5 ms·

Reproduction is not a natural right. Then nothing is. Fortunately for those of us who don't want to see humanity ruled as you suggest, it seems pretty well es

Reproduction is not a natural right. Then nothing is. Fortunately for those of us who don't want to see humanity ruled as you suggest, it seems pretty well established that reproduction is a fundamental human right.

danbruc 11y ago
Of course there are no fundamental rights. If I had the largest gun in the world I could just kill everyone denying them all rights or force them to do whatever pleases me. Rights are agreements between humans - you want to live, I want to live, so let's agree that killing people is a bad thing, let's have a right to live. Nothing more, nothing less. So if the population grows to some level that becomes a danger for the sustainability of our society, then it is in everyone's self-interest or the interests of their children to voluntarily limit the number of children they have. And if the majority of the people agrees on that, then having more children than the society believes you should have becomes a punishable misbehavior. So right now you can imagine to have the right to reproduce but that is only because we did not yet have the need to regulate it because the population is not yet too large. But there is absolutely nothing that makes this an eternal truth. Once the population reaches a critical level you face the decisions to either limit reproduction or to see your children live a miserable life in an overcrowded world. I would definitely vote for limiting reproduction because I value my few children having a good life way more than having many children having a miserable life. And this has nothing to do with being ruled in one way or another, the society itself should come to the conclusion that it is a necessary policy.
- ryanwaggoner 11y ago
  The fact that you can violate someone's fundamental human rights doesn't deny their existence.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    Agreed, that was not really a convincing argument unless you already believe that there are some absolute rights. Let's attack this from a different angle. Where are those rights coming from? And do they only apply to humans? Why? Why not to primates? If they apply also to primates, are lions hunting and killing primates - not sure if they actually do - violating basic primate rights? How do you come to know about your fundamental rights? Could you still come up with the same ideas if you were the only human on earth? And more specifically, if reproduction is a fundamental right, can you rape other humans in case no one voluntarily wants to reproduce with you? You probably don't think that, so you are not really arguing for an ultimate right to reproduce but the right to do so with consent. This again raises the question of incest. Why can we outlaw incest when you have a fundamental right to reproduce. Because bad things are likely to happen to possible offspring? But so does reproduction leading to overpopulation just not in such a direct way. Absolute rights and a right to reproduce in particular are - at least in my opinion - hard to defend positions. The only more or less reasonable argument I can think of is declaring that those absolute rights are a god given thing and period. In that case there is not much I could argue against besides the believe in a god in the first place.
    - dalke 11y ago
      Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights : > Reproductive rights began to develop as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights.[4] The resulting non binding Proclamation of Teheran was the first international document to recognize one of these rights when it stated that: "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children." To answer your question of where those rights come, they come from a international agreement that these principles should be the guide to a human and humane culture. More about this is available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights . I think it's best to consider this a moral philosophy that exists only as part of a consensual reality. Regarding animal rights, there is less agreement on a framework for how to handle those. Animals cannot enter into a social charter, and it is difficult for them to voice objection about mistreatment. Most about this is available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights . > "Why can we outlaw incest when you have a fundamental right to reproduce." These rights are not absolutes but exist in tension. While we have agreed that there is a fundamental right to free speech, time, place and manner restrictions are allowed. While we have agreed that there is freedom of movement, such freedom may be limited in times of quarantine. Thus, simply pointing out that there is a restriction on the right of reproduction does not make it less of a right than the rights of movement and of free speech. > if reproduction is a fundamental right, can you rape other humans ryanwaggoner was likely being brief on the expectation that you could do some research yourself and determine that 'Reproduction is a natural right' is a short-hand for a more lengthy and nuanced definition. Quoting now from the Cairo Programme of Action at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#Cairo_Programme_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#Cairo_Prog... : > Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. You can see that the 'freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so' includes all participants. Thus, rape is not part of the right to reproduce, as it is generally understood. Rape is also in tension with other rights, such as the right to free association. > "... absolute rights are a god given thing and period" Humans created all the gods. Therefore humans can create human rights. > "Could you still come up with the same ideas if you were the only human on earth?" Human rights guide how humans should be treated. If I were the only human on earth, there would be no need for the moral philosophy of human rights, just like there would be no need for thespian, oratory, or square dancing knowledge. I doubt I would be clever enough to come up with those ideas on my own.

