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.
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.
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
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
Re: toughie
Re: toughie