So in my Bioethics class, we are talking about contraceptives, abortion, and sterilaztion. We had a hypo. Essentially:
There is mother of 10 kids, all of whom have been in and out of the legal system. Mother is severely mentally deficient, and does not take care of the children. Mother lives with grandmother (mother's mother). Grandmother does not take care of kids either. Grandmother doesn't want Mother to be reproducing anymore. When mother goes into court for a hearing for one of the delinquent kids, Grandmother wants the court to force Mother to be sterilized. Is this ok?
Well, we kicked around several ideas, from a cost/benefit analysis from society's viewpoint (the kids are a burden on society, when is it too much for the Mother to still be reproducing? was the idea here) to an analysis that since the Grandmother was caring for the Mother, was she acting as guardian? And in that role, could she decide, in the best interests of the Mother, that sterilization was best? We didnt really get anywhere, but it was interesting. Ana had some good ideas, she just needs to raise her hand more often.
Finally, after class, I was struck with a question. We have the right to... you know... engage in sexual activities. But do we have the right to have children, or is that just a privilege? And should childbearing be a right or a privilege?
I am curious about this. You should be too.
Your moment of Zen:
"Pregnancy is a sign of sexual activity." (a most excellent comment that made me laugh for quite a while.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is an issue I have always been torn on so here is my (entierly to long) two cents.
I think that limiting the number of children you can have is a good thing from a world view. We are over populating the planet, and that just hurts every one. In that sense your popping out 10 kids, affects me in many ways. Its no longer just about you and your wish to procreate, its also about my quality of life due to the affects of over population or the financial burden those of us with fewer chilren must face to support your kids.
In that respect I think that China has a good thing going limiting the number of children you have unless you work in a job field with a high death toll. It helps prevent overpopulation, which in turn affects the country/world as a whole. If you want to have more kids, you can pay a tax to have them, so its not like your sterlized but laws are imposed to ensure you bear the burden of your decision, not me.
There are religions that say you must spread your seed (not just catholic anti birth control but more like Mormon have as many kids as possible). Do we need a law to force them to bear the consiquences of their actions? I tend to think yes, its your right to have as many as you want, but you must pay for them. Your kids should not be my burden.
In that token I guess if you abuse the right of procreation, we have the right to stop you. So if the welfare mom has 10 kids and can't take care of them and they keep getting taken away due to malnutrition or the like, then yes I think its time to step in and say your done. Perhaps not a perminant form of sterilization, becase people can change, but something temporary until they get their life together, if they get their life together.
I do think that we all have the right to procreate, but I think you need to be responcible for your actions. If you want 10 kids then you need to pay more money in taxes to help compensate for it (unlike the system we have now which is the opposit). I guess it boilds down to, for me, that having offspring is a right but you must be responcible for your actions in every way.
In brief:
I like the idea of having a limit on the number of children you have, but I don't like the idea of having a government impose that limit. People should be self-policing and responsible enough to have only as many children as they can afford to take care of.
Same with more kids=more tax.
Parents with two kids get twice as much from, let's say public school, so they should pay twice as much for it.
There was more, but it just led back to the same ideas, so I cut it out in order to claim I'm being brief.
On a side note... send me your address Buster
Post a Comment