Reproductive Rights

[Rasmus]

Over in this thread about an allegeldy unauthorized sterilization of a woman on welfare the issue of reproductive rights has come up.

I'll copy those posts that I saw on the issue after a quick scan; if I left anything out it was an oversight rather than intend. So, hopfeully we can discuss this issue here to not take the other thread further OT.

I think the key point is AvalonXQ's claim quoted here first:

Your reasoning is fallacious. By the same argument, I can't support the existence of prisons unless I myself go to jail, and I can't support the right to shooting in self-defense unless i'm willing to arrange to get shot.
Because society affords benefits to every citizen, society has the right to control the process by which we produce more citizens.
Having children is not a right.

Well, what are you gonna do about it?

Boy sleeps with girl, offspring happens. You have no right to stop that from happening.

No, society has no right whatsoever to dictate two consenting adults wether to have children or not.

No.

First of all, if you take Biology 101, you'll discover that nature controls the process by which we produce more citizens. And if having children is not a right, who exactly should have the power to decide this?

You're living under the same rules as the prisoners. If you break certain laws, you go to prison, just like them. They broke them, and you didn't, so they go, and you don't. But the rules are the same for everyone.

Entering your house without permission, particularly with malicious intent, subjects all people who do so to the possibility that they will be shot. You doing the same to someone else subjects you to the same thing. In terms of being shot in self-defense, the rules are the same for everyone.

However, you support sterilization. If you don't or won't get sterilized yourself, then you are applying your rules to other people but not yourself. You think society should determine who should have kids. I am in society. I have ordered you to go get sterilized. If you can't live under the rules you want everyone else to live under, then your rules are crap.

Wrong. It means that just like I don't believe I should be jailed under the rules by which some people should be jailed or shot under the rules that some people should be shot, I don't believe I should be sterilized under the rules that some people should be.
But I definitely don't believe we have a right to have children or be parents, and so I believe that society has the right to take away our ability to do so.

Regulating instinctive behavior might be a bit tricky.

People are messy. They do stupid things. If you try to regulate everything that doesn't fit into a utopian ideal, you only get unhappy people who do stupid things and then become criminals.

You're in good company.

Ah, Godwin'd so soon.
I'm simply not convinced that family planning is a right. But I'm aware that I'm in the minority on this.
Further discussion in this direction should probably move to its own thread, no?

[...]
Yes - i think it's a ridiculous solution.

Mandated birth control and sterilization, however, is not as such ridiculous; it would work - in a way. It's just happens to be outright evil on many, many levels.

 

[Darat]

Well, what are you gonna do about it?

Boy sleeps with girl, offspring happens. You have no right to stop that from happening.

We already as a society say we have right to stop that happening in certain circumstances, so we have laws against incest, age of consent, consent laws and so on. I take it you are not against such approaches?

No, society has no right whatsoever to dictate two consenting adults wether to have children or not.

I do disagree, because I simply look at it from the perspective of the child and I believe society has a grave responsibility to ensure that its future full members have a good start.

(I don't think the world can easily be rendered to simple black and white distinctions so take the next two statements as a slight exaggeration of my view on the matter, I'm more trying to illustrate that I don't think there should be an absolute "right" to have child.)

If a person becomes pregnant under the age of consent there should be two options, adoption or abortion.

Anyone who has been convicted of abusing their child should never be allowed to have any more children.

 

[Rasmus]

Just to make myself clearer:

Having children is not a right that you can demand in a biological sense. Nobody is required to see to it that you get children if you want them.

But it is a right in the sense that nobody should be allowed to stop me from having children (assuming I find a consenting partner for the deed), let alone pre-emptively make it impossible for me.

Even if I thought that anyone's right to have children could be denied I don't see how that could ever be enforced in a way suitable for a civilized society.

So, I stand by my Godwin-Argument: To effectively stop those from having children who one thinks ought not to have children requires an unjust, inhuman and draconian tyranny.

I think wolfman once wrote a post on the Chinese one-child-policy where he defended the idea. I'll try to find that thread later. But as far as I remember, he argued to limit the total number of children out of necessity, rather than supported the idea of socially designing future generations through political selection.

Besides wondering how AvalonXQ would justify and enforce his policies, I also wonder just what criteria should be used to determine who would still be allowed to have children.

 

[Rasmus]

We already as a society say we have right to stop that happening in certain circumstances, so we have laws against incest, age of consent, consent laws and so on. I take it you are not against such approaches?

I am all in favour of age of consent laws. But these do not rule out that someone may have children at all.

I do not support laws against incest as long as consenting adults are involved.

I do disagree, because I simply look at it from the perspective of the child and I believe society has a grave responsibility to ensure that its future full members have a good start.

I am not sure that taking children away from their parents is the best way to go about this as a matter of routine. But that is not the same as not letting someone be pregnant in the first place, anyway.

