Posted by Desirée on 19/5/2009, 7:54:31, in reply to "Re: procreation"
77.212.196.X
Ryan, my old friend - I am not nor have I ever been accused of being anywhere near the right of any wing, and yet, having worked as the Court Coordinator of the council Adoption Team, I agree whole heartedly that some people - a lot of people, in fact - should not be allowed to procreate. But as opposed to you, I have long buried this opinion as taking it to its natural end cannot but become a little facist.
It doesn't, however, change my opinion - there are many, many people who should not be allowed to have children. Unlike the facist regimes, I do not base the "right" to procreate on colour, creed, or bodily provess. But if you'd seen what I'd seen... for instance, the mother who was a drug user and married to an abusive man who was also a drug user who had 8 children (by the time I left the Adoption office, that was the number - who knows how many since) and had them all taken away at birth and simply went on to become pregnant again shortly thereafter only to have the next one removed at birth. Needless to say all the children were born drug addicts and physically and mentally damaged by the time spent in the womb of this woman. Sure, they were adopted by kind, caring people who through no fault of their own could not bear children of their own - but to what life?
Material wealth and all the love in the world cannot make good what was made bad by so, so many of the women whose children were removed and adopted. It was simply devastating.
[And I realise mistakes are made - children are removed and adopted against the parents' will for reasons that turned out to be wrong. But rather have one case of a child removed that shouldn't have been removed than a case of a child that was not removed and should've been.]
Controversial, I know, but... well, the whole issue simply breaks my heart. You can tell from the rambling ;)
Having been blessed with two healthy and thriving children now myself, the reality of the plight of these children have become even more real. Having children is not a right - it is a privilege that should be earned and certainly not taken for granted. Lord only knows many of the children that went through our office would've been better off never being born. So much bagage - brain damage, physical handicaps, learning difficulties - all the effects of completely uncaring and irresponsible women and men who selfishly 'decided' [you have unprotected sex = you decide to become pregnant] to become pregnant and go through a pregnancy whilst keeping up their drug and drinking habits. Or who, once the child was born, were unable to care for that child, yet too selfish or vain to admit to themselves and the agencies that might have helped them that they needed help and support. And then fighting the adoptions all the way. How can you say you love a child, yet refuse to give it up when it is obvious that the child is suffering in your care and that you are too selfish or indeed damaged by your own bagage to look after the child properly?
And all of this is besides the environmental impact of procreation. This is also besides the fact that many women and indeed men do step up to the plate and take full responsibility and become good parents despite it all. (I'd like to think I am one of these people, as y'all know my parenting prerequisites were not ideal).
We're not baby booming in Denmark. We're having about 1.9 child. Not quite enough to sustain, but then the economic argument for sustaining is a whole chapter to itself. And if the people in power over here weren't gagged and bound by an extremely right wing party, we could be well helped by letting some people of other nationalities into our country. But again - that's a whole different issue - and yet, it isn't. There are enough people on this planet and we needn't produce more children than we - each and every individual - can look after with a little to spare. You know what I mean?
But it's infinitely more complex than that. It takes a village and all that. Yet, the family has become mum and children - and if you're lucky, mum + other adult + children. You had 'em, you look after them. Yet, you had 'em, you claim all the benefits you can - and sympathy - and maybe feeling of belonging in the group 'cos everyone else have 'em. 'Cos you can. But too many can't. And the children suffer. And that suffering is then born into the next generation. And the one follwoing that. Sometimes.
Incoherent and nonsensical - but typed as it spilled, so there. I agree - children should not be born to any old so-and-so. But it doesn't really matter that they shouldn't, because it's beyond the legislature to demand birth regulation. In our parts of the world, anyways. And the social (not financial) incentives to become a mother - even a bad one - are still greater than the incentives for bettering yourself, or thinking about the economical or indeed environmental impact of having children.
Still not sure where you were going with the genital herpes, though.
79
Message Thread:
« Back to thread