Having children is it a human right? or is it a granted Privilege?

If it is a granted privilege.......who decides who can have kids and why?

My instinctive sense of morality tells me it is a human right.

My observations of human beings tell me it should be a privilege granted only to those fit for it.

But I'm not Baron Max, so I'll go with No1, because who am I to judge? There's people who would judge me as unfit to breed, because of the clothes I wear and the pieces of metal in my face.

its a privalage, not everyone can raise children, its a LOT of hard work with generally no thanks

Who would determine the guidlines by which one would be considered a "privileged" to have children? What would be some considerations for determining who is fit for children and who isnt?

Income? Living location? Family Structure? Religion? Criminal Record? Morals? etc etc.......

I agree there are many out there who should just not have children as it is not fair to the child or the rest of the people on the planet........but who is going to sit there and say ....."ok you can have kids.....and you cant have kids.

China says it is a priviledge, and you can only have ONE.

It is a human right.

But like visceral, there is a part of me that thinks it should also be a privilege. There are people out there who simply should never have children. People who take that right and then go on to abuse their children, or worse, kill them. It should not be based on looks, dress, income, disability, sexuality, where they live, or even their criminal record (unless of course that record indicates they have abused children in the past, etc).

I personally think that parents who have been found to have abused or killed their children in the past should not be allowed to have more and be allowed to keep them. IF there is a risk to the child in remaining in the parent's care, the child should be removed instantly.

Human rights dictate it to be a right to have children. It is, and should always be, however, a privilege to keep it.

:shrug:

It's a hard question. As they say, you need a license to drive a car but anyone can have a child.

Who would determine the guidlines by which one would be considered a "privileged" to have children? What would be some considerations for determining who is fit for children and who isnt?

Income? Living location? Family Structure? Religion? Criminal Record? Morals? etc etc.......

I agree there are many out there who should just not have children as it is not fair to the child or the rest of the people on the planet........but who is going to sit there and say ....."ok you can have kids.....and you cant have kids.

I think a person’s family structure, religion, and morals are irrelevant, but a person’s income is definitely important. I can imagine some kind of test that would use many factors to determine if a person can afford to raise a child. For example, a person’s current income and net worth, their partner’s income and net worth, their profession, their living location, their education, their health, and any assets that they might inherit.

A person’s criminal record is another important thing. I don’t believe that child molesters and people that have had several convictions for violent crimes deserve to have children. I would support a law that forced anyone that was convicted of raping a child under the age of 12 to have a medical procedure that would make them sterile. I do not support the idea of castrating convicted male pedophiles because wrongful convictions do occur on a regular basis, and once your testicles are gone there is nothing that you can do to get them back. However, I do believe that males that were convicted of raping a child under the age of 12 should be forced to use medication that reduces their testosterone level if they are released from prison. You may be thinking why is 11 the magic number? Well, it is possible for a person that is 12 or 13, or 14 to have well developed body. It is perfectly natural for a man to be attracted to a female that with large breast regardless of their age, but we have to draw the line somewhere. I believe that 11 is an appropriate age because there is a high probability that anyone at that age will have the body of a pre-pubesant child. As for the people that are convicted of statutory rape, it should be factored into the process that would determine if met the minimum requirements to raise a child. I would also support some kind of point system to determine if a person is ineligible to raise a child. For example, anyone with 10 or more points could be ineligible. Raping an adult could be 5 points, assault could be 3 points, murder 2 could be 5 points, murder 1 could be 8 points, Ect.

I would also support some kind of point system to determine if a person is ineligible to raise a child. For example, anyone with 10 or more points could be ineligible. Raping an adult could be 5 points, assault could be 3 points, murder 2 could be 5 points, murder 1 could be 8 points, Ect.

Your proposal, and indeed the entire topic, begs a question: Why?

Why do we consider the question? Why would we devise such a system?

Specifically, is it about "the children"? Or, perhaps, "society"? What about "the species"?

If we wish to make it solely about the children, what is the guiding principle? Is it mere aesthetics? A perceived moral obligation? What is the basis of that moral obligation?

Which leads to society, and eventually to species. Each new generation represents the future of the society, and therefore our own self-interest as we age. For instance, among my generation there is a split. Many feel conceptually abandoned by their parents. These are the children of parents whose support was contingent upon parental satisfaction. Why, for instance, did a friend's parents push him through expensive music lessons with expensive instruments ('cello) if they didn't want music to be part of his life? They would only support him in college, or at all, if he went to a school they wanted him to go to, and majored in a subject they approved of. In the end, they resent that his music became such a large portion of his life.

My own parents were a split on this. My father, during those years, grudgingly helped with my college education; he made it abundantly clear that he didn't want me in college. As with many things, though, my mother's unfailing support won out. Fast-forward a decade and a half: I dropped out of college, and my father realized he did not feel vindicated on that point. My mother is still my biggest fan, and her love and support are undying.

