Should everyone be allowed to reproduce?

47% Normal
65 Comments

In my view, one of the most important things a human being can do (perhaps THE single most important thing), is to bring another life into this world.

I then think it's pretty strange that LITERALLY EVERYONE is allowed to do this WITHOUT ANY limitations WHATSOEVER. I mean, we have quotas on nearly everything, but anyone is allowed to make this very important decision and produce as much babies as they wanna.

Certainly in a world that's already going down the drain due to overpopulation, this is BLATANTLY irrational it seems to me. It's no coincidence nature is shrinking in the pace humanity is growing, but people often whine about having the "right" to reproduce like there's no tomorrow.

Also, there's the issue of genetics. It's simply a fact that certain people have some pretty messed up genes. I don't think it's a good idea to allow these people to genetically poison the next generation. I think they should just buy a fucking dog or something.

What do you think?

Voting Results
47% Normal
Based on 64 votes (30 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 65 )
  • sograceful
    11 years ago

    In my opinion we cannot play "God" or decide who can and who cannot reproduce. That's too much government or whatever control for me. As humans we are born with certain rights, the right to have children being one of them. Not to mention limiting reproduction would be nearly impossible to enforce unless we sterilized the "bad" people. And we have no right to do that.

    In the end this is a highly elitist and just plain unrealistic point of view.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
      -
    • suckonthis9
      11 years ago

      You do not have a 'right to reproduce'.

      If you have that right, then so do I.

      I am nearing the end of my reproductive years. and I have not yet reproduced.

      Should you wish to continue to shovel this garbage down my throat (so to speak), and everyone else's, then I will select a suitable partner who thinks like you, and I will reproduce with them.

      'Rights' are earned through responsible behaviour.
      You have a right to die. No human can deprive you of that right, it's inevitable.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • sograceful
        11 years ago

        Who are you to tell me or anyone else that I can't reproduce?

        In response to the second line, yes, go ahead and have children if you want to, see if I care.

        I don't really understand the rest of what you are trying to say, but I'd like to point out that you contradict yourself. First you say people earn rights. To this I say: no. One does not have to earn the right to vote, to fair trial, to being treated equally, to owning property, or even to start a family. These are all life choices, rights, that you have the privilege to by simply being born.

        Then you say that you are born with them.

        I don't know how to respond. Lol

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • suckonthis9
          11 years ago

          I did not say that you can't reproduce. I said that you do not have a 'right' to reproduce.

          Fine, I will have a child with you.
          Please make arrangements for our first date.

          Yes we do have to earn these rights.
          The current legislation stipulates that a person must have attained 18 years of age, to earn the right to vote (USA and Canada).
          There are also statutes, as to when a person is criminally responsible. If a person is deemed not to be held criminally responsible, then that person has no right to a fair trial.
          A 'right' to fair and equal treatment is a fallacy. No two persons are exactly identical, and therefore not equal. Only a right to equal treatment before the law, under current legislation, is actually valid.
          You need to earn money to own property, unless it is gifted.
          Newborns and pre-adolescents do not start families.

          Ergo, if you are deemed to be mentally competent, then you have a right to a fair trial.
          If you have attained 18 years of age, you have a right to vote (for a corrupt government official).
          The rest, in actuality, are falsehoods.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • BayVerlyHayles
            11 years ago

            As a mother I believe, WE ARE born with the right to reproduce, Your Newborn and adolescent ideology is ridiculous. Your age does not dictate your "natural rights". If it were so, then Infants would not have the "right" to walk or speak for example, just because they aren't at the age that is considered "normal" for such capabilities. There is a difference between rights and natural "Gifts" (I consider reproduction a gift). You don't earn the right to reproduce, atleast not by Human Law, it is earned naturally.

            Well thats my 2 cents atleast...

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            2
            2
              -
            • suckonthis9
              11 years ago

              I am glad that you are a mother. Now I know that you have experience in reproducing. Are you still married?

              Unfortunately, you are incorrect.
              Humans do not have 'natural rights'.
              Take, for instance, the following two examples:
              Let's say that you are on a jet airliner, flying over the arctic in the middle of the polar night (winter). The jet has a malfunction, and makes an emergency landing on the ice. You survive the landing, but rescue is days away, due to the remote location. You find yourself in a freezing cold environment, with little shelter (as the aircraft's fuselage is broken) in a hostile environment. You are not equipped with the proper gear (a polar suit) for survival, and you have no way of making a fire. Nature says that you will probably have a right to die of hypothermia, and probably within 24 hours.
              Too cold? How about we take a nice vacation to the State of New South Wales, Australia. You are enjoying the beach, and wading in the water, on a beautiful warm and sunny day. What you didn't realize, is that you stepped on a Blue-ringed octopus (Genus: Hapalochlaena). You didn't even feel the creature's bite. Within minutes, you find yourself unable to breathe. There is no antivenom available for this creature. No one in the vicinity knows how to do rescue breathing, or even realizes what had happened. Respiratory arrest, leading to cardiac arrest, due to a lack of oxygen, within minutes. Nature says, you have a right to die.

