Friday, June 8, 2012

What are the limits on "reproductive rights"?

I’m not asking the question because I think I know the answer. I don’t and, frankly, I don’t think anyone does. But those who say there are _no_ limits, are, I believe, simply wrong.

A well-known Oliver Wendell Holmes remark goes like this: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” It’s a simple, colorful statement illustrating that our rights are not unlimited, and that those limits exist because other people have rights, too. Defining the limits, of course, is the hard part.

Abortion provides probably the best example of how complicated it can be. One side frames the debate as solely about a woman’s rights, while the other believes the fetus has rights, as well, but is in the difficult position of being unable to speak up for them. I don’t believe a legal resolution to this issue will _ever_ be reached that satisfies everyone, and I understand, entirely, that interfering in a woman’s decisions in this arena—even for unimpeachable reasons—involves depriving her of a basic freedom. But would those who say it can’t be done, then, and who reject the idea that a fetus has any rights, pause when the other person’s ‘nose’ belongs to a living child?

Consider the case of a young couple in Ohio—Felicia and Cody Beemer. Mr. Beemer, 23, just pleaded guilty to raping his own 13-month-old daughter—while on a supposedly supervised visit at a child protective services facility, no less. The abuse was in the presence of—and apparently participated in by—the child’s mother, Felicia, who is 21. They recorded the assault on a cell phone, and a relative who saw it reported the abuse. The cell phone also revealed hundreds of images of child porn, many involving bestiality, and evidence that Mr. Beemer had also raped an 18-month-old nephew.

It gets worse. Beemer was a registered sex offender, having raped a 3-year-old child when he was a teenager. Mrs. Beemer, only 21, has already had four children, and every one of them was taken away from her immediately after birth. One of those children has already been murdered in foster care. I have been unable to find any details on the Beemers but, clearly, there must have been ample evidence of her unfitness for motherhood. No one has to point out to me that Mr. Beemer was very likely a victim of child sexual abuse himself, or that something has to be deeply, profoundly, wrong with a woman who would not only sexually abuse her own child, but preserve the evidence for later enjoyment. Who knows what kind of screwed up parents she was probably subjected to, or what happened to her to turn her into a monster.

But does any of that change what they’ve done? The death, destruction, physical and psychological trauma and blighted futures of three children? (As mentioned, one is already dead.) And yet, she has the reproductive “right” to continue to get pregnant, and continue to bear children.

Why?

13 comments:

  1. I think you are touching on two very related but @ the same time two very different topics here: 1) our 'rights' to procreate, and 2) the rights of women vs. fetuses in the abortion scenario. As for the 1st topic; and that sickening couple you mentioned, I've never quite understood how the government can interfere in SO MANY things (like abortion and how it's paid for, what employers have to provide in employees' insurance benefits, etc.) but not have any control over things like this. In my opinion, it's funny to me that you have to get a license to work on HVAC or plumbing, drive a car, be a doctor, sell liquor... but any idiot can make as many babies as they want. I mean, people like you mentioned above? The guy is a sex offender; castrate him, no more worries about sex offenses or babies he can father and then rape. As for the mom; find her unfit in court, put it on record that should she birth any children, they immediately go to an adoptive family, she has no parental rights. I am die-hard against abortion, it's not the fault of the children she creates, they should have a chance at a life. Of course this would never happen, because taking away a person's rights to have children is just inconceivable (pardon the pun) to our society. I don't understand any of it myself, this country's judicial system is NOT designed to protect the innocent. My dad is a retired police officer, my husband is a police officer, and I worked in law enforcement myself... Long enough to know we don't protect our children in this country. People abuse and kill their OWN children left and right, and the consequences for these actions are laughable. You can't check the headlines on AOL a SINGLE day w/o reading a case of infanticide, etc. What message is the government (that seems to want to be involved in everything, even the things it shouldn't) sending when these things go on and no serious consequences are imposed? I swear, sterilization may sound barbaric, but no more barbaric than anything the Beemers have done. (to be continued, apparently I am too long-winded)

