Writer's block: Is having children is a fundamental human right?

Do you think having children is a fundamental human right? Should there should be any restrictions?

This is something that sometimes comes up in science fiction. Firstly, it is and has been traditionally seen as a right, in that (a) any restrictions on it rightly fill us with horror and (b) to at least a small limited extent, society takes at least some effort to provide IVF, showing that we think people OUGHT to be able to have children.

Secondly, it's not clear there's any underlying reason for why we think it should be a right, other than having an instinctive reaction that it IS. (Like many or most other fundamental rights, both ones currently recognised and not.) In fact, people rarely even discuss it, except to have an instinctive reaction that people ought to be able to, unless practical concerns override.

Thirdly, at the moment, it's impractical to enforce without really horrific side effects of infanticide, or forced abortions, (or at a minimum forced adoptions as punishment against the possible best interests of the child) or requiring people to have somewhat-to-very invasive surgery on pain of legal penalties, so it's a bad idea.

Fourthly, any sort of restriction on who can be a parent, even though superficially very reasonable, is likely to lead to horrific discrimination. Some people are utterly unsuitable to be a parent (eg. if I were living on the street and addicted to heroin. I may possibly be a decent parent anyway, but the odds are sufficiently against I shouldn't!) But more subtle judgements are likely to lead to doom. (More work on HELPING people be sufficient parents would probably be very nice.)

Fifthly, I don't know for sure, but I think most contemporary countries either don't need to restrict their birth rate, or don't have the ability to do so humanely. (Witness China's old unfortunate one-child policy :()

However, sixthly, I think that in principle, in a world where (a) we actually needed to restrict population growth and (b) had a way to reliably prevent pregnancy that wasn't horrific and (c) didn't discriminate and (d) everyone was entitled to one (or two) children, then I don't think people have a fundamental right to more.

Footnotes

A related question would when, if ever, parents should be restricted, either because of personal situation or genetics. But I decided it was too difficult.

How to change your mind

I've recently been thinking about how to change your mind. This is generally about things sufficiently factual that it's not just purely a matter of personal taste, but not sufficiently factual that you can just look up the answer and have done[1].

Things like "gay people are normal and have a right to exist" or "poly people are normal and have a right to exist" or "X political position is right" or "X programming style is typically positive" or "vegetarians should eat X".

Changing my mind about non-trivial things seems very rarely to be a sudden enlightenment. It typically seems to follow a progression something like:

1. Assume one position on the issue, often but not always simply by default
2. See some points of evidence against it by chance, and be surprised or even shocked by them
3. Be slowly exposed to convincing arguments or data against it
4. Have a long period where you don't have to take a stand on it to have it slowly sink in
5. Have some instance where it matters, or conversation about it, where you realise that your viewpoint has shifted without a deliberate decision.

Also notice that typically it's not a case of explicitly rejecting something I thought was true, more commonly I thought something like "obviously the usual case is X. Obviously there are SOME weird exceptions where Y is reasonable, but I don't think they really matter" and then realised "actually, Y is pretty much unavoidable and really matters" In some cases, Y is a whole field of academic research, or a whole subculture of society.

The point is, I think the time needed is almost always necessary. Sometimes it's hidden, if you fall into a social group where you feel obliged to fit in by reluctantly agreeing with the new side of the argument, but only slowly really internally. Sometimes not having it prevents you ever changing your mind, if constantly reiterating your position makes you unable to consider the alternatives properly.

For instance, I had a post inviting people to critique my vegetarianism. And people made a lot of good questions, some of which I slowly changed my mind about, but only over a long time.

Changing your mind: Footnote 1

Changing your mind about completely factual or completely non-factual things is also potentially interesting, but I think different. If it's purely a matter of personal taste, I think the main impediment to changing your mind, if any, is habit, and accidentally self-identifying based on your preference. If you like tea, and one day feel like trying coffee, and everyone says "you can't do that! you're a tea drinker!" then you may feel impeded. Or if you think "I really SHOULD try X" you may be put off. But in general, the main advice is simply to try it if you want to.

Changing your mind about purely factual things is mainly a case of caring to be correct, noticing that something CAN be checked and bothering to check. With exactly one friend do we have a sufficiently relaxed relationship on matters of fact that one of us can contact the other person later to say "I checked and actually I/you was right" and the other person is nothing but sincerely grateful to know. The main thing is to recognise that it is something that CAN be checked.

Obviously (A) don't mistake a factual point for a more complicated one. Is this something which needs lots of studies to know, and might even then be controversial? Or is it something where a quick check of the evidence ought to convince everyone?

Also just make sure to (B) if the main argument is about something else, don't get distracted if someone gives an unhelpful example, but you think something else would have been fine. If your aim is to actually talk about something, make clear the difference between "actually, that example happens to be false, but I understand what you're saying" and "your supporting evidence is wrong, and I think it irretrievably sinks your overall point". Obviously if your aim is to make the other speaker look like an idiot and win rhetorical points, then deliberately conflate these, and rebut some incidental comment, and look like you've demolished her whole platform. And obviously, if the mistaken point is so egregious or important it needs to be corrected immediately, or if you mistakenly think so, or if you have lamentably short an attention span you can't remember the beginning of the sentence, or if you're a fucking jerk who likes stirring shit for the sake of it, or some combination of the above, you should jump in and derail the conversation with the side-point.