5 ms·

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
    This is getting out of hand. The original point was that reproduction is a natural right. In the given context I interpreted that to mean that there is a right to reproduction we can not interfere with in the same way as we have to take the laws of physics as given. I opposed that by stating that rights including human rights are a manmade thing. I am not sure whether you intended it this way but in my view your comment supports that position because you are mentioning pretty recent conventions, tensions between rights and so on. I see nothing in your comment that is incompatible with imposing restrictions on reproduction if this is deemed necessary to sustain a healthy human society. And I didn't want to discuss animal rights and the other things I mentioned, I only wanted to provoke some thoughts about related things in the hope to inspire the insight that rights are very different from physical laws insofar that we humans make them up to achieve behaviors and outcomes we deem desirable, that they are not given eternal truths.
    - dalke 11y ago
      "In the given context I interpreted that to mean that there is a right to reproduction we can not interfere with" Exactly. And no one with experience on the topic means that when they talk about natural rights, so you are misinterpreting qrendel's statement "Reproduction is a natural right."
      - danbruc 11y ago
        But he obviously must understand it in this way, maybe not as unmovable as the laws of physics but at least in the way that we can not or should not interfere with the right to reproduce in order to prevent overpopulation. Otherwise it makes no sense to point to the right as an argument against controlling reproduction.
        dalke 11y ago
        qrendel is clearly wrong about genetics as the timescale isn't long enough evolutionary changes to take place. Only 2-3 generations back, it wasn't uncommon in the US to have 8+ children, so clearly cultural effects are much stronger than inheritable genetic factors. See also the one child policy in China as a example of how the timescale is too short for evolutionary feedback. qrendel is clearly wrong about population dynamics, as 'greater base of working-age citizens to support the non-working portion (retired, children)' only applies for an exponentially growing population, which must stop at some point, for clearly physical reasons like the Sun not providing enough energy. qrendel also prefers city life, as seen in the assumption that the presence of more people means that those with uncommon interests "will be able to form communities of people with similar interests". This view excludes those who want to go for long walks alone on the beach, or hate living where they can see the lights of their neighbors, or want the local ecosystem to continue to support wildlife that does poorly around dense human habitation. As qrendel does not believe there is resource scarcity, than that's only because qrendel does not regard things like '5 million wild buffalo freely roaming the US plains' or 'ability to see the Milky Way in the night sky' as resources. These are certainly not critical to what's needed for the human body to survive, but survival is only the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Despite those wrong statements, and incorrect generalization, I cannot tell from what qrendel wrote if "natural right" is used as something other than how it's generally used. However, it is possible to have both reproductive rights and a stable population, as we see in many of the countries which are below the replacement level of fertility, so these are not in direct opposition. When you said 'Reproduction is not a natural right', I think you meant to say 'population growth to resource limits is not a natural right'. I and (it appears) ryanwaggoner were thrown off by your use of qrendel's phrase with your interpretation of what qrendel meant.

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
  This is getting out of hand. The original point was that reproduction is a natural right. In the given context I interpreted that to mean that there is a right to reproduction we can not interfere with in the same way as we have to take the laws of physics as given. I opposed that by stating that rights including human rights are a manmade thing. I am not sure whether you intended it this way but in my view your comment supports that position because you are mentioning pretty recent conventions, tensions between rights and so on. I see nothing in your comment that is incompatible with imposing restrictions on reproduction if this is deemed necessary to sustain a healthy human society. And I didn't want to discuss animal rights and the other things I mentioned, I only wanted to provoke some thoughts about related things in the hope to inspire the insight that rights are very different from physical laws insofar that we humans make them up to achieve behaviors and outcomes we deem desirable, that they are not given eternal truths.
  - dalke 11y ago
    "In the given context I interpreted that to mean that there is a right to reproduction we can not interfere with" Exactly. And no one with experience on the topic means that when they talk about natural rights, so you are misinterpreting qrendel's statement "Reproduction is a natural right."
    - danbruc 11y ago
      But he obviously must understand it in this way, maybe not as unmovable as the laws of physics but at least in the way that we can not or should not interfere with the right to reproduce in order to prevent overpopulation. Otherwise it makes no sense to point to the right as an argument against controlling reproduction.
      - dalke 11y ago
        qrendel is clearly wrong about genetics as the timescale isn't long enough evolutionary changes to take place. Only 2-3 generations back, it wasn't uncommon in the US to have 8+ children, so clearly cultural effects are much stronger than inheritable genetic factors. See also the one child policy in China as a example of how the timescale is too short for evolutionary feedback. qrendel is clearly wrong about population dynamics, as 'greater base of working-age citizens to support the non-working portion (retired, children)' only applies for an exponentially growing population, which must stop at some point, for clearly physical reasons like the Sun not providing enough energy. qrendel also prefers city life, as seen in the assumption that the presence of more people means that those with uncommon interests "will be able to form communities of people with similar interests". This view excludes those who want to go for long walks alone on the beach, or hate living where they can see the lights of their neighbors, or want the local ecosystem to continue to support wildlife that does poorly around dense human habitation. As qrendel does not believe there is resource scarcity, than that's only because qrendel does not regard things like '5 million wild buffalo freely roaming the US plains' or 'ability to see the Milky Way in the night sky' as resources. These are certainly not critical to what's needed for the human body to survive, but survival is only the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Despite those wrong statements, and incorrect generalization, I cannot tell from what qrendel wrote if "natural right" is used as something other than how it's generally used. However, it is possible to have both reproductive rights and a stable population, as we see in many of the countries which are below the replacement level of fertility, so these are not in direct opposition. When you said 'Reproduction is not a natural right', I think you meant to say 'population growth to resource limits is not a natural right'. I and (it appears) ryanwaggoner were thrown off by your use of qrendel's phrase with your interpretation of what qrendel meant.