My friend and I stand on opposite sides of a curious line. He speaks of a generation that will look at aged parents and dump them in homes. The lesson they taught was self, self, self. Family is great and all, but what have they done for me lately? so to speak.

Tragic.

But this is the thing: children, for some people, are all about the parents. I see it in my daughter's mother. My child is, for her mother, primarily a status symbol. Thankfully, it's not the same kind of status symbol my friend's parents seem to hold dear. My friend could not afford to finish at a prestigious British arts school. His classmates are now making money by the truckload. My friend's opinion is that he would have no problem taking care of his parents in their old age ... if he had the money. But his folks got their way. They convinced him to go to school at a "regular" university, setting him up for a fraction of what he could be making. They got what was important to them: the appearance of normalcy. And that's what raising children was about for them.

So why do we protect the children? And how far do we go? Presently, a fourteen year old can murder someone, yet escape the death penalty because adolescent brains operate differently than those of adults. Decisions are made differently, and according to unstable criteria. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged this in Roper v. Skinner. Yet at the same time, if a fourteen year old is operating under a religious delusion, he has the apparent clarity of mind to choose to die. This, at least, according to a Seattle judge just last week.

The question of why we protect the children is at least as important as how much we should protect them. How do we justify forced sterilization, or legal prohibitions against certain people reproducing? What are the ramifications in the larger scheme of human rights in society?

I suppose in this case, the simple slogan would be, Remember the lawyers. We must be careful about how we do whatever it is we decide to do. It's been one hundred forty years, and some people are still smarting about the Fourteenth Amendment; its application in Loving v. Virginia shocked many, and still outrages a good number of people—including some who weren't even born when the decision came down—forty years later.

It would seem to me that we would have to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to reserve such regulatory power to Congress or the States, which of course seems insidious. On the one hand, diverse standards between, say, Alabama and California would prove mildly entertaining on the best of days while rendering such regulation nearly useless; at the federal level we must decide just how much control Congress should have over your gonads.

Is raising children a right or a privilege? Depends on what nature says. For those who can reproduce via functions of their own bodies, it's a right. For those who would clean up the mess created by a bunch of irresponsible, oversexed morons who produce in excess of 100,000 American children annually who need homes, it's a hard-fought, expensive privilege. Well, unless, of course, you meed a certain, arbitrary, bigoted standard.

Life goes on.

Its not a right or privilege...its a necessity for the continuation of the species. If you start regulating reproduction, you might as well tell someone they arent allowed to breathe or eat or drink....

As far as some being unfit for parenting..yes..that is true, and some might wish to tell them they cannot have kids because of that, but that is because of the human instinct to meddle in others affairs.

Man, however DID we get along before Child Services (or whatever they call it nowadays).

Having children is it a human right? or is it a granted Privilege?

If it is a granted privilege.......who decides who can have kids and why?

lol Did I inspire you to make this thread ?
It's a human right btw and I really don't understand why most here say it's a privilege... :bugeye:

If you start regulating reproduction, you might as well tell someone they arent allowed to breathe or eat or drink....

We do that routinely. At least, Americans do.

It's a necessity which has nothing to do with rights or privileges.

It's a necessity which has nothing to do with rights or privileges.

Do you think someone should be able to forbid you to have children ?

We do that routinely. At least, Americans do.

:bugeye:

:bugeye:

Oh, it's an ongoing argument, to be sure, both at home (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/nyregionopinions/02NJharrison.html) and abroad (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/terror/main680658.shtml).

Do you think someone should be able to forbid you to have children ?


No.

lol Did I inspire you to make this thread ?
It's a human right btw and I really don't understand why most here say it's a privilege... :bugeye:

I think it stems from the abuse cases we hear of or know of. It is a human right to have children. But then you also need to differentiate between 'having children' and raising them. For example, most people can pop out children. But can all of those people actually parent or be parents? Sadly, the answer to that is no. Therefore, if you abuse or harm your children, the State can and will step in and remove the children from your care. In that, having children becomes a privilege. Yes you can have them, as in give birth to them. But if you harm them or deliberately put them in harm's way, that right is no longer yours to have.

If you can take care of a child by being able to provide food, shelter,

clothing and health care then I would think it is your human right to have a

child. It's only when you cannot afford a child and cannot provide the care

for the child is when I think it wouldn't be prudent to have children and

when something should be done to prevent someone from reproducing when

they can't provide. Who is going to care for an unwanted or uncared for

child?

Its biology

Its not a right or privilege...its a necessity for the continuation of the species. If you start regulating reproduction, you might as well tell someone they arent allowed to breathe or eat or drink....


Breathing, eating, and drinking are NOT the same as being allowed to bring another life into the world which breathes, eats, and drinks as well. People will continue to have children even in the direst of poverty. All that does, ultimately, is create alot of pain for people (the children) that really shouldn't be there.