(I don't think the world can easily be rendered to simple black and white distinctions so take the next two statements as a slight exaggeration of my view on the matter, I'm more trying to illustrate that I don't think there should be an absolute "right" to have child.)

This much I agree with.

If a person becomes pregnant under the age of consent there should be two options, adoption or abortion.

This I disagree with. If a minor - with help of their parents. Community, etc. - is able to raise a child I'd let them.

Anyone who has been convicted of abusing their child should never be allowed to have any more children.

Never is a long time, but I tend to agree. Again, the solution would be to take the child away rather than sterilize the person, though.

 

[quadraginta]

Okay. I'll bring over my comment and join the fun here.

Ah, Godwin'd so soon.
I'm simply not convinced that family planning is a right. But I'm aware that I'm in the minority on this.
Further discussion in this direction should probably move to its own thread, no?

I don't think that this reference counts as a Godwin, unless you are saying that the field of eugenics, which you appear to be advocating, was utterly discredited by Hitler's acceptance of the idea. This would make your position a somewhat uncomfortable one.

It's valuable to remember that Germany's ideas about eugenics were largely imported from U.S. practices. By way of example Margaret Sanger, of Planned Parenthood fame, was not an absolute foe of forced sterilization. She condoned it for the "feebleminded". Her views on racial superiority were fairly clear as well. Although her personal ethics were admirable by the standards of the time it is important to note how easily they were distorted into something quite reprehensible.

This is an important lesson to take away from the eugenics debates of the early twentieth century. Very relevant to this discussion and the position you are espousing. Not a Godwin at all.

 

[quadraginta]

Just to make myself clearer:

Having children is not a right that you can demand in a biological sense. Nobody is required to see to it that you get children if you want them.

But it is a right in the sense that nobody should be allowed to stop me from having children (assuming I find a consenting partner for the deed), let alone pre-emptively make it impossible for me.

Even if I thought that anyone's right to have children could be denied I don't see how that could ever be enforced in a way suitable for a civilized society.

So, I stand by my Godwin-Argument: To effectively stop those from having children who one thinks ought not to have children requires an unjust, inhuman and draconian tyranny.

I think wolfman once wrote a post on the Chinese one-child-policy where he defended the idea. I'll try to find that thread later. But as far as I remember, he argued to limit the total number of children out of necessity, rather than supported the idea of socially designing future generations through political selection.

Besides wondering how AvalonXQ would justify and enforce his policies, I also wonder just what criteria should be used to determine who would still be allowed to have children.

I think that the crux of the issue hovers around this.

It's one thing to say that everyone has exactly the same rights and restrictions on reproduction (i.e. everybody is allowed to have x kids, and that's all.) It's another thing entirely to start picking and choosing who has such a right and who doesn't.

We've got an awful* lot of evidence about how that usually works out.

(* intended. )

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's one thing to say that everyone has exactly the same rights and restrictions on reproduction (i.e. everybody is allowed to have x kids, and that's all.) It's another thing entirely to start picking and choosing who has such a right and who doesn't.

I think I was clear in saying that no one has a right.
But I agree that, like anything else in society, it is important for us to administrate our duties fairly.
The model I'd like to propose is the following one (and I agree that we do not yet have the technology to implement it, but we are close). Each individual is sterilized before fertility. To have a child, you have to apply much the way we apply for a driver's license. You have to show the completion of a parenting course and agree to the financial burden of a child.
A background check is performed to determine that the parents in question are a) not convicted of certain serious crimes (like child abuse), b) not currently receiving government welfare (presumptively able to pay for the child). Then you can have a child, either by temporarily reversing the sterility procedure (removing a block, etc) or through a simple in vitro implantation using gametes removed earlier and held in trust by the government, whatever's easiest.
The prevention of unintended pregnancies alone would be a major boon for society.

 

[quadraginta]

I think I was clear in saying that no one has a right.
But I agree that, like anything else in society, it is important for us to administrate our duties fairly.
The model I'd like to propose is the following one (and I agree that we do not yet have the technology to implement it, but we are close). Each individual is sterilized before fertility. To have a child, you have to apply much the way we apply for a driver's license. You have to show the completion of a parenting course and agree to the financial burden of a child.
A background check is performed to determine that the parents in question are a) not convicted of certain serious crimes (like child abuse), b) not currently receiving government welfare (presumptively able to pay for the child). Then you can have a child, either by temporarily reversing the sterility procedure (removing a block, etc) or through a simple in vitro implantation using gametes removed earlier and held in trust by the government, whatever's easiest.
The prevention of unintended pregnancies alone would be a major boon for society.

Nearly everyone who goes down this path starts out with standards for selecting the "deserving" that seem perfectly reasonable, certainly within the context of their culture.

The track record of the end results of taking such a path is less admirable.

For some reason when it is presented as "everyone or no one" the concept invariably gets less traction than when it can be interpreted as "us and them".

