She was 21 when she had her first, who is now 16. 11 months is the last kid she popped out.So she was 11 years old when she had her first child? Something about this is off.
Are you saying that as in you want to or are going to have to in the near future? The sad face makes me think bad but the sentence without it seems good.
I think it should be only considered as an absolute last resort but that still faces the slippery slope of defining what "absolute last resort" is. And like any law, it will get broadened and abused to a point where it exceeds reason.
It's a half and half thing. I actually excited to move.
But this story is still horrible. but I won't come the state because of stupid people.
She was 21 when she had her first, who is now 16. 11 months is the last kid she popped out.
I think that slippery slope is why I don't even wanna consider it. It might save a few qualities of life in the short term, but threatens a far greater amount of freedoms in the long run.
Man playing god is never a good idea.
I dont want to live on this planet anymore
That's really not what would happen. We "play god" by taking birth control, using condoms, tying and snipping tubes, etc. This would just be another regulated thing.
A child born with a disability due to drug or alcohol use by the mother is a drain on the system. They end up in foster care, which is over-saturated already, or they're raised by incompetent and negligent parents. At the end of the day, it's the taxpayers and society in general that pays for this child.
I know what Teelie is saying about the slippery slope, as it has happened before with involuntary sterilization. But, I'm still in favour of it in extreme cases. If, by a certain age, a woman has had X number of kids with disabilities that were entirely preventable, that woman should not be allowed to have any more children.