Reproductive Rights?

[apriorion]

I was starting to feel bad about derailing the "Marriage" thread with the related but distinct topic of reproduction. So here is a thread to focus on that subject. Do you have a right to reproduce? I contend that you don't. Here is why:

 

--the harm principle: you have a right to do something so far as it doesn't harm anyone else. Being a bad parent could potentially fuck up another human being.

--there are a hell of a lot of people already; overpopulation concerns are relevant here; lack of resources might not be a problem for some areas of the world, but they certainly are for others

 

Sometimes people say that it's a "natural drive" to have children, or something along those lines. By this reason, those people argue that it's somehow morally acceptable for people to still have children. Problem is, it is very difficult to spell out what "natural" means here. It might mean

--what is most common among humans: that's bad reasoning, though, since there are plenty of things that average people do that are not morally acceptable; the point is to be better

--what is innate: that's also bad, because being an innate tendency (assuming we can even make sense of that in the first place) is also a poor guide to what is best.

 

I'm not attacking people personally here; rather, I'm asking you to reflect on this subject as rationally as possible and tell me where I'm wrong. If you want to call my ideas "retarded" or anything like that, fine. Just don't expect a response from me if you give something that weak.

 

Also, note that the point I'm making here is distinct from my two points in the "Marriage" thread. There, I argued (a) that people shouldn't reproduce (which is a stronger claim than the one I'm making here, which is instead just the claim that you don't have a right to reproduce), and (b) that parents should be licensed to have children (which is an even stronger claim than (a) or the present claim).

 

[MadameChaos]

"You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car - hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father." - Keanu Reeves

 

On a more serious note, you are going at the issue the wrong way completely. Overpopulation is caused in a large part by lack of access to contraception and sex education. You should be looking to enforce people's (in this case women's) control and right to regulate their fertility. In countries where this is the case the population tends to fall as a result. To give the state the control to decide who is allowed to reproduce is completely FUBAR. Think about it.

 

PS I do feel people should be encouraged to foster and adopt kids. having spent much of my childhood in care i'm a full supporter.

 

[azatoth]

Reproducing causes suffering. It is wrong to cause suffering. If you want to leave some living legacy after you are gone, adopt any of the millions of unwanted children and at least make their existence slightly better.

 

As for the license to reproduce, it's a tricky thing and skirts awfully close to eugenics, IMO. Outright prohibiting people to reproduce would be the most rational thing (how it would be enforced is another thing), but in some areas of this planet, having many children is needed to keep a livelihood. What would happen to those people?

[Salem1976]

One can make the argument that on a basal level, it is your biological imperative to reproduce and propagate your genetic information. I have read papers saying that drive alone is ultimately dictating the actions of your life, but these aren't supported fully by the scientific community. That being said, humans (viewed from the position of deep time) have stepped outside of the mechanisms of nature and in many ways can control it. There are far too many people on the Earth as evidenced by the current mass-extinction we are the cause of.

 

I feel it is every beings "right" to reproduce, yet understand the reasons why humans shouldn't at the current rate we are. Calling for regulatory measures and draconian rules regarding this will most likely lead to a Eugenic society. I can't help but think of "The Time Machine" scenario where the human race divides into two separate species. One genetically modified for perfection and the other left to our current practice. Its scary stuff, but a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The amount of people in Asia/India/Indonesia is an exhausting drain on the finite resources the planet has.

[apriorion]

That was basically one of the arguments I gave in the "Marriage" thread, azatoth. So you and I are on the same wavelength here. I'm wondering, though, about the background assumptions that my opponents seem to be assuming. Can the assumption that we have some sort of right to children stand up to scrutiny?

[Salem1976]

I would like to redact my statement of it being everyone's "right" and change that to "right to choose". Since we have stepped outside of nature, we have the option of knowing better.

[Hugh Mughnus]

but in some areas of this planet, having many children is needed to keep a livelihood.

Not just to make a livelihood, but to sustain themselves/survive.

 

Very important point you've made.

