Is procreation a right?

[javasaurus]

Should negligent mother of seven retain the right to have kids?

Please read the article before commenting.

Comments

toughie

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

That's a really tough question. I understand where the judge is coming from. I really do. However, I feel that she is forcing her moral viewpoint on this woman (and by precedent) the rest of her state.

It's a difficult moral question. In it's basest form it's about money/resources. This woman is not a tax-payer, she's homeless, jobless, etc. She's put 6 people into the foster system to drain money and will likely add more by further irresponsible acts. Most people would agree that we can't just turn the kids out on the streets because their mom doesn't contribute to the system. So what do we do?

I don't have any answers, but I do know that I disagree with the judge's actions, if not her motives. No court in this land has the right to tell me or any other person how, when or how many times I can reproduce. Or not, if I choose. It's about basic control of my own body. Still, I don't know what the answer is to a situation like this. I really don't.

Re: toughie

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

*nod*

I don't want to restrict someone's rights to reproduce... But what about our rights? What about the rights of the children she's producing?

I don't know what the answers are either... But unless her own reproductive rights are restricted, she is causing harm to a lot of other people, from the taxpayers to the children she produces.

It comes down to weighing what will do more harm in the long run.

*sigh*

Re: toughie

[queenmaggie.livejournal.com]

I hafta say, I'm on the kids' side. She's basically abandoned seven kids. There's no way she should be allowed to do that. If she can't take care of them, then she shouldn't be allowed to have them. In either sense. She's the one who chose in the first place. By not living up to her responsibilities, she has forfeited the right to make that choice.

Re: toughie

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

I'm on the kids side... but at the same time, I am also looking at the larger implications of restricting this woman's "right" to reproduce.

If we allow the government to determine whether or not we are allowed to have kids, the backlash could be astounding. It's the whole pandora's box thing. What makes the determination that someone SHOULD have the right to reproduce? If she weren't a coke addict, but just a compulsive shopper in debt up to her ears and had declared bankrupcy multiple times, so just doesn't have the money to take care of them, does that mean we should prevent her from having kids? Or vice versa, if she had all the money in the world but was an extreme coke addict, would we prevent her from having kids then? Where are the lines drawn? Do we then start telling people who might possibly have an inheritable disease that they aren't allowed to have kids (ethically is different from legally)? Or do you tell a quadraplegic woman she can't have kids because she wouldn't be able to care for them properly?

While I detest what this woman has done, and I would love to be able to prevent her from having more kids, it's a slippery slope. Preventing her from having kids because she "can't take care of them" leaves a very BROAD scope to work with.

Re: toughie

[queenmaggie.livejournal.com]

My attitude is that she made the decision and then reneged. I wouldn't consider preventing someone from having kids... but once they have done so, and then neglected them, then they don't get another chance. I don't prejudge, but once someone has a track record, I certainly do judge them by it.

Re: toughie

[queenmaggie.livejournal.com]

oh, and the difference is I'm not saying "she can't take care of them"(predictive) but "she didn't take care of them"(descriptive)

Re: toughie

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

If someone has kids and neglects OR abuses them, they should forfeit the 'right' to more kids. We have enough people already on this planet with severe issues to willingly add to them.e

Re: toughie

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

I agree with QM. This woman has shown a demonstratable inability to care for her children. 6 are in foster homes without the ability to be adopted (because she hasn't given them up, they were taken and she hasn't relinquished rights). This means that they don't have the stability that kids need to be mentally and emotionally healthy. The 7th has been essentially foisted off on a relative.

The judge isn't saying she isn't allowed to have kids, but that until she demonstrates the ability to take care of the kids she has, she isn't allowed to have any more. I think that is fair. When she can reclaim her kids from social services and hold on to them, she can have more if she wants.

The fact that the youngest ones were born with cocaine in their system just adds fuel to the fire for me. Children born from addicts often have problems (brain issues, low birth weight, addiction, etc.) so trying to get her cleaned up before she has other kids is a GoodThing in my opinion, however, that is independent of the basic idea. If you have children you are supposed to take responsible care of them (if not, social services will step in). If you fail at your responsibilities, you should not be allowed to try again.

If a person is convicted of severe animal neglect, they can be banned from getting more of that animal. Is that any more an infringement on rights?

