Reproductive Rights

[///M-Spec]

Judge Orders Addict to Stop Having Kids

Chinese Population Reach 1.3 Billion

I read these two articles within a day of one another. I also noticed, much to my dismay, that I had conflicting and contradictory views on where government intervention upon the reproductive rights of a person was appropriate and my "take" on each of these situations being a perfect illustration of that.

Forced government abortion and sterilization is an appalling notion. A smack addict who has 6 children by 6 different men and lacks the will or capacity to care for them is also an appalling notion.

The slippery slope begins. Thoughts?


M

 

[Danoff]

I think it's legitimate for the government to force parents to provide a minimum set of conditions for their kids... clothes, food, education. If the parents can't live up to that then they may have to give the kid of up to the state and could possibly face jail time.

In cases where overpopulation is running rampant, eventually it will become difficult for parents to provide food or education for their children - and so if it is illegal to not do so - that provides a disincentive to have children.


It is imperative that people have reproductive freedom. A free society is the only good society and that implies reproductive freedom.

 

[emad]

I agree with the case on the smack addict for the reason that Danoff provided.

For china, I'm kinda mixed on my opinion. On one hand, I see why it's necessary for them to make the laws... but on the other hand, as Danoff said, these restrictions prevent a person from being really "free"... Plus I'm not exactly a supporter of abortion.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

I'm pro decision, I always have been. But, I think that if someone has a drug addiction, 7 kids, all below the age of majority, and can't be taken care of...the kink the hose! All in all I suppose it's good for all parties on that note, but that woman really needs to get control of herself before she OD's.

 

[Ev0]

I am actually all for government intervention in reproductive rights, but only to a certain extent.

First off, I think we should be thankful that China has the policies it has regarding reproduction. Otherwise, the Chinese would be dealing with a famine of epic proportions in the near future. I guarantee said famine will occur in India in the next 10-15 years unless the government steps in and either finds a way to get more food, or introduces laws.

And as for laws regarding reproduction, I think they could help in western society. I believe that people with serious drug problems should not be able to have or raise children, because their habit not only renders them as an inneffective parent, but the child could be doomed from birth due to birth defects that could result. Now, I'm not saying that we should have forced abortions, I just think that some people that are clearly unfit for parenting should not be allowed to be a parent unless they can clean up their act.

And of course if this ever gets proposed, all these bleeding heart morons will come out saying it's cruel to deprive crack addicts of the joys of parenthood.

 

[Duke]

Well, there's not necessarily a slippery slope involved, ///M. It all comes down to the competency of the parent.

The government should not be forcing sterilization on perfectly competent, sane adults just because there are too many of them. However, a person who has repeatedly demonstrated they are incompetent to take care of themselves, let alone a child, is a candidate for restriction of their rights, reproduction included.

 

[///M-Spec]

^^^ Duke, the main thing that concerns me is that the government still gets to decide what a competant parent is. That is part of the slippery slope for me.


M

 

[Pupik]

^^^ Duke, the main thing that concerns me is that the government still gets to decide what a competant parent is.

(I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one...)

There's a big problem with state-run programs; The Florida DCF (Department of Children and Families) can't quite recall where they left "which kid?" with "what care-taker?" such as the Rilya Wilson situation. Suddenly the prospect of a government entity taking lousy care and neglecting your kids is an awful thought, especially when an aribtrary law just takes away your children, and loses them or puts them in an even more dangerous situation than before.

What about the rare case in which an expectant mother gets septuplets instead of just an addition to the family?

How does anyone allow all these horiffic cases of child abuse, such as starvation, pain, privation, and other terrible things that we hear about on the local news every so often? Who's going to step in, and how is this going to happen before it's too late?

(Okay, now my heart's bleeding a little too much for my own tastes.)

 

[Danoff]

Duke, the main thing that concerns me is that the government still gets to decide what a competant parent is. That is part of the slippery slope for me.

The state gets to decide what is child neglect currently. That includes a lack of food, clothing and education. I think that's all that's necessary to prevent people from reproducing too much.

However, a person who has repeatedly demonstrated they are incompetent to take care of themselves, let alone a child, is a candidate for restriction of their rights, reproduction included.

