Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!rdh From: rdh@sun.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom Message-ID: <7322@sun.uucp> Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 14:41:54 EDT Article-I.D.: sun.7322 Posted: Tue Sep 16 14:41:54 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Sep-86 23:28:59 EDT References: <11700397@inmet> <561@gargoyle.UUCP> Reply-To: rdh@sun.UUCP (Robert Hartman) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 55 >[janw] >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. First of all, if childbirth were parthenogenic, then you would be entirely correct that a right to do so could be logically inferred from one's own rights. HOWEVER, it ISN'T. 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. The decision, which is irrevocable, implies a very large commitment on their parts, and society's part to back them up -- because, as you point out, once born the child has rights that must be honored by society. 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. (Afterwards, if they want to back out or can't cut it, it's everybody's problem, and that includes YOU Jan.) You could say that each consenting (there's that word again) adult has the responsibility to make sure that both he or she AND THE OTHER PERSON are prepared to live up to the commitment it entails. If a pair consistently refuses to act in a responsible manner, as with any privilege in society, steps may have to be taken to limit the damage they cause, even though no individual (except perhaps their children) 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). This also means, Jan, that those two people can entangle you in their problems, just by having more children than they can support. 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. Hopefully your policy would provide some direct consequences for them if they unreasonably insist on doing otherwise. 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. 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. -bob.