Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
This unfortunately sounds like, "I'm sorry I'm prosperous and have all the food and you don't, but that just means I should have all the kids I want, and you shouldn't have any."
Something else that's waay overdue: A hard look at "Rights."
There are rights... and there are rights. And no matter what idealists (and most Americans) want to believe, there are natural and practical limits to all rights. You've heard the saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends before it touches my nose." Well, our right to have children ends at the irrevocable damage our numbers do to the planet, and the forced starvation of entire peoples caused by the hoarding of food by other peoples.
|
Forgive me, but I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the bolded statement. I'm not apologizing for being prosperous. The prosperity I have is based upon the generations of my family that have come before me. My grandfather's father came from Ireland looking for a better life in the US. He did. . .okay. . .as a farmer in Missouri. His son, my grandfather, became a railroad engineer, and my grandfather's daughter, my mother, was a nurse (she is now retired). Thanks to these hardworking people, I was given a good education which allowed me to give my children a good education. I could give you the same series of steps in the case of my father. At each of these generational levels, they built on the prosperity of the one that came before. I never take that for granted. Having said that, I don't see that the prosperity of my family automatically requires me to correct all the problems facing other people on this planet. I have a moral obligation to do what I can and I do, but that is something private. My statements have been that everyone has the right to procreate, but that they should do it responsibly.
If you choose not to have children becuase you feel that you would be contributing to the over population of the planet, I respect that. I would hope that you would respect my decision to have children that I can support, bit financially and emotionally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricia
The European Conv
ention on Human Rights states: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family" [Article 12].
But this is generally interpreted as a negative right: no one should stop a couple from founding a family. Few states interpret it as a positive right: that the state has a duty to provide reproductive assistance for the infertile.
Arguably, the population in developing states is going through the same period of demographic transition that industrialised states went through in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Before industrialisation, children were a resource. A family could set children to work at an early age. So they would have large familes. Many of the children would die young. But one or two would survive to support their parents through old age.
But one of the benefits of the industrial revolution was that states could afford better healthcare. In the UK it took several generations before the message got through. Hence my grandfather was one of 12 children. I have 2 siblings; but only one child. Children are no longer a resource in the developed world. Instead they are becoming a luxury.
Meanwhile, in the developing countries, people are in the intermediate stage where they are not yet confident that the state (or a work-related pension) will provide for their old age. Children are still seen as a resource. Throwing condoms at the problem will not help. Educating women and giving them equal rights (and enforcing those rights) is generally seen as the best way to move forward. People need a good reason to limit the size of their families. If women are in a position to earn an income sufficient to provide for a small family, with a strong probability that all their children will survive to adulthood, then they are more likely to decide on smaller families with a better quality of life for each child.
|
Well said.