Something that got me thinking in class (that I really didn't take much heed of while actually reading) is something we, and our author, take for granted, even though upon (my own) further contemplating seems to be anything but a given--namely, that one has a human right to procreate. Now, LaFollette does in fact argue rather convincingly from this point, even if we accept it as true (which I'll get into presently), yet its falsity serves, in my opinion, to even further strengthen his claims. To the meat of this post, though:
Why is it that it is assumed that it is an inherent right, a right inalienable, to use Constitutional language, so much a part of the human experience that it is a universal right, for an adult to have children? Part of it actually ties into the article we're reading for Thursday's class: having children falls under the category of controlling one's body, and, because of this, nothing ought to be preventative of exercising that right. However, Professor Tresan mentioned, in passing, that it would not due to discredit an argument or strain of thinking due only (or, primarily) to a deficiency of imagination or sympathy, and that is exactly what got me to thinking about imaginative ways this "right" could be contested. First, most obvious (possibly the only one I dredge up, as I'm thinking a bit on the fly in making this post), is that it's absolutely within the realm of possibility that no one would consent to have a child with someone. In this case, then, is it their right to in fact have a child? Certainly not, either socially or logically. Now, as I said not so long ago, this does not by any means weaken LaFollette's argumentation (again, either socially or logically), so this isn't quite a consideration strictly speaking pertinent to the text, but rather merely something I had churned around for the past 24 hours, and may, in some way, help us think more creatively about some of this engaging topics.
No comments:
Post a Comment