    ReplyDelete
  2. As for abotion, I am pro-life. I think there are very few circumstances where abortion is acceptable (undeniable serious harm or death to the mother, a very young girl [less than 15/16, I feel that could cause serious harm, mostly mental/emotional to someone so young], a rape victim [although I have a friend who was raped, and not only had the baby, but kept him], and one where partial-birth abortion is acceptable (undeniable serious harm or death to the mother). It's a sad thing... if we found a single living cell on the moon or some planet, everyone would FREAK out about life on another planet than Earth. But a single living cell in a woman's uterus? Disposable. It is a life at conception, period. Look what happens the MOMENT the sperm penetrates the egg. The embryo has a heartbeat within weeks. I am completely opposed to abortion, and horrified that in certain cases/places my tax dollars PAY FOR IT. I'm sorry, but there is contraception out there, and now more than ever it is VERY available. If you get knocked up and don't want to be, pay your dues for 10 months, have the baby, and put it up for adoption. In most cases there are so many people who want babies the mother can have all her medical and sometimes living expenses covered by the adoptive parents throughout the pregnancy. You messed up, clean up your mess w/o hurting anyone. I don't think it is my 'right' as a woman to terminate a life within me, any more than I think it's my 'right' to kill anyone else (and really, how is partial-birth abortion not murder? The doctor stabs the baby in the base of the neck in utero to ensure it is still-born, b/c odds are at that gestation it would be 'aborted' alive). Abortion is so available (and free usually) that women are using it as birth control. It's disgusting. I know this will never change, our country is on a downhill slide as far as our respect for ourselves, our loved ones past and present, our morals, etc. It is very much a 'me' society now. And I'll never be on board with that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kristen, thanks for the very thoughtful comments; I find very little to disagree with. One wishes people with unwanted pregnancies would do you as you say--bear the children and put them up for adoption, but of course, compulsion would be an undesirable, impractical and most likely impossible way to accomplish that. As I said in the post, there will never be a legal resolution to if/when/under what circumstances abortion is legal that will satisfy all parties, so some kind of compromise has got to be achieved. But when people are passionate about something, compromise is the last thing they want...

      Delete
    2. I agree. And I just don't think it's actually an issue the government, save a few politicians, cares to be involved with to any great degree. It's too uncomfortable, and probably would affect election outcomes too much as far as who we put into office. It's just a shame, I constantly think of all the lives, and I firmly believe they are lives, lost.

      Delete
  3. Peggy I'm sorry you included the abortion argument with the story about these two depraved animals who keep making babies - and then abusing them. One really has nothing to do with the other. I'm pro-choice and can site as many reasons as Kristen for holding that opinion. The couple in question, however, should be in prison for what they've done. There (we'd hope) they couldn't make any more, or abuse any more babies. The law needs to catch up on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben, I may not have made it very clear, but I was in no way attempting to draw a parallel between abortion and irresponsible procreation. (Nor did I advocate for one side or the other, in terms of abortion.) However, as Kristin pointed out, they _are_ related in that both speak to the very complicated issue of what constitutes someone's "rights" when it comes to reproductive matters, which was the point of the post. I merely said that abortion is probably the biggest focus of the dispute.

      Putting these two in prison so they can harm no more children certainly goes without saying, but it doesn't undo any of the harm they caused, does it? And female prisoners get pregnant routinely, thanks to guards, so there's no guarantee that won't happen, and no reason to think she might not get pregnant again, during the probably long period any trial will take. Really, she should be sterilized, shouldn't she? Forcibly, if she won't do it voluntarily. She should have been sterilized at least two births ago. But that's the great strength, and the inherent weakness in the law. If it's allowed to happen, how does one insure it's not a power that isn't abused in future cases? So we resist giving that power to government, probably rightly, but the cost is untold destruction and harm to innocent people.

      Delete
  4. In the case offered, I would have no problem at all with the criminal justice system taking steps to insure that these two never produce offspring again, though in the husband's case, considering his record, he should be executed. Since we are a nation of spineless pansies that refuses to deal with career criminals in the most cost effective manner however, I guess I'd have to settle for his castration.

    I am pro-choice, though I sincerely believe that abortion is killing a baby. I simply have no problem with you murdering the baby that's growing inside you if you don't want it. You and God can settle that later.

    I'm also a big fan of mandatory birth control for anyone on TANF, EBT, or Medicaid. As this story shows, we have no shortage of worthless maggots and we don't need to be breeding the next generation of them because of an individual's right to bear children. It's not an inalienable right. When they become societal leeches, totally dependent upon other people's labors for the survival of those children, we have a right to say, "No more."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that we don't really have that right, do we? The legal fight would go on FOREVER if an attempt was actually made to force birth control onto people or to make it a condition for receiving public assistance. No one of good conscience wants to see children suffer because their parents are incompetent or worthless, so the end result is that those children are harmed anyway--and almost always perpetuate the downward cycle--while the rest of society is held hostage because they don't want material deprivation to be added to the harm already being done.