However, there's often alot of stubborn religious dogma and "conservative" values pushing people to have more children. I once even saw an article by a conservative, family-values type Christian woman entreating others of a like mind to outbreed the seculars, liberals, atheists, etc. who she said were choosing to have only a few or *gasp* no children at all. The reasoning went that if non-Fundies only have an average of 1.5 children, then within a generation or two, at 4-5 children per household, "Family Values" would win out by numbers alone.

Sickening when that's all they care about.

Its biology

Whose biology, Madame?

Not mine.

I won't let mere biology, or whatever the prevailing wind proclaims is biology, control me. And those who are truly evolved shouldn't either. :thumbsup:

Where's the option for "Chore"?

Apologies for not having read any of the thread save the OP, if I retread the territory other have explored, my bad.

I do not think the words "right" and "privilege" have any absolute meaning. They are pretty much completely defined by the law, and do not have any objective existence apart from the law.

We plainly have a "right" to free speech in the U.S., because the Constitution says so. Still if you go to Germany and deny the Holocaust, you will go to jail. Go to China and download Falun Gong, material, and you will go to jail. So, in the end, calling is a "right" only means that the government you are currently dealing with can't punish you for engaging in the activity even if it vehemently wishes that you would not.

A "privilege" then is something that the relevant government does not necessarily frown on in the abstract, but still may or may not let you engage in it for a variety of possible reasons. Take driving. No government hates driving, but they restrict it in countless ways,including by only allowing the "licensed" drivers to do it. So driving is a privilege rather than a right.

So, with that said, is this an argument about what the law is? Whose law? U.S. law? Under U.S. law forced sterilizations can and do occur. "[T]hree generations of imbeciles is enough" as the Supreme Court once wrote before sending a young woman off to be sterilized. While that case (Buck v. Bell) has been carved up to the point where it's nearly cadaverous (particularly by the later Skinner v. Oklahoma), it's not been overruled so far as I know.

At present, there are still laws on the books that allow you to be forceably sterilized, though you generally have to be incompetent for them to be used.

As such, I would say "privilege" as a matter of law, since the right can be taken from you or denied to you whether or not you are hurting others in its exercise.

You can argue about whether it "should be" a right, since (in the U.S.) everyone has the right to discuss how they'd like to see the law changed.

I believe It's a human right, Although I don't have kids. I believe that a person has to live with their choices. So if they choose to exercise that right, They will have to live with the consequences, Just like being able to speak out against bush freely (i think). If it is a privilege, than it begs the question, who decides who's unfit to breed. I've seen parents that are extremely into goth, but love their child with the most tender care. And if you can see this by just passing by, Who knows what could be the other side of people we thought unfit ?

But hey, don't mind me, Just another naive teenager..

The present environmental and social cost of it being a right is dangerous. But, the cost in personal freedom if it were made a privilage would most likely be unacceptable. Hopefully, individuals in this species will learn responsibility with this function after we recover from the inevitable pandemic.

We plainly have a "right" to free speech in the U.S., because the Constitution says so.


LOL.

That about sums up it's value.

While I agree that some people aren't raise children I don't believe anyone who is physically capable should not have a right to bear children. If children are being neglected or abused then the gov't may need to step in and remove them from their parents care, but I can't see governments having any right to legislate who can and who can't have children, unless that legislation is applied equally to all and for the good of all as in China's case (and I'm not even sure I support that). I think it is a basic right to be able to reproduce.

So do all the people who claim it is a privelege support forced sterilization for those not deemed competant to have children? It seems a rather slippery slope when you start trying to decide who should have the right to have children and who shouldn't.

Whose biology, Madame?

Not mine.

I won't let mere biology, or whatever the prevailing wind proclaims is biology, control me. And those who are truly evolved shouldn't either. :thumbsup:

Thats biology too.

Do you think someone should be able to forbid you to have children ?

yes i do, what if the intented perant is a child abuser?

a drunk?
a wife/husband beater?
a mum/dad who has MSBP?

would you want a child to live in those conditions?

The mind boggling amount of people who shouldnt be allowed to operate a circular saw much less have kids, but seem to pump out 3-6 of them makes me think that it should no longer be a right.

a drunk?
a wife/husband beater?
a mum/dad who has MSBP?

would you want a child to live in those conditions?


All that matters is that the child survives.

The mind boggling amount of people who shouldnt be allowed to operate a circular saw much less have kids, but seem to pump out 3-6 of them makes me think that it should no longer be a right.

I agree totally, but another $64000 question is, if having children was no longer a right, who decides who gets to have children and who doesn't? Because we all know that those people who shouldn't be allowed to operate a circular saw could somehow find themselves in a position to decide who can and can't have kids; that'd be like putting a child molester in charge of a day care.

Child bearing? A right or a biological imperative? I favour the latter.
Good parenting or bad perhaps that should be the question but it is hard to judge whether one is one or the other until one is one and then it's too late to legislate!

I find myself agreeing with DT here (argh!). Children can and do survive many things.

yes i do, what if the intented perant is a child abuser?

a drunk?
a wife/husband beater?
a mum/dad who has MSBP?

would you want a child to live in those conditions?

