Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!.misc!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <117400010@inmet> Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 07:25:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.117400010 Posted: Wed Sep 24 07:25:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:15:50 EDT References: <865@sunybcs.UUCP> Lines: 124 Nf-ID: #R:sunybcs.UUCP:-86500:inmet:117400010:000:5437 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Sep 24 07:25:00 1986 [rdh@sun.UUCP ] >>Procreation rights follow simply from one's right to dispose of one's >>own body. That right is so basic that it must be preserved unless >>you want all other rights to go. Even the less extreme forms of >>slavery respect it. It includes the right to conceive and the right >>not to abort. Together, they form the right to procreate. >Well, Jan, you took the bait. I usually do. >First of all, if childbirth were parthenogenic, then you would be >entirely correct that a right to do so could be logically in- >ferred from one's own rights. HOWEVER, it ISN'T. There are sperm banks. However, this is not essential to my argument. If a man is free to dispose of his, and a woman of her body - that is enough to guarantee conception rights to an agreeing pair. >Therefore you could reasonably conclude that (if it is decided at >all and not just an accident--in this day there is absolutely no >need for such accidents) childbearing comes the result of a JOINT >DECISION BETWEEN two RESPONSIBLE ADULTS. *Hopefully* responsible... >You could reasonably assert that childbearing is a PRIVILEDGE >that adults confer upon one another by association, since it can >be preempted simply by the withdrawal of consent or participation >by one or the other adults before a child comes. Only by *all* adults of the other sex. No one has cornered the sperm or the egg market. But even if *one* particular person's consent is necessary - the "society" involved is a *pair*. >(Afterwards, if they want to back out or can't cut it, it's >everybody's problem, and that includes YOU Jan.) Sure, people can make problems for everyone in many ways... One can fall sick by overeating and burden medical facilities. This does not mean that overeating should be made illegal. John Doe sells short in a bull market, and becomes eligible for foodstamps. The *problem* is the taxpayer's now - but the *right* to sell was Doe's. >If a pair consistently refuses to act in a responsible manner, as >with any privilege in society, So far you only claimed that *one* member of the pair bestows the "privilege" of child-bearing on the other, not "society" on the pair. I prefer to think of it as of two people commonly exercis- ing a *right*. In either case, "society" has no say in this, and can go fly a kite. > steps may have to be taken to limit the damage Not at all. When damage comes from no rights violation, coercive "steps" are impermissible. E.g., X's girlfriend Y finds another boyfriend. The damage to X's ego, his happiness, perhaps his health - perhaps his life - may be tremendous. Yet his *rights* are not violated, and he would not be justified in locking Y up to prevent it happening. >they cause, even though no individual (except perhaps their chil- >dren) can place a specific monetary figure on the damage done to >him. This is why relatives and friends are invited to weddings -- >to assert the community's faith in their judgement, and their >support for the children should disaster strike. And this is why, >perfunctory though it is, you still need a license to get married >(and by implication, have "legitimate" children). That's right: when you need something from relatives or the state or Mrs Grundy that they may legitimately withhold - e.g. their approval - then you may have to pay for it by modifying your behavior. >This also means, Jan, that those two people can entangle you in >their problems, just by having more children than they can sup- >port. Isn't that nice! If you want to preserve your independence, >and not get voted out of your pay, you'd better make sure you let >those adults know that it would be a damn good idea for them to >have only the number of children they can reasonably expect to >support. That's a different problem, and here there is some agreement. The present welfare system is a mess from both your point of view, and mine, and most others. Currently people are paid to have children and to raise them as total misfits. You'd prefer the poor to have fewer children - I'd rather have the kids (few or many) raised reasonably - which would *also* reduce the burden on "society". Either goal can be pursued by coercive *or* non-coercive means. >If slave holders don't restrict childbirth amongst slaves, that's >probably because they view the children as an "economic resource" >in a much less abstract fashion than I think you mean by the >words. Which creates an incentive for them to *breed* slaves coercively. "Less extreme" forms of slavery don't do that - to their credit. Neither do they practice castration, though eunuchs can be an "economic resource". >Knowing how you react to the idea of slavery, I'd suggest your >rethink your view of unrestricted population growth. People can >be enslaved much more readily when demand for basic life-support >far exceeds supply. Keep your mind open and keep thinking about >it. I appreciate your restrained and constructive style. However, the two questions - is population growth good or bad, and is coercive regulation of it permissible - are orthogonal. All four combinations of the answers are possible. As for thinking and reading on the subject, I am doing that. Let me tentatively recommend The Ultimate Resource by Julian L. Simon. I've only just bought it, but it seems good. Jan Wasilewsky