I hear you, but that is a correlative link, not a causative link. Even experts are not sure if birth rates decline because of education, prosperity, increased survival rates, change in basic lifestyles and values, a combination of the above, or something else.

Besides there clearly are not enough resources for everybody to be wealthy. Only a few billion people can be wealthy at our current resource consumption rate and we don't have any reason to believe that even that is sustainable long term.

That would depend on your definition of 'wealthy'. America's poorest of the poor would be deemed 'wealthy' by some poor in other places. Note that I did not use 'wealth' in my opinion but rather 'prosperity'. For many of the world's people that would be defined as having a reliable roof over their heads and a secure food supply. I believe the Earth is quite capable of furnishing the resources necessary to accomplish that for every man, woman, and child on Earth IF we achieve an Earth in which unalienable rights are respected and defended for all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is procreation a right?

I don't know.

But I do know that according to right to lifers it's an OBLIGATION.

I certainly hope you are tongue in cheek here.

I am a staunch right to lifer and also a staunch pro lifer--those are two separate things you know--and I certainly do not see procreation as an OBLIGATION for anybody. Among my friends, acquaintances, relatives, and associates, 99+% of whom recognize, respect, and revere unalienable rights and of whom many are also staunchly pro life, I don't believe there is a one that thinks there is an obligation to procreate.

For most of us children are a blessing to be cherished, nurtured, and brought up to be honest, productive, self reliant, and happy citizens. We also see procreation as a voluntary obligation to do the best we can to accomplish that for our children and believe society should put the welfare of children first in all considerations. Those who cannot or are unwilling to do that should not procreate.

 

[skeptic]

That would depend on your definition of 'wealthy'. America's poorest of the poor would be deemed 'wealthy' by some poor in other places. Note that I did not use 'wealth' in my opinion but rather 'prosperity'. For many of the world's people that would be defined as having a reliable roof over their heads and a secure food supply.

I agree with all of that. I think that every single person in the USA is within the wealthiest 30% of the world's population. Tho that is just an educated guess.

And there has never been enough food on earth so that everybody could eat. People have always been dying of starvation. But as population increases there will be many more of them.

Technology may save the day in terms of food and energy. But man's impact on the planet has already killed most of the life within the ocean. At some point our impact will damage the earth so deeply that it can not support nearly as many of us as it could just a few years ago.

And we don't even know if we have already passed that point. Give a man a deadly dose of poison and for the first few minutes or hours there may be no indication he is about to die. Well in geological time the entire industrial revolution is just a few minutes in "Earth years". We don't know whether we have already dealt the oceans and much of the biosphere a deadly dose. And we will never know that until it is too late.

 

[Foxfyre]

That would depend on your definition of 'wealthy'. America's poorest of the poor would be deemed 'wealthy' by some poor in other places. Note that I did not use 'wealth' in my opinion but rather 'prosperity'. For many of the world's people that would be defined as having a reliable roof over their heads and a secure food supply.

I agree with all of that. I think that every single person in the USA is within the wealthiest 30% of the world's population. Tho that is just an educated guess.

And there has never been enough food on earth so that everybody could eat. People have always been dying of starvation. But as population increases there will be many more of them.

Technology may save the day in terms of food and energy. But man's impact on the planet has already killed most of the life within the ocean. At some point our impact will damage the earth so deeply that it can not support nearly as many of us as it could just a few years ago.

And we don't even know if we have already passed that point. Give a man a deadly dose of poison and for the first few minutes or hours there may be no indication he is about to die. Well in geological time the entire industrial revolution is just a few minutes in "Earth years". We don't know whether we have already dealt the oceans and much of the biosphere a deadly dose. And we will never know that until it is too late.

I trust Mother Earth to be a pretty resilent and self-craeting place. Yes, humankind out of need, ignorance, and sometimes greed has done damage, occasionally irrevocable damage, to part of the Earth, yet something always seems to manage to take its place. Clear cutting of some pine forests in our area resulting in those areas being pine free as more hardy pinon took root and prospered there. The pinon is far more valuable and offers far more uses than did the pine. There was no intention to replace the pine with pinon and had they attempted to do that who knows if they would have succeeded. But Mother Earth, in the grand scheme of things, managed to accomplish it quite nicely.

Again, the more prosperous we are, the more we are likely to care about the creatures of the sea, earth and skies and the more likely we are to agree to cooperative efforts to protect and preserve them. Even cultural Japanese who have been harvesting whales since their ancestors first got their sea legs are now beginning to realize they need to restrain themselves and limit how many whales they take. It took awhile for them to come around to that, but they did come around.

Likewise the people of Central and Southern Africa, some of the planet's poorest people, once they can be assured of having a roof over their heads and a reliable food supply AND have their human rights respected, will no doubt become interested in preserving the rich and unique wildlife of their homeland.

Prosperity is the key. That should be our goal on faith that all other good things will follow.

 

[snjmom]

But again, population control happens naturally when people become prosperous. Or at least that has been the pattern so far.

The facts in evidence, globally, indicate the introduction of modern healthcare and the ability for women to limit their family-size is what creates population control, with prosperity following rather than leading.

Longevity/Fertility/Income

 

[Charles_Main]

Is procreation a right?

I don't know.

But I do know that according to right to lifers it's an OBLIGATION.

Wait so you think right to lifers think people should be obligated to have un-protected sex and have kids? Wat to twist what most right to lifers believe. Try using a fucking condom and then maybe you wont have to abort little timmy or jenny.

 

[Charles_Main]

But again, population control happens naturally when people become prosperous. Or at least that has been the pattern so far.

The facts in evidence, globally, indicate the introduction of modern healthcare and the ability for women to limit their family-size is what creates population control, with prosperity following rather than leading.

Longevity/Fertility/Income

Birth control is a big part of it for sure, but Mortality has a lot to do with it as well. It used to be you had 5 or 6 kids, because it was a pretty sure bet that a good % of your kids would not live to be an adult. In the Developed world Mortality rates are lower now, so you can get away with 1 or 2 kids, and be pretty sure they will make it to adulthood. Another reason we used to have so many kids, was because many more of us used to be Farmers, and lot of kids was a big help around the farm.

Parts of the Developing worlds are still this way, but as the develop their Births rate will also fall.

 

[skeptic]

Is procreation a right?

I don't know.

But I do know that according to right to lifers it's an OBLIGATION.

Wait so you think right to lifers think people should be obligated to have un-protected sex and have kids? Wat to twist what most right to lifers believe. Try using a fucking condom and then maybe you wont have to abort little timmy or jenny.

I think he was talking mainly about Catholics.

 

[JBeukema]

Is procreation a right?

I don't know.

But I do know that according to right to lifers it's an OBLIGATION.

I certainly hope you are tongue in cheek here.

I am a staunch right to lifer and also a staunch pro lifer--those are two separate things you know--and I certainly do not see procreation as an OBLIGATION for anybody. Among my friends, acquaintances, relatives, and associates, 99+% of whom recognize, respect, and revere unalienable rights and of whom many are also staunchly pro life, I don't believe there is a one that thinks there is an obligation to procreate.

For most of us children are a blessing to be cherished, nurtured, and brought up to be honest, productive, self reliant, and happy citizens. We also see procreation as a voluntary obligation to do the best we can to accomplish that for our children and believe society should put the welfare of children first in all considerations. Those who cannot or are unwilling to do that should not procreate.

be fruitful and multiply?