I don't agree with forced sterilization in any form. I believe that falls under the category of cruel and unusual punishment. However, if we lock these people up for being incompetent parents (as you suggest above) there would be no need for sterilization and that in-and-of itself is a deterrant.

First off, I think we should be thankful that China has the policies it has regarding reproduction. Otherwise, the Chinese would be dealing with a famine of epic proportions in the near future.

Famine would cause people to have fewer children, especially if they are held accountable for providing those children with food.

I believe that people with serious drug problems should not be able to have or raise children, because their habit not only renders them as an inneffective parent, but the child could be doomed from birth due to birth defects that could result.

If it can be proven that the parents actions caused birth defects and that a reasonable person would know not to take those actions, then the parent should be prosecuted. At no point does anyone need to tell potential parents that they should change their lifestyle before they are allowed to procreate.

 

[Ev0]

Famine would cause people to have fewer children, especially if they are held accountable for providing those children with food.

But couldn't the entire famine situation be avoided alltogether if the government is smart and acts accordingly? And I would never trust the people to be held accountable for providing adequate support for all their children. Again, I will use India as an example.

We think that any parent will only purposely have a child if they know they can provide adequate support for the child. Well, food, and other necessities of life are aready less than plentiful in numerous parts of India, yet their population continues to skyrocket. Real smart move by the people of India there...

At no point does anyone need to tell potential parents that they should change their lifestyle before they are allowed to procreate.

I think an extreme alcoholic would need a serious lifestyle change before procreating and the resulting task of raising a child.

 

[Danoff]

I think an extreme alcoholic would need a serious lifestyle change before procreating and the resulting task of raising a child.

I think an "extreme" alcoholic who had a kid with birth defects could be arrested - no need to pass judgement on lifestyle, just the causer of the birth defects.

But couldn't the entire famine situation be avoided alltogether if the government is smart and acts accordingly?

But the government trying to stem famine by reducing reproductive rights curtails freedom unnecessarily.

And I would never trust the people to be held accountable for providing adequate support for all their children. Again, I will use India as an example.

That would be up to law enforcement.

 

[Ev0]

I think an "extreme" alcoholic who had a kid with birth defects could be arrested - no need to pass judgement on lifestyle, just the causer of the birth defects.

But if laws are created which prohibits such activities during pregnancy, it would serve as a deterrent to people who chose to have such a lifestyle, which means we could avoid having more people who will face lifelong problems because their mother couldn't lay off the bottle for a few months.

But the government trying to stem famine by reducing reproductive rights curtails freedom unnecessarily.

Ok, the people can have their freedom but they will all be malnourished because there are too many people to feed. And then because of the malnourishment, it could possibly open the door to disease, since everyone would have weakened immune systems due to the lack of nutrients.

 

[Danoff]

But if laws are created which prohibits such activities during pregnancy, it would serve as a deterrent to people who chose to have such a lifestyle, which means we could avoid having more people who will face lifelong problems because their mother couldn't lay off the bottle for a few months.

Legislating against the cause rather than the effect is less efficient legally and sends the wrong signals to everyone invovled.

Ok, the people can have their freedom but they will all be malnourished because there are too many people to feed.

Better to die than live on your knees. It wouldn't happen anyway because as food gets more and more expensive people would have less children (though food would have to be a hell of a lot more expensive than it is now).

 

[Ev0]

Legislating against the cause rather than the effect is less efficient legally and sends the wrong signals to everyone invovled.

If that is actually the case, then logically the only other way to solve this problem is to educate people, and trust their judgement. Oh boy...

Better to die than live on your knees. It wouldn't happen anyway because as food gets more and more expensive people would have less children (though food would have to be a hell of a lot more expensive than it is now).

Then explain why there are still hordes of starving children in numerous African nations.

 

[Danoff]

Then explain why there are still hordes of starving children in numerous African nations.

They aren't put in jail for child neglect.

If that is actually the case, then logically the only other way to solve this problem is to educate people, and trust their judgement. Oh boy...

Do you really have that low an opinion of your fellow man? You can always trust people to do what is in their own self-interest. Start from there.

 

[Ev0]

They aren't put in jail for child neglect.

They should be.

Do you really have that low an opinion of your fellow man? You can always trust people to do what is in their own self-interest. Start from there.