But there's a difference between letting them give birth to children and letting them raise them. I believe the right here is the right to reproduce (or not).

I agree totally, but another $64000 question is, if having children was no longer a right, who decides who gets to have children and who doesn't? Because we all know that those people who shouldn't be allowed to operate a circular saw could somehow find themselves in a position to decide who can and can't have kids; that'd be like putting a child molester in charge of a day care.

Bingo.

So wtf we have 8 people so far(50something%) voting for the government granting us permission to screw someone? That's fucked. People on this board ARE FUCKED.

Do you think someone should be able to forbid you to have children ?

No.

Then you must consider it a right :shrug:

Bingo.

So wtf we have 8 people so far(50something%) voting for the government granting us permission to screw someone? That's fucked. People on this board ARE FUCKED.

While I'll be the first to state that quite a few people on this planet should never reproduce; those are the people who need a lot of chlorine added to thier gene pool, I also know that trying to have a government try to control who can and can't have children* would be a major cluster fuck.
It's kinda like the death penalty, I'm all for it but deep down I know it won't work in our system, due to the people that control it, and prosecute, judge and decide, are imperfect and prone to make mistakes.


*I think the restriction on children deal in China is a bit different. Aren't they just restricting families to one child, for population control reasons?

I think it stems from the abuse cases we hear of or know of. It is a human right to have children. But then you also need to differentiate between 'having children' and raising them. For example, most people can pop out children. But can all of those people actually parent or be parents? Sadly, the answer to that is no. Therefore, if you abuse or harm your children, the State can and will step in and remove the children from your care. In that, having children becomes a privilege. Yes you can have them, as in give birth to them. But if you harm them or deliberately put them in harm's way, that right is no longer yours to have.

Yes, but you won't know that until they have them. If having children would be a privilege then people would have to be judged beforehand somehow. I think that is wrong..

yes i do, what if the intented perant is a child abuser?

a drunk?
a wife/husband beater?
a mum/dad who has MSBP?

would you want a child to live in those conditions?

Lucy,

From my previous post:
Yes, but you won't know that until they have them. If having children would be a privilege then people would have to be judged beforehand somehow. I think that is wrong..

Its a human right to bear children

http://petegraham.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/arnie_preggers.png

I believe It's a human right, Although I don't have kids. I believe that a person has to live with their choices. So if they choose to exercise that right, They will have to live with the consequences, Just like being able to speak out against bush freely (i think). If it is a privilege, than it begs the question, who decides who's unfit to breed. I've seen parents that are extremely into goth, but love their child with the most tender care. And if you can see this by just passing by, Who knows what could be the other side of people we thought unfit ?

But hey, don't mind me, Just another naive teenager..

I'm a teenager too (17) although I don't tend to air that fact, because on a lot of forums older people who don't agree with you use it as an excuse to dismiss whatever you say instead of actually refuting it.

I'm a teenager too (17) although I don't tend to air that fact, because on a lot of forums older people who don't agree with you use it as an excuse to dismiss whatever you say instead of actually refuting it.

Great, another naive teenager..

;)

yes i do, what if the intented perant is a child abuser?

a drunk?
a wife/husband beater?
a mum/dad who has MSBP?

would you want a child to live in those conditions?

I worry about them doing health screenings. Parents with a risk (however slight) of having a 'defective' child wouldn't be allowed to have one.
My Mom is deaf. Would she be allowed to have children?

it's a right up to a point

Its a right to have them. But its not your right to do whatever you see fit to your children. Its a privalege to keep them.

*I think the restriction on children deal in China is a bit different. Aren't they just restricting families to one child, for population control reasons?

Correct. And I think importantly the rules are applied to everyone not just those people who are expected to be be poor parents for one reason or another.

It's a priviledge to have your seed suck the life out of you for it's benefit. It's a priviledge to be a parasitic host to your offspring as the best you can do for them is ultimately doing for yourself. When you have children, it's not about you anymore but about the next generation and what you can do to foster the best. Those who abuse children are not fit and are evolutionary perverts.

that doesn't sound the way i intended. lol

People.. you are confusing raising children with having children !! :bugeye:

if you are going to have children, you will end up raising them.

if you are going to have children, you will end up raising them.

Not necessarily if raising children is a privilege. The question was if having children is a privilege or a right, not whether or not raising them is..

The poll is screwed up now.. :mad:

If I was in China and people were only allowed 1 shot at it, I would be selling fertility pills. Might as well see if you can have triplets.

If I was in China and people were only allowed 1 shot at it, I would be selling fertility pills. Might as well see if you can have triplets.

Those people are fined for having triplets I think..

Why should you have children for someone else to raise? Having and raising should be synonymous when it comes to your own children. Of course, having children is a natural right as long as you are not sterile. Whether they are taken away from you has to do with the laws of the society you reside in. Even in countries with population control measures, you can still get pregnant but your fetus will be aborted if it conflicts with thier laws. Hence, the priviledge of 'having' and/or 'raising' children.

