Colorado man forced to pay child support despite DNA test results

[Jarhyn]

Oh hi Toni. Try actually talking to my post. Yours didn't speak to it at all.

I said men shouldn't be held responsible for children they don't want for sex they didn't want to have. I have also argued, here, that if people want a child, they should accept a child regardless of whose genitals were involved making it, and that it is often MORE right for a child to be raised by non-biologocal parents. I didn't say anything about being raised outside a family or without love. I just said by people who actually plan for a child. People who WANT one. Because parents who plan for a child get no guarantee of one, and people who don't get no guarantee of not-a-child, and one ethical duty of human to each other is to remove elements of chance where none ought exist.

Now, please read my posts, or do what is right and recuse yourself from the conversation that you clearly haven't been paying attention to.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh hi Toni. Try actually talking to my post. Yours didn't speak to it at all.

You are wrong - she dispelled the straw men in your post.

I said men shouldn't be held responsible for children they don't want for sex they didn't want to have.

So you are talking about the situation when women rape men and then get pregnant. I will bet that Toni agrees with you on that one.

I have also argued, here, that if people want a child, they should accept a child regardless of whose genitals were involved making it, and that it is often MORE right for a child to be raised by non-biologocal parents.

And it should be obvious to anyone with 1st grade reading comprehension she agrees with that.

So, what is left is the situations where
1) the man is the biological father but did not want a child, and
2) the man is not the biological father and does not want to support the child.

Your post does not address those situations. So what exactly is your point again?

 

[Jarhyn]

You are wrong - she dispelled the straw men in your post.

I said men shouldn't be held responsible for children they don't want for sex they didn't want to have.

So you are talking about the situation when women rape men and then get pregnant. I will bet that Toni agrees with you on that one.

I have also argued, here, that if people want a child, they should accept a child regardless of whose genitals were involved making it, and that it is often MORE right for a child to be raised by non-biologocal parents.

And it should be obvious to anyone with 1st grade reading comprehension she agrees with that.

So, what is left is the situations where
1) the man is the biological father but did not want a child, and
2) the man is not the biological father and does not want to support the child.

Your post does not address those situations. So what exactly is your point again?

Actually, it does. Both of them. In the state of 1, I answered it here:

Instead, maybe if those arguing for the sake of 'women' actually took their time asking what is ACTUALLY better for them and their children instead of assuming they already have all the answers, then maybe, just maybe, our world could move towards what I suspect is the correct compromise and putting the fiscal burden for the children we as a society need on the entire society instead of those gracious enough to take the burden of raising them.

We don't think men in particular should be 'held responsibe' for children they never wanted for taking a drug they never wanted to be addicted to, because that isn't ethical.

Since reading comprehension seems to be lacking here for whatever reason, both these address (1), in saying child support is an undue and unethical burden for ONE man, when it is the entire society that should be responsible for that burden, for every child. The question of child support at that point becomes moot.

In (2), the response is addressed in my post previous to that one in which I state people who do not plan to be parents should not GET to be parents, and people who plan to be parents should expect, due to early and often communicated expectations that those who plan for children will get children * and that there will be a strong chance that those children will not be genetically linked to them*

Often (though not always) the problem is that some jackass (and especially the one in the OP) wants children that are 'his'. And if faced with the reality that his children will NOT necessarily be 'his' and yet he will still be expected to love them just as much as any other child, and raise it, the psychological impact of finding out he didn't contribute half the DNA of the kid is moot: he necessarily knew walking into the deal. For some men it is indeed the betrayal that makes him not want to participate in raising the kid, or at least not wanting to pay for it (but that point is moot as to my above address to (1)). And for all the others who are merely 'Chasing the Darwin'... Fuck em. Don't let them have a kid no matter how much they want to. Because Fuck em.

