Ironclad wrote:"Right".. :picard:
It's not a fair question. "Do I have the capacity, can I afford it?", could be better. The unborn has no rights.

Would you care to expand why it could be better? Why its not a fair question? Do you think the right to have kids is somehow given?

Hypothetical situation. You bring a child to this world. Childs grows up and tells you the same thing Mr Samuel did: I did not ask to be here and since it was your choice, you are responsible. What will you tell her/him? Tough luck, stick around, the law is against you?

Say "Person up" ?

Keep It Real wrote:Say "Person up" ?

Really? So the argument that s/he did not ask to be here and it was your choice is lost on you. Ok

They didn't ask not to be here either and they sell a five pack of stanley knives for a pound in a local shop so if they want out, as an adult, and aren't deemed to be mentally Ill, I'm sure they can afford that.

edit: typo

I got this email from humanism UK earlier today so might be a little bent out of shape on this one ATM:

We have exciting news. Humanists UK has co-founded a new, dedicated coalition to campaign for assisted dying for those with terminal and incurable illnesses across the UK. It’s the first group of its kind.

The Assisted Dying Coalition has been founded by Humanists UK, Humanist Society Scotland, Friends at the End, My Death My Decision, End of Life Choices Jersey, and the MDMD Medical Group in order to radically bolster and advance the argument for a humane law on the right to die across the UK and crown dependencies.

Our Coalition relies on the strength of its supporters. We plan to pool our resources to ensure that Parliament, the other legislatures, and the courts acknowledge the acute need to act on behalf of all those with a clear and settled wish to end their life. This includes people – like Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb – whose prognoses are not terminal, but whose conditions have nonetheless robbed them of their quality of life.

tuco wrote:

Ironclad wrote:"Right"..
It's not a fair question. "Do I have the capacity, can I afford it?", could be better. The unborn has no rights.

Would you care to expand why it could be better? Why its not a fair question? Do you think the right to have kids is somehow given?

Hypothetical situation. You bring a child to this world. Childs grows up and tells you the same thing Mr Samuel did: I did not ask to be here and since it was your choice, you are responsible. What will you tell her/him? Tough luck, stick around, the law is against you?

Well, I'd certainly try to tell him/her something suitably inspiring. If it didn't inspire him/her, I'd chalk it up to different strokes for different folks. I certainly would not try to prove a point about how much I'm willing to have extorted from me by somebody who's now old enough to point out that he/she did not ask to be born. I mean, even four-year olds try this trick when somebody tries to enforce their bedtime so someone else can have a life, too. Suitably inspiring: "We do our best by you, even though you may not agree." This is like being inspired by a Gillette ad to be the best person you know how to be.

People have rough patches, and easier patches, and that's by local standards until money grows on trees.

FFS. This really does push the limits of all sanity. "Hey Jimmy can you stick out a hand to sign these acceptance of birth papers".

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:

Ironclad wrote:"Right".. :picard:
It's not a fair question. "Do I have the capacity, can I afford it?", could be better. The unborn has no rights.

Would you care to expand why it could be better? Why its not a fair question? Do you think the right to have kids is somehow given?

Hypothetical situation. You bring a child to this world. Childs grows up and tells you the same thing Mr Samuel did: I did not ask to be here and since it was your choice, you are responsible. What will you tell her/him? Tough luck, stick around, the law is against you?

Well, I'd certainly try to tell him/her something suitably inspiring. If it didn't inspire him/her, I'd chalk it up to different strokes for different folks. I certainly would not try to prove a point about how much I'm willing to have extorted from me by somebody who's now old enough to point out that he/she did not ask to be born. I mean, even four-year olds try this trick when somebody tries to enforce their bedtime so someone else can have a life, too. Suitably inspiring: "We do our best by you, even though you may not agree." This is like being inspired by a Gillette ad to be the best person you know how to be.

People have rough patches, and easier patches, and that's by local standards until money grows on trees.

I was not talking about money. I was talking about an adult telling other adults that s/he is not happy with their decision s/he had zero influence over.

We can imagine having a machine which by a press of a button can produce a human. Now, do I understand it correctly that a human produced by such machine cannot question those pressing the button?

Selfish is defined as for own benefit without regard for others. Pressing the button is the definition of selfish, yet apparently unproblematic. I don't understand.

tuco wrote:I was not talking about money. I was talking about an adult telling other adults that s/he is not happy with their decision s/he had zero influence over.

We can imagine having a machine which by a press of a button can produce a human. Now, do I understand it correctly that a human produced by such machine cannot question those pressing the button?

Selfish is defined as for own benefit without regard for others. Pressing the button is the definition of selfish, yet apparently unproblematic. I don't understand.

Well, I'm trying to view it as narrowly and theoretically as you do, but I'm drawing a blank, so far. One day, somebody's happy to be alive, and the next, not so much. Shit happens, tuco, and moods are transitory. People who do commit suicide have, in a very clear sense, made an irrevocable decision, too. We can't sue them for having done so, and the situation is asymmetric.

Perhaps you mean that such unhappy adult children should be given the opportunity to turn themselves off at the front office, like the electric company does with your home electricity, if you don't pay your bill. Or maybe you mean the parents should be switched off and the kid (adult or otherwise) given everything that belonged to them. You must elaborate.

All sorts of decisions are made, over which we have no influence, and we can take our grievances on the road. If the show gets big enough, then some things will obviously have to change. If it's just an adult child of dysfunctional parents having some sort of snit, well, proposals are on the books to legislate qualifications for having kids, but that may be the best anyone can come up with, unless you have much, much better ideas that are not so narrow and theoretically-oriented.