Why should you have children for someone else to raise?
Have you ever heard of a surrogate mother?

Why should you have children for someone else to raise? Having and raising should be synonymous when it comes to your own children. Of course, having children is a natural right as long as you are not sterile. Whether they are taken away from you has to do with the laws of the society you reside in. Even in countries with population control measures, you can still get pregnant but your fetus will be aborted if it conflicts with thier laws. Hence, the priviledge of 'having' and/or 'raising' children.

Of course, having children is a natural right as long as you are not sterile.
You should have voted 'right'...

Why should you have children for someone else to raise? ....

Both my kids were in daycare 8+ hrs, 5 days a week. Was someone else raising my kids?
I know lots of people who think so.

Have you ever heard of a surrogate mother?

That's not how it's supposed to be, is it?

That's not how it's supposed to be, is it?

Who are you to decide about that ?

That's not how it's supposed to be, is it?
I agree. No it isn't. But they do exist.

Both my kids were in daycare 8+ hrs, 5 days a week. Was someone else raising my kids?
I know lots of people who think so.

But who decided that? And were you able to pick them back up and take them home or did they override your parental rights and keep them? lol

Both my kids were in daycare 8+ hrs, 5 days a week. Was someone else raising my kids?
I know lots of people who think so.

Yes

Who are you to decide about that ?

Excuse me? A mother doesn't have rights to their own children? That's a first and paramount right before any other involvement from outsiders.

But who decided that? And were you able to pick them back up and take them home or did they override your parental rights and keep them? lol

But was I raally raising my kids or was I 'farming them out' for someone else to take care of?

Yes

See.
So, are schools raising our children then?

Excuse me? A mother doesn't have rights to their own children? That's a first and paramount right before any other involvement from outsiders.

Huh!? Surrogate mothers have babies for couples that can't have kids of their own..

But was I raally raising my kids or was I 'farming them out' for someone else to take care of?

What you do with your kids is still ultimately within your decision barring any interference from society or it's memes.

Huh!? Surrogate mothers have babies for couples that can't have kids of their own..

But it's thier decision to do that with their own seed. They are not making that decision for anyone else's offspring.

But it's thier decision to do that with their own seed. They are not making that decision for anyone else's offspring.

Huh? What's your point ?

Huh? What's your point ?

Isn't it obvious? The parent is exercising the right over their own seed or offspring.

Isn't it obvious? The parent is exercising the right over their own seed or offspring.

And ? What bearing does that have on the topic in question ?

And ? What bearing does that have on the topic in question ?

It's obviously a right until that choice is taken away from you.

It's obviously a right until that choice is taken away from you.

Why did you vote privilege then :confused:

priv·i·lege
noun, verb, -leged, -leg·ing.
–noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person: It's my privilege to be here.

Why did you vote privilege then :confused:

Because i think it should be a priviledge to raise children. the op didn't specify just pregnancy but 'having' which usually entails the whole gamut of raising and having full parental rights.

I think birth parents should have full rights to their children with the exception of cases of severe abuse. So though i believe it's a natural right, that right is negated when another human being is in harm's way. A child is still another person, not you.

Having children is it a human right?

The OP obviously meant having babies as in getting pregnant and giving birth. Not the years and years after that :bugeye:

A child is not some material property like a car.

Having children is it a human right?

The OP obviously meant having babies as in getting pregnant and giving birth. Not the years and years after that :bugeye:

A child is not some material property like a car.

You are unrealistic. Why would the op ask if it is a right to "have" children if it doesn't entail raisng them too? That's ridiculous, dontcha think?

Nevermind, it's getting surreal in here.

You are unrealistic. Why would the op ask if it is a right to "have" children if it doesn't entail raisng them too? That's ridiculous, dontcha think?

No I don't :shrug:

Let's wait for the OP to clarify this.

See.
So, are schools raising our children then?

They sure give it a try.

They sure give it a try.

true. And sadly a lot of parents expect them to. Our school has daycare and breakfast now. And our school clothes some kids too.

The words “privilege” and “right” can be really subjective. It all depends on your perception of the words. I believe that our existence is a privilege.

The words “privilege” and “right” can be really subjective. It all depends on your perception of the words. I believe that our existence is a privilege.

Granted by who ? :bugeye:

Having children is it a human right? or is it a granted Privilege?

It's neither.

I agree totally, but another $64000 question is, if having children was no longer a right, who decides who gets to have children and who doesn't? Because we all know that those people who shouldn't be allowed to operate a circular saw could somehow find themselves in a position to decide who can and can't have kids; that'd be like putting a child molester in charge of a day care.

Good point. I'm not sure about the process that could be used to make a determination on whether a particular couple should be able to have children or not. I do however think that criminal history, income, drug/alchohol abuse history, education, and mental history should play roles in deciding who can pump out kids.

