I don't know if you people know how relevant this discussion is right now in Holland.
There is a large booming discussion going on; should heavily mentally handicapped people have the right to reproduce?
Scenario: mentally handicapped woman has a child. A year later the child has to be taken away, mal-nourished and scarred for life. The woman becomes pregnant again. The doctor talks to her "Don't you know you could use anti-conceptants". "I do," the woman answers, "but I like children"
The problem is, which right is more prelavent? The right to have a child or the right to have a good parent? We know in advance that these mentally handicapped people are not equipped to be parents, yet they have the right to have sex (haven't had that forever either, but they do now) and the right to reproduce. Is forced sterilization the answer?
Yes, I say, and not just in this case. The right of a child to have a good parent should outweight the right to have a child.
In fact, I consider the right to have a child to be an outdated notion. Remember that things like "the right to kill" used to be existing rights too before you automatically protests; rights DO come and go.
That said, child-giving should not be considered an inherent free right. You are creating and determining the path, at least partially, of a new-born child.
Yes, welsh's argument is valid, where do you start and where do you stop? But I'm not talking about the interest of society here, I'm talking about the interest of the child. People who will obviously make their children's lives a living hell, like alcoholics, drug-addicts, mentally handicapped people, should simply not be allowed to have children. What gives them the right to create life and then destroy it?
To make all other people follow a course in parenting and do exams would also be an excellent idea.