I would like to see people who are in over their heads (like this woman seems to be) given the option of free depoprova or something like that which IS reversable but long-term and effective (heck, I wouldn't be above offering free sterilization if that is what she wants).

I do wonder where the 7 fathers in this are. Do any of them contribute toward the care of their child (or his/her half-sibs)? If not, why not and what (if anything) is being done to get them to?

Re: toughie

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

"I would like to see people who are in over their heads (like this woman seems to be) given the option of free depoprova or something like that which IS reversable but long-term and effective (heck, I wouldn't be above offering free sterilization if that is what she wants)."

I would LOVE to see something like that (although depo has lately been proven to cause early osteoporosis). However, is that what she wants? If she doesn't want it, you can't force it on her. Unfortunately.

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want to see this woman do is have more kids. I especially get angered when the kids suffer physically from drug addictions and such. But if we as women keep wanting to fight for the right to determine when we do NOT want to have kids, then it also means fighting for the right to determine when we DO. Much as it disgusts me that a woman like this would be churning out kids like there's no tomorrow, and much as it saddens me to see how her kids are suffering for it, if we prevent her from having kids, what's to prevent someone from stopping us from NOT having kids?

I would love nothing more than to see this woman temporarily sterilized until she can take care of those children she already has, or relinquish her rights to the ones that already exist. But if the government can determine that she's not allowed to have kids, then we open the door that they can determine when we are NOT allowed to stop ourselves from having them.

Re: toughie

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Well, if someone does something against the law (such as neglecting children), they can lose certain rights (such as freedom ... hence jails). I would feel differently if they judge was saying that she could NEVER have children. The judge is saying that she has made mistakes in her care of her kids. Until she rectifies those mistakes she temporarily faces a loss of freedom if she ignores the court order.

I am all for reproductive freedom. I feel very strongly that many options of birthcontrol should be available. I wonder if condoms should count as OTC purchases for FSA. Heck, I feel that sterilization should be completely covered by insurance (since the procedure will SAVE the company money from covering pre-natal stuff). Personally, I think that a judge who believes that people should take responsiblity for their children is MUCH more likely to limit procreation than forcing procreation.

I worry a LOT more about some of the more fundamentalist people deciding that birth control (aside from prayer and/or abstinence) is a sin and therefore should be illegal.

I also feel that people who blow off their responsibilties should lose the 'right' to be repeat offenders. If you drink and drive enough, you will lose your license. If you break a law (and given that social services intervenes, I suspect that there is a law somewhere about 'reasonable' care of children), you pay the consequences.

However, I am considered a bit 'out there' in some regards with regard to children. I happen to see the logic of the person who said that no one who hasn't yet raised a chicken, cat, dog, or horse from infancy to good citizen adulthood should have a child. If you can't create reasonable boundaries for that cute puppy, kitten, foal, chick; how in the world will you do that for a significantly more complex (and more time needy) child? If you want to adopt a child, you have to have been married for a certain length of time, both of you are interviewed, you have to have the $ to care for the child at a minimal level, you have to WANT the child, and you have to be of an age to be likely to be around for the child as it grows up. All of that is reasonable to my mind, however, if anyone mentions that this may be a good idea before procreating the old-fashioned way and it becomes unreasonable.w

Re: toughie

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

"I do wonder where the 7 fathers in this are. Do any of them contribute toward the care of their child (or his/her half-sibs)? If not, why not and what (if anything) is being done to get them to?"

I'm wondering if she even knows who any or all of the fathers are? If she's been that crack-addled, she may not even know.

Adding fuel to the fire...

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Would/Should the situation change if a man had sired multiple offspring on as many women, and had offered nothing to the support of any of them?

Re: Adding fuel to the fire...

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Would there be a difference? Probably in the courts.

Should there be a difference? No, IF the person fathered the child. I firmly believe that BOTH parties involved in the creation of a child have responsiblities (there are exceptions but they are notoriously hard to prove in general). It is his responsibility to raise the child if the mother can't OR help with the raising if the mother is able to do it. Money, time, etc. are all a part of it.

Unfortunately, while it is fairly easy to prove that baby belongs to this woman (if she gave birth to the child it is either hers OR a surrogate and if a surrogate there will be others giving proof of the relationship). It is not possible to prove that a person fathered a child. It is easy to prove that he didn't father a given child if certain things are there (he is O neg, the mother is O neg and the Baby is ABpos or whatever). I don't know how accurate the DNA tests are for paternity for proving the relationship but last I heard they weren't 100%.

