Is procreation a right?

[javasaurus]

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

Please read the article before commenting.

Comments

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