BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Poll - Birth control

I am intrigued by the issue of the 'right' to reproduce. I feel that it is a right but it is hard to say why. Perhaps it is because the children you bear are your own responsibility. And although our children may affect the world in some ways, so do we as the parents. And most people will agree that all humans have the right to live as long as we aren't severely harming others. So I would say that we have the right to exist ourselves, the right to produce children but not the right to abuse our children.

If we could come up with some criteria that would ensure that only non-abusive people could have children, that would be great! But how could we do this? I thought maybe people should be required to take a parenting class. But what techniques would be identified as the "right" techniques? And how could we make sure that people would really adhere to the chosen techniques? Any ideas?

I think most people would agree with the maxim that one person�s personal rights stop at the point where they encroach on the rights of another.
If there are such things as �rights of the unborn,� then I think they should include at least the right not be born into obviously neglectful, abusive, or otherwise harmful circumstances.
It�s very easy to criticize proposals like this by asking �How do we know what�s right?� The admitted fact that perfect solutions aren�t known is then used to suggest that no solution can be found. This is a fallacy. I think that it�s quite possible for society to arrive at a consensus on minimal conditions of life that should be required for every new person and also conditions of life that should be unacceptable.
For example, victims of child abuse, however pitiable they may be, should not be allowed to have children of their own, because the incidence of abuse of their own children is quite high. There�s no disagreement about this among authorities on child rearing and psychology.
. Many will say that this is �unfair�, but the relevant question is, �Unfair to whom?� The unborn child has primary claim on fairness, not the potential parents. With overpopulation a looming threat, there�s no argument that society needs additional people, so there�s no compelling reason to impose an elevated risk of abuse on an unborn child.
This might be a good topic for a new thread: what conditions should society impose on the birth of children? I�m willing to admit that appropriate conditions are debatable. I don�t agree that none is acceptable.

It is a slippery slope, isn't it? There are some who say raising a child with a dogmatic religion is abuse -- that threat of hell if they are bad, guilt (Jesus died for YOUR sins) and so forth. There are others who say that raising a child WITHOUT religion is abuse or neglect... and, in their view, they are correct. (I disagree, obviously, since I was raised w/out religion, and have raised my son without.)

With a few rare exceptions, I doubt we will be able to identify potential abusers ahead of time. Even though children who were abused are more likely to abuse, they are not inevitable abusers. I have met some wonderful parents who were abused as children -- and determined not to put their child(ren) through that!

Offering classes is good -- mandating them won't work. There are some who would opt out of using medical care for pregnancy and delivery to stay off the radar, to avoid those classes. And, honestly, there is intellectual knowledge and practical knowledge. Two different animals. I know what I SHOULD eat to be healthy, but I don't always practice it. I know I SHOULD get a good night's sleep each night, but rarely seem to manage the trick.

Add to that the fact that no two babies are exactly alike. Before my son was born, I read pretty much all the books out there. I can only assume he read them, too, in order to do something totally different. He didn't fit those neat little categories. I had to adapt to fit my child. Some children respond well to one approach, others to another. And, to be honest, I doubt all parents will remember the details of what to do 2-3 years later, when the parenting gets trickier. (Probably all that sleep deprivation from that first year....)

I want to see all children born to parents who will love and cherish them, guide them, etc. -- just not sure there is a viable way to ensure that.

Ms A -
In general your post represents the current trend to criticize proposals because they're not perfect. Since no realistic plan is ever perfect, this becomes a justification for doing nothing. I don't accept that. Just because we can't "ensure" that children are born to parents who will love and cherish them doesn't mean that we can't take steps to make it more likely.

Regarding child abuse, for example, it isn't necessary to identify inevitable abusers. We only need to ascertain that people who've been abused are significantly more likely to abuse their own children. At some level of probability society can agree that it's not fair to impose the extra risk on the unborn. (Note: to avoid the distraction of the abortion issue, by "unborn" I mean not yet conceived.)

As for those who would conceal pregnancy - e.g.: by forgoing prenatal care - this is just another rationalization for inaction. Do we stop requiring drivers' licenses, because some people will flaut the law and drive without one? No!