Why do you think that is?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Nearly everyone who goes down this path starts out with standards for selecting the "deserving" that seem perfectly reasonable, certainly within the context of their culture.
The track record of the end results of taking such a path is less admirable.

There it is again.

 

[quadraginta]

There it is again.

There is what again?

I was thinking that forced sterilizations in our country have occurred in relatively recent memory, and some of the cases might even still be making their way through the courts.

What were you thinking of?

 

[quadraginta]

There it is again.

There is what again?

I was thinking that forced sterilizations in our country have occurred in relatively recent memory, and some of the cases might even still be making their way through the courts.

What were you thinking of?

Took a quick peek in Wiki, just to refresh my memory (it needs a lot of that. )

These excerpts can give us a few areas of discussion in the off-Godwin vein.

The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[citation needed] The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. They were devastated when it was shut down due to ethical problems.

Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[22]

My highlight.

After World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany, though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[25]

Again, my highlight.

Note that this is only discussing the policy sanctioned ones, and probably doesn't include quasi-legal sterilizations of minor children at the behest of parents or guardians.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So, in the past, we've sterilized specific groups of people. We've also decided that this was bad.
I'm not so clear on why it's bad to sterilize everyone, and then make parenting a genuine opt-in scenario.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We already as a society say we have right to stop that happening in certain circumstances, so we have laws against incest, age of consent, consent laws and so on. I take it you are not against such approaches?

I think there's ambiguity here on the word "that" (as in "that happening"). (I think it referred to "offspring happens" not the sex part.)

We as a society under no circumstances have the right to force any pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will.

 

[Rasmus]

So, in the past, we've sterilized specific groups of people. We've also decided that this was bad.
I'm not so clear on why it's bad to sterilize everyone, and then make parenting a genuine opt-in scenario.

Because it's *my* body and anyone who wants to put a knife to it without my explicit consent let alone against my declared will, will have to kill me first, that's why. (It's also why I cannot support mandatory vaccination no matter how useful or beneficial that would be.)

Do you really not see how *everybody* is the most encompassing group of all possible specific groups? It's the same idea, you're just including many more people.

And it wasn't a bad idea because we happened to select the wrong people, it was a bad idea in and of itself. You could hardly go further than denying a person their most private human rights then by modifying their very own bodies against their will - you could go one step further and outright kill them.

 

[Beerina]

You have to be careful of "creeping intrusion" of government as well. "Well, the kids of this particular person just are more expense of welfare, given the magnitude of the L on her forehead, so we are justified in doing this forced sterilization."

My mother always said that if you did something nice for someone, unasked, you can't then use it to lord over them. Of course, that never stops government, does it?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Because it's *my* body and anyone who wants to put a knife to it without my explicit consent let alone against my declared will, will have to kill me first, that's why.

Ah. Easy solution -- it's not mandatory, but it is freely available. If you have a child without a license, we deport both parents and the child.
Does that comport with your rights better?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because it's *my* body and anyone who wants to put a knife to it without my explicit consent let alone against my declared will, will have to kill me first, that's why.

And in the context of convicted criminals (who have indeed had the freedom over their bodies taken by the government after due process), I would argue that forced sterilization would fall under prohibited "cruel or unusual punishment".

 

[Fiona]

What is the mischief we are trying to solve here?

 

[Ambrosia]

The model I'd like to propose is the following one (and I agree that we do not yet have the technology to implement it, but we are close). Each individual is sterilized before fertility. To have a child, you have to apply much the way we apply for a driver's license.

There are a number of issues to get around first. (by no means an exhaustive list)

i) side effects of the sterilisation procedure what are they?
ii) cost of the sterilisation, who pays?
iii) how do we prevent future governments from radically changing the selection procedure?

In this scenario we are giving away power to authority. The power to have children, which is one of our most fundamental things. We achieve immortality by passing our genetic code and our memories to our offspring.

Whats to stop future authority from saying, no we wont give you back this power unless you jump through these expensive unreasonable hoops. Or no there are too many <insert population subgroup of your choice here> in the world, you can't have any children.

 

[Francesca R]

We already as a society say we have right to stop that happening in certain circumstances, so we have laws against incest, age of consent, consent laws and so on. I take it you are not against such approaches?

Just to be clear, (as already noted by someone else) society (in the UK) has not given itself the right to compel sterlisation nor abortion.

I do disagree, because I simply look at it from the perspective of the child and I believe society has a grave responsibility to ensure that its future full members have a good start.

I regard this as flawed thinking, since surely from the perspective of the child (imagine yourself in some pre-conceived state expressing a "view" here) it is always more in your interest to be conceived (and probably born) than not, unless you wish to argue that lack of life can be objectively a better prospect ex-ante than existence of life.

If a person becomes pregnant under the age of consent there should be two options, adoption or abortion.

Anyone who has been convicted of abusing their child should never be allowed to have any more children.

Very illiberal, and enforcement would likely be repellent to many.