Healthy womb: Fetal right?

[Gina B]

I'm sorry FAL. My husband just said he agrees with Scarlett. He's on his way to work in a few minutes or he'd have posted. (which he rarely does, thanks for getting him back on here! :thumbs

 

[Aaron]

Do unborn children have the right to as healthy place to grow and develop as possible?

Is it wrong for a woman to bear children when she knows there's a strong possibility of passing on a horrible illness to her child?

This seems to be the ethical situation facing the women in this story: http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/nm/namibia-illegally-sterilized-hiv-infected-women

I am especially interested in hearing the justifications for saying "they should not be sterilized" from those who say all forms of birth control are wrong and people should continue to bear as many children as the Lord allows.

If they have the right to marry, they have the right to procreate.

 

[freeatlast]

If they have the right to marry, they have the right to procreate.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Sapper Woody]

Gina, I am curious: you haven't actually given your stance on this. From your initial post, it has been inferred that you favor forced sterilization in cases of a high probability of passing along a disease such as HIV/AIDS. However, you've never actually stated this. Is this your stance?

 

[Don]

If they have the right to marry, they have the right to procreate.

But do they have the responsibility?

Or are they fulfilling selfish desires that end up hurting someone else?

 

[Aaron]

I repeat, the right to marry presupposes procreation.

 

[Scarlett O.]

But do they have the responsibility?

Or are they fulfilling selfish desires that end up hurting someone else?

I think you are right, Don. If couples know for certainty that they stand a great chance of passing along dread conditions that they are not prepared to handle in a child or do not feel morally at ease in doing so, they should consider other options of parenthood such adoption or other options.

Certainly, every couple stands a chance of bearing a child with such dread conditions that make life very difficult. I'm not talking about that.

As I used to teach my 5th graders when studying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - rights are always accompanied by tremendous responsibility. If not, those same rights become licenses for selfishness.

 

[freeatlast]

But do they have the responsibility?

Or are they fulfilling selfish desires that end up hurting someone else?

So how about sterilizing everyone who is not a believer as they are selfish and end up putting their children in eternal harms ways?

 

[Gina B]

Gina, I am curious: you haven't actually given your stance on this. From your initial post, it has been inferred that you favor forced sterilization in cases of a high probability of passing along a disease such as HIV/AIDS. However, you've never actually stated this. Is this your stance?

No, it's not my stance, but the article made me think about the topic and made me open up the possibility that I might be wrong. That comes with a lot of questions to ponder.

For example, I believe life starts at conception. With that in mind, I am confused as to why we would all agree that parental rights would be stripped from parents who put their children in a hostile, dangerous living environment, but if a parent makes that hostile, dangerous living environment the womb, why is that somehow different? A fetus is as human as a newborn, a toddler, a child, or a teenager.

Mental health issues - is there a line? Currently, there is a childhood version of psychopathy, but a great reluctance to call it that so they call it something different (they're changing it to a cluster of symptoms in the next DSM-IV) but since an adult must take him/herself to a psychiatrist and request diagnosis, which isn't gonna happen with a psychopath, there's nothing parents can do but unleash that child onto society once the child is a legal adult.

There are parents, the majority of whom adopted, who have gone through the pits trying to raise awareness of this disorder and who end of the victims of the children they were trying to help, living in fear of their own lives or that of their children, but suddenly the kid is an adult with rights. I'm sure you've seen the headlines a zillion times...kid murders gramma or both parents or a sibling and everyone is shocked because he/she was "so polite and kind, never would have thought this, must have had bad parents." Should that kid still have the right to reproduce when they obviously have the propensity to kill, proved they will, and may be passing on their illness to the child?

Is that okay for a society to allow?

What about those in prison? Why, in many places, do we say they've lost their right to have a physical relationship with their spouse and thus deny them the right to reproduce while they are in prison? Why is it wrong for a bank robber or repeated car thief to have children? If reproduction is a fundamental right of human functioning, the same as eating food, breathing air, etc., and can't be taken away even when it causes severe harm to a child, why do we take it away from ANYONE?

Aren't we effectively sterilizing those people by denying them physical relationships?

Like I said, it brought up a lot of thoughts.

 

[Don]

So how about sterilizing everyone who is not a believer as they are selfish and end up putting their children in eternal harms ways?

You misunderstand. The onus is not on the government to determine who can have children and who can't.

The responsibility lies with the individuals. Are they putting someone else's life at risk by their actions; and therefore, placing their own selfish wants above the safety and health of the children they're talking about having? And therefore, should they not be mindful of that responsibility and abstain from the action?

 

[freeatlast]

You misunderstand. The onus is not on the government to determine who can have children and who can't.

The responsibility lies with the individuals. Are they putting someone else's life at risk by their actions; and therefore, placing their own selfish wants above the safety and health of the children they're talking about having? And therefore, should they not be mindful of that responsibility and abstain from the action?

Yes they should, but we are talking about the lost as well as other nations. What about women who have babies in war zones? There is all kinds of cenerios. The suggestion that we become the world police in reproduction for any reason is troubling to me. That is why I answered in my first post to take the gospel to them, not sterilize them. I am afraid that this attitude I am seeing that smacks of communism and dictatorships is a serious threat to our own nation. I can remember when co faithful American not to mention a Christian would not even entertain such an idea of sterlizing people. It is just very troubling although a clear sign of the times.

 

[LadyEagle]

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 2:00 a.m. ET by one of the moderators. It is on page 4.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator