Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Politics: The "right" to have children?
I would support a new law that would compel a woman to have her tubes tied by the state if she has a second child that she cannot afford to raise. Let me put it even more bluntly: the poor should not breed.
Why is it not child abuse that a woman has a child that she cannot afford to feed and clothe? Naturally I will exclude women who become pregnant through rape, but, otherwise, there is no excuse in our world of contraception and abortion for a woman to become pregnant with a child that she cannot afford to raise. By having a child that she can't raise, she is depriving that child of food and clothing that the child needs to survive. It is neglect. Neglect is abuse. Child abuse is a predatory. Predators should be punished and prevented from harming any more children, either by finding them or by creating them.
I suspect that many women would feel shocked by a suggestion that women be sterilized to prevent further child abuse. The only reason that they may feel outrage is due to some feeling that women have a "right" to have "one of their own." Quite frankly, this sentiment is stupid and should go screw itself in the ear several million times. I am a gay adoptive parent. If it is somehow "cruel" for a woman to be sterilized, then it is "cruel" for a woman to be condemned to my own fate on not being able to have "one of my own." Am I supposed to have sympathy for that point of view?
Enough about women. On to men.
I would support a law that men would be compelled undergo sterilization after fathering one child that he can't afford to raise. Am I supposed to support a man's right to father children that he can't pay to support? Should I as a gay adoptive parent feel sympathy for another man's ability to have "one of his own"? Quite franky, screw that in the eye socket about a billion times. I have no problem dooming some welfare-brat-spawning machine to my "horrible fate".
Why is it not child abuse that a woman has a child that she cannot afford to feed and clothe? Naturally I will exclude women who become pregnant through rape, but, otherwise, there is no excuse in our world of contraception and abortion for a woman to become pregnant with a child that she cannot afford to raise. By having a child that she can't raise, she is depriving that child of food and clothing that the child needs to survive. It is neglect. Neglect is abuse. Child abuse is a predatory. Predators should be punished and prevented from harming any more children, either by finding them or by creating them.
I suspect that many women would feel shocked by a suggestion that women be sterilized to prevent further child abuse. The only reason that they may feel outrage is due to some feeling that women have a "right" to have "one of their own." Quite frankly, this sentiment is stupid and should go screw itself in the ear several million times. I am a gay adoptive parent. If it is somehow "cruel" for a woman to be sterilized, then it is "cruel" for a woman to be condemned to my own fate on not being able to have "one of my own." Am I supposed to have sympathy for that point of view?
Enough about women. On to men.
I would support a law that men would be compelled undergo sterilization after fathering one child that he can't afford to raise. Am I supposed to support a man's right to father children that he can't pay to support? Should I as a gay adoptive parent feel sympathy for another man's ability to have "one of his own"? Quite franky, screw that in the eye socket about a billion times. I have no problem dooming some welfare-brat-spawning machine to my "horrible fate".
