Procreation Is Not a Right
Introduction
Society's ills will never be corrected by attacking the symptoms, which is the path taken by many, from politicians to charitable organizations. To solve the world's problems, we need to attack the root causes. Religion is one such cause, as is overpopulation. Related to overpopulation is the idea that people should have the right to procreate according to their desires. Besides overpopulation, this right creates other problems, the primary of which is an inability to tackle the number one root cause of humanity's troubles--human nature itself. Below are examples of how society has been harmed by allowing people to procreate at will.
November 18, 2009
'Precious' Character Is Reality For Some Girls
...but it doesn't have to be. First thing, let me say that I have not seen the film, but given that neither abortion nor adoption were mentioned in any of the reports I have heard, I think there is a good chance that neither of these two options are advocated by the film.
Regulation procreation is an emotionally explosive subject at best, taboo at worst. Many people demonstrate an emotionally and intellectual incapacity to even consider the subject rational. They often overlook the fact that here in the United States, procreation is in fact subject to regulation, if one extends the definition of procreation to include the raising of children. Although no women is forced to abort a child in this country, state governments do remove children from their parents.
I think few people would argue that a parent who physically beats a child should lose his parental rights. Unfortunately, the same people who would support removing a child from an abusive situation would shun the idea of preventing that child from being born into abuse to begin with.
Rational action is based on probability, not possibility. While it is possible for a person to drive while intoxicated without causing any harm, most societies prohibit this activity because it is probable that it will cause harm. It is similarly probably that harm will result when children are born into certain conditions. For example, a quick google of terms like "children born teenage mothers poverty rate" produces articles such as this one (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/news.aspx?id=472711fe-6c23-4674-af23-98e0ee87454b).
If credible science shows that a child born to an unwed teenage mother without a high school diploman is nine times more likely to live in poverty, and if we have before us 100 such pregnant teenagers, then by making the conscious decision to allow those females to birth and raise those children, we are making the decision to condemn a certain percentage of those children to poverty. Most people will want to assign the brunt of responsibility to the teenagers, but that is like blaming a dog for birthing an unwanted litter of puppies. Humans are animals, and in the absence of education and other factors, humans will act exactly like animals and reproduce like animals. Just as we humans take responsibility for preventing dogs and cats from having unwanted offspring, it is the responsibility of those with the education and the power to prevent procreation by those who simply don't know any better.
We have the power to prevent countless girls from having to grow up like Precious, but we as a society have to transcend the emotional and psychological barriers that prevent us from saving others from the suffering that Precious had to endure.
September 14, 2009
Poverty in America
If you actually listen to the whole report, I point out one thing that is never stated. As bad as poverty is today, in 20 years, it is likely to be as bad or worse given the history of humanity so far. However, the poverty that will exist in a generation can be decimated by realizing that poverty starts with childbirth and then taking logical action.
I'm too tired to rant, so I'll keep this short. There is a caller towards the end (at timepoint 39:30 in the podcast), a single mother named Mary who elicits sympathy from the host with her sob story about not getting callbacks on interviews and not being able to pay the rent for herself and her three children. Fuck Mary. She doesn't deserve sympathy. She claims to be educated, and if that is true, then she bears the brunt of the blame for having had three children with having first secured $1.5 million ($500 grand per child, an estimate based on a calculator at babycenter.com). Assuming the children are under 18, she must have had then after 1992, and any supposedly educated person at that time should have been able to predict that it is getting harder and harder for most people to earn a living for themselves and their children.
Of course, most people are not educated, so their is no point in blaming them for having unsecured children. The responsibility must fall on the government to prevent people from having children without having the funds for a proper upbringing, simply because the government is most capable of doing so.
June 29, 2009
In Queens, Life And Failing Economy Derail Dream
Oh, my, I do so very much want to smack this guy. Not only is his decision to have the child (legally, his fiance Crisely Perez's decision, but he could apply pressure to abort) stupid, but it's selfish, and in fact criminally selfish. Not criminal in the sense of the U.S. legal system, but criminal in the sense that it is crime against humanity to bring a child into the world without a high percentage guarantee that that child will have an upbringing free of privation. I might be mistaken, but if Perez were to indulge in alcohol and/or drugs, thus endangering the health of the fetus, some jurisdictions might hold her criminally liable for this. It is blindingly stupid, then, that the legal system does not intervene to prevent this couple from bringing a child into the world with no guarantee of being able to provide proper nutrition, shelter, clothing, education, or medical care. It's basically a crapshoot, only with the child as the potential victim, and that is criminal.
I do so very much wish that I could contact this person and offer to pay for his fiance's abortion and furthermore offer to pay for him to undergo a vasectomy as a guarantee that he cannot cause another pregnancy without very deliberately intending to do so (via a reversal or some other medical procedure). I just found a Joe Alozo on Facebook, and from the photo it looks like it might be him, but he's unlike to respond to my message, and he does, his respond to my proposal is likely to be to tell me to fuck off. If he were smart enough to decide that an abortion and vasectomy were the socially responsible steps, I would have expected to hear as much in the NPR piece.
If anybody has an idea on how to convince a stranger to undergo an abortion/vasectomy, let me know, because I have no idea how to pull that off.
March 18, 2009
Motels Now Home To Recession-Hit Families
Note that I do not know if the NPR webmaster leaves comments indefinitely, but if so, notice that the first commenter points out that it was not a responsible decision to have another child. The next two posters differ, and I suspect it might escape all of them that there is a clear solution here. For the family to have had another baby given their circumstances goes beyond irresponsible--it was a crime against the child itself and a crime against the society that will have to bear the consequences of child who may not grow up to realize his full potential.
