From: "Russell Blackford" <RussellBlackford@bigpond.com>
> Actually, I think people should be *free* to procreate if that's what they
> want, ie there should be no laws against it. This is a pretty good
> ethico-legal principle, at least in first-world nations, and it's part of
> the principle of reproductive liberty. However, there's no basis that I can
> see for a claim-right, ie that everyone else has to provide you with the
> resources to have and raise children.
Extremely well stated. I can see why you were successful in the practice of
> Of course, you can look at it, not from a rights point of view, but from a
> *caring* point of view. Perhaps we should all care for the children in our
> vicinity, or our polity, when the first-line of parental care fails. The
> emphasis here is not on the rights of the parents but the needs of children
> and how we feel about those needs. At that point, there may be a legitimate
> role for the state to remove children from parents. But I can see a lot of
> reasons (Zero has alluded to one) why this should be done with enormous
> hesitation and reluctance. Unnecessary state intervention has done untold
> harm in the past.
That the state should not intervene unnecessarily seems obvious to me (and to
most others, fortunately). In the case of deadbeat parents who intentionally
birth children so that they can collect welfare, then the people, the
community, and the state that represents them definitely need to intervene,
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual
Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
(Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:18 MDT