Do People Have a Right to Procreate?

Post Reply New Topic

This is purely theoretical. In the not so distance future perhaps people might need to show genetic desirability, predisposition to good health, intelligence, parents able to provide for the child, stable parental relationship, etc. in order to go ahead with a pregnancy. But is there an inalienable right to procreate, do we have a right to have children. I don't actually want any, but I am aware that others do and am wondering what people think.

In order for Homo sapiens sapiens to continue as a species, we must procreate.

I believe people have a right NOT to procreate, as well as a right to do so.

I do believe there should be a sincere regard for a person when procreating. I don't want to make love to someone just for a biological purpose.

Also: Eugenics is garbage, garbage, garbage.

Many people have come from so-called "poor stock," and made an excellent life for themselves.

No one has any rights and everyone has every right.

We all have the right to procreate, but not all of us have been granted the privilege.

Of course we do. Show me a proponent of State-enforced population control, and I'll show you someone willing to trample on human rights for political gain.

The only one I know of is China. And of course they have a lousy human rights record. I think there are fictional accounts of such a system. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale comes to mind.
But if resources decline and the population grows it may be something that is considered.

As only women have pregnancies, this is a misogynistic statement.
And what if a woman becomes pregnant without "permission"? Would you propose strapping her down and forcing an abortion on her?
Or, how about we chop the nuts off any man who can't prove his worth?

As resources and space grow more scarce and the price of raising a child rises, market forces (to the degree that economic sanity remains in modern society) will take care of that without need for dictatorial concessions of liberty for some supposed "greater good", the nebulous god of socialism.

This would be for the good of society, so a individual's potential for an excellent life would be irrelevant.


I'm not sure I understand ... I was envisioning a nuclear family, but there are other possibilities.


Implementation would be unpleasant for those who want children but can't get approved. I imagine they would try to have children anyway.



So I'm sensing that pretty much everyone is against this idea. But I'm wondering why. What is it that makes the right to procreate so fundamental?

how do we have the right to do so? we all have the ability to do something doesn't mean we have the right to risk another sentience live, welfare, happiness etc. for our own selfish reasons.(including continuing humanity) also time is irreverent in a crime or unethical action if something creates a victim, it doesn't matter how long it takes to create it. I'm a stern anti-natalist but I know most people wouldn't adopt it and it'd be hard to actually cure the world of this plague.

that's a huge leap. yes on the second one no one deserves to impose a divisibility or suffering on another human. you can't just throw words around like when they have no place in the conversation it makes your argument sound innane at best.

that's another huge huge leap, one is protecting the rights of a child to not endure a suffering that can be avoided and the other one is imposing painful mutilation of a man this is a false equivalence.

aborted a child who can have intense disabilities against someones will =/= removing someones reproductive rights all together or mutilating their body.


then also to call that misgony is as innane as if someone told a man "to call out the violation of a person's bodily autonomy aka rape/sexual assault is acceptable and if you disagree you are a misandrist." the rights of the child who could go through immense pain and suffering much like the bodily autonomity of a stranger comes first over the persons sexual desires just like a childs rights to have their consent not be violated comes over the persons "right" to feel acomplished, successfull happy or any other emotion that comes from having birth. someones satifaction is not worth the risk imposed on another human being imo.

Last edited by personal_box on 14 Nov 2014, 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is so fundamental because it has to do with who and what we fundamentally are. Telling people not to procreate is like telling them not to produce estrogen, testosterone, oxytocin, norepenephrine, cortisol, vasopressin, serotonin, and dopamine in their brains (noticed that I've mentioned quite a few sexual chemicals to emphasize how many there are). Also it is telling them to not produce androstenone, androstenol, and androstadienone just to name a few which function as aphrodisiac pheromones, working on both the mind and body (androstenol, for example, raises a male's heart rate). Or why don't we cut out everyone's septum pellucidium and hypothalamus out of their heads while we're at it? Unless there is an exception involved pretty much every person is inherently sexual, because of what their bodies were naturally developed to do. We can't ask them to suddenly stop being human beings.



Love is also an original basis of human society:



Because love is not only a part of what we are, that can't be removed short of extracting brain tissue, but it is necessary to foster cooperative instincts and thus a cog wheel of society, we cannot underestimate the value of human bonding through sex.

Last edited by Lukecash12 on 14 Nov 2014, 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

so your argument is that we have the compulsion to do an act from chemicals and the ability to do so therefore it's acceptable regardless of the knowledge, information and arguments against said act as a violation of another sentence's consent? correct his if you find it to be taking your argument the wrong way or strawmanning it but its what I took it as so far.

I didn't mean that people would stop having sex.

10/10
no one is arguing people can't do what they want with their body its an argument about a childs body and if bringing someone into the world with out their consent to play the game in which we are playing is a human rights violation.

reasoning purely from the survival of the human species; some people should have the task to *not* procreate.
also, take a note of the "darwin awards", a nobel price for people that did the world a favour by removing their genes from the pool (like the vegan that walked into a lions den in a zoo, covered in ketchup, to prove that no creature is a carnivore by nature. needless to say: his experiment failed)