What It Means to Talk about Reproductive Justice

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. jimbino says:

    What about the right not to have children and not to have to pay high taxes to support the breeding and feeding of children of others? Freedom to choose to travel or stay home would not countenance being forced to finance others’ world travel.

  2. Howard Wasserman says:

    It’s called a social compact–people pay high taxes for all sorts of things they don’t directly use as a condition of being part of a (hopefully) just society that will benefit them. So the question is how essential something is to that just society and how much all people benefit. It seems to me that supporting parents in their ability to raise and support future generations, while also supporting the full human self-realization of those who do choose to reproduce, makes for a just society. After all, if parents can’t (or won’t) support future generations of the society, there won’t be a society in the future.

  3. Shag from Brookline says:

    I assume that libertarians preferring having no children will want to receive Social Security on retirement, thus relying on younger generations to provide funding. So perhaps such libertarians should support reproduction of others for their own selfish needs. Or do such libertarians wish to do away with Social Security and other parts of a social contract? Sometimes even Rand-y behavior may result in reproduction that cannot be shrugged off.

  4. jimbino says:

    Using “social contract” as a justification just begs the question. Even slaves had a social contract with the masters: you don’t whip us and we’ll work hard for free.

    The point is that society eventually wakes up and decides that slaves are entitled to freedom, women to vote and take men’s jobs, gays to marry and undocumented aliens to drivers licences, and so on. Someday, without bloodshed, we may wake up and stop taxing singles and the childfree to support lifestyle choices totally foreign, if not inimical, to them.

    Shag, you need to figure out that libertarians are foes of Social Security, a vast gummint transfer of wealth from singles and childfree to spouses and children of the beneficiary.

    And Howard, “if parents can’t (or won’t) support future generations of the society, there won’t be a society in the future,” is a silly statement in view of the fact that the childfree have already strongly stated in behavior their lack of interest in present sacrifice for the benefit of future generations of even their own progeny, nevermind the progeny of others.

  5. Shag from Brookline says:

    “Blessed are the childfree; for the childfree shall inherit the earth.”

    Oh, that fear of “A Clockwork Orange” world taking away from the self-made. Recall Jack Benny’s retort to his cheapness – “Jack, you can’t take it with you. – “Well, then, I won’t go.”

  6. Brett Bellmore says:

    Fine, Jimbino, don’t participate in perpetuating the human race. But, to be consistent, don’t try to benefit from that perpetuation, either: Maybe you can find an old age home run by centenarians for when you retire, and eat food grown by people in their 80’s?

    It’s not just that there won’t be a society in the future if we don’t have children today, it’s that the transition between having a society, and not having one, would be pretty darn ugly.

  7. Shag from Brookline says:

    Has Brett given up on “anarcho-libertarianism” and joined in the “social contract/compact”? If so, welcome. But perhaps Brett has in mind procreation to increase the ranks of “anarcho-libertarianism?