Is bearing children an inherit human right?

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
http://www.disaboom.com/Blogs/disabled_ ... ption.aspx

Women in the Netherlands deemed "unfit mothers" may soon be forced to take contraception, if a draft bill currently before the Dutch parliament is passed. The bill "targets women who have been the subject of judicial intervention due to their bad parenting," says its author, a member of the Netherlands' socialist Labour Party.

Under the proposed legislation, a woman judged unfit who refuses to take contraception and becomes pregnant would have her child taken away at birth. The infant then would be placed in a foster home.

While it's certain that such a measure could potentially prevent convicted child abusers from conceiving and abusing more children, many questions have been raised about the draft bill's potential impact on human rights in the Netherlands.




Wow.  To me, this is absolutely shocking.  I can appreciate the sentiment behind it, but doesn't this violate some form of right to privacy or to one's own body?  Sounds like the Dutch are going too far with this one, and I certainly think it should fail.
 

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
Re: Is rearing children an inherit human right?

Didn't RTFA, just LC's post, but here's a problem...

LC's thread title asks if rearing kids is a right. The way I've always heard that word used, that means raising them. Teaching them, caring for them, etc.

LC's post asks about bearing kids. The physical acts of conception, pregnancy, birth. At least, this is the part which would be affected by "right to privacy or to one's own body".

These are not the same thing at all.

The problem with the Dutch bill is the idea of forcing contraception. That would indeed violate privacy. Just like women in the US have the right to choose abortion because of this right to privacy, Dutch women should have the right to choose pregnancy.

But I don't see a problem with taking the kids away at birth. If the person is a proven bad parent, I'm not 100% against that. I do see a problem - some people change.

I knew a mother whose first 2 kids were taken by the state - and at the time, that was good because the mother was a drug-addicted mess who couldn't care for them. But she got clean and had another kid, who was turning into a fine young man last time I saw him.

So there would have to be some kind of check to see if the parent has changed in a way that means they're no longer a proven bad parent. But if they're still a danger, take away the kid.
 

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
Many questions have been raised?

I'll be damned but I haven't noticed. From now on I'll keep my eyes and ears open. I'd like to learn more about it.
 

Natalie

Insect of Terror
Staff member
I would say bearing children is an inherent human right, yes. Rearing them not so much, especially if, as in the Dutch case, the mother is a proven bad parent with a record. As SMX says though, the parent should be given another chance and the case reviewed everytime she has another child.
Having said the above, I think the Dutch really are going way too far in this case and stepping in places where the government has no right to tread. I definately hope it fails, because it sure sounds like something straight out of Brave New World.
 

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
Going way too far?

I admit that, at first, it looks like this particular plan is going far, especially for people who find a yes-answer to the question in the topic title more important than child murder. I find child murder (and the improvement of the preventing of this) more important than the right of a parent who has been wrong before and who shows no improvement.

I can imagine that the parents involved can have another chance. This anti-conception can e.g. be for the period of 6 months, and with bad behavior it can be prolongued. I don't think I have major problems with the main idea (so the my answer to the topic title question = "no, not in all cases"), but first I'd like to know more about it and read the complete version of it. If I am not mistaken, it hasn't been presented yet.

To put it short an simply: There were several child murders (committed by parents) in the last years and I can imagine that new measurements are needed to prevent future (further) abuse or death.

We'll see how this is going to develop! Right now it's the idea of one party only, and I wonder if the parliament would agree.
 

Anomica

Trooper
I can't see having children as a right for anyone. To some, it's a life-long dream that can't come true without psychologically and financially straining actions, such as invitero conception and things like that. But having children shouldn't be a right, since if we consider it a right we're only focussing on the parenting issue. What about the child's rights? I'm sure we all know people that really should have reconsidered before conceiving, in light of how they treat their children, and having children should never be about realising one's self. If I want to become a parent because I really love children and feel the need to have one, that's fine, but if I become a parent in some kind of self-glorifying project and really haven't got the time nor the inclination for rearing this child I don't think it's a good idea. These discussions often forget the children and focus only on the parent issue.

I don't think it should be regarded as a right but a privilege and a huge responsibility. Not a measure of your worth as a human being - in your own or other people's eyes.
 

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
Forostar said:
To put it short an simply: There were several child murders (committed by parents) in the last years and I can imagine that new measurements are needed to prevent future (further) abuse or death.

"Child Murder" (infanticide) occurs regardless, just like murder. Put up all the laws and restrictions you want, it will happen. Nothing is going to deter it because like most murders it occurs out of passion, rarely premeditated. Mom has post-partum depression, "I think I'll drown my children." dad lost his job, "life sucks, I'll murder my family then kill myself..." What law or restriction is going to prevent that? Might as well ban families since that is the unit that produces the highest rates of rape, abuse and yes, murder...
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
I'm with Onhell here.  Seems to me that you can never stop infanticide.  And I would expect most cases are young women who are first-time mothers.  However would the government know to target these women, unless they mandate birth control for all women and then issue licenses.

