Should dependents be given the choice. . .?

When you are dependent on others for your life, that is called being a parasite. Technically then, a baby is even a parasite!

Obviously a parasite like a worm in our gut is treated differently then the dependent like a baby in the womb, but I am going somewhere with this, so hear me out. My last post was talking of those who were abnormal and unhealthy physically, and concluded with "If you can accept you are defective, unhealthy or otherwise not acceptable to society in general, and are still happy to be alive, you are in the best place. Everyone (as long as they are not dependent on others for their own life) has the right to love, live and reproduce." . .but is it best to reproduce?

Should the individual be expected to be mentally or physically mature or a certain age before they are deemed independent and given the choice to reproduce?

In the case of a dependent baby in the womb, society has deemed that it is the mothers choice of not just whether that child will reproduce, but whether they will even live! As a person has the right to chose whether they will support or kill a parasite, an unwanted baby is likewise a parasite that has no ability to live on their own, and thus has no right to a say in the matter of whether or not they live or die.

On another level, but to do with the same question: we say that a 13 year old teenage girl should not have the choice of whether or not she can love, or at least live with the 21 year old guy who just impregnated her, and that seems logical, as she is not a legal and responsible adult yet. Should a young teen under legal age be able to carry, deliver and keep a baby, or should her and her parent's first concern be with growing the teen?



If a proper full grown size is the only issue, then should a midget be able to have babies? Is it even healthy for them to have such a large bump in them?


I think it should be the choice of the midget, as they can and do have some normal children, and they should be able to make wise choices. . .if they have come to the end of their grieving stages, as I spoke of in my post: Abnormalities of the body and the connected grief stages.

Wouldn't you think whether or not a person has the right to bring a baby into the world has more to do with the ability to support yourself, and thus they are ready to support another?  While logically it should be the parent's choice about whether or not to abort the baby of a dependent 13 year old, on the other hand midgets, being thinking  and independent adults, are rarely told they couldn't have kids. (Even if it's not best for the mother, child or humanity if they do have kids that carry on the defective genes, bringing with it many health issues.)

What about the Down syndrome girl?


As sweet as people with Down's are, from what I have been told, most if not all of those with Down syndrome will never live completely independent of their caregiver, yet they are somewhat sexual. Though greatly childlike and half of them being infertile anyways, at least half of all women with Down syndrome do ovulate and are fertile. Numerous experts in physical and sexual abuse acknowledge that the mentally disabled individual is particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and abuse. Studies indicate that half of the mildly disabled Adults with Down's were sexually active. . . and one out of 3 were raped or a victim of incest. They do not have healthy or normal marriages, and are always highly supervised by family members, even when they marry a "normal" person. (As abuse is so common.)
Source

If and when the Down syndrome woman gets pregnant by marriage, incest or rape, between 35 and 50 percent of their children will have trisomy 21 or other developmental disabilities. Offspring without Down syndrome have an overall much greater than average number of congenital anomalies. (This chance is even higher where both parents have Down's syndrome. . .which is very rare and "troubling" to experts.) There is also a high chance that pregnancy would end in miscarriage. Women with Down's syndrome are also more likely than other women to have a premature baby, or to need a caesarian section, as they can't communicate their needs or take care of themselves in pregnancy. As they are dependent themselves, the studies show that they make clueless and neglectful parents, even if not intentionally abusive.


Considering all this, should the Down syndrome girl be told by her parents or a caregiver that she needs to get an abortion if she gets pregnant, and/or be told to get sterilized or have an IUD implanted to prevent pregnancy in the first place? Would it be more cruel to control her fertility (or strongly suggest she do it herself), or not to control it!?  

Should those who are 

1. dependent on a mother's body (fetus), 
2. dependent on their family (handicapped or teenagers with no money) 
3. or those otherwise completely dependent on others for their life and care. . .

 Even be allowed to procreate without permission from their caregiver? Do they even get a vote, as they are no different then a dependent child or a baby in the womb?

To put it another way, think of a pet who is dependent on you. Do they have the right to bring home a bunch of their stray friends for you to feed and care for? Out of mercy and kindness we may let them take advantage of us, because it feels good to be needed. . . but they do not have the right.

 I have at one time adopted 5 such abandoned large dogs when we were in the country. What happened next to them though? As we couldn't contain them, some started getting shot at. Traveling around together, the pack attracted the neighbor dogs to join, and then the dominant one got a neighbor's dog pregnant. The purebred dog then had such ugly mutts that no one wanted them. In the end few lived, and their lives were bad after we left the neighborhood.



So then one could ask, "Is it more cruel to spay or neuter the ugly mutt or a diseased or starving stray, or not to?" I think most people would admit that the average mutt should not be allowed to take over and populate the world, and only the purest, healthiest or wanted ones should not be fixed. (Sadly I did not have the money to do this for the dogs we adopted, and we should have, or taken then to a pound.) That is more humane in the end!

Some would go so far as to say that many stray dogs (like these ones to the left), would be better off being "put out of their misery". Do we shoot the horse that is in pain and suffering and call it humane? Why do we refuse to do the same for many dogs now, much less humans? We call euthanasia a bad thing, but when it involves animals we generally call it mercy. . .

Whatever the case, if an animal or human offspring doesn't have a good chance of being healthy, wanted or cared for, and is dependent on someone else, it seems to me that at very least, "fixing" the mother would be the merciful thing both for the mother, and for the miserable and dependent future generations.

One could make the argument that like with the dependent pets, it is only for the benefit of those defective and undesirables and their future generations that we would want to control their fertility, but while that sounds very altruistic and kind, there is no denying the more sinister side of the coin. . .

The side of the stressed out caregivers, the poor families, overtaxed middle class and bankrupt governments of the world. . .who probably all probably know that constant catering to and supporting the weak will eventually bring down the health or welfare of the caregivers or the whole group/country! Sadly, in the end, our pity and compassion for the weak, and dependents of the world is unsustainable if there are too many dependents. We are told by the Democrats to feel bad if we can't give charity to the vets, fatherless families, immigrants and poor. They push for extended medicare, housing programs, foodstamps, heating and cooling help, welfare, WIC, unemployment or retirement benefits, and even foreign aide, etc. as if our country is made out of money!

Because of our love of "diversity", our compassion and our generosity towards the underdogs of the world, the dependent, defective and vulnerable population has turned into a dependent or "parasite" problem for those having to support them. . .in the end giving the better treatment to the takers then the givers.


The tax payers are basically being told "Work hard to support those who can't or won't help themselves. . .whether or not you want to, or can afford it."



While it is obvious that the media and the mainstream (even the Republicans!) have feared the topic of controlling fertility as eugenics, as I stated earlier, it really is more humane. Similarly like pets, I think that all woman should be put on birth control unless they prove healthy, independent and mentally ready to parent. . .as they would have to show when going to adopt. This would both protect the individuals and the future generations from starvation, pain, constant abortions or being unwanted. . . simply by mandating birth control for all. 

Stopping the cycle of dependents in the world, just as we have always done with young teens by abortions and fixing pets, would be wise for our survival and our welfare as a nation and world. Those who are dependent themselves, will breed dependent and/or defective children who in the end will likely have no one to support them, so they will be on the street like a stray dog. That is cruel to all involved.

Are there others though who like the fetuses, teen and the handicapped (mentally or physically), are incapable parents, and are completely dependent on family (or often the government) for their very lives? 

Who are basically, much as I hate to say it. . . the "parasites" of our world? This question and more I will explore in my next post: The parasites of dying civilizations.