      What is the answer? I truly do not know. People say it is "education" and "opportunity," but so far, that's not working out so well.

      Delete
    2. The answer to this and most problems we face is the same - elect governors and state legislators with backbones who will tell the federal governmnet to drop dead when it's appropriate.

      As a nation we need to be less emotional and more logical.

      Delete
    3. Olson I find your response slightly ambiguous... And I am not arguing your right to your pro-choice opinion at all. Just your wording... you call it deciding to murder the baby that's growing inside you, which is what most of us pro-lifers call it, 'murder'. I don't understand why it's acceptable in our society to 'murder' your child in utero, and then it's shocking when a mother murders her 2 month or 4 year-old... it's HER child, her responsibility/burden, etc. I guess that viability issue is the determining factor... if you can't live on your own, you're not actually alive. Ironically though, how many people are on life support right now? I appreciate the fact that some of your response fits in well with our society and government... ambiguous! I think that's the reason people like the Beemers will be around for ages to come... It's almost like the government doesn't want to address the things that are taboo or uncomfortable. Regardless, well thought out comment you made.

      Delete
  5. It's not ambiguous at alland it's not the viability issue - it's the "your body" issue. As long as it's inside your body, YOU are 100% in control. You have total dominion over your body. Once that child is born, however, it has left your body and you have no right to kill it. The minute it takes that first breath of air, it enjoys every right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you have.

    I have no problem with outlawing abortion in the second half of the pregnancy, I have no problem with mandatory ultrasounds, reasonable waiting periods, and I think that parental notification should be required in every case of a pregnant minor.

    That said, I also have no problem with abortions in the first half of a pregnancy and wish that my fellow conservatives would realize that spending $1k now makes more sense than spending hundreds of thousands on feeding them, clothing them, housing them, arresting them, convicting them, and then feeding, clothing, and housing them for the rest of their lives. The Hyde Amendment is bad economics. The analysis of crime rates in the Nineties that was featured in "Freakonomics" was spot on! There were a few million criminals never born in the Seventies, when indigent women could receive free abortions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Olson you make some great points, and I agree with you on a few of them. Obviously no matter what you and I say to each other, regardless of how informed, we aren't going to change each other's opinions. I will never be okay with abortion other than in the circumstances I mentioned above (additionally though, I think in the case of some crack addict who is going to continue to use her whole pregnancy and birth an addicted/disabled child, maybe that is for the best). The whole 'rights' thing is again, so ambiguous to me. I mean, what about the dad's rights? I realize he doesn't have the burden of carrying the baby, but how many women go and terminate a pregnancy, never telling the father he was going to be one? What about his rights? The government will never care about that... impose a law stating the father has to agree also. The government already tells us certain things we can and cannot do with our bodies... I cannot legally put certain drugs into my body, I cannot ask someone to end my life (legally) if I am terminally ill, I cannot use my body to sell sexual favors as a means of income. I wouldn't find it invasive of the government to tell me I can't terminate my unwanted pregnancy if it's not going to be severely detrimental to my health or well-being during OR afterwards. That can of worms... What happens after; does the baby end up in the system using up tax dollars or immediately in a good adoptive home, is not my immediate concern with this issue. The child denied life is. At any rate, as I stated, I have enjoyed the debate with you, you have an informed opinion and at least we agree on a few points! Blessings.

      Delete
    2. Ah, but I am a Libertarian, and as far as I'm concerned you should be able to use any drug a person is stupid enough to take. I believe in legalizing all drugs, as long as we treat those who turn to crime to support their possible addiction as CRIMINALS, and not "poor addicts." If you stick up a drugstore to support your heroin addiction, you're an armed robber and will be dealt with accordingly. Go dry out in Raleigh Central.

      I also believe that you should be able to use your body any way you so desire. I came to that realization when listening to a radio station in California about thirty years ago. There was a story about San Francisco PD undertaking a huge crackdown on prostitutes. The next story was about Fernando Valenzuela selling his arm to the Dodgers for $7 million.

      The hypocrisy was overwhelming....

      Delete