The title should be kept in context. The question was about the ethics around the rights of an individual to continue to have children without first having the independent resources to provide for them - and specifically in cases like this where there is no natural pregnancy ie: a person who seeks to become pregnant by artificial means and then makes a determination to act on their wishes regardless of their ability to provide for the results of that pregnancy.
Sammie you raise a number of questions and I do believe asking questions is a good thing. There is a difference in asking questions and making angry judgements, replete with name calling, without having all the facts, which is what many posters are doing. When some of us asked valid logical questions the anger was then turned on to us. However, I will ask them again anyway.
The question is not whether or not she is married. The question isn't related to religious values. It's a question put up against societal values and the value of life in regards to the majority and not the minority.
You cannot totally separate societal values from religious values while the vast majority of members of society base their individual values on their religious values. Also there is certainly no societal consensus on any values which is the reason this thread even exists.You may all be surprised to know that I do not personally believe it is a good idea for children to be intentionally brought into this world by parents who cannot afford them or that children should intentionally be raised without fathers. Those are my beliefs based upon my values. Many others may not agree. My question is WHO gets to decide how many children other couples or other single mothers may have? Me? You? Why? Based upon the potential for harm? Potential for harm is not actual harm. If it is to be put to majority vote, and agreed that all should have only two children and poor people and single women no children, then that only raises a hundred more questions that absolutely no one has attempted to address. How do we enforce the two child rule? How do we police sex and reproduction? What do we do with the lawbreakers? Do we sterilize those who are not allowed to have children? Do we force abortions on single mothers? Do we take away the children of poor people after they are born? These questions must be answered before we can even attempt to answer the question you raised in your thread. Are any of the angry posters willing to stop the name-calling and wild speculation about one individual woman's circumstances and seriously try to address the actual logistics raised?
This woman was on disability for a back problem and yet purposely got herself pregnant 6 times while on funds for that. It does raise questions and for those on disability who have to fight for any help, I can assure you they are cringing and angry. So should society have a say in women being ALLOWED to have 14 children without a job and while on government disability funding or other government funds? Most certainly since those programs are set up and paid for collectively by society to assist those who need it. sammieswife.
More questions: Should disabled people be allowed to have children? What does the extent of the disability need to be before they are not allowed to have children. How do you propose to stop those who want to? When disabled people receive a settlement for their disabilities whether private or publicly sourced, should they be able to spend the money how they want as everyone else is? Why should they be told they cannot spend their disability settlements on children? You see many of the questions raised are totally separate issues with no easy answers. As BTS said, the cure many are proposing sounds dreadfully worse than the disease it is supposed to help.