Granted by who ? :bugeye:

One way to think about our existence would be to simply say that it is neither a right nor a privilege. However, you could also think about the fact that everything that exists in the present is the result of actions that occurred in the past. Think about all of the wars that were fought so certain groups of people could have access to more privileges. (African Americans, Jews, and the list goes on) Most people living in Europe or North America take the things that they have for granted. Something as simple as having access to clean water or a basic education could be considered a privilege. Think about what it would be like to exist as a slave. Or think about all of the people that are living in refuge camps. A Sudanese refuge has a much higher mortality rate than the average European. That is why I believe that simply being allowed to live could be considered a privilege.

Yes, but you won't know that until they have them. If having children would be a privilege then people would have to be judged beforehand somehow. I think that is wrong..
Giving birth is a natural and human right. To be allowed to have that child (as in keep it) is a privilege. And yes, sometimes the mother and/or father will be judged beforehand, especially in cases where there have been instances of abuse or murder. Surely are are not saying it is wrong to allow a parent who has murdered their other children to keep their 'new' baby because it might be wrong to judge them before they do anything? Would you be willing to take that risk? I wouldn't. We are judged before giving birth anyway. When you go to see the doctor and the midwives during pregnancy for your appointments, they are constantly testing you to see if you are mentally fit to have a child. They check and question you about your home life to ensure the child will be safe. If there is any risk to the child, said child will be removed from your care after it is born.

The privilege to 'having children' is not so much being allowed to give birth (we have established it is a human right to give birth), but to actually be allowed to have the child. In China, for example, it is a privilege to give birth.. due to their one child policy. Is it a breach of human rights? The greater majority would say yes.

The rights of the child is also paramount and its right to not be endangered will take precedence over your human right to have it..

Not necessarily if raising children is a privilege. The question was if having children is a privilege or a right, not whether or not raising them is..
And the two are intertwined. To have a child does not mean just giving birth to it. It also encompasses caring for it and raising it, in the womb and out of it. For example, a woman who constantly uses narcotics while pregnant, thereby endangering her child, could very well have her child taken away from her after it is born.

...

lol Did I inspire you to make this thread ?
It's a human right btw and I really don't understand why most here say it's a privilege... :bugeye:

Actually yes you did lol.....your reply to the "6 billion and counting" post inspired me to pose the question ! =P

No I don't :shrug:

Let's wait for the OP to clarify this.

been away from the boards a while.......well from the looks of it the over intelligent minds on this board turned a relatively easy question into this complex web of "what if"

In all reality I cannot formulate a poll/question that entails all the variables that can be "added" to the question. So I tried to keep it simple. I would like to keep it that way.

Don’t concern yourself with raising the child and the years after birth. Its not what the poll is trying to get at.

Lets focus on if it is a human right for Jane Doe and John Doe to produce a child or if it is a privilege.

I realize the "world" and such an issue is not so easily answered with a yes or no.......If you truly can't decide.....don’t vote.....I didn't because I don't know the answer either. This being a controversial issue there really is no right or wrong poll answer, only what you believe, think, feel is right or wrong.

One way to think about our existence would be to simply say that it is neither a right nor a privilege. However, you could also think about the fact that everything that exists in the present is the result of actions that occurred in the past. Think about all of the wars that were fought so certain groups of people could have access to more privileges. (African Americans, Jews, and the list goes on) Most people living in Europe or North America take the things that they have for granted. Something as simple as having access to clean water or a basic education could be considered a privilege. Think about what it would be like to exist as a slave. Or think about all of the people that are living in refuge camps. A Sudanese refuge has a much higher mortality rate than the average European. That is why I believe that simply being allowed to live could be considered a privilege.

Fine, you would do well under a nazi regime.. no offense.. :bugeye:

Giving birth is a natural and human right. To be allowed to have that child (as in keep it) is a privilege.

I'm not arguing that, I agree.


And the two are intertwined. To have a child does not mean just giving birth to it. It also encompasses caring for it and raising it, in the womb and out of it. For example, a woman who constantly uses narcotics while pregnant, thereby endangering her child, could very well have her child taken away from her after it is born.

I strongly disagree. See what you said above, you had no trouble at all separating the two..
"Giving birth is a natural and human right. To be allowed to have that child (as in keep it) is a privilege."

Actually yes you did lol.....your reply to the "6 billion and counting" post inspired me to pose the question ! =P

lol I had a feeling it did ;)

been away from the boards a while.......well from the looks of it the over intelligent minds on this board turned a relatively easy question into this complex web of "what if"

In all reality I cannot formulate a poll/question that entails all the variables that can be "added" to the question. So I tried to keep it simple. I would like to keep it that way.

Don’t concern yourself with raising the child and the years after birth. Its not what the poll is trying to get at.

Lets focus on if it is a human right for Jane Doe and John Doe to produce a child or if it is a privilege.

I realize the "world" and such an issue is not so easily answered with a yes or no.......If you truly can't decide.....don’t vote.....I didn't because I don't know the answer either. This being a controversial issue there really is no right or wrong poll answer, only what you believe, think, feel is right or wrong.

