Quote:
Originally Posted by All Darc
Human right... here we go...
Civilization...
Rights are not above everything... If someone have no capability of be a decent mother or decent father, they should have no kids, since kids also have rights.
I'm surprised with people against sterilization of crap people (who already did sh...t) but are in favor of such people make a abortion how many times they wish, even after 12 weeks (when fetus feel pain).
Yes, humans are getting weaker and dumber (dumb people breed more), due medicine allowing survival of the weak (thanks God), and genetics will try to solve it. I told it several times, but most in other Forum.
|
That's the definition of a right, something which is above all else.
I completely agree with you that people who are unfit to care for children should not be having them. Most anyone would agree with that. The problem is in defining who is unfit to have children, since it's a subjective definition. Unfortunately the negative consequence of protecting reproductive rights is that some children will suffer, and society will have a cost to bear.
Children don't have the right to be born into certain ideals for healthy family and community. If that were true, then we'd be taking babies from Nigeria and around the world to ensure their "rights" are protected. This isn't to say that we should eliminate child protective services, only that the world isn't fair in distributing advantages evenly to all people.
It was completely offensive to me to apply for a marriage license. I'm not asking the government to get married; I'm telling them. In the same vein, I'm not going to apply for a license to have children.
You cannot pass a law that prevents unwanted or negligent parents from having children. It wouldn't be effective, especially when the consequence for violation is something like a fine or jail time. Poor people don't have the means to pay a fine and won't even factor that into their sexual behavior.
I've already proposed something that would go a long way to curbing unwanted pregnancy, which is state funded IUDs. Perhaps our girls should be getting them by default, so that having children becomes a conscious decision rather than the inevitable outcome of indiscretion.
The rights for women to get abortions in the US are too broad. Nearly everyone agrees that abortions for reasons of convenience (avoiding inconvenience) is immoral. We allow many immoral things though, so that alone isn't justification to make it illegal. We could at least set some limit of on how much development we'll allow until abortion is no longer permitted. I understand the "all or nothing" arguments from both sides, but that doesn't actually get us anywhere.