As to whether there are biochemical factors such as getting the oxytocin whammy from a kid being important to parental engagement, that kind of connection can be forged through artificial means, and more consistently than biology manages it.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, it does. Both of them. In the state of 1, I answered it here:

Instead, maybe if those arguing for the sake of 'women' actually took their time asking what is ACTUALLY better for them and their children instead of assuming they already have all the answers, then maybe, just maybe, our world could move towards what I suspect is the correct compromise and putting the fiscal burden for the children we as a society need on the entire society instead of those gracious enough to take the burden of raising them.

We don't think men in particular should be 'held responsibe' for children they never wanted for taking a drug they never wanted to be addicted to, because that isn't ethical.

Since reading comprehension seems to be lacking here for whatever reason .., both these address (1), in saying child support is an undue and unethical burden for ONE man, when it is the entire society that should be responsible for that burden, for every child. The question of child support at that point becomes moot.

Based on your questionable ethics and tenuous reasoning, that is true.

In (2), the response is addressed in my post previous to that one in which I state people who do not plan to be parents should not GET to be parents, and people who plan to be parents should expect, due to early and often communicated expectations that those who plan for children will get children * and that there will be a strong chance that those children will not be genetically linked to them*

Those arguments represent a fundamental incursion by the state into one of the most basic of human rights. Plenty of people have effortlessly and effectively raised children that they did not plan to have. There is no reason to believe that some hypothetical state system will do as an effective job as those people.

In short, your position is based on a clearly counter-factual view of human nature, history and basic human rights.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey, when has completely reordering a society based on a flawed philosophical concept which doesn't take human nature into account ever caused problems? You people seem to be making a big deal over nothing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well said. There is a wide variety of cases that happen on this, ranging from men who merely help out to men who fully intend to be the father and take on that responsibility. I agree that it should not matter what the genetics are if he has made such a commitment.

Perhaps a signed document of intent would help here.

 

[Jarhyn]

Actually, it does. Both of them. In the state of 1, I answered it here:

We don't think men in particular should be 'held responsibe' for children they never wanted for taking a drug they never wanted to be addicted to, because that isn't ethical.

Since reading comprehension seems to be lacking here for whatever reason .., both these address (1), in saying child support is an undue and unethical burden for ONE man, when it is the entire society that should be responsible for that burden, for every child. The question of child support at that point becomes moot.

Based on your questionable ethics and tenuous reasoning, that is true.

In (2), the response is addressed in my post previous to that one in which I state people who do not plan to be parents should not GET to be parents, and people who plan to be parents should expect, due to early and often communicated expectations that those who plan for children will get children * and that there will be a strong chance that those children will not be genetically linked to them*

Those arguments represent a fundamental incursion by the state into one of the most basic of human rights. Plenty of people have effortlessly and effectively raised children that they did not plan to have. There is no reason to believe that some hypothetical state system will do as an effective job as those people.

In short, your position is based on a clearly counter-factual view of human nature, history and basic human rights.

You are letting your confirmation bias get in your way. You are pointing to case studies, when the body of research shows clearly that outcomes for planned children are better, regardless of whether they are genetically linked to those who raise them.

Of course, it is up to you to stop making hand-waving and unfounded statements that the core of my philosophy is "questionable" by actually putting it to the question. I don't see you doing that, though...

The state already makes "fundamental incursions" into the most "basic" of "human rights", namely the rights to put into our bodies the things we wish to, and the right to die should we wish it. It always has. Elsewhere in the world, the state goes to different and greater extremes, also concerning this exact same right, and it is taken as a matter of course, even though they fuck it up. To claim that this is somehow special or extreme compared to what already happens is ludicrous. My thought is that we should change the shape of the incursions our government already makes in favor of a shape that would serve us better as a society.

I have put you to the question to justify what you believe is a right to raise children that you didn't plan for in the face of the fact that doing so is generally unwise *and harms the child*, and to justify the rightness of raising children that are biologically related over those that aren't in the face of the fact that it is more likely to provide a novel and useful result to impart your philosophy on a child unrelated genetically than one genetically related to yourself.