 

And you will find that birth rates in countries with emerging economies (not secondary/tertiary based) are much higher than the developed world, on average.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate

[eugene]

I was starting to feel bad about derailing the "Marriage" thread with the related but distinct topic of reproduction. So here is a thread to focus on that subject. Do you have a right to reproduce? I contend that you don't. Here is why:

 

--the harm principle: you have a right to do something so far as it doesn't harm anyone else. Being a bad parent could potentially fuck up another human being.

 

 

how far are you gonna go with this? existing as a human being also obviously causes harm to all kinds of organisms on earth, stepping on all kinds of insects and microbes each time you take a walk.. you need to come up with some threshold here.

 

another thing, what about the opposite of harming, what if reproducing also produces "good" that can potentially outweigh the harm? in such case it would be immoral not to reproduce. of course now you have an even bigger issue - defining that "good".

 

--there are a hell of a lot of people already; overpopulation concerns are relevant here; lack of resources might not be a problem for some areas of the world, but they certainly are for others

 

 

as you are saying, it's not universal and if you take my proposition about creating life as a potential creation of good than it's possible than in some regions of the world reproducing creates "good".

 

 

Sometimes people say that it's a "natural drive" to have children, or something along those lines. By this reason, those people argue that it's somehow morally acceptable for people to still have children.

 

 

 

it's a common thing, pushing the natural (evolutionary) into ethics as an anchor of "good"..

 

Problem is, it is very difficult to spell out what "natural" means here. It might mean

--what is most common among humans: that's bad reasoning, though, since there are plenty of things that average people do that are not morally acceptable; the point is to be better

 

--what is innate: that's also bad, because being an innate tendency (assuming we can even make sense of that in the first place) is also a poor guide to what is best.

 

 

not sure if i completely understand what are you trying to say here, it seems to me that it is a conflict of two systems of thought, to put it simply, lets call em "rationality" vs some kind of "naturalism". now if you accept this the question is which system of thought is better in delivering/producing "good" when adopted by people.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tricone RC]

One of my old schoolteachers (top class A-level mathematics) used to tell us that "the plebs are breeding faster than the non-plebs, so it is your duty as intellectuals to spread your seed as far and wide as possible".

 

With hindsight he was probably in the BNP

[Allize]

Restricting even more our rights? Cmon man, who cares? What's it gonna make? The world is fucked up aldready and there is nothing we can do. So just keep doing whatever you want to do.

[chim]

Yeah that sounds like a great plan. Why not just skip ahead, blow up the planet and be done with this messy thing called life, once and for all?

[Amen Lare]

Honestly the problem seems weak and a bit wannabe ruler of the world. Want to restrict stuff? Restrict yourself. It's not something that society will grow into accepting and then implementing. It will be a painful authoritative force-fed plan to fight some real danger.

 

Better solution to overpopulation - space colonies. A good chunk of monies and resources are thrown into it already. Sun gonna burn the planet anyway. What to wait? Better economy, like, seriously? You could also exploit ocean in terms of creating living space, but i guess it's not that cheaper than space.

[skotosa]

In the United States procreation is a fundamental right and I agree. Who is to say who can reproduce and who can't? If we were robots we could say only x amount of males in this city and y amount of females in that city aka your "rational" thinking. The solution isn't restricting growth it is being able to accommodate it and sustain it.

[apriorion]

Honestly the problem seems weak and a bit wannabe ruler of the world. Want to restrict stuff? Restrict yourself. It's not something that society will grow into accepting and then implementing. It will be a painful authoritative force-fed plan to fight some real danger.

 

Better solution to overpopulation - space colonies. A good chunk of monies and resources are thrown into it already. Sun gonna burn the planet anyway. What to wait? Better economy, like, seriously? You could also exploit ocean in terms of creating living space, but i guess it's not that cheaper than space.

