Is procreation a right?

[percysunshine]

Is procrastination a right?

I have not decided yet.

Oops...read too fast...

 

[JBeukema]

In the Developed world Mortality rates are lower now.

Does that mean we're the 33rd or 46th most developed county in the world?

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

The fact that you feel the need to even ask that question tells me our Constitution is not being taught well in school.

Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

lol

Indeed. The trick is to somehow figure out how to teach teens, in general, that breeding before they're stable financially puts a harsh on the mellow of the whole party, and puts a particular buzz-kill on their own personal party.

Somehow we have to start teaching kids that there's life after 25.

 

[The T]

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?

LIFE* LIBERTY*The Persuit Of Happiness...

The Founders saw fit to acknowlege HUMAN EVENTS and GOD...

GOD created the functions within us...PROCREATION being a natural biological function...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.​

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
​

*Enough Said*​

 

[gekaap]

Again, the DOI has absolutely no bearing on constitutionality.

 

[The T]

Again, the DOI has absolutely no bearing on constitutionality.

*AGAIN* The DOI exactly and precisely factors in to the Constitution.

READ the FEDERALIST PAPERS

 

[gekaap]

*AGAIN* The DOI exactly and precisely factors in to the Constitution.

READ the FEDERALIST PAPERS

Uh, no, it DOES NOT. Nothing in the DOI establishes any aspect of our constitutional law. This is insane that you would even suggest such. Complete and utter ignorance.

 

[The T]

*AGAIN* The DOI exactly and precisely factors in to the Constitution.

READ the FEDERALIST PAPERS

Uh, no, it DOES NOT. Nothing in the DOI establishes any aspect of our constitutional law. This is insane that you would even suggest such. Complete and utter ignorance.

The DOI, The Articles Of Confederation...ALL of it factor into the Constitution.

You are Historically ILLITERATE.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So now we should base our policies on what a Communist/Totalitarian 1 Party state does? China has nearly 4 times our population and less usable Land than we do. Not sure why you make the Comparison anyways.

Because only China and India have yet faced the kind of resource exhaustion the whole world will soon face and China did indeed adopt a zero population mandate to address it.

It didn't work, btw, in the 302 years sine the one child policy was adopted China's population increased almost 40%. China still has a birth rate that exceeds their death rate (10 million more Chinese every year) and there is absolutely no guarantee that either China or India will stabilize their pop growth, and great uncertainty about places like Africa, South America, Pakistan, Indonesia etc.

When the population explosion finally crests in 2050-2060 life on Earth may already be grueling, and the full effects of the human impacts on the planet may not be fully realized for another 200 years.

In a nutshell the problem is that our economy and politics place little priority on saving the poorest of the poor. 18 million people already die each year due to malnutrition. Preventable deaths. But nobody cares. And nobody will care when 180 million are dying each year from malnutrition. Those are the poor. they have no power and their lives are cheap.

There. You said it. And it's true. In spite of what you may have read on the internet, heard in church or seen on T.V., life on planet earth is cheap. Human life in particular.

How do you think the concept of slavery started, but a stronger family taking in the children of a weaker family and telling them "you'll work, if you wanna eat"?

The concept probably was fairly symbiotic until it was industrialized in the early copper mines and smelters.

That being the bad news, the good news is that it's getting better. Every passing decade brings more humans into the club of those having had a peaceful and satisfying, if not enviable life experience during their sentence on this unique wet rock as it evolves through time circling its unremarkable star.

 

[gekaap]

The DOI, The Articles Of Confederation...ALL of it factor into the Constitution.

You are Historically ILLITERATE.

The Articles of Confederation were a legal document that established legal issues. It does have some relevance to US constitutional law, but very little and mostly in terms of providing context. For example, under our constitution the union between the states is perpetual, and no state can unilaterally leave the union. While the constitution does not explicitly state this, the SCOTUS has explained that inasmuch as the constitution states its purpose is to "form a more perfect union" the constitution recognizes that the union to which it applies predates the constitution itself and that therefore the AOC is the controlling document regarding the nature of the union in any matter not covered by the constitution. Thus, inasmuch as the AOC decreed a perpetual union, the constitution affirms that quality of the union. Note, this does not mean that the constitutionality of secession is rises out of the AOC. It means that the constitution must be interpreted in this manner to affirm the same conditions as were understood to exist under the AOC, and thus the constitutionality of the matter arises directly out of the constitution itself.

The DOI, on the other hand, is not a document that holds any legal power. It is a letter that was sent to the King of England. It is diplomatic correspondence. Nothing in the DOI establishes any legal circumstance, guarantee any right or rights to the people of the United States, or establish any requirements for how the governance of the US will be carried out. Notice how the AOC formally proclaim the establishment of the union between the states? That would have been entirely pointless if the DOI possessed legal standing.

 

[The T]

the doi, the articles of confederation...all of it factor into the constitution.

