Lebell hit the point. This particular story is not relevant to the question posed by Sixrate.
Rape is NOT about sex or procreation. It's about an abuse of power and an imposition of will. As such, I believe that the "Pro-Life / Pro-Choice" issues are wholly irrelevant. Also in this case, the victim had a mental age of about 4 (?) and as such is surely incapable of giving consent. In such cases abortion should be an absolute right. and where the victim is deemed incapable of expressing her wishes (just as the victim was incapable of giving or witholding consent), then the decision should naturally fall to the guardian (in this case the victim's mother) WITHOUT lawyers being retained (bet they were well paid) for all and sundry.
As to the question actually posed by Sixrate... WHile a part of me would actually like to see prospective parents being required to pass some form of testing to ensure that they would in fact be competent to raise a child (you have to pass a test to drive and surely raising a child is a greater responsibility), prohibiting the "disabled" from having children raises the disturbing possibility of exactly where do you draw the line? At this point you start to go down the line of "strengthening the gene pool", "Ubermensch", "putting the disabled out of their misery"...
This is surely a situation where "common sense", not abfuscated by pedantic legal argument should prevail.
Mike.
|