Cafu07 wrote:

---

Should reproductive rights be taken away from horribly unfit parents?

I feel very uncomfortable going down this path as a society if we decide to restrict basic human instincts for the "good" of the society. It's too subjective is too many ways - who decided what's unfit, how do we enforce, who determines where this kind of control stops?

Carolla's logic is flawed in that he is too judicial with the application of "fair". In this case, "fair" is a social imposition. I think we should control that social imposition rather than personal behavior. For example, a 16-year-old meth head should not get social services after the first child, social programs should be restricted to provide basic levels of support without giving away unearned things (high school to 18 may not be required, people held responsible for health care, crime punished, etc.) and personal responsibility needs to be stressed. The problem we have is that we want a community that enables government and social support but it's not tied to personal growth or responsibility. The issue is not that the meth head can reproduce but that the society is forced to support that child and there is little impact to the meth head. This impacts our schools in that the teen-ager who skips school, takes drugs, and does not study is still required to attend school that we pay for. Rather than controlling human rights, we need to adjust our society first.