It still stands, simply and elegantly, that if society needs children, society ought pay as a whole for those children instead of putting that burden squarely on those already expected to raise them.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, it does. Both of them. In the state of 1, I answered it here:

We don't think men in particular should be 'held responsibe' for children they never wanted for taking a drug they never wanted to be addicted to, because that isn't ethical.

Since reading comprehension seems to be lacking here for whatever reason .., both these address (1), in saying child support is an undue and unethical burden for ONE man, when it is the entire society that should be responsible for that burden, for every child. The question of child support at that point becomes moot.

Based on your questionable ethics and tenuous reasoning, that is true.

In (2), the response is addressed in my post previous to that one in which I state people who do not plan to be parents should not GET to be parents, and people who plan to be parents should expect, due to early and often communicated expectations that those who plan for children will get children * and that there will be a strong chance that those children will not be genetically linked to them*

Those arguments represent a fundamental incursion by the state into one of the most basic of human rights. Plenty of people have effortlessly and effectively raised children that they did not plan to have. There is no reason to believe that some hypothetical state system will do as an effective job as those people.

In short, your position is based on a clearly counter-factual view of human nature, history and basic human rights.

You are letting your confirmation bias get in your way. You are pointing to case studies, when the body of research shows clearly that outcomes for planned children are better, regardless of whether they are genetically linked to those who raise them.

You are letting your confirmation bias confuse your "thinking". Planned vs unplanned is a red herring - people have children. Your notion that somehow people will accept the state incursion into a basic human right of procreation and that it will be easy to enforce is handwaved nonsense.

Of course, it is up to you to stop making hand-waving and unfounded statements that the core of my philosophy is "questionable" by actually putting it to the question. I don't see you doing that, though...

Just as you are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine. I am under no obligation to accept your delusion that you have made a rational justification for your position.

The state already makes "fundamental incursions" into the most "basic" of "human rights", namely the rights to put into our bodies the things we wish to, and the right to die should we wish it. It always has.

That is more counterfactual nonsense. Suicide is not universally against the law nor has it been throughout time in every society.

 

[RVonse]

Nonetheless, here is are interesting case https://mic.com/articles/129190/a-court-ordered-sherri-shepherd-to-pay-child-support-for-a-baby-not-biologically-her-own#.TcUJuCqQ6 and http://sandrarose.com/2016/04/brittney-griner-ordered-to-pay-child-support-to-glory-johnson/

The laws on child support in most states are based on outmoded technology (the out of date inability to identify paternity). The simple remedy is to work to update those laws in a humane fashion not to hysterically rave about the end of civilization using obviously bogus observations about reality.

Wait a minute laughing dog. You go to far with what I have proposed and perhaps you are confusing myself with Jolly.

The only thing I have ever proposed is that we take the contract of marriage seriously, in the same manner it was taken seriously in the US up until around 70 years ago. An expectation that people entering into a marriage, also act with fidelity and nothing more than that. Meaning that only if certain individuals choose to break the contract of marriage, those individuals will face a consequence of their own actions during a subsequent divorce. Such as paying for their own biological offspring.

And why is that so unreasonable? Why is that hand waving? The business world enters into contracts all the time with certain expectations for both parties and we do not have to hand wave about what happens in that world. If some people may believe a slightly more conservative contract of marriage is a constraint to personal liberty....fine, just don't get married. But once you do get married, you follow what the contract expects or you pay a price. Why is this so completely unreasonable? At least for the people who do get married, they will know exactly where they stand when they go to divorce court. And conversely, if you do not get married both women and men will know where they stand as well with regards to fidelity in the relationship.

Because in my mind, making the contract of marriage work again is the first step in reversing a the bad trend of children born with one or both biological parents missing. And most of us would agree that that is bad for society in general.

 

[laughing dog]

Nonetheless, here is are interesting case https://mic.com/articles/129190/a-court-ordered-sherri-shepherd-to-pay-child-support-for-a-baby-not-biologically-her-own#.TcUJuCqQ6 and http://sandrarose.com/2016/04/brittney-griner-ordered-to-pay-child-support-to-glory-johnson/

The laws on child support in most states are based on outmoded technology (the out of date inability to identify paternity). The simple remedy is to work to update those laws in a humane fashion not to hysterically rave about the end of civilization using obviously bogus observations about reality.

