Don't I, as an individual, have the right to suffer? Struggle? Can anyone, say a being that cares for me, loves me, have the right to prevent me from struggling in life by taking decisions for me?
Situation 1
The year 2100 AD. A country 'X' is suffering from under-development. The common people do not have access to the basic necessities in life. A life that is more a struggle for existence than anything else. Enter Country 'Y'. A nation much evolved, with people way better off. A nation that has truly ensured great quality of life for all its people. The plight and horror of the people of 'X' is too much to bear for the sensitive and evolved people of country 'Y'. They put money and brains together to launch a campaign to stop all or a certain percentage of people in country 'X' from reproducing any more. The action springs from genuine love and empathy. It is imposed on the people of 'X' forcefully. The long term result is better quality life for the rest of the people of 'X'.
Situation 2
A welfare state decides, that since the quality of life of people below a certain income level, is quite not a life worth living, they will slowly phase this population out by making it illegal for them to reproduce. This will not only make life better for the poor who survive, but also for the rich, who were quite disturbed by the growing level of nuisance created by the increasing number of jobless poor. The state executes this decision out of genuine concern for its people.
Question 1
Does another individual/body have the right to decide for you if your life is worth living? Will you let someone come and sterilize you because you are in terrible living conditions? Because they cannot bear your sufferings?
Question 2
Do you think you would let a person do anything to you because they feel responsible for you? Does your opinion count?
Finally, are we in a position to sterilize dogs because it is too much of a pain for them to live in the terrible conditions they live in? Are we greater beings? In what right can we do something like this? Because we feel responsible for it? Because we feel bad to see them suffer? Who entrusted us with so much responsibility over them?
Every individual has the right to suffer. And live the life, however it is.
Opinion
It is a gross mistake to treat living beings as a propulation/species. It is important to look at them as individuals.
When you think in term of numbers it is similar to the way our government justifies crimes on a smaller group of people for the good of a greater number of people. The number does not matter.
Think of yourself. Someone comes to you and says you have too many problems in life. Think how wronged you will feel if something as crucial as reproduction is not left to you. Because the person/being feels responsible for you.
What would you do?
How does it matter if this treatment is meted out to all members of a species or to a percentage. Violation of rights of a being is not measured in the number of individuals that are violated.
When you think in term of numbers it is similar to the way our government justifies crimes on a smaller group of people for the good of a greater number of people. The number does not matter.
Think of yourself. Someone comes to you and says you have too many problems in life. Think how wronged you will feel if something as crucial as reproduction is not left to you. Because the person/being feels responsible for you.
What would you do?
How does it matter if this treatment is meted out to all members of a species or to a percentage. Violation of rights of a being is not measured in the number of individuals that are violated.
Forget reproduction. Would you let other people decide what you wear? Say a state decides that with the growing number of eveteasing cases, they want women to dress a certain way. The state thinks it's its responsibility to save you from the harassment.
Will you comply?
Don't answer. It wouldn't matter.
http://tastingmytongue.blogspot.com/2009/04/be-accountable-plz-be-accountable.html
ReplyDeletehmm. im still not sure.
ReplyDeletethere is a difference between wiping out populations (by killing) and restricting their reproductive cycles. the species can never become extinct, if that is what we are worried about. supposing my university has several dogs, and in my given environment they are not being treated well (even by human beings around campus), i know that a further number of dogs will only suffer more harm. i totally get your point about dogs wanting to feel the pains and joys that are a part of everyday lives of everybody, and that i am no one to decide for another species whether they want to continue reproducing or not. so you see, i am not sure about this whole issue.
It is a gross mistake to treat living beings as a propulation/species. It is important to look at them as individuals.
ReplyDeleteWhen you think in term of numbers it is similar to the way our government justifies crimes on a smaller group of people for the good of a greater number of people. The number does not matter.
Think of yourself. Someone comes to you and says you have too many problems in life. Think how wronged you will feel if something as crucial as reproduction is not left to you. Because the person/being feels responsible for you.
