Procreation - Right, Duty or Privilege

There's an ongoing debate in the world about who should or should not have children. Quite often those debates are directed at women, simply because women happen to be the physical bearers of offspring - for better or worse. The abortion debate focuses on women rather than men, and the outcome of any such debate will probably always be felt more strongly by women. Religious extremists keep spouting rhetoric about it being a woman's duty to procreate and populate the world, and that no child should ever be aborted, regardless of the risks to the mother or any other factors. Far left-wing liberals are of the opinion that anyone should be allowed to have abortions for any reason, at any time.

Another area of the debate comes from the opposite end of the spectrum. Recently (July 2013) it was revealed that California prisons were illegally sterilizing female inmates. However, it hasn't always been illegally done, either. I remember in the late nineties when a Canadian woman sued the Alberta provincial government for enforced sterilization. Anyone with an IQ of less than 70 was subject to the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta. As we should all realize, however, the law was applied rather indiscriminately.

"Specifically, the Act was disproportionately applied to those in socially vulnerable positions, including: females, children, unemployed persons, domestics, rural citizens, unmarried, institutionalized persons, Roman and Greek Catholics, persons of Ukrainian, Native and Métis ethnicity." Wikipedia entry.

There is a constant Dr. Dolittle Pushmi-Pullyu thing happening with women here. It boils down to constantly being told what to do, whatever the mood swing happens to be at that moment, and then being expected to do it in that moment, but then being castigated later for making the choice that was lauded initially. Case in point - when women are expected to give birth no matter what their financial ability, and then are forced to seek assistance, they're called welfare queens.

It's not just about women and their choices, though. Or even men for that matter.

I would imagine that most people don't ever really stop to think about it, but our planet has something called a carrying capacity. Basically what it means is that there is a maximum population that the earth can sustain. Even for those who do stop to think about it, it's unlikely they know what that capacity is. Well, I'll happily answer that question to the best of my ability, by telling you that it's approximately 9 to 10 billion. Surprised? I bet you didn't realize how close we were to hitting that maximum. What's more shocking is that there is evidence to support the possibility we've already exceeded our carrying capacity.

'Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute, has said: "It would take 1.5 Earths to sustain our present level of consumption. Environmentally, the world is in an overshoot mode."' Wikipedia entry.

Our carrying capacity is determined by consumption levels in multiple areas. It's not just our food supply, but that's a place to start. If we all became vegetarians our food supply could support ten million people. Feeding livestock to, in turn, feed ourselves, is a much less efficient way of doing things. By remaining omnivores we're able to feed fewer people. Other issues affecting our planetary capacity are clean water and something called the nitrogen cycle. Our planet can only filter so much water, and create so much breathable nitrogen. Of course, the nitrogen cycle is also affected by human-created issues, such as fossil fuel consumption and agricultural inputs. (In case you failed science class, nitrogen comprises approximately 78% of the air that we breathe, so it's more than a little necessary to our existence.)

This means we're left with a huge moral dilemma. Every choice we make with regard to procreation leads to unwanted consequences and massive doubt and debate.

If we tell people they should have children we can overload the planet in a very short period of time. Never mind the economic strain of people having children they cannot afford, and the fact that we're demanding that people do what some don't want to do. Not everyone wants kids. Forcing people who don't want them to have them will always be a recipe for disaster, and those children will suffer greatly for it. Children born in poverty already suffer for it. Anyone raised in poverty can tell you that financial strain increases stress factors in the home. Increased stress levels result in proportionately higher percentages of abuse and neglect. In other words, if we're happy people, we're much more likely to be happy parents and treat our children better.

On the flip-side, if we tell people they shouldn't have children, we're taking away their natural-given rights and/or abilities to do so. Yet, a big part of me understands why certain things aren't necessarily welcome in the gene pool. I've certainly looked at people and wished they would stop procreating because I felt there was no way they should be allowed to be parents. At the very least, anyone who has been convicted of violence toward children should be barred from producing them. I have stronger opinions there, but they're only semi-related to the topic at hand, so I'll leave them alone for now.

Maybe there should be a test or application process. The problem is, humanity as a whole is far too lacking in intelligence to make up a test to properly determine who should be parents and who should not. Possibly we should all undergo a type of temporary sterilization until such time as we're able to afford to have it reversed and we've gone through parenting training of some kind. It would guarantee we're at a financially stable point in our life and can afford to bear children, and it would help to prepare us for doing so. Of course, under those restrictions my daughter would never have been born, so maybe I should just stop talking now.