The "right" to give birth?
One of my friends here in
One of the theater productions the residents were working on dealt with the theme of “birth.” The residents had the opportunity to speak with a mid-wife and ask questions about the birth of babies and the group later went to a local hospital to see new-borns up close. After the Q & A with the mid-wife and field trip, the residents were ready to perform their rendition of a birth while rehersing for a play. Both men and women actors stuffed their bellies with pillows, practiced lamaze, and stood by their “significant other” while he or she enacted childbirth. When one of the babies was “born,” one of the residents who swaddled a bundle of towels remarked, “Oh, what beautiful blond eyes!” It was really sweet to watch this.
After play practice, many of the residents began to discuss what it would actually be like to bear children. Most of the residents—who ranged in age from about 20 to 50—said they wanted to be parents and yearned to have babies. What was really interesting to hear was nearly all of the people who wanted babies wished that it would be “normal.”
During a discussion with the producer, he noted that the farm residents should have children if they wanted to—because giving birth was a human right.
I had to sincerely question whether there is a “human right” which includes the right to reproduce. In my view, a rational human who has little or no capacity to take care of him or herself would not choose to bring a child into the world—to me, this seems more like a “human” response to this conundrum.
Since many of the people at the farm lack the capacity to ration, should other rational people make the choice for them (as in, for the disabled residents not to bear children), or is there some higher order of a “human right” lurking out there that supersedes this notion? Rational people make this choice all the time when we choose to spay or neuter our “irrational” house-pets. Spaying and neutering is even considered a humane and ethical element of caring for pets—as it reduces many health risks and ensures that the pet will not contribute to pet-animal overpopulation. Is it wrong to extrapolate this idea to irrational humans?
The question that comes next is, “How does one decide who is and who is not irrational by mental disability?” That is a good question that has really thrown me off a lot. Many societies over time have found a definition for this and made the decision to sterilize people. History tells us that many people dubbed mentally disabled and who were later sterilized were in fact, wrongly labeled as such.
But in terms of the people living at this particular farm near
The people who manage the farm already have chosen for their residents—the women living at the farm are all given birth control pills—which to me is just a nicer, *seemingly*-less-concrete form of sterilization anyway.
Comment by JayBandit on 28 August 2008 at 8:29 am:
“Since many of the people at the farm lack the capacity to ration…”
I think you mean “rationalize”
Comment by Anonymous on 28 August 2008 at 8:54 am:
Yes. We should make these decisions for more people, in my opinion. In the words of the great philosophizer Keanu Reeves in Parenthood: “you need a license to buy a dog, to drive a car – hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they’ll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.”
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 28 August 2008 at 9:00 am:
Interesting post Segen. It is a difficult dilemma, but I do think it’s interesting that you again try to draw analogies between animals and humans in a Peter Singer kind of way. Any kind of Singer logic bothers me on a visceral level.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 28 August 2008 at 9:06 am:
Also, it is interesting to compare this scenario to Holmes’ opinion in Buck v. Bell. He said something like, “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Eugenics is a scary idea in our past and in our future.
Comment by Brandon Ruiz on 28 August 2008 at 9:43 am:
“Since many of the people at the farm lack the capacity to ration, should other rational people make the choice for them (as in, for the disabled residents not to bear children), or is there some higher order of a “human right” lurking out there that supersedes this notion?”
A few generations ago, the U.S. government decided that Puerto Rico was overpopulated and that its residents weren’t “rational” and couldn’t control themselves with children (let’s ignore the correlation with poverty for a minute) and mass-sterilized thousands of women. On “normal” people we would call it a human rights violation. I’m not sure that we should be treating the mentally disabled dramatically different from anyone else. Sterilization seems like overkill to say the least. Now maybe they all shouldn’t be having children, but honestly, I would be surprised if a small community (as you described on the farm) couldn’t between them competently raise a child with a little guidance when the child gets older.
All kinds of terrible parents have children and don’t even try to raise them right. Others try and fail. When we start telling people who CAN (legally) and CAN’T have children, it’s just a matter of time before we make a criteria list that could expand.
Comment by kofi the they probably cant ration or rationalize on 28 August 2008 at 9:45 am:
Reproducing is a human right, but human rights can be waived.
Comment by thetodd on 28 August 2008 at 9:59 am:
I find it difficult to answer this question, because, as someone who is rather strongly opposed to having children, I do not know how much it would hurt to want to have children yet not be allowed to. Furthermore, I am not sure if this pain tends to be of more, less, or equal severity than it is among the mentally healthy.
It would also be helpful to know some statistics, like what percentage of this population desires to have children and what percentage of them actually do have children when allowed. It wouldn’t do to tell people that aren’t having many children as it is that they can’t have any. People often don’t like to have a freedom removed, even when they don’t make use of that freedom.
If I make some wild guesses about these unknown parameters, I think I lean toward disallowing the reproduction, but it is close.
Comment by Segen on 28 August 2008 at 10:00 am:
So what do you think about the farm managers giving the residents birth control as a default? Should this medicine be available at request…or should it be administered universally, as it is now?
Comment by kofi the i will not be addressing this issue in my acceptance speech tonight on 28 August 2008 at 10:19 am:
These residents are already waiving some human rights by choosing to live there. If those in charge of the facility want to make taking birth control a condition of admission, they are free to do so. If they want to actively discourage reproduction in other ways they are free to do that too. The line is at sterilization (because it is irreversible) and forced abortion (because the child has not waived its right to existence).
Comment by tet on 28 August 2008 at 10:27 am:
People with an IQ of 142 are two standard deviations above the average intelligence of the rest of the human race–the same distance as the average are above the people who live on the farm.
Would you support those high-IQ people making a choice as to whether or not the man-on-the street should be able to reproduce?
One mistake that is often made is to equate intelligence with either wisdom or superior morality. It supplies neither.
I’m completely, morally opposed to any action other than a strong talking-to.
Tom
Comment by kofi the tonight i will descend from the temple of obama and save you all on 28 August 2008 at 10:32 am:
Tom, if these people want to have children then they can go off on their own and try to. If they want the support and protection of the state, or a charity, or whatever organization, then they may be asked to waive some of their rights in exchange.
Comment by segen on 28 August 2008 at 10:37 am:
kofi,
nice title….and interesting point re: waiving reproductive rights to live at farm.
Comment by thetodd on 28 August 2008 at 11:46 am:
Tom, I do not think this has much to do with IQ. It has to do with some people being a burden upon the rest of us and others not being one.
However, I cannot argue with the rest of what you’ve said. If you begin with the axioms that the people on the farm are, well, people, that all reproducing is a right that all people have, and that rights are never to be abrogated regardless of what utility may be gained by doing so, then I think you must reach your conclusion.