I really do have that low of an opinion on some people in society. It's mainly the stupid people I don't respect, ones who can't figure out simple, logical things, such as 'If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have a child.' (although in a small number of cases, some people are left with no choice).

 

[Flerbizky]

Want to drive a car - get a license.. Too hard ?.. Too bad.. See ya...

Want a kid - pass the test - Too hard ?... Well boo hoo - Too [censored] bad - You failed....

 

[Danoff]

Want to drive a car - get a license.. Too hard ?.. Too bad.. See ya...

Want a kid - pass the test - Too hard ?... Well boo hoo - Too [censored] bad - You failed....

Want a gun - get a license.. Too hard? Boohoo
Want to eat - pass a test... too hard? boohoo
Want to eat - be a white person... too hard? boohoo
Want water - sign up to be a guinea pig for a new experimental government drug...

You're quick to restrict freedom.

They should be.

I think you missed my point. Yes they should be, and that would stop the problem in Africa.

I really do have that low of an opinion on some people in society. It's mainly the stupid people I don't respect, ones who can't figure out simple, logical things, such as 'If you can't afford to raise a child, don't have a child.' (although in a small number of cases, some people are left with no choice).

Hold them accountable for their actions. Don't try to force them to do or think what you want them to.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Want a gun - get a license.. Too hard? Boohoo
Want to eat - pass a test... too hard? boohoo
Want to eat - be a white person... too hard? boohoo
Want water - sign up to be a guinea pig for a new experimental government drug...

Why is all of that so familiar...
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

 

[///M-Spec]

(I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one...)

There's a big problem with state-run programs; The Florida DCF (Department of Children and Families) can't quite recall where they left "which kid?" with "what care-taker?" such as the Rilya Wilson situation. Suddenly the prospect of a government entity taking lousy care and neglecting your kids is an awful thought, especially when an aribtrary law just takes away your children, and loses them or puts them in an even more dangerous situation than before.

What about the rare case in which an expectant mother gets septuplets instead of just an addition to the family?

How does anyone allow all these horiffic cases of child abuse, such as starvation, pain, privation, and other terrible things that we hear about on the local news every so often? Who's going to step in, and how is this going to happen before it's too late?

(Okay, now my heart's bleeding a little too much for my own tastes.)

I've been meaning to respond to this, pupik, but haven't seemed to have the time.

I have an anecdotal story to tell along these lines. My wife and I are friends with another couple who have children, all under 12. One of the older boys has been developing behavioral problems in the past few years; short attention span, anxiety, hyperactivity and proclivity to “act out”.

One day, the boy acts out very aggressively with a sibling and attacks him. The dad has to restrain his son, but in doing so ended up bruising him. To make a long story short, DCF becomes involved. Now, at this point, I should tell you that this guy is one of the nicest, kind-hearted, even-tempered men I have ever met. There is no question in my mind that he loves his children the way any father should and would never in a million years have tried to hurt his son intentionally.

Of courses, DCF has no way of knowing this, so he ends up under investigation for possible child assault charges. That is a felony and will screw up anyone’s life in a major way. Meanwhile, he losses custody of all his children and he cannot see them except speak on the telephone. This lasts almost three months.

To make a long story short, he pleaded down to a lesser misdemeanor offense and finally got his kids back. But while this was going on, his life must have been a living hell. Not to mention his children were completely upside down with grief because they couldn’t see their daddy. As a father myself, I can only imagine what its like not to see your kids for months while wondering if you were going to end up going to jail so that you cannot see them for years. I do know that this fellow did not deserve this.

There is no moral to the story here except to say that this kind of story is the price we pay to have the government in charge of making sure children are protected from the real bad guys. The kids were not in danger. He is a not a threat to them --quite the contrary in fact. At the end of the day, all they did was put a whole family through months of grief, "just in case" something was truly wrong.

Government isn't free folks. They cost a lot of money, and more importantly, they sometimes cost the time and grief of people who don't deserve it.


M

 

[Pako]

My question, or more of a concern is, why can't people be more accountable for their own actions? It burns to be think of all the children being born into this world that don't even stand to have a chance. Who do you think pays for the children being born? I helped pay for those 6 children and I will continue to help pay for those kids. Do I think the government should step in? No, but I think the doctors have a good chance at educating these woman and offering 'solutions' to their inability to use birth control. The whole thing is very frustrating and sad.