[belorn]

Sex is precursor for reproduction, but since recreational sex is not only common but (in my view) the majority, I don't find it a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction. Just because a woman got a unwanted pregnancy through consenting sex doen't mean she should be forbidden to take an abortion. Both women and men can and do have consenting sex without consenting to be a parent.

The issue is how to deal with those cases, and make sure that everyone is treated in a fair way. Society should make rules that reflect a balance that respect people as much as it possible while doing as little harm as possible. I could suggest solutions here (like say, the government stepping in when there is only one consenting parent involved), but I don't claim to know what the perfect solution is. My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction. We need to start by defining common grounds and then ask how we can best reach those.

[hackuser]

> I don't find it [sex] a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction

Excellent point; thanks for the insight.

> My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction.

While society does have interests in many aspects of reproduction, I think those are greatly outweighed by fundamental liberty and the sanctity of your own person. As an important principle (not an absolutist rule, of course), we shouldn't tell people, including women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Also, governments have a dangerous track record with such policies. They've resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions, for example, and ethnic and religious discrimination.

[M_Grey]

There is unlikely to be anything like a perfect solution, and placing the burden on the taxpayer anytime a parent decides to brush the kid off seems unfair as well. A good guideline though, is that you can't force people into medical procedures, or force them not to get one they want/need. Given that life is unfair in that way, or at least not equal, the law is going to reflect that inequality to some extent.

[mc32]

In general I'd agree with you, but there are adults who really could benefit from medication but refuse to take it to their detriment and to the detriment to others in society. So I think, while I agree to a great extend with your above opinion, I think there are cases where professionals should be able to coerce people to take their meds.

Yes, I know abuse is possible, but given the alternative, I'm willing to take that risk, unless this kind of person has someone else who will be responsible and can be responsible for this person.

[M_Grey]

I have to be honest, the history of making people take medication has been an ugly one; I'm not sure if we've really moved past it either. If we had perfect medications without grievous long term adverse effects, I'd agree with you in any case though.

[belorn]

Do we then say that men should not have the right to decline parenthood because its too expensive for society, while at same time say that women should have the right because its a fundamental liberty?

We could, but it is not a good sound bite when calling for gender equality and reproductive rights. It also sound as there is more, maybe smaller steps that we could do to minimize the difference in rights and responsibility when it comes to reproductive rights.

[hackuser]

> men should not have the right to decline parenthood because its too expensive for society, while at same time say that women should have the right because its a fundamental liberty?

Yes. It's an interesting philosophical point, but there are real differences between men and women and this one is pretty straightforward.

[jimmywanger]

> but there are real differences between men and women

Thank you.

So you're saying that men should shoulder more responsibility for breeding for the greater good?