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.
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.