Wait a minute laughing dog. You go to far with what I have proposed and perhaps you are confusing myself with Jolly.

The only thing I have ever proposed is that we take the contract of marriage seriously, in the same manner it was taken seriously in the US up until around 70 years ago. An expectation that people entering into a marriage, also act with fidelity and nothing more than that. Meaning that only if certain individuals choose to break the contract of marriage, those individuals will face a consequence of their own actions during a subsequent divorce. Such as paying for their own biological offspring.

All of that is true today for the most part. Divorced partners are usually expected to support their legal offspring. Those laws were written when the establishment of paternity was difficult. Now that is much less problematic, all that is needed is a movement to change the laws.

[
And why is that so unreasonable? Why is that hand waving? The business world enters into contracts all the time with certain expectations for both parties and we do not have to hand wave about what happens in that world. If some people may believe a slightly more conservative contract of marriage is a constraint to personal liberty....fine, just don't get married. But once you do get married, you follow what the contract expects or you pay a price. Why is this so completely unreasonable? At least for the people who do get married, they will know exactly where they stand when they go to divorce court. And conversely, if you do not get married both women and men will know where they stand as well with regards to fidelity in the relationship.

Because in my mind, making the contract of marriage work again is the first step in reversing a the bad trend of children born with one or both biological parents missing. And most of us would agree that that is bad for society in general.

Your claims that the contract of marriage does not work is handwaving. Your claim that civilization is declining based on the presumed deficiencies in marriage contracts is handwaving.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In (2), the response is addressed in my post previous to that one in which I state people who do not plan to be parents should not GET to be parents, and people who plan to be parents should expect, due to early and often communicated expectations that those who plan for children will get children * and that there will be a strong chance that those children will not be genetically linked to them*

Often (though not always) the problem is that some jackass (and especially the one in the OP) wants children that are 'his'. And if faced with the reality that his children will NOT necessarily be 'his' and yet he will still be expected to love them just as much as any other child, and raise it, the psychological impact of finding out he didn't contribute half the DNA of the kid is moot: he necessarily knew walking into the deal. For some men it is indeed the betrayal that makes him not want to participate in raising the kid, or at least not wanting to pay for it (but that point is moot as to my above address to (1)). And for all the others who are merely 'Chasing the Darwin'... Fuck em. Don't let them have a kid no matter how much they want to. Because Fuck em.

As to whether there are biochemical factors such as getting the oxytocin whammy from a kid being important to parental engagement, that kind of connection can be forged through artificial means, and more consistently than biology manages it.

You're basically advocating government regulation of procreation, where prospective parents must apply for a parenting license; people who have children without a license will be made to give up their children to people who have one. Requisite for said license being announcing your intent to raise children and demonstrating a solid plan to do so. What's interesting is, you don't seem to think the prospective parents should have a choice in the matter; if you have a license, a child will be ASSIGNED to you as needed, just like unlicensed parents shouldn't have a choice over whether or not to keep their child or even to carry the child to term.

The only thing I haven't figured out is whether or not you really believe this is the kind of society anyone would want to live in. It sounds like an episode of Black Mirror.

 

[RVonse]

What they really should do is flip it over--no order of child support can be issued without either a DNA test or evidence he's the father anyway (his signature on adoption/artificial insemination etc paperwork.) This would nip such problems in the bud.

Actually what Loren said makes the most sense to me to keep it simple and fair. What would be wrong with this?

 

[Jarhyn]

Actually, it does. Both of them. In the state of 1, I answered it here:

We don't think men in particular should be 'held responsibe' for children they never wanted for taking a drug they never wanted to be addicted to, because that isn't ethical.

