Should people be prevented from procreating under any circumstances?

[Taf]

Procreation is making children yourself. But now it can include "test tube" babies, and moving the egg or fertilised egg to another womb.

"Having children" can include adoption?

Many birth defects were often fatal, but modern medicine can overcome the threat to life.

Our twins were born at 24 weeks gestation, normally a fatal situation.

[RichardCoulter]

Thanks for all the replies everybody, it's been interesting to read what people think and the reasons for their view.

Forum debating at its best!

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I think of it this way..Having children is NOT a human right.However I am not prepared to live in a society that has forced eugenics.

Yes it is ,says so here

http://www.un.org/en/development/des.../theme/rights/

[RichardCoulter]

You seem to be confusing legalities with moral standpoints.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You seem to be confusing legalities with moral standpoints.

Err no .Both you and Maggie seem to be under the mistaken impression that having children is not a right ,well it is ,it is probably the most basic and important right we have ,legally and morally

[rogerdraig]

you seem to miss the moral stand point, many things have been made legal at various points in history but they ( the laws) do not in themselves mean that all peoples moral view will change at the same time or ever.

Originally Posted by martyh

Err no .Both you and Maggie seem to be under the mistaken impression that having children is not a right ,well it is ,it is probably the most basic and important right we have ,legally and morally

http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/h...f-human-rights

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

This maybe the case BUT this does not mean that the rights of the parent supersede those of the child..So some parents may be denied that right so as to protect the child's rights..because not every parent is a fit parent. so ergo is is not an automatic right..

However sterilisation is not something that should be chosen for an individual without their express wishes.

[RichardCoulter]

I accept that involuntary sterilisation is a very radical move, but believe that in some cases this should be considered eg serial child abusers.

Maybe a more socially acceptable compromise would be mandatory contraception or a warning that any child produced will be immediately taken into care (if it is discovered).

There have been cases in the news where father's have got their daughters pregnant and where 'sex slaves' and their offspring have been kept imprisoned.

One area of difficulty that I have is regarding severely mentally disabled adults.

These people do not have the capability to look after children and may even unintentionally harm them.

I believe that disabled people deserve the full support of society to lead a happy and independent life, however the needs and safety of children must come before the needs and desires of any adult.

These people are mentally incapacitated, but are still adults with sexual desires. They have not done anything wrong and are entitled to form emotional and sexual relationships with the right support.

I believe that what happens in practice is that contraception is administered to prevent any pregnancies (happy to be corrected if this is incorrect).

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by martyh

definitely not .Plenty of people should have children removed but never forcibly prevented from having children

With the way the world is now AND HOW BAD IT IS,I dunno why anyone would be so selfish and bring an innocent child into it!!