Re: Adding fuel to the fire...

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

I don't think it should. However, the main point that many may argue in that respect is that a crack-addled daddy won't produce a crack-addicted child. In fact, if it's anything like what alcohol does to sperm count and how well the sperm function, it dramatically cuts down on the likelihood of getting pregnant to begin with.

In her case, it's not just the monetary aspect, but the drug aspect. Then again, I believe they've already had cases where they've charged women with neglect and/or child abuse because of willingly and knowingly abusing alcohol or drugs while pregnant.

However, I think that a dead beat dad should be held just as responsible as a dead beat mother.

The only problem with throwing either in jail is that they STILL won't have the ability to take care of their kids. And obviously monetary fines aren't going to mean squat.

Re: Adding fuel to the fire...

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

That has already essentially happened in this case as well, except that it's 7 different men instead of just one. *And* the story did mention the similar case involving a man who spawned multiple times without supporting the children.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

I agree with the judges intent, but not her ruling.

I think the correct ruling would have been to have find the mother guilty of child endangerment (up to 7 cases, depending on statute of limitations), and then sentence her to prison with mandatory drug treatment, job training, family/psychological counseling, and parenting classes (and throw in conjugal visitation rights, if that is even an issue). Also, order the cessation of parental rights to free the children for adoption if she does not comply with her treatment programs. With this ruling and sentencing the mother is prevented physically from being able to get pregnant again while her right of procreation is not denied or called into question; she gets an opportunity to resolve her drug problems and make some different choices in her life; she can learn what a proper parenting role is; and the children remain where they are hopefully being cared for, with the opportunity in the short term that the mother will either (a) show she is learning to care for the children properly and willing to do so; (b) realize she is not able to properly care for the children and relinquish her parental rights; or (c) show that is will continue to be an endangerment to the children and an unfit parent and thus lose her parental rights by judicial order. In any event, the children would not be in a perpetual limbo as to their status.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

grrrr.. That was meant to say "throw in denying conjugal visitation rights", otherwise it is rather self-defeating.

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

I think I got the point. *grin*

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

I can thoroughly agree with you on that one. Thoroughly.

[squire-liz.livejournal.com]

I think we all have the right to procreate. However with that right, comes the need to take responsibility for the reprecussions. *sigh* I'll write my own post on it shortly. I'm in agreement wiht QM and Rob, and BE...

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm surprised at the response this generated!

I meant to add my opinions earlier, but really haven't had time, but I have been thinking about it all day.

I very strongly believe that this woman should not have more children, unless (as the courts also recognized) she can prove herself by showing she can care for the children she already has. Despite this, I also believe that it is not the court's place to ban her from having children, and threatening to jail her if she does so.

There are relatively few cases of reproductive neglect on this scale. Yes, this woman has produced an additional burden on the government, and on society, but the burden is relatively small compared to the price we would pay if we gave to the government the ability to tell us how many kids we could have, with whom, and under what circumstances. Yes, the case here is extreme. But once you set a precedent, it is hard to revoke it, and easy to expand it.

One topic I haven't seen above is our responsibility in this matter. Why does such a woman exist? Isn't it at least partly because we have created the society which failed her? Where were we, as a society, when she was growing up, when she failed to learn about birth control, about healthy relationships, about drug abuse? If our society produces women that behave in this manner, then we have earned the responsibility to raise her kids.

I'm not sure that jailing her would help her, though it may keep her from harming society further. Yes, she may get the opportunity for learning good parenting skills, get off drugs, etc., but is jail really the best place for this? Yes, get her to counselling, and off drugs, and help her find a job. Try to repair the damage that society has done to her.

(this next part will surely get me flamed)

As for men, and how would it be different...
I don't think there should be any difference between how the courts treat a negligent mother or father. But there would be a difference when it comes to enforcing "no more kids." Why? Abortion. Men have no legal say regarding abortion. If a woman becomes pregnant, she has the legal right to stop the pregnancy, but a man can do nothing. If the choice is not equally shared, why should the responsibility be equally shared?

[squire-liz.livejournal.com]

Men have no legal say regarding abortion. If a woman becomes pregnant, she has the legal right to stop the pregnancy, but a man can do nothing. If the choice is not equally shared, why should the responsibility be equally shared?

