Should the government be able to limit number of children?

And where is the compelling government interest? Does the government actually lose billions of dollars over unsupported children? Proof pls kthx!

The right to privacy includes abortions...see Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Right now, there is a right to an abortion, and the state can do nothing that is a substantial obstacle to getting that abortion. I don''t believe that the father is really considered at all.

--And yes, Ralcydan, that make up is important.

And JMJ, you''re right - there is an incredible burden that this ultimately is spread upon the entire tax base. Personally, I think you gotta pass a test, but hey, look what they ask you to do at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

JMJ - I''m not sure I agree with your definition of a ""right"" as being something without cost.

The 6th amendment in the Bill of Rights states that the accused shall have: ""Assistance of Counsel for his defence"" which absolutely costs something.

The 7th Amendment states that ""the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"" which costs both the State and individuals time and money.

Small points, but there is no legal or philosophical reason to assign the title ""right"" only to those things that are free. Rights are what they are. If the Constitution stated that every American had the ""right"" to a public education until the age of 25, to be paid for by taxes, this would still qualify.

Having said this, ""compelling government interest"" doesn''t require something to cost one red cent. These days, ""diversity"" is a compelling government interest. And there are lots of child welfare laws that give the state all sorts of power to take children out of homes. I''m not saying I support giving the State the power to legislate who can have children, but it would be easy to argue that there is precedent.

"Bosephus" wrote:

Personally, I think you gotta pass a test, but hey, look what they ask you to do at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Looking at the news from Cali last week, is that enough?

Looking at the news from Cali last week, is that enough?

That''s a little unfair. You can hardly classify US driver''s license testing as ""testing"". Many states don''t even require seniors to renew after a certain age, and the hardest feat to be performed in the country is parallel parking. I like the German system. Easy to drink, hard to get a license to drive. Rigorous testing of ability would weed out the problem cases.

Personally, I am against required testing for parenting. If there were a test for child rearing (no Catholic jokes please), it would be developed and administered by state bureaucrats. Keep in mind that these are people whose parents did such a poor job raising them that they are state bureaucrats...

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has held that a woman has a fundamental right to bear children. Any undue restriction on that right would be a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, blah blah blah. I believe any law limiting the number of children an individual can have would be struck down as unconstitutional. I can''t envision a law that would provide that a heroin addict would be subject to a forced abortion at gunpoint (against her will). The Court must consider if there is a compelling interest and no reasonable alternatives, ie. taking away the child from the heroin addict after birth, which is not uncommon, ie. person in jail. Saving money for the State would not override a woman''s right to bear children.

It''s yet another ""implied fundamental right"" or more properly known as substantive rights as opposed to the express fundamental rights of life liberty and property.

Oh and a right is an entitlement. And yes, it can cost a lot.

The difference between say, driving a car/owning a gun/etc and having a child is that the former is a privilege, the latter a basic human right.

The Second Amendment provides for a right to bear arms.

And remember kids, rights can be taken away too, ie. death penalty.

Thanks Ral. You are correct. The trial by jury is a right that has a societal cost. I stand corrected.

And no, I don''t want a government bureaucrat making a decision about who gets to have a child or who doesn''t. I think that the only feasible way to make it work would be that you are assumed to have the right to have a child unless and until you did something to strip yourself of that right, much like Lawyeron''s example of the death penalty.

Everything is about trade-offs. If you are a responsible citizen then you have no problem. If you make poor life choices, then there is a price to pay, and getting to procreate freely is one of them.

I can''t envision a law that would provide that a heroin addict would be subject to a forced abortion at gunpoint (against her will).

FYI, that never came from me.

Right now, there is a right to an abortion, and the state can do nothing that is a substantial obstacle to getting that abortion. I don''t believe that the father is really considered at all.

Maybe that should be the topic for the next thread...

Quote:

I can''t envision a law that would provide that a heroin addict would be subject to a forced abortion at gunpoint (against her will).

FYI, that never came from me.

No it came from Bosephus, and I think he was just pontificating.

I didn''t say that. I never said anything about guns or forcing abortions. Please, cite me if you can. I wasn''t even pontificating in that direction.

""It may be considered a compelling state interest to restrict the number of babies a heroin addict has.""

How would you enforce a restriction on the number of babies a heroin addict has? Forced sterilization or forced abortions would be the only way. How does a government enforce a law, with the threat of force. But I didn''t think you were suggesting that that would a good law.

Well, I certainly didn''t have any ideas of hold women at gunpoint to force abortions. I wrote that because it was the constitutional standard.

The judge in the noted article, aaaaaaaaaaaaall the way back at the top of the thread ordered the junkie to get on birth control or go to jail. That''s one way to try to enforce it. Any way the government may try to force that kind of law, they would have to choose the least restrictive means, which would mean no guns.

I also believe that it will be struck down, but I was just providing a ground for why the judge may have felt that he had a leg to stand on when coming up with that ruling.

The author of the article also suggests at the bottom that the legislature may have to come up with legislation regarding this, because of the numerous problems they''ve been having in California. So I thought, ""Well, hey, maybe there''s a compelling interest here.""

"Lawyeron" wrote:
The difference between say, driving a car/owning a gun/etc and having a child is that the former is a privilege, the latter a basic human right.

The Second Amendment provides for a right to bear arms.

That''s a constitutional right. On a lower level I consider it a privilege, because a person does not require a gun to perform their life''s two basic functions: procreation and survival.

Getting involved in the Politics and Controversy forum is a lot like being in a G.I. Joe cartoon when they''re battling Cobra: Lots of fire back and forth, explosions, yet nobody falls, wins, or loses.

That''s a constitutional right. On a lower level I consider it a privilege, because a person does not require a gun to perform their life''s two basic functions: procreation and survival.

Oh I''m sorry, we weren''t talking about constitutional rights? Were we discussing Locke and Hobbes?

As far as not needing a gun to survive, than you need to visit the places I hang out.

""In the city, you must fight to survive"".

I envy the peaceful life you guys lead.

Getting involved in the Politics and Controversy forum is a lot like being in a G.I. Joe cartoon when they''re battling Cobra: Lots of fire back and forth, explosions, yet nobody falls, wins, or loses.

Are you kidding? I win every time I close my browser and go ""Phew! Glad I don''t live anywhere near *those* wackos!""

""In the city, you must fight to survive"".

OCP is here to protect you!

NM, I tried to put a pic here uploaded at kth.cx, in preview mode it worked okay, when posted though it would resize the forum tables by thousands of pixels.