Right vs. privilege

Weirdly, population pressure is a sign of species success.

Dynamic equilibrium. The question is whether we as a species are headed for a demographic readjustment or whether technology will keep pushing Malthusian barriers.

I think the original poster's idea bordered on eugenics, which I gut-react against. I don't think anyone should be making anyone else's reproductive decisions for them. I don't think DNA is everything in the value of a person, I think we should spend more time & effort building good people after babies are born.

Remember this?

A well known lecturer in medical schools. He asked one of his classes what they would recommend in the following case:

The father had syphillus.

The mother had TB.

They had four children already.

One was blind.

One was born dead.

One was a deaf mute.

One had TB.

The mother was pregnant with her fifth child.

Almost without exception, the medical students indicated that they would recommend abortion.

The lecturer then stated, 'Congratulations! You have just killed Beethoven.'

I'm a big fan of chance and self-regulating. Life on this planet is an amazing blend of ecologies, and there is no brain running it, and it's still here after 4 billion years.

0 Replies

"Single Cause" is a myth - in any application.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

I'm a big fan of chance and self-regulating.

Sorry that should have 'self-regulating systems'

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Weirdly, population pressure is a sign of species success....and other stuff

Exactly what I was trying to say, but much more eloquently presented.

0 Replies

Very interesting responses; thank you.

How about this:

We turn "off" our reproductive capacity. Right now it's "on" all the time; so people who have no business bringing more people into the world keep conceiving those babies; teenagers, very poor people; sick, uneducated, mentally unstable, you name it. I'm not saying don't allow them to have babies; I'm saying let it be a process that we all have to go through. Very few people plan to have babies anyway; most of us "just happened" right? so I think that if people were free to have as much sex as they wanted without ever having to worry about having kids not only would we solve many social problems but we'd also have total control.

"Do you want to have a baby?"

"Sure, step right up please; let me get the old sperm gun ready for ya".

See where I'm going with this?

Honestly; how many homeless, very poor, teenage, sick individuals do you picture lining up for this?

How many educated, mentally stable, relationship based individuals do you picture lining up for this?

Very few; in both cases.

Having a kid would become a genuine and conscious decision; every time.

Of course; it would also mean the end of life as we know it...

But is that necessarily a bad thing?

0 Replies

Re: Right vs. privilege

real life wrote:

Dark knight wrote:
Our world is and has been a disaster due in part to an uncontested human right which in my opinion has gotten way out of control:

Child-bearing.

I think that bringing a child into this world should be a privilege; not a right.

I think that individual human rights place too much of a burden on global human well-being and prosperity.

Not to mention HAPPINESS.

I however have no idea how something like this could be implemented.

It could backfire and bring even more misery than what was supposed to remedy.

Any ideas? comments? criticism?

Abortion advocates often claim abortion to be a right because 'the woman has the right to control her own body'.

Procreation control, such as what you advocate, would be based on the woman NOT having 'control of her own body.'

How would you address this?

Read my most recent post please.

0 Replies

DK, I think the vast majority of pregnancies in developed countries are planned or at least expected. Perhaps if you are a teenager who sees the threat of a pregnancy like a bomb in your backpack, it may seem otherwise. Most people in the world do choose to have children at some point, it is a critical instinct for all species, as timber pointed out.

Also, we already have broad access to contraception in many different forms....how is that different to what you are suggesting?

0 Replies

Dark knight wrote:

so people who have no business bringing more people into the world keep conceiving those babies; teenagers, very poor people; sick, uneducated, mentally unstable,

How poor does one have to be before you would say they are unqualified to have children? What constitutes poverty? Lack of fluid capital? Lack of a job with benefits? How many benefits are needed to qualify? What about a farmer who is cash poor but raises all the food he needs and then some, but isn't 'employed' by anybody but himself?

Sick? How sick? And with what?

Uneducated? How uneducated? What degree of education, and in what field(s), must one have obtained before you think they are qualified to have children?

Mentally unstable? And what criteria will you use to determine this? Who will have this discretion? For example, there are a few posters on this forum who seem to think that anyone with a religious viewpoint is mentally unstable. Would people with that viewpoint be allowed to disqualify religious people from having children? How could you prevent it?

Or what about those who would screen out potential parents based on political affiliation? Or based on race?

Dark knight wrote:

I'm not saying don't allow them to have babies; I'm saying let it be a process that we all have to go through. ..........not only would we solve many social problems but we'd also have total control.

I think that the main point.

I don't want anyone having total control.......of anything.

