Is procreation a right?

[javasaurus]

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

Please read the article before commenting.

Comments

[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.