              Infants do not speak. In fact, the word 'infant', means 'unable to speak'. When a child learns to walk (usually as a one year old), they are then no longer an infant, they are a toddler. You are a mother, you should know this.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
      • MissyLeyneous
        11 years ago

        You've got it backwards, dipshit.

        It's called RIGHT TO LIVE, and it's an innate human right that we all have. (Or, look at it this way... you could call it an "innate Sentient right", if you wish.)

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • suckonthis9
          11 years ago

          I'm very disappointed to inform you that, 'nature' disagrees with you.
          If you were to take an infant, and leave them in nature, without providing any type of sustenance, the infant will surely perish.
          We are not born with 'rights'.

          Don't bother to twist this. I am not advocating that anyone actually does this.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          -1
          -1
            -
          • MissyLeyneous
            11 years ago

            Same goes for most mammalian infant animals. That's why there are mothers. Right to life means the right to protect your own life and the right to live that life to the fullest so long as you are not infringing upon anyone else's rights.

            Look up the "non-aggression principle".

            You seem to like telling others what to read, go read about this topic instead.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • suckonthis9
              11 years ago

              What if the mother dies during pregnancy or childbirth (which does happen frequently)?

              If you are living your life, "to the fullest", then you are infringing on my so-called 'rights', and you are showing yourself to be greedy.

              Furthermore, I feel that I have a 'right' [and a responsibility] to share our planet with all the other extant life forms (with some exceptions), so you are infringing on my 'right'.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
          • suckonthis9
            11 years ago

            Did your brain figure this out yet?

            Parents have a responsibility to nurture their child, until the child is able to be self-sufficient, and keep them from the harmful effects of nature.

            'Rights' are earned through responsible behaviour.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • Terence_the_viking
    11 years ago

    No you shouldn't be allowed.

    Have a nice day.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Gee, now there's food for thought.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
  • [Old Memory]
    11 years ago

    I think you need to simmer down.
    You have a point, although I don't agree with all of it. But raging makes you come off like a lunatic. How will you ever convince others of your arguments if you scare them off with your anger?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      I don't think I've displayed THAT much rage at all. Besides, I would much rather have you comment on my post, than merely on HOW I said it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • [Old Memory]
        11 years ago

        Okay. Personally, the only things I agree with are; the problem of overpopulation in some places of the world; and raising a human being is one of the most important jobs many people have in their lifetimes. That's it.

        Were you aware many people on the internet consider typing in capital letters the same thing as yelling your words? So you are 'yelling' at the same people you expect to bestow you with good comments. Technical foul.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          Thank you for your comment. I can respect it. As for the "yelling" thing, I can understand why some people might interpret it as rage, but my intention was merely to emphasize certain words. Do you know how I can do that without "coming off like a lunatic?"

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • [Old Memory]
            11 years ago

            Yes, you can emphasize your words using the asterix symbol. You place it on both sides of the *word* you are trying to emphasize. It is also an effective writing habit to limit yourself to one emphasized word per paragraph for the best effect on your reading audience.

            Some people also use the ~ symbol for the same effect, so you might see that as well. Although, it is not as commonly used as the asterix is.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              OK, I can indeed emphasize words in other ways too, instead of using caps. That is true. But I'd like to know why those methods are so much better. Whether someone interprets caps as indicating rage or not is VERY subjective. I understand why some people might interpret it as such, but perhaps they shouldn't.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • StrykerX
    11 years ago

    So how are you meant to:

    A: Decide who is and isn't allowed to reproduce?

    B: Enforce the rule?

    C: Do when somebody does illegally reproduce?

    You can rant as much as you like online, but thinking it through requires something you don't have.

    Clue: It's called a brain.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • thetalentless
    11 years ago

    I think you're right.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • VioletTrees
    11 years ago

    Take your eugenics and shove it up your ass.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Why exactly? Don't I have a point?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • VioletTrees
        11 years ago

        Hang on, let me che— NOPE.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          Well, eugenic policies ARE practised on non-human animals on a DAILY basis. For example, a farmer won't let ANY bull mate with ANY cow. Why would it suddenly be wrong if it's applied to human animals as well? Do you think overpopulation is a good thing or something?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • sograceful
            11 years ago

            Do you honestly believe that humans should be treated as cattle..... Oh my.....

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            3
            3
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              Well, with eugenic policies we can weed out certain genetic diseases, which I think is a good thing.

              Besides, aren't humans animals too?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              2
              2
          • VioletTrees
            11 years ago

            Being against eugenics means that I think overpopulation is a good thing? Child, you built a straw man before I even got to the barn.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            2
            2
              -
            • MissyLeyneous
              11 years ago

              I'm going to steal that phrase about the straw man, I LIKE. :D

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              1
              1
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              "Being against eugenics means that I think overpopulation is a good thing?"