I am intrigued by the issue of the 'right' to reproduce. I feel that it is a right but it is hard to say why. Perhaps it is because the children you bear are your own responsibility. And although our children may affect the world in some ways, so do we as the parents. And most people will agree that all humans have the right to live as long as we aren't severely harming others. So I would say that we have the right to exist ourselves, the right to produce children but not the right to abuse our children.

If we could come up with some criteria that would ensure that only non-abusive people could have children, that would be great! But how could we do this? I thought maybe people should be required to take a parenting class. But what techniques would be identified as the "right" techniques? And how could we make sure that people would really adhere to the chosen techniques? Any ideas?

In response to this: I am currently on birth control so I don't become a parent before I am ready, but when that time comes, I don't want prenatal care or parenting classes mandated for my spouse and I, I believe that we will be good parents without outsiders messing in our personal business and telling us how to be parents. My body, my choice, not the choice or right of people who don't even know me. Don't like that, fine, but don't start.

Interesting viewpoint. I agree that in general, everyone should have absolute control over her own body, her own choices, her own actions, as long as these don't encroach on the rights of others.

In that regard, to whom does the body and well-being of your potential child belong?

To you?

Or to the child?

It seems to me that what you're claiming - your "personal business" - isn't really yours. It belongs to your child. What gives you the right to so much control over another human being?

Just asking.

Keaghry -

After writing an off-the-cuff response to your post I've had second thoughts, although not about about the basic principle. I still don�t think that parents should have carte blanche to do with their children as they see fit; there are too many wierdos out there, too many stupid and/or uninformed people and kids suffer for it.

At the same time, I sympathize with your reaction to official intrusion. Right wing religious fanatic, James Dobson sets himself forth as an expert on child rearing; yet, when you read his books, you discover he knows next to nothing about how to raise children appropriately. He�s a petty martinet, who wants to create obedient little automatons. He doesn�t even know how to train dogs effectively! What guarantee is there that government agencies will be any more competent than Dobson? Hell, they might be Dobson! What if there were a requirement to indoctrinate children into some religious cult? Like you, I�d fight like crazy against that!


My wife and I raised our kids according to our own lights and they�ve turned out great. But my wife has degrees in psychology and sociology and worked for years in child protective services, while I did research in behavioral biology. We weren�t unprepared. Is there anything wrong with requiring prospective parents to at least understand the principles involved in communicating with children or managing their behavior without physical or psychological violence? To me that seems like a reasonable demand.

Obviously I find this a tough question, since I have strong opinions on both sides of it; but isn�t that a characteristic of most important social issues? If I must sacrifice some of my own autonomy to prevent incompetent or deranged parents from torturing or otherwise ruining their children, so be it. The question is, how much? I certainly can�t agree with your categorical rejection of the idea.

The problem that I see is too much governmental regulation. Let me give a little background, so you can understand where I'm coming from. We have homeschooled our son for several years -- it was a necessity for him to grow appropriately for him. During these years that we have been homeschooling, I have become aware in a different way of what it is and isn't -- and have seen a number of articles calling for more governmental regulation of homeschoolers, because there MIGHT be abuse in some cases. At least one of these supposed homeschool abuse cases was NOT a homeschooling issue at all. The parents were not in compliance with their state's regulations for homeschool -- I believe they were required to register, and hadn't, just kept the kids home. They were public school kids -- and the fact that the abuse had begun while they were in the government schools seems to be ignored. Homeschooling didn't cause the abuse, homeschooling didn't allow the abuse to happen -- because they were not homeschooling. Not even nominally.

Yet there are many who want more government red tape for homeschoolers -- who, by and large, are doing what they feel is in their child's best interests, while not commenting on the abuse cases that happen (and they do) to children who ARE in the regulatory eye, if you will. If currently we are unable to discover the abuse that is happening with children who attend school regularly (and fwiw, I'm not anti-school, though I think there needs some serious revamping; I view it as necessary in a modern society) -- why on earth would we assume the government will do any better with greater latitude? As it is, I am concerned about our countries eroding civil liberties. Big Brother is watching and listening far too readily. It isn't that I have anything to say that they would care about -- it's the fact that the law has been disregarded. I do not wish to live in a totalitarian state.