Since reading comprehension seems to be lacking here for whatever reason .., both these address (1), in saying child support is an undue and unethical burden for ONE man, when it is the entire society that should be responsible for that burden, for every child. The question of child support at that point becomes moot.

Based on your questionable ethics and tenuous reasoning, that is true.

In (2), the response is addressed in my post previous to that one in which I state people who do not plan to be parents should not GET to be parents, and people who plan to be parents should expect, due to early and often communicated expectations that those who plan for children will get children * and that there will be a strong chance that those children will not be genetically linked to them*

Those arguments represent a fundamental incursion by the state into one of the most basic of human rights. Plenty of people have effortlessly and effectively raised children that they did not plan to have. There is no reason to believe that some hypothetical state system will do as an effective job as those people.

In short, your position is based on a clearly counter-factual view of human nature, history and basic human rights.

You are letting your confirmation bias get in your way. You are pointing to case studies, when the body of research shows clearly that outcomes for planned children are better, regardless of whether they are genetically linked to those who raise them.

You are letting your confirmation bias confuse your "thinking". Planned vs unplanned is a red herring - people have children. Your notion that somehow people will accept the state incursion into a basic human right of procreation and that it will be easy to enforce is handwaved nonsense.

you have made a statement of fact that procreation is a basic human right, with particular emphasis on the idea that it is a right of an individual. You have yet to support this claim and until you do, I reject it. We have many examples of the state in various parts of the world deciding that it is not a basic human right to reproduce. Is it a basic human right to produce ten children? How about twenty? How about fifty children? If there is the technology to guarantee lives in perpetuity, what about the right to produce twenty million children? Where will these children go? Where will they live? Who will pay for their education? What water will they drink and into what sewer or hole will they shit? Whose air will they pollute with their cars? People inflict their children upon others in the very act of creating them, and so it is society, not the basic human that decides when a child may be so inflicted. As such, childbearing does NOT qualify under my model of what defines a 'basic human right'. But the point is moot because we have good examples of where this so-called right is abridged, and it works for the most part.

Of course, it is up to you to stop making hand-waving and unfounded statements that the core of my philosophy is "questionable" by actually putting it to the question. I don't see you doing that, though...

Just as you are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine. I am under no obligation to accept your delusion that you have made a rational justification for your position.

No, I do not think anyone is entitled to an opinion. You have made statements of fact, that my ethics are questionable, particularly in regards to the statement 'a society that needs children should underwrite them as a society'. Either put up by questioning it, or retract your statement of fact.

The state already makes "fundamental incursions" into the most "basic" of "human rights", namely the rights to put into our bodies the things we wish to, and the right to die should we wish it. It always has.

That is more counterfactual nonsense. Suicide is not universally against the law nor has it been throughout time in every society.

False dichotomy. It doesn't have to be done everywhere to constitute an example that it is done. You DO understand how disproof works, right? Or is this shifting goalposts? I'll go with both.

 

[laughing dog]

you have made a statement of fact that procreation is a basic human right, with particular emphasis on the idea that it is a right of an individual. You have yet to support this claim and until you do, I reject it.

Read Article 16 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)

We have many examples of the state in various parts of the world deciding that it is not a basic human right to reproduce.

No, we have examples of the state denying people that basic human right.

I

Of course, it is up to you to stop making hand-waving and unfounded statements that the core of my philosophy is "questionable" by actually putting it to the question. I don't see you doing that, though...

Just as you are entitled to your opinions, I am entitled to mine. I am under no obligation to accept your delusion that you have made a rational justification for your position. [/Quote]No, I do not think anyone is entitled to an opinion. You have made statements of fact, that my ethics are questionable, particularly in regards to the statement 'a society that needs children should underwrite them as a society'. Either put up by questioning it, or retract your statement of fact.

False dichotomy. It doesn't have to be done everywhere to constitute an example that it is done. You DO understand how disproof works, right? Or is this shifting goalposts? I'll go with both.

Wrong. You claimed "It always has". A counter-example show that it the state has not always made a fundamental incursion into a basic right. Which disproves your claim under the most basic laws of reason.