Want to revolutionize our concepts of responsibility? Take your show on the road and prove yourself a brilliant thinker. There is nothing about having a child that is a pure benefit to the parents. If we could just press a button, then the button-pusher would accrue no obvious benefit at all, unless the result were to be served up for dinner.

If you're not happy about being born, there's a pretty obvious solution to that.

I'm With Stupid wrote:If you're not happy about being born, there's a pretty obvious solution to that.

That is obvious yes. Do I understand it correctly that's your response to the: I did not ask to be here and since it was your choice, you are responsible.?

As societies, we already hold parents responsible for children.

The question this suit raises isn't that one, it's whether an adult should be awarded damages (I haven't checked what form he wants them to take, financial or otherwise) for the decision of their parents in this regard.

In terms of that different question, whether parents are being responsible in having children, I suppose one would have to consider what the parents' reasonable expectations were of their child's potential attitude to being brought into the world - to analogise, if I drove to work *knowing* that I would kill someone on the way my moral accountability would be very different to knowing that if I drive to work *it is possible (at very low probability)* that I will kill someone on the way.

One is going to have to paint in finer strokes than those of a frivolous lawsuit to get to any moral issues here, I suspect.

tuco wrote:

Ironclad wrote:"Right"..
It's not a fair question. "Do I have the capacity, can I afford it?", could be better. The unborn has no rights.

Would you care to expand why it could be better? Why its not a fair question? Do you think the right to have kids is somehow given?

Hypothetical situation. You bring a child to this world. Childs grows up and tells you the same thing Mr Samuel did: I did not ask to be here and since it was your choice, you are responsible. What will you tell her/him? Tough luck, stick around, the law is against you?

For me it isn't a 'right', given or otherwise, it's simply the result of fucking. Taking a walk to the pub isn't a right, it's result of my placing one foot in front of another. Sounds pedantic?
If my child says the same as Samuel, and plenty of children do use those words when sulking - "waa waa I didn't ask to be born" - then I would tell them how the world works.
We care for our kids until they are as strong and independent as situations allow. When the parents become elderly and infirm we expect a little payback, in a further exchange we care for the grandchildren so the new parents go hunting and foraging. Beautifully simple really.

Mr Samuel needs a kick up the arse.

So the result of taking a walk to a pub is in some way comparable to the result of impregnation. That is interesting, thanks.

tuco wrote:So the result of taking a walk to a pub is in some way comparable to the result of impregnation. That is interesting, thanks.

That's a minor point you've decided to pick at, now that you've been shown the limitations of your original question, which one would have thought you were representing as 'weighty'. That's pretty much par for the course with you.

You have occulted some of the assumptions by which you might treat impregnation as a serious act full of responsibility that goes well beyond providing for the child up to a certain age, something that is not at debate. Read this, tuco:

Thommo wrote:The question this suit raises isn't that one, it's whether an adult should be awarded damages (I haven't checked what form he wants them to take, financial or otherwise) for the decision of their parents in this regard....
One is going to have to paint in finer strokes than those of a frivolous lawsuit to get to any moral issues here, I suspect.

It was the only point relevant to the question asked.

tuco wrote:It was the only point relevant to the question asked.

So you say, tuco, and if you want to harry that point, including letting us all know what you think is relevant, knock yourself out.

Cito di Pense wrote:

tuco wrote:It was the only point relevant to the question asked.

So you say, tuco, and if you want to harry that point, including letting us all know what you think is relevant, knock yourself out.

You are of course free to show me other worthy points

Ironclad wrote:

tuco wrote:

Ironclad wrote:"Right".. :picard:
It's not a fair question. "Do I have the capacity, can I afford it?", could be better. The unborn has no rights.

Would you care to expand why it could be better? Why its not a fair question? Do you think the right to have kids is somehow given?

Hypothetical situation. You bring a child to this world. Childs grows up and tells you the same thing Mr Samuel did: I did not ask to be here and since it was your choice, you are responsible. What will you tell her/him? Tough luck, stick around, the law is against you?

For me it isn't a 'right', given or otherwise, it's simply the result of fucking. Taking a walk to the pub isn't a right, it's result of my placing one foot in front of another. Sounds pedantic?
If my child says the same as Samuel, and plenty of children do use those words when sulking - "waa waa I didn't ask to be born" - then I would tell them how the world works.
We care for our kids until they are as strong and independent as situations allow. When the parents become elderly and infirm we expect a little payback, in a further exchange we care for the grandchildren so the new parents go hunting and foraging. Beautifully simple really.

Mr Samuel needs a kick up the arse.

If you see them because I don't. According to Ironclad it was not a fair question, I still do not know why. According to Ironclad its not "right", "given" or otherwise, its a result. That is interesting, dont you think?

tuco wrote:
If you see them because I don't. According to Ironclad it was not a fair question, I still do not know why. According to Ironclad its not "right", "given" or otherwise, its a result. That is interesting, dont you think?

You mean this:

tuco wrote:The story could be a joke, however, in my mind asking: Do I have right to bring a human to this world, not a legal one but let's say ethical one, is not a joke, or?

As an ethical question, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's why I said your question is theoretical and narrowly construed. While it's not a joke that you're playing, you still haven't provided anything by which to take it seriously as an ethical question, as you would for anyone else who might want to play tiddly winks with you. To do that, you might wish to show how some other similar question has been treated as an ethical question, and what suggests that your question is about an ethical matter, other than "tuco says it is an ethical question".

I don't know if this has been mentioned (I haven;t read it all in depth) but since he has decided that the life he has made for himself is his parents fault, I think the parents should sue him for all the money, time and accommodation they have spent on him.