So far it seems that we all agree that Guppy-Woman is behaving incredibly irresponsibly. That's no surprise. Let me re-phrase my original question:
Do people have a personal right to behave irresponsibly when it comes to reproduction?
If not, what kind of system do we implement to enforce responsible reproduction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Ah, but who defines responsible reproduction? One of each?
Only people of certain income?
I think parenting classes would be good. Taking the shame away from adoption or abortion would be a start too.
Granted this woman is easily in the "no bloody way" category and itis easy to put a limit on people like here, but for the less extreme cases - what are you going to do, put implants in people (actually not that bad of an idea...then you'd have to declare your intent for kids and make the conscious choice to do so. It would be a start...altho a very abusable situation)
I agree people need to be responsible, but how the hell do you govern that? Governing IVF is simpler but over all...I balk at that.
You just don't always know who the crackpots are... there are people I know who are great and were incredibly responsible, used birth control properly and carefully and somehow were the lucky 0.1 % and got pregnant without planning and even with the best intentions turned out to be terrible parents...what to do about them? Enforce adoption?
And do you reward good parents and people who don't have children as they know it's for the best?
I know I couldn't make those decisions...
I think it comes down to information. People being given facts so they can be responsible. People need to be brought up well and allowed to think and use logic. This woman should never have been given IVF, and been allowed to think she is anything less than whackadoo to consider the whole scenario in the first place.
Actually, I've heard it suggested that all the governments of the world put an as-yet undeveloped contraceptive in the water supplies. The antidote would be readily available to anyone who wants it for free. The result would be that anyone who wants kids would have to take an active step to have them, rather than an active step to prevent them. Thus, all babies would be wanted babies. This would go a long way toward solving a lot of problems, and no one's rights would be infringed so far as I can tell.
It would not, however, address cases like that of Guppy Woman here, who took active steps to have more kids after she already has 6 that she can't look after.
The doctor who gave her the IVF should have his license revoked. That would be a start.
I am 100% in favour of a universal water supply based reproductive governor.
Ms Suleman's poor father is moving back to Iraqistan (by himself) because there is no room in the shoe.
Her Doctor should be castrated and then have his license revoked. How did she ever qualify? Seriously...how could she qualify with 6 kids under the age of 8?
as the law stands then yes everyone does have the right to reproduce - any wish way they want. Are you asking whether there should be a change in the law? Or whether a change in the law could actually ever be made? No government would ever face up to it, because it is a basic human right - so say the majority. It would boil down to losing too many votes.
Before rights come responsibilities.
EDIT: (having failed to answer your question)
1. We don't do IVF for anyone who already has children.
2. We don't reward parents financially for having children.
3. We include parenting classes/social responsibility classes at school from age 4 onwards.
ziggi: i'm asking what we as a society should do about this problem. if that includes legal/legislative changes, so be it. but i think you've hit on the crux of the problem: this is one of those things where everyone flaps about crying how it ain't right, but no one's got any real, viable suggestions.
and actually, the Chinese government, for all their faults, have taken steps to control their population with the One Child Policy. For all the problems it caused, I gotta give them points for trying. (But in China you don't have a vote, so they can get away with stuff like that.)
3 squares: I would take it a step further and not do IVF. Period. The world is over-populated and there are too many kids who need loving homes. No one should be having fertility treatment until all the orphanages are empty an there are no more troubled kids in foster care.
I'm totally on board with the other 2.
It saddens me that someone would equate children simply with a financial number. The sanctity of human life is far more important than the financial burden it entails. I will admit, if this woman is financially unable to care for these children, she should not have had the fertilization done.
Yet, it is certainly not the responsibility of the government or the American voter to decide how many children are permitted in a family. Smart or not, it was her decision. I absolutely believe in that right!
wow, finally a dissenter!
just to make this clear, you believe that it's a person's absolute right to have children, even if it's demonstrated they are not either willing or able to care for them?
you talk about the sanctity of human life, but does that sanctity apply after they're born? what about all those other kids at home who will be completely ignored and neglected because this woman will have 8 infants to manage? aren't they sacred, too? don't they deserve better?
I believe that it can be an irresponsible and even morally wrong decision to purposefully conceive more children than a woman is able to care for. Regardless of that fact, though, I also believe that, yes, it is an absolute right. It may be determined later that the person is completely unfit to be a parent to the children, in which case it might be proper for the children to be taken away, permanently or temporarily, and put into more caring homes.
I do agree with you that the human life is to be regarded extremely highly, and, like mentioned above, if it becomes apparent that she is not being a caring mother to her children, she does not deserve to keep them in her home.
Does that make more sense? I fear I've used a lot of words and yet haven't entirely communicated what I meant to say...
Post a Comment