Moreover, the fact the state has interfered with basic human right in the past does not justify those incursions or future incursions - again an application of basic reasoning.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

you have made a statement of fact that procreation is a basic human right, with particular emphasis on the idea that it is a right of an individual. You have yet to support this claim and until you do, I reject it.

Do your homework, dude:
Reproductive rights began to appear as a subset of human rights in the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran, which states: "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children".

This right was affirmed by the UN General Assembly in the 1969 Declaration on Social Progress and Development which states "The family as a basic unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members, particularly children and youth, should be assisted and protected so that it may fully assume its responsibilities within the community. Parents have the exclusive right to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children."

You disagree? Take it up with the U.N. and all of its members.

We have many examples of the state in various parts of the world deciding that it is not a basic human right to reproduce.

We have many examples of the state in various parts of the world deciding that it is not a basic human right to LIVE. I do not think the deviations from the ideal should tell us anything about what the ideal should be in the first place.

You have made statements of fact, that my ethics are questionable

If what you are advocating is state intervention in family planning by 1) stripping children away from people who didn't adequately plan their families and 2) forcing people who planned to be parents to care for OTHER people's children whether they want to or not, then your ethics are indeed VERY questionable. The intrusion into the private lives of parents and children and the deliberate breaking of familial bonds without any input from the family in question is widely seen as unethical even in countries where this has been practiced.

Remember: the state is the final arbiter on what is LAWFUL, not what is ethical.

False dichotomy. It doesn't have to be done everywhere to constitute an example that it is done.

Irrelevant. Just because it is done by someone doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do your homework, dude:
Reproductive rights began to appear as a subset of human rights in the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran, which states: "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children".

This right was affirmed by the UN General Assembly in the 1969 Declaration on Social Progress and Development which states "The family as a basic unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members, particularly children and youth, should be assisted and protected so that it may fully assume its responsibilities within the community. Parents have the exclusive right to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children."

You disagree? Take it up with the U.N. and all of its members.

We have many examples of the state in various parts of the world deciding that it is not a basic human right to reproduce.

We have many examples of the state in various parts of the world deciding that it is not a basic human right to LIVE. I do not think the deviations from the ideal should tell us anything about what the ideal should be in the first place.

You have made statements of fact, that my ethics are questionable

If what you are advocating is state intervention in family planning by 1) stripping children away from people who didn't adequately plan their families and 2) forcing people who planned to be parents to care for OTHER people's children whether they want to or not, then your ethics are indeed VERY questionable. The intrusion into the private lives of parents and children and the deliberate breaking of familial bonds without any input from the family in question is widely seen as unethical even in countries where this has been practiced.

Remember: the state is the final arbiter on what is LAWFUL, not what is ethical.

False dichotomy. It doesn't have to be done everywhere to constitute an example that it is done.

Irrelevant. Just because it is done by someone doesn't make it a good idea.

You make a very pretty argument from authority. It is a very basic desire of apes to want to out-reproduce each other. I couldn't give a shit less what people have proclaimed because it is clearly wrong. I don't accept a basic human right to fill the earth with children, and that is what such a declaration amounts to.

I do take hold it against the UN and it's members just like I hold the second amendment against the founding fathers and supreme Court justices that inflicted THAT travesty on the world.

The proclaimed.ation that those children are 'theirs' and thus 'theirs to keep' is a raw equivocation.

Further, you have made a red herring. Im not talking about the right to live. I'm talking about the fictitious right to produce progeny, particularly to produce them irresponsibly. YOU assume the way we operate now is 'ideal' apparently. I do not.

I very much DO advocate taking children out of the custody of those who did not plan for them, and giving them to those who do plan for them. You're the one putting unjustified ethical judgement on that.

When you have spent real time thinking about what creates family in the real, physical world, it is a combination of two things: effort to teach a child, and drugs administered to our bodies to reward us going more than a little insane about how we treat them. That's what defines love and family. If you dislike that, I recommend you take it up with the universe itself; I didn't write that rule. It isn't magic, it's biochemistry, and we can cheat that to redefine, in reality, the very idea of family itself.