I hate to say it (peta), but "I told you so"... :p

I strongly disagree. See what you said above, you had no trouble at all separating the two..
"Giving birth is a natural and human right. To be allowed to have that child (as in keep it) is a privilege."

So you don't think the authorities should remove a child from a parent who endangers it?

Parents can and do lose their children if they endanger or harm them. This is where the privilege bit comes into it. If a woman is using dangerous drugs during her pregnancy and has refused to stop and they can see she is in no position to care for her child, yes, they will take it from her. They will attempt to force her to care for the child and even teach and guide her, but if she cannot, refuses to or is not in a position to do so, she will lose the child. In that, 'having' a child is a privilege.

You may not agree, but that is how it is. Personally, if someone is unable to care for a child and as a result, places that child in danger, then that child should be removed from their care immediately. The rights of that child will take precedence in such instances.

So you don't think the authorities should remove a child from a parent who endangers it?

Parents can and do lose their children if they endanger or harm them. This is where the privilege bit comes into it. If a woman is using dangerous drugs during her pregnancy and has refused to stop and they can see she is in no position to care for her child, yes, they will take it from her. They will attempt to force her to care for the child and even teach and guide her, but if she cannot, refuses to or is not in a position to do so, she will lose the child. In that, 'having' a child is a privilege.

You may not agree, but that is how it is. Personally, if someone is unable to care for a child and as a result, places that child in danger, then that child should be removed from their care immediately. The rights of that child will take precedence in such instances.

Yes, and I don't disagree..
We are not discussing that.. see post 90 :shrug:

It is my right to have children. Even if I have set fire to my previous children, it is still my right to have another.
It is also the gvmt's right to step in and take that child away as soon as it is born.

It is my right to have children. Even if I have set fire to my previous children, it is still my right to have another.

Indeed.


It is also the gvmt's right to step in and take that child away as soon as it is born.

Yes, but why bring it up.. ? Everyone does that. It's not the topic..

Because its a right to have them, a privilege to raise them.

Because its a right to have them, a privilege to raise them.

Yes, but the OP only entails having them not raising them..

having children is a human right. humans have the right to have as many children as they want.

to be honest, after the op clarified his/her query, this topic is downright stupid.

is being able to concieve and give birth a right or priviledge??? Then that would depend on the society and it's rules governing the individual's rights. Duh! WTF?!

Unless you believe 'inferior' stock should not be allowed to breed and however that is determined.

to be honest, after the op clarified his/her query, this topic is downright stupid.

is being able to concieve and give birth a right or priviledge??? Then that would depend on the society and it's rules governing the individual's rights. Duh! WTF?!

Unless you believe 'inferior' stock should not be allowed to breed and however that is determined.

Uh.. just admit you was wrong :p

to be honest, after the op clarified his/her query, this topic is downright stupid.

is being able to concieve and give birth a right or priviledge??? Then that would depend on the society and it's rules governing the individual's rights. Duh! WTF?!

Unless you believe 'inferior' stock should not be allowed to breed and however that is determined.

In posting this topic I could care less about the (government) LAWS that you adhere to......or anyone else for that matter. Do you think for yourself or do you just follow the leader and plays simon says all day?

YOU PERSONALY how do you feel.....

If you and your significant other wanted a child.......what would you think? Right or privlege?

If you and your significant other wanted a child.......what would you think? Right or privlege?

Lolz, do you really need to ask such an insanely rhetorical question?????

Why would I and a significant other want to just conceive?????? huh?????? but not "raise"?????????? isn't that what you specified, conception???

Of course, a couple would think it's their right to conceive a child when they want it. It's their freaking body!!!

Crazy...

Lolz, do you really need to ask such an insanely rhetorical question?????

Why would I and a significant other want to just conceive?????? huh?????? but not "raise"?????????? isn't that what you specified, conception???

Of course, a couple would think it's their right to conceive a child when they want it. It's their freaking body!!!

Crazy...

I thought you said that you are really smart..
Yet you can't even separate two simple concepts from each other.. weird.

I thought you said that you are really smart..
Yet you can't even separate two simple concepts from each other.. weird.

Its not weird if you separate the peta concept from the smart concept.
:D

Its not weird if you separate the peta concept from the smart concept.
:D

I never made a connection between the two concepts to begin with ;)

u are idiots. This thread is proof of that. Priviledge and a right is blurred and moot when it comes to conception and childbirth because the extent of that 'priviledge' or 'right' is determined by society.

to be honest, after the op clarified his/her query, this topic is downright stupid.

is being able to concieve and give birth a right or priviledge??? Then that would depend on the society and it's rules governing the individual's rights. Duh! WTF?!

Unless you believe 'inferior' stock should not be allowed to breed and however that is determined.

