• TORFdot0@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Being able to have children is a fundamental human right. It’s the whole reason we exist according to biology. Restrictions on that right, no matter how well intentioned, is effectively genocide. Especially when considering how authorities have tried to wield that power in the past

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The whole reason life exists at all in the universe is to propagate

        Edit: this isn’t to say that individuals should have to have children or that anyone is living life unfulfilled by not having children. Just that biologically it’s the purpose of life not the existential “purpose” of life

        • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why do you think that’s the whole reason we exist? I don’t care if you’re atheist or super religious (they seem to intersect here), but what if there isn’t a purpose? Maybe it’s just the environment playing out.

          Edit: I’m not attacking your position, I’m just wondering why you think that? It’s odd to me.

          Edit 2: I think I have to explain this a little further, viruses, bacteria, cancer cells, all want to propagate, which kind of makes your point. Idk, it’s a weird thing to consider.

          • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know if you caught my edit or not, but I was just defining having children as the biological purpose of life rather than the existential purpose. Philosophically the purpose of life is up to the individual.

            • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s an interesting way to think about it and I think I agree, not positive yet. It’s so close to quiverfull that I was immediately saying no, but you may be right. But it makes it seem like life has an intention then, that evolution is an intention. All too early for me to be this philosophical, lol.

              • Chuymatt@artemis.camp
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you think of it as biological beings and not separating us out as humans, then it is clearer to think about. Like bacteria, we are driven to reproduce, as a species.

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Genocide of who? We are not talking about a race, religion, or anything. It would be viewed more of population control and if anything a take on selective breeding, or artificial selection. At worse it would be Eugenics by choice, or finding a superior mate to have children with. That already occurs with artificial insemination in the United States.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Genocide of whatever group of undesirables in the population are denied the right to have children. Involuntary sterilization or removal of children without chance at reunification fits the definition of destroying that particular group. It was attempted on native populations in this very country as recent as a 100 years ago.

        If it happened then it can happen again. Heck it’s happening now to migrants

        • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if the group are severely mentally disabled that got kids together in the assisted living facility they live in? Should the staff working there assist them by caring for a child they’re simply incapable of taking care of themselves? Generally they want to keep the kid too and don’t opt for adoption at birth.

          • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Staff in group homes shouldn’t have to parent those kids. I think that this is where the nuance of the family court system should step in. If the parents are shown unable to care for the child then the court removed them and places them with a foster parent with an improvement plan for the birth parents with an end goal of reunification.

            I agree that in an edge cases like this that there is not a good outcome, but the other side of an edge case like that is the system involuntarily sterilizing or removing children of individuals that are fit to parent because of bias/abuse by the system.

            You can show that someone is unfit to parent and take action via the court with facts but preemptively doing so or preventing it with involuntary sterilization are violations of human rights in my view.

            • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Absolutely, I just wanted to challenge your black and white statement.

              The world is a gray place.

              I also 100% agree that involuntary sterilization has no place in a modern humane society, even if it leads to people who have no ability to care for kids having kids. Because no medical intervention is without risk and incontinence, ED or worse side effects are not worth to even risk. And because of that we will always need foster homes.

              Courts consist of people and people aren’t infallible, so we’ll always need newspapers and journalists calling them out when shit goes wrong. Checks and balances are needed at every level of human society. And nothing will ever work perfectly.

              Another good thing to keep in mind is that there very rarely are true bad guys out there. The foster parents love and care for that kid and fight to keep it, the bio-parent does as well and the lawyers, judges and jurors try to uphold the law and by extension the fabric of our society. Some have their set interpretation (which you and I might disagree with) of what the law means, sure, but that’s mainly because the law was written by humans in human language which just isn’t ever going to be perfect, if it was we wouldn’t really even need the court system.

            • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The fourteenth amendment wouldn’t allow for anything more than ensuring people are fit to be patents. Now if you were wanting to have ten kids, it would be restrictive if you lack the financial background to afford it. For most situations you could have two kids with no worry. Waivers for three and four kids. Five or more would require an full review.