Being a parent is anything but private. You inflict the world with your spawn and all the other people have to deal with that. It's perhaps the most public decision that you can make because it redefines the very shape of 'public' every time you do it. Just because it involves the very private decision to take a drug (re: orgasm) doesn't change the fact that it impacts all of us.

 

[bilby]

...

It is a very basic desire of apes to want to out-reproduce each other. ... I don't accept a basic human right to fill the earth with children, and that is what such a declaration amounts to.

...

Unfortunately for your argument, this premise is demonstrably untrue.

Until the late 20th century, human population expanded to the level that could be supported by the resources available, whereupon it was limited by famine. IF your assertion here were correct, THEN we would see this pattern continuing; Population would either continue to grow at an accelerating rate as technology increased our ability to produce food and other resources; OR population would be limited by widespread famine; OR both.

But that prediction of your hypothesis is not borne out by observation. Since the mid-20th century, population growth has stalled, while famine has almost completely disappeared.



Something happened in the second half of the 20th century that radically changed the pattern of population growth.

That something, I hypothesize, was the invention and spread of the oral contraceptive.

The fact is that it is a very basic desire of apes to have sex. As far as evolution is concerned, that's always been a good enough proxy for your supposed "basic desire of apes to want to out-reproduce each other" - but it is NOT the same thing in an environment where women have access to safe and effective contraception. Women do NOT want to have huge numbers of babies. Many women don't want ANY; a few want LOTS; and when they are given the opportunity to "determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children", we find that the average family size is rather smaller than is needed to maintain the existing population, much less produce population growth.

The only reasons population growth is still occurring is a) Not all women have easy access to contraception, largely due to the efforts of religions to block such access; b) Demographic lag (the number of women of childbearing age in 15-20 years time is a function of the current population of infant girls, so when fertility rates in a population fall below 2 children per woman, it can take 20-30 years for population growth to cease); and c) Poor agrarian societies, and societies with high infant mortality demand large numbers of children (this issue is becoming less important as poverty declines; well-off people don't want large families, particularly where it is expected that most children will survive to adulthood).

Giving people the freedom to "determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children" is a recipe for a slow decline in world population. We do not yet see such a decline because that freedom is not yet available to many, and because it takes several decades for the effect to be reflected in the population numbers once it takes hold.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Also porn

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You make a very pretty argument from authority.

Thank you.

I don't accept a basic human right to fill the earth with children, and that is what such a declaration amounts to.

My argument from authority is prettier than yours.

Further, you have made a red herring. Im not talking about the right to live...

No, you're talking about the practice of states deliberately violating the rights of their citizens and then using the actions of those states as evidence that those citizens never actually had those rights in the first place. It's a circular argument: you reject reproductive rights and then claim that reproductive rights don't exist because you're not the only one who rejects them.

I very much DO advocate taking children out of the custody of those who did not plan for them, and giving them to those who do plan for them. You're the one putting unjustified ethical judgement on that.

Half right. I'm putting an unethical judgement on that, and it is QUITE justified.

To be clear: you do not get to unilaterally decide what rights a person does and does not have. These things tend to be decided by a general consensus of society, either through an informal collective volume of what a normal person comes to consider "moral" or through a moral formalized set of documented rights codified in a country's constitution or other legal declarations. While ethics and personal standards for behavior are, to a limited extent, subject to individual interpretation, BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS are not.

And the broad consensus of the human race, through its various representatives and proxies, have concluded that Basic Human Rights include the right to reproduction. You have every right to disagree, but understand that if you try to force your disagreement on everyone else, the consensus of humanity will conclude that you are violating their rights and will act accordingly.

tl;dr, this is the argument from "You'd get your ass kicked if you ever actually tried it."

When you have spent real time thinking about what creates family in the real, physical world...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you don't actually have any children.