I have a question about basic rights

[r3vbr]

I have a question to those who advocate that people have rights to have food shelter etc.
Do you think a person who has no money to live decently can be allowed to reproduce?

A poor person who has a child has now created a problem for society as a whole.
What if a large group of bums, homeless people, started popping out babies nonstop, 1 every year, making like 30 babies each.

Who would provide food to all these people. Would it be morally correct to just let all the offspring die of hunger and illness?

I mean, it's not my responsability to support other peoples children.

Here in Brazil where I live, the average high class couple has 1.8 children and the average poor person has 5 children. How is that not considered illegal?

Can a person be ethically penalized for having children?

Why is it a right to create unlimited life in the first place. If there is no baby-cap, people can potentially multiply until we overcrowd the planet and conditions become worse for all of us (of course this wont happen as brithrates are actually slowing down) but the poorest people are still the ones that most reproduce.

I believe in a free society. where you can do anything as long as you dont harm another individual. And putting a human life on this world without the means to support it is harming another individual wich is the baby, and therefore a person must NOT have the liberty to do this.

thoughts..

[r3vbr]

Also i just realised that my english sucks. Sorry about that and try to ignore my errors. I still have a lot to work on my english skills.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Here in Brazil where I live, the average high class couple has 1.8 children and the average poor person has 5 children.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are the numbers like by the time the (surviving) children reach adulthood?

I think that if a parent has to petition the government for aid (as opposed to family and private aid) in the form of food and living expense, a good case could be made for making the aid contingent on sterilization. If the request was due to illness or medical expenses, I could not make a good case.

[natedogg]

Fretting about overpopulation, is a perfect guilt-free— indeed, sanctimonious— way for "progressives" to be racists. -P.J. O'Rourke


natedogg

[newfant]

Without poor people, who would pick our grapes and check us out of the grocery store? Who would scrub our toilets in our offices and homes? Who would hand us our fries at McDonald's and operate our carnival rides?

Don't underestimate the value of the poor. They do quite a bit to help grease the wheels of society. Although, I can't disagree that their numbers should be kept in check somehow, I have no problem with them as a species. Everyone who can afford it should own at least one.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Fretting about overpopulation, is a perfect guilt-free— indeed, sanctimonious— way for "progressives" to be racists. -P.J. O'Rourke

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Quotes from Margaret Sanger, hero of Planned Parenthood:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief issue in birth control."
-Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, May 1919

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
-Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race, 1920

"Blacks, soldiers and Jews are a menace to the race."
-Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, April 1933

"We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."
-Margaret Sanger, in a letter to Clarence J. Gamble, MD, 1939

A little fact about "overpopulation". You can fit the world's entire world's human population in the state of Texas and each person would have a 32'x32' area to themselves. I don't know what that means, but it seems to indicate that the overpopulation problem is a load of bull.

[Il_Mostro]

Unfortunately that is too simplified. Humans today use up about 40% of all available photosynthesis on the planet. They also depleat fresh-water aquafiers at an alarmig rate. Some studies say that about 2 billion people is what the earth can handle in a sustainable fashion. Others put that figure a lot higher. There seems to be quite a lot of evidence to support that we currently are in overshoot mode, though, and has been since the 80:s, although not necessarily in population.
It's not just about the physical space each person needs.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Without poor people, who would pick our grapes and check us out of the grocery store? Who would scrub our toilets in our offices and homes? Who would hand us our fries at McDonald's and operate our carnival rides?

[/ QUOTE ]
People who are poor would not consider anyone from this group poor. They would probably consider them rich.

[Exsubmariner]

You're right.

You also get into things here like how much land does it take to support a human being and how do you utilize that land? For example, you can use the same land that it takes to produce grain for one year to feed one ton of beef and use it to produce about 20 tons of potatoes. That's for one year. Why do we use so much land to feed cattle when you can grow potatoes to feed the worlds starving children? The answer is money. It is more profitable to feed the cows. The people who eat the cows pay for them by engaging in the economy that distributes the cows. The starving children don't. Therefore, the answer to feed starving children is to develop the economy they live in. But you can't do that when you have local politicians/elites all over the world who keep them poor on purpose to further their own interests.

X