I think the best hope for change is in societal attitudes, deep in a core of belief. Just as with drunk driving -- it still happens, but it happens less, because attitude has changed. Ditto smoking. The trick is to get movies, shows, etc. to show the benefits of a smaller family within the greater plot of the show, to show people making those tough decisions to not have a child if they think they might be abusive... or at least, to get counseling to help them learn better behavior patterns.

Of course, we are hard-wired to love cute, cuddly babies on sight -- those big eyes and all. Wonderful mechanism to encourage us to care for them until they are able to care for themselves!

Keaghry -- I hear what you're saying about not wanting to take parenting classes. I wouldn't want to either. And I'm not saying I'm definitely in favor of it and even if I were, I don't know what kind of content the classes should have. I was hoping that some others would have input that would lead us to a good solution.

To all: I think it is sad that good and competent people must deal with those that are not good and are incompetent every day. My daughter just hates it that she has to spend so much time in public school learning about how harmful drugs and drinking are when she is not interested in that. She hates it that there are no free periods during the day because some kids can't handle the free time without misbehavior. She hates it that she has to take a separate driver safety class just so she can park on the school parking lot when she is an excellent driver because many other kids drive recklessly. All I can say to her is this: If that's what it takes to keep the others under control, then maybe it is worth it because you could be the next victim of their bad behavior.

So maybe it is likewise with the child abuse issue and even with crime in general. If it would make the world a better place, maybe it is worth it even if it would be a pain in the neck for those of us who don't need such classes.

I'm not saying this is the solution. I agree with Ms A -- I'm not big on governmental intrusion and all the red tape it creates. But I would like to toss around this idea and see what others have to add to this discussion. Who knows -- maybe if we came up with a good idea it would be worth fighting for! And if not, at least we would know why we decided to leave things as they are.

You know, Diana, your daughter's problems at school touch on a totally different topic near and dear to my heart -- or perhaps, two, really. One is the idea of a major overhaul of the educational system, and the other -- which seems to impinge on every aspect of life -- is personal responsibility.

More and more, people seem to be abdicating a sense of responsibility, and the effect in the schools has been disasterous. The parents tend to say, "Oh, I don't need to teach them values, or about drugs or sex, because they will get that in school." So the schools end up having to provide much of what the parents should be doing. (Not saying that there should be NO education on these subjects in school, but certainly the parents should be educating their children in those areas all along, as an ongoing discussion, if you will.) Behavior problems? Oh, the school has special ed people and are trained for that. Etc. And then there are parents who think that their child should be allowed to do what they want, so the teachers have little to no recourse.

And in the political/celebrity scene, it is the same lack of responsibility. Did something wrong? Oops -- sorry. (Without really being sorry, or offering restitution.)

And then there is the misguided concept that we need to boost self-esteem to prevent bullying -- a concept not upheld by studies. (Bullies tend to have great self-esteem.) So awards are given to ALL children, regardless of effort -- so the kids who actually put in effort feel their efforts are worthless. I've heard of kids NOT getting recognition for their hard work, because "it might make the other children feel badly for themselves."

Hm... personal responsibility is at the root of having more children than you can handle, to bring it back to the topic. How many people have more children than they can financially and emotionally raise?

I'm overweight -- and it isn't because McDonald's sells fattening food, or because commercials drive me to eat, or because of a gene (though we do have a genetic tendency to hang on to the fat in case of famine) or whatever. I'm overweight because I put too much food (usually chocolate!) into my mouth, chewed it and swallowed it. I really can't blame anyone else, and saying "I'm sorry" won't change a thing.

I hate the way the schools have gone in a direction that seems to be detrimental to kids. When I lived in FL, they took away recess from the elementary school kids to have more time for FCAT test prep! I wish your daughter was able to have free periods -- always was a good time to get some of that homework out of the way when I was in school.