first, i don't think anyone can argue that there should be no standards to determine whether someone is a fit parent before allowing them to adopt. but you're right that something like gender or sexuality is a stupid basis to make such a decision. seems odd to me to treat sexuality and child raising as related issues. if three people who aren't in any kind of sexual relationship with each other want to raise a child together, i see nothing about that that would suggest they wouldn't be able to do it.
but i don't understand this idea, which is very common, of "nobody can tell me i can't have a child". some people are clearly not capable, and some situations make it impractical. i'm reminded of chris rock: "just because you can do it doesn't mean it's to be done!"
"nobody can tell me i can't have a child". some people are clearly not capable, and some situations make it impractical. i'm reminded of chris rock: "just because you can do it doesn't mean it's to be done!"
Of course some people shouldn't have children. And they do, all the time. People make lousy, stupid decisions every day. Despite that, it is up to the individual to decide whether they have children. Unless you are suggesting something else?
yes, i'm suggesting something else. having a child is a serious thing, yet it's treated as something that should be done on a whim. i know americans tend to go crazy about rights (stephen fry put it best, americans see freedom as the ultimate goal, and justice as a means to it, while most people see justice as the goal and freedom as a means to it), to the point where the right to do something is more important than whether it's a good idea, but rational people wouldn't let a thing like that affect their thinking, would they? reason transcends cultural biases, right?
even the currently fashionable relativistic morality which justifies self harm draws the line when a person's irrational choices start to affect other people. of course, they've gotten around this by saying the child isn't another person, that it's a tumour or something.
Please elaborate on what you think should be done to prevent undeserving people from becoming pregnant?
this is the same as my view on drug prohibition. there's a harmful behaviour that people engage in, which ought to be stopped, but there is simply no way to do it. it must be prevented by education, not stopped by top-down enforcement, that's impossible. unless somebody figured out a way to change human biology to the point that faithful or superstitious thinking rendered people infertile, there's just no way to stop unfit parents from having children. but we already take children away from parents who are particularly unfit.
this is actually why child-raising is so important, because you cannot change human behaviour with a top-down approach. it's like trying to stop an asteroid. you have to divert it in small, incremental, measured steps as early as possible
this is why i asked how somebody can justify it to themselves, because they are the only ones with power over their actions.
when it affects the lives of others. that includes creating those lives.
let me ask you this: would that still be enough justification if the couple in question were siblings or had some genetic quirk which they knew would result in severe birth defects? would "the joys of childbirth" be enough to justify, as buddhist as this may sound, causing the suffering of another?