I agree. In the US, it is a fundamental (constitutional) right. I would say it is a natural right as well, as we would not have functional reproduction organs if it were not. But I agree, society may disregard natural rights, as in China, and dictate the propagation numbers.

I agree. In the US, it is a fundamental (constitutional) right. I would say it is a natural right as well, as we would not have functional reproduction organs if it were not. But I agree, society may disregard natural rights, as in China, and dictate the propagation numbers.

Exactly.

I agree. In the US, it is a fundamental (constitutional) right. I would say it is a natural right as well, as we would not have functional reproduction organs if it were not. But I agree, society may disregard natural rights, as in China, and dictate the propagation numbers.

Exactly.

So what, the OP should have added a geographical location to his question ?
He clearly asked that everyone answered the question from a personal point of view.
The real problem here is that some people can't or don't want to make the distinction between having a baby and raising a child.

u are idiots. This thread is proof of that. Priviledge and a right is blurred and moot when it comes to conception and childbirth because the extent of that 'priviledge' or 'right' is determined by society.

Personally, what do you say.. right or privilege.
RTFQ.

So what, the OP should have added a geographical location to his question ?
He clearly asked that everyone answered the question from a personal point of view.
The real problem here is that some people can't or don't want to make the distinction between having a baby and raising a child.

That is my personal point of view. The right to reproduction is as natural as the right to breath in and out. Parental rights are also constitutional rights (US) and natural rights.

Lolz, do you really need to ask such an insanely rhetorical question?????

Why would I and a significant other want to just conceive?????? huh?????? but not "raise"?????????? isn't that what you specified, conception???

Of course, a couple would think it's their right to conceive a child when they want it. It's their freaking body!!!

Crazy...

Exactly.

so how would you have framed the poll and question?

My intent for creating this poll was to see how many believe

A)having children is a right.....something that cannot and should not be taken away.

OR

B)having children is a privlege......something that is conditional.......

Finaly, I'm not going to assume all the different variables that makes couples, give up their children for adoption but I do know that it does happen. Considering that children being put of for adoption is real.....you cant say that all couples want to raise their child.

Do you over analyze all questions posed to you?

That is my personal point of view. The right to reproduction is as natural as the right to breath in and out. Parental rights are also constitutional rights (US) and natural rights.

Ok, you separate the two. Peta says she refuses to separate them although she clearly did so in previous posts..

so how would you have framed the poll and question?

My intent for creating this poll was to see how many believe

A)having children is a right.....something that cannot and should not be taken away.

OR

B)having children is a privlege......something that is conditional.......

Finaly, I'm not going to assume all the different variables that makes couples, give up their children for adoption but I do know that it does happen. Considering that children being put of for adoption is real.....you cant say that all couples want to raise their child.

Do you over analyze all questions posed to you?

You should have framed your question better then. You need to specify the conditions because no one believes when and if, their basic "desire" to have a child is not a "right", they will justify it. So the basic question is pointless.

You should have framed your question better then. You need to specify the conditions because no one believes when and if, their basic "desire" to have a child is not a "right", they will justify it. So the basic question is pointless.

It may be pointless, but you can still just answer the question. What's actually the problem here ?
Your problem seems to be that everyone should have the same answer to the question as posed..

You should have framed your question better then. You need to specify the conditions because no one believes when and if, their basic "desire" to have a child is not a "right", they will justify it. So the basic question is pointless.

how would you have framed it?
saying "should have framed it better" doesnt really help......

specify conditions? Please elaborate....

thx

It may be pointless, but you can still just answer the question. What's actually the problem here ?
Your problem seems to be that everyone should have the same answer to the question as posed..

lol, I answered this question numerous times. Read back.

lol, I answered this question numerous times. Read back.

I know you did, as I said in the post you quoted.
But then you immediately turn around and say the two concepts can't be separated, which is quite contradicting in itself..

I know you did, as I said in the post you quoted.
But then you immediately turn around and say the two concepts can't be separated, which is quite contradicting in itself..

No, we're talking about conception and childbirth. Not raising, as you said.

Ultimately, it really can't be separated because your rights and priviledges are not determined by yourself.

No, we're talking about conception and childbirth. Not raising, as you said.

Ultimately, it really can't be separated because your rights and priviledges are not determined by yourself.

You brought up raising, not me.

I worry about them doing health screenings. Parents with a risk (however slight) of having a 'defective' child wouldn't be allowed to have one.
My Mom is deaf. Would she be allowed to have children?

she can obviously look after children, i am talking about the people who will out right abuse they'r children, MSBP is a desease that lots of perants,aunties/uncles/nannas/ have that about children not about perants who are deaf.

i do honeslty belive that if you are caught / found guilty of abusing a child, phiscly/mentally then you should have ALL child bearing rights taken of you with enforced sterilization

All that matters is that the child survives.

fuck me already!! try saying that to the thousands of children that are abused each year!!

abuse runs deep! much deeper than people think, people / children who ahve been through abuse, just canot forget about it, it sticks with us all the time like a bad case of scurvy!