You are historically illiterate.

the articles of confederation were a legal document that established legal issues. It does have some relevance to us constitutional law, but very little and mostly in terms of providing context. For example, under our constitution the union between the states is perpetual, and no state can unilaterally leave the union. While the constitution does not explicitly state this, the scotus has explained that inasmuch as the constitution states its purpose is to "form a more perfect union" the constitution recognizes that the union to which it applies predates the constitution itself and that therefore the aoc is the controlling document regarding the nature of the union in any matter not covered by the constitution. Thus, inasmuch as the aoc decreed a perpetual union, the constitution affirms that quality of the union. Note, this does not mean that the constitutionality of secession is rises out of the aoc. It means that the constitution must be interpreted in this manner to affirm the same conditions as were understood to exist under the aoc, and thus the constitutionality of the matter arises directly out of the constitution itself.

The doi, on the other hand, is not a document that holds any legal power. It is a letter that was sent to the king of england. It is diplomatic correspondence. Nothing in the doi establishes any legal circumstance, guarantee any right or rights to the people of the united states, or establish any requirements for how the governance of the us will be carried out. Notice how the aoc formally proclaim the establishment of the union between the states? That would have been entirely pointless if the doi possessed legal standing.

Giant Fail

 

[gekaap]

Indeed. So much fail, that you can't even respond with substance. You can only attempt to dodge any responsibility to support your position by slinging mud.

 

[skeptic]

I am a little surprised that there is not more emotion about the inalienable right to procreate. Not nearly as much as there is for the right to bear arms, or kill.

Not nearly as much as the right of a fetus to go full term.

Even I think it must be a God given right to procreate, even tho I think civilized people would only do it responsibly. And we certainly don't treat procreation like some kind of solemn miracle.

It seems as if legally we have no such right. I am astonished at the number of things that are political wedge issues while this is a footnote in our history.

Eugenics is fully legal. Even Adolph Hitler was merely instituting a practice fully endorsed by the US Supreme Court.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[gekaap]

I am a little surprised that there is not more emotion about the inalienable right to procreate. Not nearly as much as there is for the right to bear arms, or kill.

Not nearly as much as the right of a fetus to go full term.

Even I think it must be a God given right to procreate, even tho I think civilized people would only do it responsibly. And we certainly don't treat procreation like some kind of solemn miracle.

It seems as if legally we have no such right. I am astonished at the number of things that are political wedge issues while this is a footnote in our history.

Eugenics is fully legal. Even Adolph Hitler was merely instituting a practice fully endorsed by the US Supreme Court.

You can't make this stuff up.

You raise an interesting point. But I'd like to offer a couple alternative interpretations. Maybe it's not the subject that gives rise to the response, but instead is the people who respond? Maybe the people who discuss matters of constitutional history are not the kind of people who are likely to fly off on an emotional tirade?

Or maybe it is the subject matter, and that what you point out is attributable to the way this discussion has been constructed. The discussion here is framed more in terms of constitutional law and history, rather than about theological principles. Maybe the latter is naturally more inclined to draw heavy emotion.

Maybe it's a little bit of both. Or maybe it's that I'm drunk and too happy to spout off on an emotion tirade.

 

[The T]

Indeed. So much fail, that you can't even respond with substance. You can only attempt to dodge any responsibility to support your position by slinging mud.

What MUD do I sling with a single sentence that is accurate?

 

[gekaap]

What MUD do I sling with a single sentence that is accurate?

Your single sentence holds not substantive value. Instead, you cast a value judgment that fails to address the substance of my arguments, in hopes that a negative reaction by you will garner support for your position. That is, by definition, mud.

 

[JBeukema]

*AGAIN* The DOI exactly and precisely factors in to the Constitution.

READ the FEDERALIST PAPERS

Uh, no, it DOES NOT. Nothing in the DOI establishes any aspect of our constitutional law. This is insane that you would even suggest such. Complete and utter ignorance.

The DOI, The Articles Of Confederation...ALL of it factor into the Constitution.

You are Historically ILLITERATE.

The DOI is not a legally binding document. COTUS is law; DOI is not.

 

[JBeukema]

How do you think the concept of slavery started, but a stronger family taking in the children of a weaker family and telling them "you'll work, if you wanna eat"?

.

 

[skeptic]

How do you think the concept of slavery started, but a stronger family taking in the children of a weaker family and telling them "you'll work, if you wanna eat"?

.

?

FWIW our founding fathers were predominantly slaveholders. And altho they did own slaves they also assumed a moral responsibility to provide for their health and welfare. This in an age when famines happened every other year in any nation state in Europe.

The bottom line is that the guys who wrote our constitution considered slavery to be as moral as adopting children and with as much justification.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I am a little surprised that there is not more emotion about the inalienable right to procreate. Not nearly as much as there is for the right to bear arms, or kill.

Not nearly as much as the right of a fetus to go full term.

Even I think it must be a God given right to procreate, even tho I think civilized people would only do it responsibly. And we certainly don't treat procreation like some kind of solemn miracle.

It seems as if legally we have no such right. I am astonished at the number of things that are political wedge issues while this is a footnote in our history.

Eugenics is fully legal. Even Adolph Hitler was merely instituting a practice fully endorsed by the US Supreme Court.

You can't make this stuff up.

More testament to the cheapness of human life. If YOU don't add value to your brief existence here, who will?