 

I don't want to rule the world; actually, I am a bit of a hermit. But I do care about people: I at least care about the people I love (by definition) and I care about humanity, at least in the abstract. Think of it this way: not in terms of legal or social policy, but in terms of ethics: is the ability to have children something that everyone is somehow *owed*? Or here's another question: is it morally best for people to have children? If you think that the answer is "no", that might open up the door to further reflection on the idea that maybe having children is not only not the best thing to do, but perhaps even (in some cases, yet to be specified) actually the wrong moral choice. This is what I am consider. I don't give a fuck about ruling over people, so let's avoid the ad hominem moves: "Oh, you want to rule the world" or "Oh, you sound like a tyrant". My personal motivations are logically beside the point. FOCUS, ffs.

[apriorion]

Eugene: the point I was making about "natural" was just the well-known problem that arguments like "X is natural, therefore X is morally good" or even "X is natural, therefore, X is morally permissible" are flawed. Why? Because what does it mean to say that these things are "natural"? Burton Leiser, writing about homosexuality, famously examined all of these points already, and what I'm saying here about naturalness fits with what he says about the topic. It's not really a new claim. Rather, my point is to apply those observations to the claim that the desire to have children is somehow "natural" in order to show that this is not the best way to support the common-sense view.

[apriorion]

Also, regarding the harm principle, I follow Peter Singer and other utilitarians in thinking that we should restrict the sphere of the moral community to sentient creatures. Not sure how insects fit into that, but plants, not so worried about that. I'd say the priority should be human beings, given their capacity to experience suffering and pleasure, and then other animals that are similarly positioned to have similar conscious mental experiences.

[Root5]

 

--the harm principle: you have a right to do something so far as it doesn't harm anyone else. Being a bad parent could potentially fuck up another human being.

--there are a hell of a lot of people already; overpopulation concerns are relevant here; lack of resources might not be a problem for some areas of the world, but they certainly are for others

 

I think you're being a bit overly simplistic on both of these points.

 

First of all, the harm principle. You say that being a bad parent can cause harm. Then you don't use this to argue against bad parenthood, but rather all parenthood. The issue is more complicated, of course, because people can be good parents. Even good parents fuck up their kids, but there's a certain level of suffering that is expected, and completely acceptable, in human life. I'm sympathetic to the whole notion that it's terrible being alive, but you can't make a very clear cut ethical argument out of this.

 

On your second point, overpopulation strains resources, but slow population growth leads to terrible things too (economic catastrophe). Obviously we need a way to stop population growth without catastrophe, because the population growth will have to end at some point (I'm making the assumption that there's a limit to how many people can live on the earth, but that's probably a fair assumption). But gentle change is going to be easier to adapt to, and I think slowing down population growth is a more reasonable goal than quickly ending reproduction. This is, of course, all from a large policy scale, not an individual family scale.

 

You brush aside the notion that reproduction is innate, as if it doesn't relate to the ethics of the situation, but I think you are holding human beings to an unrealistic ethical standard. We are animals. As you're probably aware, no amount of judgement over sex will stop being from having. Well, the same is probably true of reproduction. It's a desire that's fundamentally forgivable because there's no avoiding it.

 

For the record, I have no desire to have children. It seems hard, unpleasant, and expensive.

[Zephyr_Nova]

Several of my views on the matter have already been sort of represented, but this a topic I think about from time to time, so I'll try to contribute something.

 

[1] Do you have a right to reproduce?

 

[2] the harm principle: you have a right to do something so far as it doesn't harm anyone else. Being a bad parent could potentially fuck up another human being.

 

[3] Sometimes people say that it's a "natural drive" to have children.

 

[4] ... the "Marriage" thread. There, I argued (a) that people shouldn't reproduce.

 

1 - There's no such thing as a "right" outside of the legal system, at least not a meaningful one (life has a right to be alive and do whatever it does, simply because it can). I prefer your original premise of 'people shouldn't vs. should reproduce.' That's really the same argument but it throws out the notion of some imaginary right.

 

2 - most people who have kids probably don't think they'll be bad parents, so unless there's good reason to believe someone's going to harm whoever they're raising, this 'harm principle' doesn't hold much weight. If you did a survey of most people in a first world country asking whether they were glad they were given life, most would probably say yes. I know a couple exceptions to this, but it's pretty rare. Most people would choose being alive once over never existing. From there you could say that it's wrong to decide against procreating, since you're depriving potential people of life that they would probably want. That is of course ridiculous because it's extending to beings that don't exist, but it's not much worse than the 'harm principle' as you've laid it out here. If it covered harm to the planet as well, maybe you could maybe make a decent case for it.

