tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14438897.post113235807772052597..comments2023-11-02T02:45:39.259-06:00Comments on Hydrogen & Stupidity: Big Picture Check: On Reproductive Choices - ALL of ThemCantankerous Bitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08353178783999591681noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14438897.post-1132601543169781822005-11-21T12:32:00.000-07:002005-11-21T12:32:00.000-07:00Sorry, GC -- I didn't get back to this right away,...Sorry, GC -- I didn't get back to this right away, and now I'm a little pressed for time. Follow the original story link and read through the discussion. The concerns you raise are addressed there more comprehensively.Cantankerous Bitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353178783999591681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14438897.post-1132503607699658142005-11-20T09:20:00.000-07:002005-11-20T09:20:00.000-07:00I'm entirely sympathetic to these tales, and agree...I'm entirely sympathetic to these tales, and agree that the way some women use kids as a meal ticket is about as abhorrent as it gets. <BR/>However, here's the thing -- <BR/><BR/>Who gets to decide who should and shouldn't "be allowed" to reproduce, and why? It's the proverbial "who's watching the watchers" question. I don't know about you, but I literally cannot conceive of any elected or legislative body that I would ever trust to make wholesale judgements like that. <BR/><BR/>It's one thing to discourage the meal-ticket-baby thing, it's another thing altogether to criminalize women that for that and other "poor choices during pregnancy". Smoking is a great example. There's overwhelming evidence that shows pregnant women shouldn't smoke, right? Ok, great. So we create laws that punish pregnant women who do. Except.... it's entirely possible to smoke, like, one cigarette a day, for example, and not cause any harm at all to the baby (just ask the generations of kids whose moms DID smoke). Do we throw the one-a-day women in jail too? This is the problem with trying to legislate Thou Shalt Nots, especially as it pertains to reproductive choices. In an attempt to dissuade bad behavior, or go after the real contemptible minority, we risk unfairly treating the majority and pretty much shitting all over their right to self-determination in the process. <BR/><BR/>As for who gets to decide -- I don't want someone like Dobson deciding who's a suitable candidate for parenthood, anymore than I want to leave that decision to David Duke. And in this political climate, it's the Dobsons of the world that carry political capital and are as likely as not to end up in a legislative position. The slippery slope from "protecting children" to "social control" is much shorter than we think, IMO.<BR/><BR/>The scenarios you describe sound like funding and resource problems with social services, to say nothing of the completely absent "rehabilitation" element of our criminal justic system -- things which absolutely need to be addressed, but not with proscriptions on who can and cannot have kids and under what circumstances they'll be deemed "worthy". It would be attacking the problem from the wrong side of the issue. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, did you follow <A HREF="http://www.jointogether.org/sa/files/pdf/sciencenotstigma.pdf" REL="nofollow">this </A> link re: "crack babies"? Interesting stuff.Cantankerous Bitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353178783999591681noreply@blogger.com