danbruc 11y ago

Of course there are no fundamental rights. If I had the largest gun in the world I could just kill everyone denying them all rights or force them to do whatever pleases me. Rights are agreements between humans - you want to live, I want to live, so let's agree that killing people is a bad thing, let's have a right to live. Nothing more, nothing less. So if the population grows to some level that becomes a danger for the sustainability of our society, then it is in everyone's self-interest or the interests of their children to voluntarily limit the number of children they have. And if the majority of the people agrees on that, then having more children than the society believes you should have becomes a punishable misbehavior. So right now you can imagine to have the right to reproduce but that is only because we did not yet have the need to regulate it because the population is not yet too large. But there is absolutely nothing that makes this an eternal truth. Once the population reaches a critical level you face the decisions to either limit reproduction or to see your children live a miserable life in an overcrowded world. I would definitely vote for limiting reproduction because I value my few children having a good life way more than having many children having a miserable life. And this has nothing to do with being ruled in one way or another, the society itself should come to the conclusion that it is a necessary policy.

ryanwaggoner 11y ago
The fact that you can violate someone's fundamental human rights doesn't deny their existence.
- danbruc 11y ago
  Agreed, that was not really a convincing argument unless you already believe that there are some absolute rights. Let's attack this from a different angle. Where are those rights coming from? And do they only apply to humans? Why? Why not to primates? If they apply also to primates, are lions hunting and killing primates - not sure if they actually do - violating basic primate rights? How do you come to know about your fundamental rights? Could you still come up with the same ideas if you were the only human on earth? And more specifically, if reproduction is a fundamental right, can you rape other humans in case no one voluntarily wants to reproduce with you? You probably don't think that, so you are not really arguing for an ultimate right to reproduce but the right to do so with consent. This again raises the question of incest. Why can we outlaw incest when you have a fundamental right to reproduce. Because bad things are likely to happen to possible offspring? But so does reproduction leading to overpopulation just not in such a direct way. Absolute rights and a right to reproduce in particular are - at least in my opinion - hard to defend positions. The only more or less reasonable argument I can think of is declaring that those absolute rights are a god given thing and period. In that case there is not much I could argue against besides the believe in a god in the first place.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights : > Reproductive rights began to develop as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights.[4] The resulting non binding Proclamation of Teheran was the first international document to recognize one of these rights when it stated that: "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children." To answer your question of where those rights come, they come from a international agreement that these principles should be the guide to a human and humane culture. More about this is available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights . I think it's best to consider this a moral philosophy that exists only as part of a consensual reality. Regarding animal rights, there is less agreement on a framework for how to handle those. Animals cannot enter into a social charter, and it is difficult for them to voice objection about mistreatment. Most about this is available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights . > "Why can we outlaw incest when you have a fundamental right to reproduce." These rights are not absolutes but exist in tension. While we have agreed that there is a fundamental right to free speech, time, place and manner restrictions are allowed. While we have agreed that there is freedom of movement, such freedom may be limited in times of quarantine. Thus, simply pointing out that there is a restriction on the right of reproduction does not make it less of a right than the rights of movement and of free speech. > if reproduction is a fundamental right, can you rape other humans ryanwaggoner was likely being brief on the expectation that you could do some research yourself and determine that 'Reproduction is a natural right' is a short-hand for a more lengthy and nuanced definition. Quoting now from the Cairo Programme of Action at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#Cairo_Programme_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights#Cairo_Prog... : > Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. You can see that the 'freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so' includes all participants. Thus, rape is not part of the right to reproduce, as it is generally understood. Rape is also in tension with other rights, such as the right to free association. > "... absolute rights are a god given thing and period" Humans created all the gods. Therefore humans can create human rights. > "Could you still come up with the same ideas if you were the only human on earth?" Human rights guide how humans should be treated. If I were the only human on earth, there would be no need for the moral philosophy of human rights, just like there would be no need for thespian, oratory, or square dancing knowledge. I doubt I would be clever enough to come up with those ideas on my own.