Right to have a child

I was just watching this programme about some single woman trying for babies and one particular story got me thinking. The woman in question has a severe disability which means she can only move her facial muscles (so she can chew and talk) and has limited use of her fingers/hands. Because of her illness her condition will deteriorate further over time and she also has a reduced life expectancy- she has been given another 7-10 years max. She requires 24 hour care.
Not particularly relevant IMO but she is also a lesbian, single and 40 years old.
Now on the programme she is trying for a baby, through IVF- and from the shorts it looks like she falls pregnant.

Her argument against her 'critics' was that everyone should have a right to have children if they want to and that able bodied parents could have accidents or die and their babies would be in the same position.

She will not be able to hold or physically care for her baby and will not be able to 'raise' her child into adulthood. I must admit I was very confused by it all- at first I was outraged and thought how selfish of her, and then I thought of all these horrid 'able bodied' people who have kids upon kids and then abuse and kill them. In comparison she seemed articulate and loving, some kids grow up in far worse situations- but then I wonder at knowingly bringing a child into a situation where they will lose their only parent within 5-10 years.

Anyway, I was just curious- what do you guys think?

jack_&_charli wrote: i may get grilled for this........but i don't think she should have a baby for all the reasons that, to me, are obvious. i'm guessing she has someone that's happy to take care of the baby and also 'adopt' it when she passes?

i,m with you on this one

Everyone no matter what their circumstances has the right to have a child.. yes sometimes it sucks because they are using it to recieve a benefit or are right into the whole drug scene. Even this lady at 40, with some kind of severe paralysis and a limited time to live deserves the right to have a child for her own happiness in what could be her final years of life.. As long as that child has somewhere to go once she passes on

I guess its the right of the parent to have a child vs the right of the child to have a 'parent', in a normal sense of the word. I guess I see it that as an adult she has a choice where as by bringing a child into the world that child doesn't have a choice. I feel she should be putting her childs best interests before her own.

I might get grilled for this too...but here is my 2 cents worth.

I think that it sounds incredibly selfish and unfair on the child. I think that children have rights too...the right to grow up with a parent. Obviously there are times when parents are tragically taken from their children or circumstances beyond anyones control, but to have  a child that you cant care for (in any capacity except mental) seems just wrong to me.

Jennz wrote: I guess its the right of the parent to have a child vs the right of the child to have a 'parent', in a normal sense of the word. I guess I see it that as an adult she has a choice where as by bringing a child into the world that child doesn't have a choice. I feel she should be putting her childs best interests before her own.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I think it's incredibly selfish as if she's not realising how hard this child's life is going to be not only when she dies, but also in those last few years when she's deteriorating. Why would you want to but such an innocent little being through that?

I think it is wrong, it is a bit like that woman who was in her 60's (single as well) and was trying to have a baby with an egg and sperm doner - I am so glad she didn't get to have a baby.

I'm gonna get flamed,. but what the hell...

I do not beleive it is every womans God given right to have a baby.

Macsyna King, anybody????

I saw a thing on 60 mins last night about women in their thirties, successful, finaincially independant but single going through IVF, and that really got me thinking. On the one hand, these women are supporting themselves, no government handouts and are chooseing to have these babies, not just dumb luck oppsy babies. They can afford to have them, and have thought long and hard about it. On the other, there ae examples of why there needs to be some kind of "restriction" in place, like inthe example of Jennz. To me, that is selfish and no thought at all to that childs future.

I also get REALLY REALLY REALLY angry when people who can't afford to keep having children do so, for whatever reasons, I know love will get you through, supposedly, but I came from a very poor household, and JMHO, its not love that gets you through, its the good will and charity of others as well as the government. And then there is people like Macsyna king. Keep having babies, and won't look after them, not able to be a parent in any way shape or form.

I'm not saying that babies are the domain of the wealthy, couples or educated, I just think that people need to give more thought to the CHILD and not their own needs.

Flame away.
PS not pointed at anyone on this board at all. either.

Its funny how it takes just one person to go against the grain to bring more out of the woodwork huh..
Nope, I dont think that everyone has a god given RIGHT to have a child. TO say this in itself seems to come across as something pretty selfish and shows that you still cannot thing of anyone but yourself.
What about the child? What about thier god given rights? Rights to have parents to love them, cherish them, show them affection. They have a right to feel safe and nurtured.
Sorry, but any woman who says it's my right gets the thumbs down from me. But then, Who cares about what i say?

Edited by almostthere

I agree with everything Annie said (as I quietly go into hiding - not sure we can actually afford this baby! ) I don't neccessarily subscribe to the theory that kids need two parents to thrive, I think one good, committed parent is far better than two shonky ones, so I don't see the harm in single women undergoing IVF if they can afford to pay for it, but when it comes to those who keep getting pregnant with kids they don't want/afford, then I think there's a strong case for mandatory sterilisation... (ducks again!)

As for the original issue, I agree with Jennz - the right of the child to have a parent IMO outweighs the right of a person to have a child.