 

3. 'Natural' anything is the worst argument ever. Some humans have a natural drive to rape/murder/etc., as all animals do, so if natural = good than it's perfectly ethical to do all those things. Every terrible thing that ever happens happens naturally. It's like when people use "other animals eat other animals in nature, so we should be doing the same." Really? --the animal kingdom is where you look for a system of ethics? I'm not sure my cat's capacity to reason is quite up to snuff, so maybe we shouldn't be using his wild instincts as a behavioral model for ourselves. Plus it's natural for humans to question whether what they're doing is right, natural to use tools, chemicals, create things that don't exist in nature, etc. "Because it's natural' is just a convenient way to throw reason out altogether. It's a meaningless argument.

 

4. I agree that most people shouldn't reproduce. For the sake of the planet and the fate of all living things upon it, most people shouldn't reproduce. Adopt one of the millions who desparately need a home. But this is of course a near impossible thing to implement without getting completely draconian about it, going down the slippery slide into eugenics, etc. But I do think it would be reasonable to encourage a two kid per couple maximum in most countries. How that would be done is a trickier matter. Maybe there's some kind of tax break to people who keep their families to less than three kids.... I don't know. There should certainly be more done to get people out of the "breed breed breed!!" mentality that's been pushed on them by advertising/religious institutions throughout the years, and more done to encourage people interested in raising families to adopt.

 

One of my old schoolteachers (top class A-level mathematics) used to tell us that "the plebs are breeding faster than the non-plebs, so it is your duty as intellectuals to spread your seed as far and wide as possible".

I hold a similar view to your teacher, or rather I share a similar frustration. Any time someone mentions they're not going to have kids due to some ethical reason, it's one of the more intelligent people I've met. That's the demographic that makes this conscious decision. Meanwhile trailer parks will continue to grow exponentially. The people deciding that they're never going to breed on ethical reasons are the people who have a better chance of raising the Einsteins of tomorrow. This is a problem.

 

The world is fucked up aldready and there is nothing we can do. So just keep doing whatever you want to do.

Haha, last night I suggested that my girlfriend should write her english class opinion piece on how everyone should be as wateful and selfish as they want because the planet is already well past the point of no return, and it's more important to enjoy your life while it's still possible, reprecussions be damned. I was of course joking.

 

Also OP, don't feel bad for derailing the marriage thread. That thread was made to be derailed.

[Root5]

3. 'Natural' anything is the worst argument ever.

 

I agree with you in general. The distinction between natural and synthetic is false, and even if it were a good distinction it wouldn't be useful.

 

But this isn't an argument about fabrics, foods, or breast implants. This is about a common human behaviour. In this context, "natural" doesn't just mean it's natural so it's good. It's an appeal to understand the conditions that make people desire it.

 

This is actually an important thing to do if you want to make people rethink their behaviour. For example, you can argue that there's no good reason to smoke, but if you want to stop people from actually smoking, you need to do more than that, because there are obviously some conditions that make people do it (otherwise they wouldn't). You have to understand the curiosity, or desire to look mature, and all that. There are people who binge eat because they are fat, and binge eating is a way of dealing with their self-hatred. You can't just blanket say that's illogical and expect it to do any good. There are very deep emotions that cannot be changed with overly simplistic arguments.

 

If you want people to rethink their reproductive desires, you can't just dismiss the conditions that give them those desires. You'll just annoy people.

[apriorion]

Read what Corvino says about the "natural" arguments against homosexuality, and then see how those arguments fail to work here, too, for the same reasons:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://johncorvino.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Same-Sex-Chapter-1-pgs-3-16-Notes.pdf&hl&chrome=true

[Herr Jan]

[Tricone RC]

One of my old schoolteachers (top class A-level mathematics) used to tell us that "the plebs are breeding faster than the non-plebs, so it is your duty as intellectuals to spread your seed as far and wide as possible".

