If every human on the face of the Earth goes with the bolded part and not reproduce, then humans will be extinct in next about... 100 years. Is that what you actually want?
You're misinterpreting the point. The point of limits on reproduction is to reign in an out of control population. Obviously these restrictions or incentives (either or) would be lifted once the population was under control. If we
don't have population controls, in a few generations we'll have a major crisis on our hands.
Also, Reproducing and murder is the polar opposite of each other. One begins a new life, and one ends an existing life. Using an example that is completely opposite of what you're applying your example to isn't the best way to back up your opinion, methinks.
Then you completely missed the point. The point wasn't that they're related, it's that just because we have the capacity to do something doesn't mean we should go and do it. It wasn't that murder is somehow related to reproduction (that's silly).
As for overpopulation, I'm not worried because I'm not living in a country where overpopulation is a problem, so my views on the original question would differ from what "should be ideal" in overpopulated countries.
Overpopulation is not a problem
in some areas of the US and
yet. Places like Detroit have major problems with overcrowding. Give it a few years and it'll get worse in other places. You're pushing the problem on to future generations and saying "well, since it's not here, I don't really care." That's a very selfish attitude.
I may be out of line, but I have to say that the notion that something is disqualified from being a right just because people can live perfectly normal, happy lives without it offends me like few others. It makes me sad to think that I know people who risked their lives to escape from communist East Germany just to find that basic liberty is on the table in the western nations as well. In my mind, a nation that claims to have indiscriminate and ultimate authority on whether or not its citizens can have children is one that holds its population in slavery.
So then why
should it be a basic human right? The burden of proof lies on the affirmative party; if you claim it's a human right, there should be a good reason why it ought to be other than "it will upset some people if it's not."
Yes, but it's literally part of what we are. That's a slippery slope fallacy.
Slippery slope "fallacies" are only fallacies if the suggested course of events is in doubt (and if it's more than one sequence of cause/effect, which in this case it's not). If we do not reign in population, the overpopulation
will become worse. There is no intermediary step, there is no question of effects. It already happened in China, though their situation has improved drastically since their government implemented population controls (the favoritism toward male children was an unfortunate side effect of their highly male-oriented society, and their government has really cracked down on it in recent years).
Being able to reproduce is a basic function of ours. As are:
- Homeostasis
- Organization (of cells)
- Metabolism
- Growth
- Adaptation
- Response to stimuli
- Reproduction
(The seven pillars of life.)
It's not what's natural. It's what makes us life.
Though I'm not sure if your claim about mules is true or not, there are plenty of creatures which lack the ability to reproduce. And again, how about people with sterility? Growing hair is a basic function of ours; are bald people not alive? That is the definition of a naturalistic fallacy; you're saying that because it's an ability we posses through nature, that we should be free to exploit it as much as we want.
Reproduction can even be seen as the way we continue to live after we die. Since the growth of a fetus is originally part of females. Like a duplication, then they split at child birth. It's thought that all our cells come from splitting the original cell billions of years ago. Our cells continue to split if we reproduce or otherwise they die permanently.
That's nonsense; children are not their parents, they are unique individuals, and I take offense at the very notion. We are not defined by our biology, we are defined by our experience. And it still doesn't stand as a reason for why reproduction should be a basic human right.
Perhaps we should define what a basic human right is (or ought to be). I believe a basic human right is one for which quality of life would be drastically impacted for a significant number of people were it curbed. I don't see reproduction as having a significant impact on quality of life for most people.
I think one-child incentives are a perfectly reasonable way of implementing population controls; people are still free to have more than one child, they just won't receive government help for it. At worst, a few people would be upset for maybe a generation or two, after which it would be the norm and nobody would mind.