Dr. Gifford Jones writes in the Kingston Whig-Standard:
To me, good sense dictates that women who repeatedly drink to excess during pregnancy should be sterilized to end this medical and social tragedy. I've read tons of reports from organizations associated with this problem. Not a single one has suggested legislation to sterilize repeat offenders.
Many argue that individual rights prevent sterilization of these women. But surely there must be legislators who believe that an innocent fetus has more rights that an alcohol-sodden mother. For babies' sake, legislation should end this tragedy.
More The-ends-justifies-the-means thinking.
Well, what if you keep giving birth to, say, autistic children, or children with cystic fibrosis?
These lives are "destroyed" by "repeat offenders".
It costs enormoust amounts of money to treat these children. Let's just sterilize the women!
One of the misconceptions that people have of pro-lifers is that they think that women do not have a right to their bodies.
They do. The difference between pro-lifers and non-pro-lifers is that we think that the right to a woman's body doesn't give her the right to kill an unborn child, to whom she has a responsibility.
Is a woman who drinks during pregnancy being irresponsible? Of course. Should we sterilize her?
We don't sterilize people for being irresponsible.
Like what about deadbeat dads? If you impregnante a dozen women and don't pay up, should that dad be sterilized?
Where would it end?
Unfortunately, this could catch on. We are so immersed in a culture that beleives the ends justifies the means that it seems like the logical solution. We don't care much about respecting principles-- those are just abstract ideas. We like results. We don't want any more FAS kids who have to be taken care of.