I hold a similar view to your teacher, or rather I share a similar frustration. Any time someone mentions they're not going to have kids due to some ethical reason, it's one of the more intelligent people I've met. That's the demographic that makes this conscious decision. Meanwhile trailer parks will continue to grow exponentially. The people deciding that they're never going to breed on ethical reasons are the people who have a better chance of raising the Einsteins of tomorrow. This is a problem.

Well, trailer parks won't grow exponentially since in the West at least birth rates have declined hugely. The issue is how to encourage birth rates to do the same thing in the developing world. This will partly happen as an inevitable function of economic development, so we should encourage that. But I have no issue with trying to nudge them a bit lower worldwide through targeted healthcare/education efforts.

 

The danger comes because any form of government population policy is almost inherently pretty dodgy, and because it's a topic that attracts all sorts of fascists like my old maths teacher...

 

The other danger comes where population meets economics. Our economic system is totally dependent on its own growth and expansion (this makes sense in developing societies, but why do we still need it in the developed world? To keep up with inflation?). That has to stop eventually, we need to develop a system that is happy in a steady state. Perhaps ditching central banks, and thus state fiddling with inflation, might reduce the need for growth. But what I fear is that some government somewhere will instead start encouraging people to have more kids in order to buoy up a stagnant economy. The stabilising of world population is probably one of the most positive and optimistic things we can expect from the next century, and it would be awful if that got wrecked by governments pursuing short-sighted economic goals

[Danny O Flannagin]

Personally, I've always thought that since the world is so overpopulated, you should just adopt if you want to raise children

[LimpyLoo]

I think the 'harm principle' relates to everyone bringing a new human into this world, not just would-be bad parents. Anytime you make a moral decision, you have to weigh (abstractly and speculatively, of course) the world-in-which-you-do-X (e.g. make a new human) vs. the-world-in-which-you-do-Y (e.g. not make a new human).

 

I used to think that philosophy was long dead, outmoded. But then I discovered Derek Parfit, and he blew my fucking mind. He argued quite compelling that making a decision that will cause future harm to yourself is as much of a moral matter as causing harm to someone else.

 

And here is Wikipedia's summary of a chapter from Partif's Reasons and Persons regarding future generations:

 

Part 4 deals with questions of our responsibility towards future generations. It raises questions about whether it can be wrong to create a life, whether environmental destruction violates the rights of future people, and so on.

One question Parfit raises is this: given that the course of history drastically affects what people are actually born (since it affects which potential parents actually meet and have children; and also, a difference in the time of conception will alter the genetic makeup of the child), do future persons have a right to complain about our actions, since they likely wouldn't exist if things had been different?

Another problem Parfit looks at is the mere addition paradox, which supposedly shows that it is better to have a lot of people who are slightly happy, than a few people who are very happy. Parfit calls this view "repugnant", but says he has not yet found a solution.

[Zephyr_Nova]

 

3. 'Natural' anything is the worst argument ever.

 

I agree with you in general. The distinction between natural and synthetic is false, and even if it were a good distinction it wouldn't be useful.

 

But this isn't an argument about fabrics, foods, or breast implants. This is about a common human behaviour. In this context, "natural" doesn't just mean it's natural so it's good.

 

I'm just saying using "people should continue to do x because it's natural" is a terrible argument, due to all the natural things that are harmful. I'm not saying human drives and behaviors should be ignored --that's one of the most important things to address in these arguments. But the word "natural" should be avoided at all costs in a serious debate.... it almost always leads to things getting stupid and reasoning getting circular.

 

 

 

Well, trailer parks won't grow exponentially since in the West at least birth rates have declined hugely.

 

You're right about that. I was being kind of hyperbolic, but my point was that many of our brightest people are the ones making the decision not to reproduce, which isn't really going to help since the majority are going to keep popping out babies anyway. The core of my argument here is admittedly pretty cynical. I just imagine this trend getting us ever closer to something resembling the movie Idiocracy.