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.

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?

[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.

[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?