Compulsory birth control?

[Robert]

If a woman has an unqualified right to end a pregnancy, does she also have an unqualified right to bear children? Whenever, why-ever, however, how-many-ever, with whomever? How about after the revolution?

For me, the answer should be no, but it isn't. Not in the USA anyway.

The closest that the U.S. has come to discouraging reproduction, that I know of, is in the reform of AFDC (aid to families with dependent children) contained in the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996. I suspect this law will revert to its pre-1996 form under the current administration, i.e., women will again be compensated, in cash and with food vouchers on a per-child basis, with no limits on babies, number of years on the program, or duty to seek employment.

An unlimited right (more than a right, really, since it is rewarded), with no correlative obligation.

Would you commies change that? Or would you leave it to local democracies to decide on a case by case basis? Will the local collective be free to "just say no" to the mother who wants more babies at the expense of the State -- sorry -- of the People?

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

As an anarchist I'm all for the womans right to do whatever she wants as long as it's not going to tie me down without my permission. But, you know, new friends for the world are always

[IcarusAngel]

So essentially what you're advocating is forced sterilization? I know William Shockley advocated sterlization on the grounds that too many unskilled people having babies weakens the population overall. He was also a staunch racist and expected government coercion to enforce his ideas. So many people in the technology sector have been right-wing crazies.

I think it's something that societies and communities should discuss, and should enter into voluntarily.

[Phalanx]

I think a one-child rule is absolutely necessary for the survival of our species. Any child after the first is heavily taxed (adjusted for income of course). We can't continue down the path of extreme overpopulation, and sometime the elephant in the closet will be seriously discussed. But only when things get real bad.

[yuon]

If a woman has an unqualified right to end a pregnancy, does she also have an unqualified right to bear children? Whenever, why-ever, however, how-many-ever, with whomever? How about after the revolution?

For me, the answer should be no, but it isn't. Not in the USA anyway.

The closest that the U.S. has come to discouraging reproduction, that I know of, is in the reform of AFDC (aid to families with dependent children) contained in the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996. I suspect this law will revert to its pre-1996 form under the current administration, i.e., women will again be compensated, in cash and with food vouchers on a per-child basis, with no limits on babies, number of years on the program, or duty to seek employment.

An unlimited right (more than a right, really, since it is rewarded), with no correlative obligation.

Would you commies change that? Or would you leave it to local democracies to decide on a case by case basis? Will the local collective be free to "just say no" to the mother who wants more babies at the expense of the State -- sorry -- of the People?

Wikipedia article on "Compulsory_sterilization" (which I can't link to...).

The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics. The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. They were devastated when it was shut down due to ethical problems. The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. Native Americans, as well as African-American women,[17] were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge, while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth). Some sterilizations also took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality, but they were in the relative minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.[18]
The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907,[19] followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it could not exempt white-collar criminals.[20]

I think that forcing people to have, or not to have, children are about equal. Actually, forcing someone to have a child will cause more physical pain and damage, so that might be slightly worse. Either way, it's unacceptable from a left-wing perspective, and from a "classical liberal" perspective.

[h0m0revolutionary]

You seem to take it as a given that an individual bearing multiple children is to be frowned upon, btu I don't hold that at all.

I don't care how many children someone has, and further to that, it's none of my business when, how and with whom they choose to have them.

Post-revolution we will have done away with capitalism that directly profits from billions of people starving, we will have done away with a grossly inefficient system and, I would hope, will have plenty of food, produced according to need, to satisfy everyone.

A post-revolutionary society therefore would have no need to limit a parents right to decide when they have children and how many children they want and i'd view it as a gross infringement if they did make that choice on other people's behlafs!

But in the here and now, I wouldn't support the state's right to decide how many children anyone should have, i'd view that as a outragious curtail on ones liberty over a very personal issue.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I don't think we'd have to pass any kind of law... As people become better educated and don't have to struggle to survive, they naturally have less children. Higher rates of education generally have a reverse correlation with fertility rates, from what I've seen. Granted, I think people should be educated on the need to maintain a lower rate of reproduction so we don't overpopulate the Earth, but I don't think anybody should be prevented from having higher numbers of kids. I do, however, think it's important to stop irresponsible people from trying to have more children than they can take care of so they don't become a burden on society.

[Demogorgon]

The more prosperous a society, the lower the birth rate as a rule. The solution to potential over population isn't to condemn those with "too many" children to destitution or ban reproduction outright after a certain number of children, but to promote prosperity and equality.

[TC]

The decision to have a child, unlike a decision not to have a child, is not strictly the exclusive business of the mother and her alone...because the community has to contribute to taking care of that child. Ending a pregnancy is something done within the confines of one's own body, having a child is the opposite, its bringing someone into the world and that someone creates a moral obligation to take care of him or her.

Having said that, given the practical limits of the number of children someone can have, and the fact that people on average in advanced economies will want no more than two children, there is no justification for trying to regulate the number of children people have.

Moreover, the 'public policy' on whether the birth to death ratio should be positive, equal, or negative, is something that people can decide collectively by 'voting with their feet' so to speak: if people reproduce at above replacement level thats a decision that people value more than two children more than avoiding the negative consequences doing so, vice versa if they decide on average to have less than two children. Given this, while on an abstract level interests other than the mother's are at stake when having a child, on a practical level the only democratic and egalitarian way of deciding how to regulate the number of children people have is through their own self-regulation.

