As part of the adoption, we are taking a class for adoptive parents.
We share this class with several interesting couples, including one who is adopting a newborn from Florida. (yeah, in January, when I might be fortunate enough to fly to Russia, they have to spend three weeks in Florida).
The mother who is giving up her child for adoption is not what you may expect, a scared teenage girl having a child she cannot afford.
The woman is 36 years old. This will be her 14th child (by several different fathers, who give no support of course).
She has to give the child away, because all of her relatives have their hands filled raising her children already, and the social worker will take it away.
She wants to get her tubes tied, since she cannot afford other contraceptives, they do not work for her, and she is tired of the children.
She can't afford to get her tubes tied.
The State of Florida refuses to reimburse her for this surgery, stating it is elelctive.
Yet the State of Florida will spend much more in hospital bills for each pregnancy this woman has until she hits menopause, not to mention raising the children.
Now the woman is obviously in the wrong. She needs to learn how to say NO.
But, should the state pay for indigent women to have their tubes tied if they request it?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I would say so. It doesn't really seem like an ethics question, though.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The ethics would come in the follow up question, should the state insist on it?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I wouldn't support that, no. If the woman is requesting the procedure, that's one thing. Forcing it on her is something else entirely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And it's been done.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yep, eugenics has a long history.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Clearly the state of Florida legislature needs to pass a special bill just for this woman to insure she gets her tubes tied. It will save the Florida state government millions of dollars, since she has produced 14 children by age 36 and probably has another 10 or so childbearing years left which means 5-6 additional children for the state to provide for. The governor should sign it immediately and she should be then be whisked away in a motorcade to the hospital where the surgery takes place.
AJ
<sarcasm and irony intended... please don't take this too seriously!>
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I know this isn't the point, but 1) Why is she so special that condoms don't work for her; and 2) WHO is having sex with a mother of thirteen FROM OTHER FATHERS?
Who is that guy?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm guessing Hobbes.
Posted by Yebor1 (Member # 1380) on :
i think that as taxpayers we should insist that the state pay for the tubliotamy.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)