What would you do?
How does it matter if this treatment is meted out to all members of a species or to a percentage. Violation of rights of a being is not measured in the number of individuals that are violated.
You would not be willing to give up on your rights to take decisions for yourself for other people's well being. Even if you are, it will happen, no matter you want it or not.
the phenomenon is called biopolitics, when the state starts interfering into your personal, BIOLOGICAL life. the nazi concentration camps would be the most acute example of recent times.
ReplyDeletealso, the part about sterilization, these aren't hypothetical situations at all. there was a whole movt in the 20th century called eugenics. there were eugenics societies. which promulgated the sterilization of insane ppl, or disabled ppl, or criminals. during the emergency a large part of our own population was forcibly sterilized...
in case of animals ...i dunno...sterilisation is not castration...if they are sterilized doesn't mean they can't have sex anymore...so, and their population needs to be controlled in case of street dogs. i think we just like playing god, coz we can.
@ Doyeeta: I object to a few of the things you said:
ReplyDelete1) 'In case of animals': This statement springs from a sense of superiority among humans. We are animals too. Just because we are more powerful doesn't mean we have the right to decide for the weaker ones.
2) Sterilization is not castration. True. But will you let someone sterilize you? Someone who thinks he/she is a superior being? It is not about whether you really want to reproduce. It is about whether you want someone else to take away from you the power/ability to reproduce. The importance of reproduction, etc, is quite inconsequential here.
Every living creature demands fundamentally to survive and to procreate, that is: -
ReplyDelete# To protect itself.
# And to perpetuate itself by multiplying into the many.
Now, even if a human is made to restrict its procreation, it sublimates its sexual urge thru other means, like say, Sports. And infact humans ave created an entire civilization with millions of auch sublimation options. Now if a kid grows up in an environment without any sexual outlet (the actual or any simulated/sublimated), he would surely turn crazy! you see that?
PS. Freedom & the Wild (even if that means to suffer) is better than to live in a golden safe!
frankly saptarshi i don;t think animals (animals other than humans) understand all of that, i truly believe they understand the concept of rights.
ReplyDelete"It is about whether you want someone else to take away from you the power/ability to reproduce"- ami erom kore bhaabte paari. kintu ekta kukur eta bhabte paare kina amar shomyok shondeho achhe. and yes, i reiterate, i terms of mental prowess, humans ARE superior.. which however doesn't give us the right to make decisions FOR them. we do it all the same. like we try to breed endangered species. that is also guilt-driven response i think."right" er golpo ta amra articulate korte paari, ora khub shombhoboto ei dhoron er abstract terms e bhabte parena.
@ Doyeeta: 'Rights of an individual' exist independent of their consciousness/awareness of them(the rights). If one being deprives another of their rights because they are not aware of it, it's a crime.
ReplyDeleteeta tui idealistic kotha bolchhish..."right" ekta concept. a human construct. its not a natural category. history of rights makes it very clear. "right" er politics achhe, right implies an authority which grants those rights, eishob kukur beral ra bojhena bolei amar driro bishwash.
ReplyDeleteOooo. I love this stuff.
ReplyDeleteI would call it a balance of convenience. While certain rights are inherent by being human beings making them inalienable rights there are certain other types of individual rights which may be suspended or surrendered to the State under reasonable circumstances. The second category of rights thus are inherent although alienable rights.
At the present situation the State being a clever cookie has no inalienable rights though a lot of people have been screaming from them. Thus I think in situation 1 Right to Reproduction may be considered an alienable right and in Situation 2 I suppose as opposed to "phasing out a population" it would be deemed more worthy to take it together with welfare measures along with sterilization.
PS I am all for male phallic to be removed. If anything they are ugly.
PPS To not take away seriousness from the matter why are you so interested in your great grandchildren's reproductive right?
PPPS Now I am just enjoying this.