              • frickineh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                My guy, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and they were still sterilizing people WAY after that. For being poor, stupid, non-white, not the right kind of white, and so on. I’m very glad you’re not in charge, because you’re either incredibly naive or willfully ignorant about the United States’ fairly recent past. Or you’re evil and pretending not to be, I suppose, but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

          • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see it that way at all. I am 100% ok with children being sent to a foster home at birth if drugs are found in their system. Or removing kids from homes for any sort of reason that keeps the parents from being able to care for their kids. I’m not against the family court system or removing children from the home. The system is broken but it’s not useless. And parents usually have recourse to be reunited with their children if later found to be fit parents.

            What I’m not OK with is the government saying who is and who isn’t allowed to reproduce and backing it up with forced sterilization or abortion because I don’t trust the government to use that power equally or responsibly. I’m also not ok with children being removed with no path to reunification with the parents. That kind of power along with an unscrupulous government is what leads to genocide.

            • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              forced sterilization or abortion

              It would be huge fines / jail for both DNA donors and the child would be removed from the home. Contraceptives would be free to the public. The fourteenth amendment protects against the threat of force sterilization or abortion. I get you think it would be missed, but in reality it would make coupling more difficult with women choosing quality mates with higher education and well paying careers. It would change the culture for the better. The worst part about it is that you would be under a contract to raise the child. That doesn’t mean marriage though, just that two DNA donors must agree to support that child until adulthood.

              • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into this system, I appreciate that. How do we reconcile the fact that contraceptives aren’t 100% effective and an individual can become pregnant through no fault of their despite using protection. I don’t think you can make consensual sex between two people individuals subject to fines. Nor do I think it’s fair to take the child from the parent in this kind of scenario either.

                • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The simple answer is there will always be a waiver process.

                  Let me walk you through the proposed process.

                  1. A couple apply for a parental license. The license allows for two children by both DNA donors.

                  2. A background check for criminal activity and a drug and blood test is done to check for contamination and health. The blood test is saved to confirm upon birth that the submitted DNA matches the license.

                  3. Upon approval the couple are allocated a license for two children. A financial statement on the license requires support until adulthood by both DNA donors.

                  4. If a accidental pregnancy occurs you would have until the delivery date to secure a license or waiver.

                  5. If a license is not granted there would be a legal appeal process to grant the license and to ensure the denial is Consitutional.

                  6. If a child is born without a license, that child will be turned over to foster care until a license is granted. A review would be held if the DNA donors acted wrecklessly and if the intent would require a fine or jail time (rape for example).

                  • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What about adoptive parents? What about single parents? egg and sperm donors? Do people who lose their jobs lose their families? As if employers need more power over workers. What about people who want more than 2 children?

                    By the way you know the population replacement rate in developed nations is 2.1 children per woman right? How can you plan POSSIBLY maintain a population? Do we just have less and less people until we’re extinct?

                    This is quite possibly the dumbest idea I’ve ever run into. You put so much effort and yet so little thought into this hare brained idea I’m frankly flabbergasted.

                    If you’re like a kid or something then good thought experiment. Maybe take some time to learn a bit more about the world around you when you come up with ideas.

                    • Ask yourself why your idea ISN’T already implemented?
                    • Is it only possible due to a modern development?
                    • Is there some fundamental aspect of human nature that’s preventing your idea from having already been implemented?
                    • Who makes the policy decisions?
                    • Is there a way to implement your idea without putting too much power in the hands of too few?
                    • Is your implementation overly sensitive to corruption?
                    • How will you deal with people who disagree?
                    • How will you deal with people who break the rules?
                    • Is the punishment/control more damaging to society than the problem you’re trying to fix?
                    • How will you deal with people who don’t fit into your framework of who constitutes a suitable family?
                    • If you gave the general idea to someone else for implementation can you trust that they will implement it fairly and according to your vision or do you personally have to be in charge for this to work in a fair manner?
                    • Do you think your idea of fair is more valid than someone else’s?

                    These types of questions will help you flesh out good ideas and avoid the common pitfalls to bad ones.