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]

*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.