Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

Post by GFischer » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 12:32 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #146

GFischer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really complex, and I can see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't call it a right. I also agree that society should be better structured to accomodate and support parenthood. Many European countries are doing it right. What I'm personally ambivalent about is people forcing me to support other peoples' children, when I have delayed having my own children (and I'm in a stable relationship and we both want chi…

It's a right because people can do it, and they would also kill or die to keep doing it. It's that simple. If you tell someone they cannot reproduce, or forcibly sterilize them, they might try to escape your control or kill you. If you say it is not a right, you are also saying that someone may prevent another from doing it, by force, and en masse. On a large scale, this is a time-shifted equivalent of genocide. So I…

Thank you, what you write makes sense.

It is indeed very tricky, better men than me have argued back and forth:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

It seems that I'll have to agree with you and smtddr, then, that it is a right.

Once the child is born, it should be accorded all the human rights... and that's where we run into trouble.

Some interpretations of the "right to life" include the "right to survival",

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=159

I'm probably missing the right bibliography, if someone can point me to which books I should read, I would be very grateful :)

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Aug 18, 2014, 3:42 PM UTC

GFischer wrote: post #151

logfromblammo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a right because people can do it, and they would also kill or die to keep doing it. It's that simple. If you tell someone they cannot reproduce, or forcibly sterilize them, they might try to escape your control or kill you. If you say it is not a right, you are also saying that someone may prevent another from doing it, by force, and en masse. On a large scale, this is a time-shifted equivalent of genocide. So I…

Thank you, what you write makes sense. It is indeed very tricky, better men than me have argued back and forth: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/ It seems that I'll have to agree with you and smtddr, then, that it is a right. Once the child is born, it should be accorded all the human rights... and that's where we run into trouble. Some interpretations of the "right to life" include the "right to surviv…

The bibliography you use depends in large part on where you want to align yourself politically.

The endless debate cycle between disaffected and disenfranchised libertarians covers the topic of human rights quite often. Most of us agree that the UN declaration is not a viable framework, because some of the enumerated rights imply that someone, somewhere, would necessarily be impressed into compulsory service to enforce them. For example, a right to adequate medical care implies that someone must become a physician and supply that care, possibly without pay. The right to food implies that someone must farm it, possibly without pay.

Even the experts can make mistakes.

So rather than read what others have said on the topic, it may be better for you to simply think it out for yourself and see what you come up with. Ideally, you will come up with a set of principles that are unambiguous, self-consistent, and able to serve as the foundation for a civilized society. It's much harder than it sounds. Good luck.

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos

Re: Scheduling Technology Leaves Low-Income Parents With Hours of Chaos