              No, but eugenics IS a VERY effective way to combat overpopulation, so to oppose it nonetheless, seems a bit strange to me.

              You haven't explained WHY you are against eugenics BTW. Please do.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              1
              1
          • robbieforgotpw
            11 years ago

            Non human animals as opposed to human animals? Good stuff
            *craps**

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            -1
            -1
  • blackalica
    11 years ago

    I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to reproduce.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • robbieforgotpw
      11 years ago

      Oh if they could they would.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
  • dom180
    11 years ago

    Talk to someone with an inherited disorder - do you think they would agree that they have been "genetically poisoned", and that they would have been better off not born at all?

    If you want to limit people with genetic disorders having kids, where do you think we should draw the line? Studies show a genetic factor in many types of cancer. Some estimates say that as many as 1/3 people will develop some form of cancer in their lifetime. Should we prevent all of those people, maybe one in three of everyone in the world, from having children? I'm guessing you think stopping those people would be going too far. Where *do* we draw the line, then? At what point does someone have genes too dangerous to allow them to be passed on? That isn't a rhetorical question; answer me and be specific.

    Over-population is a problem we need to tackle in the places it effects. I'm talking about the places where there are too few resources per person, not in places where there is a saturation resources per person (places like America, Britain, etc.). Limiting birth rate in those places probably wouldn't be solved by legally banning people from having certain numbers of children, and it certainly wouldn't be solved ethically. Education and international redistribution of resources would be a much better route (and yes, I know "redistribution of resources" sounds like I'm advocating communism. Maybe I am; just because an ideology has a scary name doesn't mean every tenet of it is evil :P Is it so bad to think that we should ensure everyone has at least enough to survive?).

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • suckonthis9
      11 years ago

      Many cancers are curable.
      I would start with the worst incurable cancers and genetic disorders. That's where I would initially 'draw the line', until society becomes more comfortable with the idea.
      Most of this could probably be accomplished through consultation in the medical establishment (this already occurs). There are a few people who are stubborn and act irrationally. There is a reason for this behaviour. When a life form (any life form, including humans) senses that they are going to die, they expend more energy in reproducing. Humans are no exception (as long as they are still sexually fertile and are physically able).

      Overpopulation is a global phenomenon. It is not restricted to 'those places over there'.
      It is a common misconception in the More Developed Countries (MDCs), that we are not overpopulated.
      What many people fail to recognize, are the many resources that we are using from the Less Developed Countries (LDCs).
      We take far more, per capita, than our fair share. We have a seemingly insatiable and greedy appetite for resources, no matter where they occur.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -1
      -1
  • A-Hor
    11 years ago

    Actually, many societies in the Eastern hemisphere have restrictions on the amount of reproduction.

    In some cultures, you aren't allowed to have more than 3 children. In some they kill off female babies. And in certain countries that practice ART, (Assisted Reproductive Technology) when women have a sperm and egg created in a petri dish, they aren't allowed to implant more than three embryos in their uterus at a time. Yet the U.S allows us to implant as many embryos as we desire since the process of ART is extremely expensive, and women want to up their chances of getting pregnant. (That's why in very very rare cases we have situations like Nadia Soloman's, the octo-mom. She had a 1/512 chance of having all 8 implanted embryos take in her uterus).

    So it actually *is* being regulated or modified in many places around the world. But the U.S. (being still one of the riches countries, even during a deficit) doesn't believe it should get involved with reproductive rights when it comes to HAVING a child. It's called the "positive" and "negative" right. A positive right means you have no restrictions in having a baby, but the negative right means the gov't is not obligated to assist you. (Provide health benefits, etc) Some people argue that reproduction is a fundamental right. But as for now, the U.S. gov't is more concerned with abortion than people creating life.

    As a gay man, I'm on the fence about having children. Simply because I'm not sure which process I would take if I did want to raise kids. Would I want them to be my biological children? Should I adopt, even though that process is extremely invasive and could take years? But I guess to answer your question, I think it should be my choice. Not the gov't's or anyone else's.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • 1000yrVampireKing
    11 years ago

    I agree with this.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • KeddersPrincess
    11 years ago

    Hell no!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • suckonthis9
      11 years ago

      Archaic.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • IrkenInvaderLesley
    11 years ago

    If those are capable of properly raising happy, independent adults, (it does not matter if they're poor, middle class, rich, have a disorder, a couple, a single person, or eccentric), then they should have kids. But there should be moderation to how many kids they have (I'd say 2 birthkids at most and if they want more they can get more children via adoption). Reasonably, as long as one can successfully raise a good, caring person, then nothing should stop that person from becoming a parent.

    That's just my two cents. :)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0