[Richard Nixon]

I think a one-child rule is absolutely necessary for the survival of our species. Any child after the first is heavily taxed (adjusted for income of course). We can't continue down the path of extreme overpopulation, and sometime the elephant in the closet will be seriously discussed. But only when things get real bad.

We are not overpopulated contrary to the Chicken Little myths of the Club of Rome and the Population Bomb mythos. The actual reason why people are hungry and starving is the problem of the distribution of food, Australia,China, America, and other countries produce vast amounts of food, it's that food is stolen, overpriced, not sent, and so on that people starve or are hungry. If anything we need more people-Europe, Russia, Japan, Korea, and other countries are not reproducing it's populations fast enough.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Kids for those who want them, birth-control for those who dont. Another thing to keep in mind is that we've got kids already who need taking care of, let-alone taking those yet born into consideration.

The answers are multiple and diverse but I think legalization of same-sex couples to adopt, people knowing how hard it is to raise kids, and over-all common sense will provide a way to ease these burdens.

[Phalanx]

We are not overpopulated contrary to the Chicken Little myths of the Club of Rome and the Population Bomb mythos. The actual reason why people are hungry and starving is the problem of the distribution of food, Australia,China, America, and other countries produce vast amounts of food, it's that food is stolen, overpriced, not sent, and so on that people starve or are hungry. If anything we need more people-Europe, Russia, Japan, Korea, and other countries are not reproducing it's populations fast enough.

That's very short-sighted. The problem of distribution is definately not questionable, the first world throws away a disgusting amount of food. But the problem is our environment is suffering- deforestation, soil degradation, all problems that we'll soon have to come to terms with. Bejing, for example, is experiencing regular sandstorms coming in from the Gobi desert- a relatively recent phenomena. Japan and Korea are extremely overpopulated as it is, so they should be encouraging dips in the population. Short term problems arise as what to do when you've got more people collecting social security than in the workforce, but creating more automated jobs solves that problem.

Iowa, for example, has some of the most fertile land in the world. The problem is, after only 150 years of farming- and the farming techniques practiced in the Midwest are quite effective- is that the topsoil has already been reduced by 2 feet, from an original level of 5 ft to 3 nowadays. Desertification is a problem in the US as well as China, as the southwest continues to get drier and the Colorado river shrinks due to over irrigation.

The problem is, we do have a population crisis on our hands. Not just in the first world or third world, but worldwide. The most constructive thing we can do is talk about it and how we can begin reducing our population to a much more sustainable level

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I suspect this law will revert to its pre-1996 form under the current administration, i.e., women will again be compensated, in cash and with food vouchers on a per-child basis, with no limits on babies, number of years on the program, or duty to seek employment.

Note: This is not an incentive to reproduce, as long as the value of the vouchers is less than the cost of raising a child (which it always is).

But to answer your question, no, I see absolutely no reason to limit reproduction when birth rates in most developed countries are just barely at the replacement level (in some cases even lower), and birth rates in the rest of the world are heading in the same general direction.

World population will stabilize in this century, and maybe even begin to decline. As long as this trend does not change, there is nothing to worry about.

[Richard Nixon]

That's very short-sighted. The problem of distribution is definately not questionable, the first world throws away a disgusting amount of food. But the problem is our environment is suffering- deforestation, soil degradation, all problems that we'll soon have to come to terms with. Bejing, for example, is experiencing regular sandstorms coming in from the Gobi desert- a relatively recent phenomena. Japan and Korea are extremely overpopulated as it is, so they should be encouraging dips in the population. Short term problems arise as what to do when you've got more people collecting social security than in the workforce, but creating more automated jobs solves that problem.

People can live in an environmentally responsible way without reducing population. Deforestation is being dealt with while advanced farming techniques are improving soil problems.

Iowa, for example, has some of the most fertile land in the world. The problem is, after only 150 years of farming- and the farming techniques practiced in the Midwest are quite effective- is that the topsoil has already been reduced by 2 feet, from an original level of 5 ft to 3 nowadays. Desertification is a problem in the US as well as China, as the southwest continues to get drier and the Colorado river shrinks due to over irrigation.

As I've said advanced farming techniques are being used and so are new food raising like seafood farms for instance.

The problem is, we do have a population crisis on our hands. Not just in the first world or third world, but worldwide. The most constructive thing we can do is talk about it and how we can begin reducing our population to a much more sustainable level

What are you going to do when China, Korea, Japan, Europe is filled with the old and not enough young people to support them? Hundreds of millions of old people will be a horrible nightmare and welfare systems would be on the brink of collapse.

[Phalanx]

People can live in an environmentally responsible way without reducing population. Deforestation is being dealt with while advanced farming techniques are improving soil problems.

Deforestation is not being dealt with. The Amazon continues to disappear, the island of Borneo is losing forest fast, and even in North America the last few old-growth forests (especially in Alaska and British Columbia) are being exploited for lumber. Advanced farming techniques are being practiced throughout the first world, and still the soil is depleted.

As I've said advanced farming techniques are being used and so are new food raising like seafood farms for instance.

Farmed fish is a good start, however worldwide fisheries are collapsing far faster than the fish farming industry can keep up with. You can pretty much say goodbye to the Bluefin tuna or Chilean sea bass.

What are you going to do when China, Korea, Japan, Europe is filled with the old and not enough young people to support them? Hundreds of millions of old people will be a horrible nightmare and welfare systems would be on the brink of collapse.

Because more and more jobs in the workforce are becoming automated, I really don't think hundreds of millions of old people is a nightmare as you might think. The nightmare is after maybe two thousand more years of continued over exploitation of the land, that the environment will simply stop being able to support us.