And of course it likely escapes all the posters, and most listeners to the story, that the solution is that these people should have been forcibly prevented from having that other child. In fact, given the fact that they have been homeless so long and had children of ages 8 and 10, they should not even have been allowed to have a single child until they could guarantee a quality upbringing.
February 12, 2009
Recession Hits College Campuses
A recurring theme in this report is that, because of how the recession is affecting higher education, many people can no longer afford to pay for their children's college education, and that in the future fewer people will be able afford college. A solution for this is readily available to the population and does not depend on the government or an improvement in the economy. The solution is simple--do not bring a child into the world without having the money for his education. Insufficient education places a person at a disadvantage, and it is an unjustifiable disservice to a child to bring it into the world if you cannot guarantee him a proper education. It might sound horrible to say, but any woman pregant today who does not already have sufficient financial resources to guarantee that child's education, or who cannot find a person or institution willing to commit those resources, should abort. If she births that child without those resource, she is doing a disservice to the child and to society.
June 24, 2008
Crossing Gangland, L.A.
The entire report is interesting and worth listening to, but focus on the part towards the end that describes the situation of the young man with an infant son who drives his family everywhere for fear of street shootings. He has an infant son. We can infer from this that he chose to bring a child into a neighborhood which is so violent that he is afraid to walk anyway, afraid to give his name, and even afraid to stand outside with the reporter when a car slows down as it passes by. That child is at risk of being killed, growing up without one or more parents if either are killed, or perhaps joining a gang himself when he is older. Even if these possibilities are considered small, that child will certainly grow up with a higher stress level than children in a peaceful learning, and stress has been shown to affect development and learning. You might think that the man had a right to have this child, but that ignores the man's responsibility not to impose a disadvantage on another human being. In the interest of raising the best possible humans, society has an interest in not allowing children to be born into dangerous situations, whether a war-torn country like Iraq or a dangerous neighborhood in L.A. Do not feel sympathy for this young man and his plight--if you are to feel anything, feel contempt. The child should have been aborted or given up for adoption, and it is a continuing crime against that child to allow him to grow up under such conditions.
June 20, 2008
Teens May Have Made Pact to Get Pregnant
This store (which is still developing--Google for updates) is horrifying. But what is more horrifying is that it is almost certain that the government will allow these teens to bear and raise their children. If the intial reports are true, the girls' acts of becoming pregnant are acts of extreme selfishness. They were trying to satisfy their own needs without regard for the effects on the children and on society. If you google words like "teenage mother poverty statistics" you can easily find evidence that children born to teenage mothers have an increased likelihood of living in poverty. Most opponents of regulating procreation will make the naive statement that every person has a "right" to procreate. This statement arises from the fundamentally flawed paradigm of perceiving ethics in terms of "rights" instead of consequences. If consequences are considered, then we conclude that some significant percentage of the children born to these teenagers will live in poverty. Recognizing this, if we still allow this to happen, we are condemning these children to poverty just as if we condemned them to a prison sentence. I would call this a crime against the children, and a crime against the human race.
These girls should not be allowed to raise the children, whether that means placing the children in suitable homes or, if no such homes can be found, aborting them. Those who would find such actions horrendous and draconian suffer from a primitive moral sense that prevents them from seeing what is truly beneficial for society.
UPDATE: New reports state that there was no pact to get pregnant. This is important; it goes to the mindset of the girls. However, it is ultimately irrelevant to the likelihood that the children, if allowed to be born, will live in poverty. Whether or not the girls had a pact, they should not be allowed to raise children.
June 11, 2008
Mississippi School Holds First Interracial Prom
As you listen with disbelief at this story about a prom that has been segregated until now, listen for the part where the student reports a parent saying at a meeeting, "I'm not going to have any of those niggers rubbing up against my daughter." This parent is a racist, and that person should never have been allowed to raise a child. It is not hard to find evidence linking racist attitudes in parents with racist attitudes in children. Whether the cause is hereditary or simply learned, we have plenty of evidence to conclude that a number of children raised by racists parents will grow up to be racists themselves. By allowing this, we allow the cycle of racism to be perpetuated. By allowing a racist to raise a child, we are partially responsible for that child's subsequent racist actions. If that child grows up to commit a physical assault on a member of another race, or merely to discriminate against another race in the workplace, we share in that responsibility because we allowed that child to be born and raised by the racist. To the extent that racism is holding humany back from realizing its full potential, it is a crime against humanity to allow a racist person to raise a child.
November 14, 2007
Income Disparity Persists Between Blacks, Whites
In the report, one of the guests states that only a third of middle-class families are secure. This is a situation that creates a potential for a great deal of suffering and conflict when something occurs, like a recession, that pushes people into poverty. A solution to this problem is so obvious that it almost defies belief that nobody is talking about it. Quite simply, families that are not financially secure should not be allowed to exist. It should be a precondition for the creation of a family structure that the financial resources exist to guarantee a comfortable and social productive existence for that family.
October 24, 2007
Ex-Members of the Far Right Warn of Life They Left
This is a key quote from the report: "From a young age, her mother and grandfather taught her that foreigners and Jews were blocking Germany's rightful place as a world power." Later in the report: "By the time she wanted out years later, Privenau was married to another neo-Nazi, a violent man, she says. She had five children."
What do you think Privenau's husband was teaching their children? The same hateful ideas Privenau herself was taught as a child. This is a one of the fundemental problems with the the right to procreate, a right which is accepted by nearly all humans without realizing the great harm that is done to the world and humanity. Allowing people to bear and raise children as they see fit is horribly destructive for many reasons, one of which is that the children can be inculcated with character traits, such as racism, that are harmful to society.
To anybody who has the ability to overcome social and parental conditioning and focus his mind on cause and effect, it has to be obvious that in order to solve the problem of racism and other forms of prejudice, those who exhibit prejudice must be prevented from raising children.