Absolutely, the choice and responsibility should be shared. I personally would never make that decision without the fathers input. My own beliefs are such that unless I was raped, I wouldn't consider abortion (no flames please, I'm not pretending to make the decision for anyone else), but before I made the decion to raise the child, or give it up for adoption I would be discussing everything with the father. If someone has an unexpected pregnancy, It took two to make that child, and both have a responsiblity to be involved in the decisions regarding that child.

The thing is, and this is a failing of society I suppose, men have not traditionally taken responsibility, and so should not have a choice. If you fathered a child and will take the child and raise it (I have several friends doing just that) than you get a choice. But I have heard men say oh, no I don't want anything to do with raising the kid, but I want you to have the child anyway. Ummm no.

Of course the main point here is that one would think, after 7 kids she knows the facts of life. I've been sexually active for a decade and gee look, no kids. There are plenty of birth control options, heck you can go into a clinic and get free condoms which work pretty darn well. A child, ok accident, something slipped/broke whatever. 7 kids is willful ignorance.

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

This is getting a bit off the original question, but is just as fascinating. We do not give men the same rights as women when it comes to child rearing, but expect them to bear the same - or greater - responsibilities. Men often have to pay high child support amounts, then are denied access to their children.

We have to stop treating children as commodities to be bartered between parents. Or used to get welfare money. One of the reasons I personally support a woman's right to chose is that I firmly believe the phrase "every child a wanted child". So why is it that a woman has a significantly higher chance of getting the kids in a divorce? It's actually incumbent on the man to prove that a woman is incompetent for him to get the kids. Not prove that he's just as good or better than her. Prove that she's actively a bad mom.

Again, I can see the problems, I just can't come up with any answers.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, the choice and responsibility should be shared
Definitely. I also agree that men who say "I don't want anything to do with raising the kid" should lose the choice at the same time.

I take some exception to the statement "men have not traditionally taken responsibility". Most men are very responsible in such matters, it's the exceptions that make the news. It may be true that most people that have abandoned their responsibilities have traditionally been men, but this does not make it a blanket statement for all, or even most men.

[squire-liz.livejournal.com]

Point made about the rather blanket statement. Although there is a reason we have that stereotype, it doesn't hold true for all.

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

I very strongly believe that this woman should not have more children, unless (as the courts also recognized) she can prove herself by showing she can care for the children she already has. Despite this, I also believe that it is not the court's place to ban her from having children, and threatening to jail her if she does so.

But once you set a precedent, it is hard to revoke it, and easy to expand it.

That's exactly it. If you allow the government to interfere with one woman's right to bear children, you crack open the door for abuse of that.

Where were we, as a society, when she was growing up, when she failed to learn about birth control, about healthy relationships, about drug abuse?

We were getting social services slashed for the sake of a few bucks. If one looks at the percentage of the budget that gets spent on social services, it's a pittance compared to everything else. But it's also the first thing to get slashed as "unnecessary".

As for men, and how would it be different...
I don't think there should be any difference between how the courts treat a negligent mother or father. But there would be a difference when it comes to enforcing "no more kids." Why? Abortion. Men have no legal say regarding abortion. If a woman becomes pregnant, she has the legal right to stop the pregnancy, but a man can do nothing. If the choice is not equally shared, why should the responsibility be equally shared?

Actually, Men DO have a legal say regarding abortion of a fetus that is genetically related to them. They've had court cases where a temporary restraining order has been placed upon the mother to prevent her from aborting when the father has expressed a wish to see the child come to term. It doesn't happen often, but it DOES happen. The thing is, in many abortion cases, the woman wants an abortion because the father wants to take no legal responsibility for the child, and she can't afford to raise said child on her own (no, I'm not making that a blanket statement, because there are plenty of other reasons for it, but that's a big one).

If a woman gets an abortion before the father even knows, there's no way for him to stop it. But I do wonder, after the precident that has been set by the courts that the father can legally block an abortion from being performed, can he sue afterwards if she aborts without telling him?

True, the choice remains more hers than his. But he is also not the one who will be carrying the child, and therefore the child that he took equal participation to produce will have less impact on him, at least physically. But because of that in part (well, that and the discrepancy with salaries between most men and women, plus several other factors), the man has traditionally been given more monetary responsibility, because he could not take the physical responsibility, both in the toll the child produces on the body during pregnancy, and the aftereffects that many women experience.