![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackDo 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-23 11:25 am (UTC)I don't think people have right to *be parents* and I fully support removing children from people unfit to be parents. Of course the process for deciding who is unfit to be a parent is a tough one to make fair.
If the question is about providing people with medicine etc. to *allow them to have children* (rather than preventing it) then I don't think that people have a right to access such care (which is currently expensive), although if we are going to give it out we should give it out fairly.
In terms of world-wide efforts to reduce fertility rates - many countries have usefully lowered their fertility rates by improving education and the availability of contraceptives rather than through direct control of people's fertility.
We are now in a situation where some countries are attempting to bribe people to have more children - competing with the "oh noez, overpopulation" problem is the "OMG our pyramid scheme for pensions will fall apart" problem.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-23 11:30 am (UTC)But it's phrased in a way that doesn't consider that the right not to have children might be equally fundamental. If I have the right to bear children, it's because nobody else has the right to control my reproduction. It doesn't give me the right to grab a man (any man, whether my partner or a random stranger) and require him to impregnate me. Ask, yes. Require, no.
"My body, my choice" is a stronger argument for doctors having to provide tubal ligations to any woman who wants one, not refuse on the grounds that someone is "too young" (at 46, I'm not going to bother) or that she hasn't already made the socially approved choice to have children, than for demanding IVF. And what it entitles men to is access to condoms and vasectomies, not the certainty of fatherhood.