Article Tools

Is there an inherent right to produce children, even where the parents cannot afford to raise them? Sometimes it is difficult to suggest that this “right to reproduce” should be removed; this short article looks at some of the issues.

Image via Wikipedia

Now I know that this is a controversial subject but sometimes there are things that we should all stop and consider and then dare to discuss.  I’m not declaring that I have any answers but sometimes if we expose the problems then progress can be made.

There exists a lobby of people who believe that every person has a right to reproduce and that to interfere with this right is a breach of basic ‘human rights’.  There is much merit in this statement and it makes a good starting point for a humanitarian view.  I suggest, however, that there is a further question which must be asked alongside the issue of rights.  The question is one of responsibilities; should an individual be granted rights if they are unwilling or unable to accept the accompanying responsibility?

Read more in Opinions
« The Morning-After Pill
The American Financial Crisis »

If a person is incapable of or unwilling to take responsibility for the children they produce should they be allowed to continue to claim a right to reproduce?  These questions are often considered by the courts when the thorny issue of the sterilisation of women with mental incapacity is considered. 

The concern here is not with the smaller numbers of cases where the issue is whether the parents have the mental capacity to decide to have children.   The question here is whether it is morally acceptable for people to keep adding to the population when they have no intention of providing for their children.  In these cases the ‘fruits of their wombs/loins’ become a drain, from the day they are born, on the rest of society and perhaps experience a less than fulfilling life of their own.

If a family continues to have excessive numbers of children when neither parent is prepared to/or feels fit enough to work and their days are spent being idle apart from presumably having yet more fertile sex, is there a point when the state should interfere?

Some countries limit the number of children for whom states benefits are paid.  The United Kingdom does not currently do this and a ‘work free’ family or a family on low income can breed to increase their income and enlarge the houses they are given.  The rest of the nation simply has to pick up the bill for their ‘right’ to reproduce.

If, as we are told, children raised in these households have a much higher chance of becoming part of the benefit culture, then the less-educated  population is increasing at an alarming rate (subsidised by the state) only to be provided for by a shrinking educated and working population.  Does this make any sense?

It is very difficult to imagine how these problems can be resolved.  An overhaul of the benefit system would be a good start and an end to the rewarding of numerous pregnancies for those reliant on the state for income.  Sometimes when I see the dreadful ways that some children are raised I wonder if it should be necessary to acquire a licence to be a parent (we do for cars and some animals). I guess that would never be very popular.

 Interestingly in some Northern European countries they are looking at the possibility of a contraceptive implant being ordered for the mothers of children have been taken into state care due to neglect, simply to stop them producing more children who will also have to be taken into care.  This seems heavy-handed and does not appear to curtail the activities of negligent fathers, but it is possible to see the logic behind the discussion. 

We should not buy cars, pets and houses that we cannot afford to keep and run, so why is it seen as politically incorrect to suggest that people should not be allowed to keep choosing (and it is a choice) to have more children when they are not able to be responsible for all the needs of the child.

I suggest that the right to reproduce does exist (but not automatically) and should be protected but only if that right goes hand-in-hand with the acceptance of the responsibility to care and provide for the children.  Rights should be always be earned by the demonstration of the acceptance of accompanying responsibility.