Which, by the way, is similar to the system they have in Singapore.
 

Albie

Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
Anomica said:
I don't think it should be regarded as a right but a privilege and a huge responsibility. Not a measure of your worth as a human being - in your own or other people's eyes.
You know what, I agree with you. It is a privilege. And yes, in discussions such as these it needs to focus on the inherit human right for the child to be cared for properly.

In saying that, I don't agree with any person been forced to take contraception on the basis that they are deemed, by authorities, to be an unfit parent.
 

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
Onhell said:
"Child Murder" (infanticide) occurs regardless, just like murder. Put up all the laws and restrictions you want, it will happen. Nothing is going to deter it because like most murders it occurs out of passion, rarely premeditated. Mom has post-partum depression, "I think I'll drown my children." dad lost his job, "life sucks, I'll murder my family then kill myself..." What law or restriction is going to prevent that?

This new plan, it prevents such people from getting a(nother) child. There's not much known about the whole idea yet, so I find it hard to judge for which people it is meant or not. Anyway, this topic has nothing to do about abusing / murdering someone else's children.

Let me ask another question:

Is voting an inherit human right (from a certain age, e.g. 18 or 21)?
Do prisoners have the right to vote?

Speaking of convicts/prisoners:
From the offender's point of view (let's say a parent abused a child severly): if the parent had the choice between:
- going to prison for a certain amount of years or
- receiving a forced anticonception injection, to prevent him/her from having another child (one child is already a big task, so rather not more).

What do you think this parent would choose? What do you think he deserves?

By the way, if you're in a prison, you also lose your privacy.
 

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
That's a good question Foro. I see Child bearing as a right, because it is fundamental to the human race, natural. Voting I'd say is a priviledge. Some neat concept we created, like driving. But we should all be allowed to do so, hence it would make it a right. But is it an unalienable right?
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Forostar said:
This new plan, it prevents such people from getting a(nother) child. There's not much known about the whole idea yet, so I find it hard to judge for which people it is meant or not. Anyway, this topic has nothing to do about abusing / murdering someone else's children.

Let me ask another question:

Is voting an inherit human right (from a certain age, e.g. 18 or 21)?
Do prisoners have the right to vote?

Speaking of convicts/prisoners:
From the offender's point of view (let's say a parent abused a child severly): if the parent had the choice between:
- going to prison for a certain amount of years or
- receiving a forced anticonception injection, to prevent him/her from having another child (one child is already a big task, so rather not more).

What do you think this parent would choose? What do you think he deserves?

By the way, if you're in a prison, you also lose your privacy.

Some countries allow prisoners to vote, others do not.  Canada allows prisoners to vote - in fact, encourages it.  And when it comes to people who abuse or murder a child, they deserve to be in prison.  When you are in prison, you lose some of your right to privacy, but not all of it - for instance, your right to privacy with a lawyer, doctor, or psychiatrist remains.  You lose some rights to privacy to ensure you do not disrupt the prison environment.  But a police officer can't walk into your home, or search your holdings outside of prison without a warrant, although you are a convicted felon.
 

Deano

Ancient Mariner
I see this as a problem that needs to be addressed but in not such an extreme manner. Counseling services should be made readily available before conception and during pregnancy and if doctors/social workers/whoever decides that there is a potential for danger to the child after birth, then mandatory counseling should be ordered and if necessary, the consideration of a foster home should made. Bottom line, yes, bearing children is an inherit human right.
 

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
Unfortunately, these measures did not prevent the terrible things that happened. Regardless if the new plan is good or bad, they apparently had to come up with something that does work (or at least they hope so).

Coming back to LC's first post:
Wow.  To me, this is absolutely shocking.  I can appreciate the sentiment behind it, but doesn't this violate some form of right to privacy or to one's own body?

Child abuse violates the child's body way more, and I find it way more important than the right of the misbehaving adult.
 

Cornfed Hick

Ancient Mariner
Perun said:
Yes, it is.

There really is no more to it for me.

Then I demand satisfaction.  I am a human, and try as I might, I will never be able to bear children. 

(A glib answer, to be sure, but it begs the question what the father's rights might be.)
 

LooseCannon

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier
Staff member
Forostar said:
Coming back to LC's first post:
Child abuse violates the child's body way more, and I find it way more important than the right of the misbehaving adult.

What child?  These people are invading the privacy of a person based on the hypothetical existence in the future of a possible child.  There is, at this point, no child's body to be violated.  They've already punished the person for abusing their child - jail terms, taking the child away, et al.  This is an invasion of privacy to protect the rights of a human being that does not yet exist.
 

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
The plan is indeed a preventive measure. According to Marjo van Dijken (from the plan) unfit parents make new children, too often.
 
Top