Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrismonsanto | Hacker News Reader

- The GP did not say anything about the richest of the rich only having children, nor did they say that they were libertarian.

- Calling the GP an asshole and implying that they aren't "terribly intelligent" can only serve to detract from your argument.

EDIT: At least you took out the asshole comment

View on HN

He specifically said people should be "100% certain" that they can support their children until their children can support themselves. Given that this normally entails a span of ~25 years (assuming two kids through college), that group is both certainly and obviously limited to the richest of the rich.

Having kids is a human right. That should be the end of the discussion. Anyone, rich or poor, is

* entitled to have children [1]

* entitled to financial and other aid to raise those children safely and securely [2]

  [1] UDHR, Article 16, paragraph (1) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a16
  [2] UDHR, Article 25, paragraph (2) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a25

Since the US has signed these treaties, and unless it intends to back out, there can be no government policy that does not follow these articles.

Why is calling something a "human right" and pointing to some UN declaration any different than calling something a "God-given right" and pointing to the Bible?

International law.

It's different in that the UN demonstrably exists.

That the UN exists does not explain the reason behind the policies.

That's like saying the bible is true because the printer exists, or the church, which is of course trivially true. That some organisation is behind a document does not make it true or false.

And keep in mind that the League of nations (the creators of the UN) came forth from the Red cross, which was a division of the army that guards of the pope.

No, it is not a human right. If we can just point to websites as undisputed facts, then the earth is flat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com