This is too broad. Much as I'd like to impose such a restriction, I think this gives too much latitude to the State and would allow them to abuse the law by expanding the definition of "mental retardation" to suit them-- much as they've done with the definition of "felony" in order to strip people of other rights.Originally Posted by Poll Options
Again, too broad.Originally Posted by Poll Options
I agree with Jallman here, but believe this is better addressed under child abuse. Of course, I don't have any objection to stripping reproductive rights from drug-addicted men who have sired drug-addicted children by their drug-addicted mothers. Not sure how to address that properly, however.Originally Posted by Poll Options
Might be one use for paternity tests that doesn't turn my stomach.
Absolutely. This should be standard procedure upon second conviction of child abuse. Possibly upon first conviction, but I think it might be better to allow people one chance to turn themselves around under State supervision.Originally Posted by Poll Options
As long as it is temporary and only for the duration of benefits; no "ten year plan" unless the form of sterilization is entirely temporary and is removed at State's expense when benefits cease.Originally Posted by Poll Options
Before anyone accuses me of wanting to "weed out undesirables", which I've never denied to be part of my motivation, I'm currently applying for government benefits myself. I would be all too happy to submit myself to temporary sterilization until I'm capable of supporting myself again. It would save me the worry of reproducing accidentally, which in my current state I would consider unacceptale.
Large families should be encouraged. If people can continue to support their family, they should absolutely be allowed to have as many children as they desire.Originally Posted by Poll Options
Which psychological tests are we talking about? What conditions should disqualify a person from having children? Like "mental retardation" above, this is far too broad and far too open to abuse of State discretion.Originally Posted by Poll Options
There is a risk present, but it's overblown. It's no worse than the risk of first cousins marrying-- which is still legal in much of the world. The risk is also considerably reduced in women that have had several children prior to 35.Originally Posted by Poll Options
This might not be a bad idea, but much of the problem with underaged girls having children is actually that they are unmarried and can't count on support from their families. Might as well suggest that women be required to use birth control until they are married-- and I'm not willing to support that.Originally Posted by Poll Options
The age of legal adulthood should be lowered.
I don't believe in human rights. Several of the items on this list are perfect examples of why.Originally Posted by Poll Options