).If you are implying that this is what I think as i_got_poison was responding positively to a post of mine, then you are talking shite.
It's not that unborn children have rights (though I would disagree that they have none) - it's anticipation of the rights of the child immediately it is born. Considering the rights of parties involved in a future situation is absolutely standard practice in making lots of decisions and whilst they are not as concrete as the immediate rights of the individuals involved now they are certainly valid. For instance, in any surveillance operation we infringe the rights (to privacy) of the suspects here and now but if those suspects are believed to represent a future threat to the life of others then we are balancing that immediate infringment against a possible future infringement of the rights of others (who may or may not even be known). That is an entirely commonplace situation.
Please link to any statistics showing that world population (or even UK population) has fallen significantly over any sort of extended period (ten years or more) in human history.
Well, in the much bigger picture, yes ...
The parents are to "play God" and have, I would suggest, an absolute responsibility for the welfare of the child whilst it is unable to care for itself. Whilst the idea that we are all responsible for all children has some merit, I would not extend that to cover everything. With the availability of contraception, most parents in the developed world now make a decision to bring a child into the world. I very firmly believe that they have a responsibility to only do so when they are in a position to adequately care for it. The vast majority of parents do precisely that. Those that do not have not acted responsibily and have infringed the rights of their child and have harmed it to some greater or lesser extent, in some cases so seriously that I would suggest it should be considered neglect / child abuse.
What a fabulous quotation for the Human Race's gravestone ...
Well, in the much bigger picture, yes ...
The parents are to "play God" and have, I would suggest, an absolute responsibility for the welfare of the child whilst it is unable to care for itself. Whilst the idea that we are all responsible for all children has some merit, I would not extend that to cover everything. With the availability of contraception, most parents in the developed world now make a decision to bring a child into the world. I very firmly believe that they have a responsibility to only do so when they are in a position to adequately care for it. The vast majority of parents do precisely that. Those that do not have not acted responsibily and have infringed the rights of their child and have harmed it to some greater or lesser extent, in some cases so seriously that I would suggest it should be considered neglect / child abuse.
No. It is the secondary responsibility of the social services and other safeguarding agencies to pick up the pieces and do the best they can if, for whatever reason, the natural parents fail to adqeuately care for their child, something for which the primary responsibility is theirs.
umm, don't you think - what with humankind being fallible, and living messy lives, and all that - that in many individual cases it may not be as clear cut as that? THAT deprivation, lack of role models, poor education etc may all play their part in pregnancies happening that shouldn't happen but do?Well, in the much bigger picture, yes ...
The parents are to "play God" and have, I would suggest, an absolute responsibility for the welfare of the child whilst it is unable to care for itself. Whilst the idea that we are all responsible for all children has some merit, I would not extend that to cover everything. With the availability of contraception, most parents in the developed world now make a decision to bring a child into the world. I very firmly believe that they have a responsibility to only do so when they are in a position to adequately care for it. The vast majority of parents do precisely that. Those that do not have not acted responsibily and have infringed the rights of their child and have harmed it to some greater or lesser extent, in some cases so seriously that I would suggest it should be considered neglect / child abuse.
No. It is the secondary responsibility of the social services and other safeguarding agencies to pick up the pieces and do the best they can if, for whatever reason, the natural parents fail to adqeuately care for their child, something for which the primary responsibility is theirs.
If you are arguing that the responsibility of the social services and other safeguarding agencies is greater than that of the parents, or even equal to that of the parents then you are arguing that social services and other safeguarding agencies must have a say in the conception decision ... because they would then need to be able to ensure that they were in a position to adequately care for the child about to be born.
Why are you so reluctant to assign any personal responsibility to individuals? Do you really think the State should be so responsible for all aspects of everyone's lives?
