(Well, actually
it is, but we won't go there.)
On a
previous thread I was said to be an exemplar of the libertarian obsession with property rights, my property rights in particular. Maybe, maybe not, but let's pretend it's not all about property for a bit. I'd like to quote one of my favorite bloggers,
Will Grigg. This particular piece is about
(
Read more... )
If it ever became a valid threat to the greater good to breed excessively, it should be regulated because the act in question is then an infringement on the rights of others - the rights of all versus the right of the individual to procreate as s/he sees fit.
And what of those who have proven themselves to be unfit parents?
Do as you like, so long as you harm no other.
In the absence of such factors though, yes, such a thing would be an infringement of the individuals right to self ownership at the very least.
Reply
We all know how libertarians feel about that concept.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yep. There.
But if a situation occurred where further breeding became a direct threat to others (limited resources, etc) , the group would be entirely within their rights to defend themselves by pre-empting that individual right for the duration of the crisis.
Or, more plausible, if someone had proven themselves unfit (molestation, neglect, abuse, etc), proven themselves to be someone that will harm any child produced and left in their care, it is up to the group to remove existing child from the individuals custody, and ensure that the individual does not create any more innocents to harm. Happens all the time.
So I now have two un-assailable situations in which the right to reproduce can and should be removed and that removal enforced according to your own rules.
Now what?
Reply
Impossible to happen. It is always an indirect threat. Claiming that it is a direct threat is more of a threat to society.
proven themselves to be someone that will harm any child produced and left in their care, it is up to the group to remove existing child from the individuals custody, and ensure that the individual does not create any more innocents to harm.
It's not within the rights of the group to do that preemptively.
Reply
Like black folks, right?
Reply
But you know that's what I mean.
You're just being a douche.
Reply
Reply
*yawn*
Get a new argument.
Reply
Reply
I, Mr. Bogey, as usual, have nothing.
Reply
Reply
I'm saying that there are a few situations when the greater good might require the restriction of the reproductive rights of individuals. One I provided was far fetched, but the other happens daily.
Can't you just have a proper discussion without resorting to sad little tricks? It's embarassing to watch.
Reply
You mentioned contraception but just left it at that. What kind of policy involving contraception would you advocate?
Reply
Leave a comment