Is procreation a right?

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Don't sugar coat it. By the time our constitution was written, slavery was industrialized and a VERY profitable model for business labor.

The abuse of slaves, in spite of those stories that surface of 'happy' slaves, is another testament to the low value of human life, especially when sub-defined as "labor".

 

[editec]

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.

How about a woman who is pregnant?

Is she obligated to bring that fetus to term?

If so then you do believe that she is obligated to procreate.

If not, then I was not talking about you.

If the shoe fits? Wear it.

If the shoes doesn't fit, then it cannot be pinching your toes.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

How are you gonna do that? Are you gonna make sure the Sun shines equally all over the Earth?



Btw, when the conditions for life on a planet are more accommodating populations tend to rise. When they are less so they go down. Areas where the climate is warmer year round tend to have more animal and human populations where as the farther North you go the trend reverses.

Discussing whether we have the right to procreate is a symptom of a society on the decline. Once you start deciding if you even have the right to have children pretty soon you start deciding not to or picking which ones you'll allow to continue to full term. Then you start getting into Eugenics. While we're arguing over if we have the right to have children other countries with no controls will just end up overpopulating the planet and your society will eventually disappear or be swallowed by those that have no controls.

This seems to be the type of discussion that Communist countries tend to get into, so a big Red Flag should go up whenever someone broaches this subject.

The Constitution only contains the right not to procreate FYI.

 

[skeptic]

Btw, when the conditions for life on a planet are more accommodating populations tend to rise. When they are less so they go down. Areas where the climate is warmer year round tend to have more animal and human populations where as the farther North you go the trend reverses.

actually population lags behind conditions. First conditions are good for a species, then the species multiplies. Conditions turn bad and then the species stops multiplying.

In the 50 years since the population explosion was first predicted the birthrates actually stopped exploding about 20 years ago. But it will take 30 years before population decreases because life expectancies are still lengthening.

Meanwhile we don't even know if conditions that will force a population contraction are already well advanced. The 30 or 60 years that it takes a population to reverse momentum is a long period in terms of our immediate perspectives, but a short period in terms of it's unfolding impacts on our planet.

It will be at least a few hundred years before we even know whether we have already dealt the oceans a fatal dose. Maybe 1000 years.

 

[Douger]

Ready for this ?
I think you should have a financial statement showing your ability to care for the kid first.

On the other hand, anyone that would consider bringing a kid into this utterly fucked up world should have there head examined.
I look at the last 50 years and shudder at the vision of the next 50 (which I seriously doubt exists).

 

[skeptic]

Ready for this ?
I think you should have a financial statement showing your ability to care for the kid first.

On the other hand, anyone that would consider bringing a kid into this utterly fucked up world should have there head examined.
I look at the last 50 years and shudder at the vision of the next 50 (which I seriously doubt exists).

And I think that is a perfectly sane perspective.

What we don't know about the future trumps what we do know about the future.

But what we do know is that this can't sustain. We also know that nearly everything will change.

What we don't know is what kind of solutions we will be able to invent to make it work.

Plowing full speed into the future without a plan is heady shit.

 

[manifold]

actually population lags behind conditions. First conditions are good for a species, then the species multiplies. Conditions turn bad and then the species stops multiplying.

Ever heard of India? You're telling me their population exploded because conditions were 'good'?

 

[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"?

.

?

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.

I'm sure the slaves appreciate you carrying the burden

 

[JBeukema]

.

?

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.

Don't sugar coat it.

Yes, you did that enough yourself.

the low value of human life, especially when sub-defined as "labor".

The National Labor Committee- Putting a Human Face on the Global Economy

 

[JBeukema]

Once you start deciding if you even have the right to have children pretty soon you start deciding not to or picking which ones you'll allow to continue to full term. Then you start getting into Eugenics.

So first you warn of evil eugenics...

While we're arguing over if we have the right to have children other countries with no controls will just end up overpopulating the planet and your society will eventually disappear or be swallowed by those that have no controls.

Then you parrot the eugenicists' warnings about the end of 'our' civilization if 'they' continue to grow in number as 'our' population declines.

