Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!husc6!harvard!panda!teddy!mxc
From: mxc@teddy.UUCP (Marc Campos)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Population control
Message-ID: <3053@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Aug-86 13:57:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: teddy.3053
Posted: Tue Aug 19 13:57:02 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Aug-86 04:27:21 EDT
References: <487@meccts.UUCP> <549@gargoyle.UUCP>
Reply-To: mxc@teddy.UUCP (Marc Campos)
Followup-To: net.politics
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 49
Xref: watmath net.politics:18448 net.sci:1528

In article <549@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>[Michael Stein]
>>To say that the government has a right to interfere in such a personal
>>choice, such as the choice to have children, is abhorrent.  
>
>Since you do not provide any argument in support of this view, your
>statement is mere name-calling.  Responsible people, in discussing
>such an important issue, will want to do more than simply label
>opposing views as "abhorrent".

But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other peoples'
lives as a reasonable alternative.  It *is* abhorrent to interfere with
such a personal choice because the individual's right to lead his own
life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not belong to the
state.  And unless you can point out solid reasons why some peoples'
having children directly and forcibly harms other people, you don't have
a moral case.

>>Authoritarian governments have never had this disposition against the
>>government controlling such decisions.  The Chinese today practise
>>forced abortions and infantcide... The view that coercive population
>>control is a right of the state is not a view that is very compatible
>>with a free society.  
>
>Brilliant argument, Michael.  Some bad governments do it, sometimes
>in bad ways, therefore it's intrinsically bad.  But the view that
>everyone should be allowed to have as many children as they want,
>with no attempt to use government to influence or control the
>population level, is not a view that is very compatible with a good
>life for future generations of humanity.

Well, how do you propose to enforce coercive population control?  Since
you've already stated that the state has the moral right to control the
lives of others, what's wrong with the way "bad" governments are doing
it?  If you concede that the state has the right to control a couple's
reproductive choices, then it's a small step to say that the state has
the right to force the issue with an abortion or infantcide.

Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present*
generation of humanity.  Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my
freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious
arguments that you've cited.  Such population gloom-and-doom scenarios
neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as their standard
of living increases, that the Earth still has plenty of resources and
can feed its inhabitants, and that this is not the only place to live in
the universe.
-- 
Marc Campos, GenRad Inc.			{decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!mxc
Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 USA	 (617) 369-4400 x2336