The American system is set up to diffuse control and power (political and otherwise) as broadly and thinly as possible. Ever heard the expression 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' ?

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

The lecturer then stated, 'Congratulations! You have just killed Beethoven.'

(Not to detract from the point of the anecdote, of course, but there's a bit of historical distortion there. Beethoven was the second of seven children, not the last of five. None of the seven was born dead, though the first and the fifth died within days while the sixth and the seventh died within their first 1-3 years. Beethoven was the first and oldest of the three who survived infancy.)

0 Replies

I've been pilloried on these threads for stating that for the next three generations -- the modern, 33 year generation -- every woman on the planet has to be limited to one child. Period. The planet is over populated.

Just had a conversation with my daughter, who said when she came back from Morocco, she understood why there are terrorists. Extreme poverty.
An unplanned child there is, like many children in India, twisted into deformity by its mother to make it a more effective beggar.

Consider how many people in the Arab countries are under-30. It has been said that the real problem in the Middle East is too many people and too much livestock chasing too little water.

To deny the overpopulation of this planet is to support irresponsibility.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

-- every woman on the planet has to be limited to one child. Period. The planet is over populated.quote]
How very Mao of you.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
-- every woman on the planet has to be limited to one child. Period. The planet is over populated.

How very Mao of you.

Not only that, but it would assure the assure the eventual dominance of the "non-industrialized world," where fertility rates are high. In the "industrialized world," fertility rates are very low. Most women might not be able to produce that single child--but no problem in Mali or Papua.

0 Replies

Hi Set. Ain't seen ya in a while.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
-- every woman on the planet has to be limited to one child. Period. The planet is over populated.quote]
How very Mao of you.

The correct word is responsible, personally responsible.

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

The correct word is responsible, personally responsible.

For a better fit, ry "Elitist" - trimmed with "Pollyanna".

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

I've been pilloried on these threads for stating that for the next three generations -- the modern, 33 year generation -- every woman on the planet has to be limited to one child. Period. The planet is over populated.

Just had a conversation with my daughter, who said when she came back from Morocco, she understood why there are terrorists. Extreme poverty.
An unplanned child there is, like many children in India, twisted into deformity by its mother to make it a more effective beggar.

Consider how many people in the Arab countries are under-30. It has been said that the real problem in the Middle East is too many people and too much livestock chasing too little water.

To deny the overpopulation of this planet is to support irresponsibility.

Poverty the cause of terrorism, eh?

Were you aware that Osama Bin Laden comes from an extremely wealthy family?

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

I've been pilloried on these threads for stating that for the next three generations -- the modern, 33 year generation -- every woman on the planet has to be limited to one child. Period. The planet is over populated.

Just had a conversation with my daughter, who said when she came back from Morocco, she understood why there are terrorists. Extreme poverty.
An unplanned child there is, like many children in India, twisted into deformity by its mother to make it a more effective beggar.

Consider how many people in the Arab countries are under-30. It has been said that the real problem in the Middle East is too many people and too much livestock chasing too little water.

To deny the overpopulation of this planet is to support irresponsibility.

The World is not over populated, we make enough food for three worlds ever year. Also poverty does not cause terorism, Mexico isn't blowing us up, its the billionaires of oil. One child each, who would take care of the elderly, are wee going to have to kill everyone who reaches a certain age like The Giver? No the reason there is so little water is b/c of war and havoc.....Famine doesn't cause war, war causes famine.....YOUR iGNORANCE IS APPALLING!

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
plainoldme wrote:
-- every woman on the planet has to be limited to one child. Period. The planet is over populated.

How very Mao of you.

The correct word is responsible, personally responsible.

And you have what? 3 children? Should we assume you'll be doing the responsible thing and executing 2 of them?

0 Replies

Shapeless wrote:

hingehead wrote:
The lecturer then stated, 'Congratulations! You have just killed Beethoven.'

(Not to detract from the point of the anecdote, of course, but there's a bit of historical distortion there. Beethoven was the second of seven children, not the last of five. None of the seven was born dead, though the first and the fifth died within days while the sixth and the seventh died within their first 1-3 years. Beethoven was the first and oldest of the three who survived infancy.)

Thanks for the clarification Shapeless - I'd always acccepted the story as a apocryphal - and when I searched for it on the web I found this version on a pro-life site (clearly it was edited to support that argument).

0 Replies

Dark knight wrote:

Very interesting responses; thank you.

so I think that if people were free to have as much sex as they wanted without ever having to worry about having kids not only would we solve many social problems but we'd also have total control.

Who is this 'we' of which you speak DK?

0 Replies

Right vs. privilege

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know