Of course, the poster you're replying to already brought 'living space' into it all...

Weismann is smiling in his grave

The Constitution only contains the right not to procreate FYI.

COTUS disagrees, fwiw

 

[JBeukema]

Lebensraum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[skeptic]

.

?

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.

I'm sure the slaves appreciate you carrying the burden

yeah, you got me. I own 25,000 slaves who secretly work my sugar cane mill on a remote Caribbean island. It's a hellava burden. But somebody has to take care of those kids.

 

[skeptic]

Lebensraum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germanification had been a popular agenda in Austria and Germany for a few centuries when Hitler showed up and industrialized it. That was, after all, the end of the imperialist era. Germany wasn't unique. I think we had just helped depopulate the Americas of about 25 million natives too.

Imperialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Peace2thenation]

Have you ever studied how the American founders created "no drama democracy" in an effort to reduce drama in American politics?

 

[JBeukema]

That was, after all, the end of the imperialist era.

Tell it to Guatamala


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148#

 

[AVG-JOE]

Ready for this ?
I think you should have a financial statement showing your ability to care for the kid first.

On the other hand, anyone that would consider bringing a kid into this utterly fucked up world should have there head examined.
I look at the last 50 years and shudder at the vision of the next 50 (which I seriously doubt exists).

I'll bet you $1.00 that you're wrong.

See you back here in 2062?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Ready for this ?
I think you should have a financial statement showing your ability to care for the kid first.

On the other hand, anyone that would consider bringing a kid into this utterly fucked up world should have there head examined.
I look at the last 50 years and shudder at the vision of the next 50 (which I seriously doubt exists).

And I think that is a perfectly sane perspective.

What we don't know about the future trumps what we do know about the future.

But what we do know is that this can't sustain. We also know that nearly everything will change.

What we don't know is what kind of solutions we will be able to invent to make it work.

Plowing full speed into the future without a plan is heady shit.

Can I ass-u-me that you're under 25?

Plowing full speed into the future without a plan is a personal choice. It worked so-so for me until about 35 - everyone who survives on more than a handout learns it eventually.

If you're talking about a National Vision ask the individuals who're paid to lead. I just report my opinion to the masses.

 

[skeptic]

Can I ass-u-me that you're under 25?

You can, and did, and you were wrong. Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions.

If you're talking about a National Vision ask the individuals who're paid to lead. I just report my opinion to the masses.

I am speaking about a national vision, social vision, global vision.

Our leadership is so myopic it should be a criminal offense. They have more or less led us waaaay out on a limb and began cutting the limb without any discussion of what our solution will be when the limb snaps.

We have all kinds of orgs that try to promote ladders into a future they imagine (tri laterals, Council on Foreign relations, UN, IMF, WTO) But they don't share their vision with us because they don't trust us to be involved in the decisions. I also suspect that they don't have solutions to many of the challenges we face and they don't care because they know the ruling class will be fine.

Remember nuclear power? Our leadership decided 50 years ago it was the answer to our energy needs. So for 30 years we built these plans as fast as we could until they were suddenly too costly and too dangerous.

But they haven't taken any of them offline even tho they are all working past their designed life expectancy.

And after 50 years they haven't disposed of any of the spent fuel. They just keep storing it forever onsight perfect targets for terror attacks and no plan about how to remove it.

Am I supposed to trust that leadership to guide us thru an age of nuclear arsenals, genetic engineering, total information awareness, terror attacks metasastasizing, population explosion, resource exhaustion and the collapse of the nation state due to globalization?

Cuz, no, I don't. I want to see their plan.

 

[jillian]

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

which says nothing about having children.

i suspect if Buck v Bell were heard today, the result might be different because it would be based on the Loving v Virginia line of privacy cases... the one that the right is so desperately trying to destry. Loving says marriage is a fundamental right, and I would guess that by extension, so is having a child if one chooses.

That said, even a fundamental right can be abridged if there is a very strong governmental interest...

so it is likely that a pedophile could still be castrated under certain circumstances. certainly chemical castration can be used.

however, all "fundamental right" means