Sterilization And Wrongful Birth

If a woman concedes to voluntary sexual intercourse, she has incurred a responsibility to care for the fetus, since she is responsible for its existence and subsequent dependence on her body for sustenance. Consequently, she has a moral obligation to sustain it until birth, an obligation that ought to be legally enforced by proscribing abortions. (Manninen 41)

women as a way to permanently prevent that woman from having future children, and is still

The abortion question raises a number of issues that form the core of the abortion debate. Opponents and supporters of abortions have been battling over this particular problem for decades and still cannot come to an agreement. Being one of the most common and most controversial medical procedures, abortion tends to affect people on psychological and sociological levels. But while the discussion of the morality of abortion is an ongoing debate, the social issues surrounding abortion in most cases stay unnoticed. The social aspect of the issue is centered on the abortion policy. The main question of the abortion policy is whether the law should permit abortions and, if so under what circumstances. The other is whether the law should put the life of an unborn child first and legally protect it. The peculiarity of the abortion policy is that its measures are highly dependent on different public opinions.

Sterilization legislature was enacted on the state level with the goal of physically preventing the procreation of individuals deemed to be unfit, mainly handicapped persons or criminals. Though the nature of these laws did not outright target certain races or social classes, a disproportionate amount of the individuals sterilized were non-white or of immigrant background. Prominent eugenicists and eugenic organizations in the U.S. played a key role in lobbying for state sterilization laws. Harry H. Laughlin, superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office, drafted the American Model Eugenical Sterilization Law in 1922, which served as a model for many sterilizations laws in the states (Berenbaum, 1998). By 1926, 23 states had passed sterilization laws that were voluntary and/or involuntary in nature (Sofair, 2000). Laughlin and other eugenicists called for the sterilization of institutionalized individuals under the assertion that their “genetically inferior” traits would be passed to their progeny and be an economic drain on the state. Many states complied, and by 1935 over 30 states had some form of sterilization law with over 21,000 compulsory sterilizations performed (Allen 1997). Though the eugenic nature of these laws was stressed by eugenicists, it was acknowledged that the political support of such laws were greatly financially motivated. Another important legislation passed by the U.S. was the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which was the first immigration quota

“In the United States, 15 states have laws that fail to protect women with disabilities from involuntary sterilization” (Against her will). Sterilization of disabled women in the United States should not be allowed. It denies disabled women the rights of having children. It is sexist to force women to get sterilized but men do not have to get sterilized. Women should have the right to have children, no matter if they have a disability or if something is wrong with her. The United States has used forced sterilization along with other countries in North and South America, along with places such as Asia and Africa.

Mary Anne Warren (p.195-196) points out the exceptional circumstances of pregnancy; where one human is entirely biologically reliant on another and where it is impossible for complete personhood rights to not be in conflict between the foetus and the mother. Consider the following case. A mother and an expecting mother both express an intent to kill their child or unborn child respectively. Services are available to take the postnatal children from their mother without affecting her body. Yet to protect the foetus, one would have to imprison the mother until birth, or worse, force a caesarean on her. Warren (193) points out that forced caesareans are not merely a hypothetical

The articles purpose is to use legal sources to explore the decision to abort while the state, and the professions took a serious interest in the fertility control decisions of women. What is being argued is the fate of women burdened with unwanted

Justice Holmes’ opinion creates a picture of negative eugenics which makes this case a pinnacle in coerced sterilization discourse. Written in 1927, this opinion is the only primary source on this list, with the exception of the opinion by Justice Douglas concerning Skinner v Oklahoma. It is also important to note that this opinion is the only source advocating for coerced sterilization.

In England, which gave birth to the eugenics movement, it is interesting to note that sterilization laws never took hold. Bertrand Russel, a British philosopher at the time published Marriage and Morals (1929) in which he wrote “I say only that our scientific knowledge at present is not adequate for this purpose, and that it is very dangerous when a community allows its moral reprobations to masquerade in the guise of science, as is undoubtedly happening

It may be said in all soberness that professional reliefers and most other indigents who produce children thereby commit crimes against humanity which are fully as serious as many acts now considered felonies. They have no moral right to produce such children and therefore should have no legal right to immunity from punishment that constructively fits the crime, such as some form of painless sterilization of both guilty parents, which would be permanent.

The judgment raises interesting questions as to the characterisation of childbirth and parenthood within modern society. The majority in Cattanach appear to recognise this modern trend, treating the costs of raising a child born as a result of negligence as the consequential harm of an injury for which parents are entitled to compensation, just as victims of negligence ordinarily are in respect of damages that are not too remote.

The main objective for this was “well raised and genetically superior” children to be born in the next generation (Canada’s human rights history, n.d). Alberta was one among the few provinces that legalized sterilization known as the sexually sterilization act due to many reasons like anti-immigration motive or objection to federalization. Sterilization was usually allowed in certain grounds of undesirable physical and mental conditions which had the fear of inheriting and for the people who was judged as unsuited to raise and bare children. Now among Canadian married couples, where the wife is over the age of 35, nearly two-third of them are protected by sterilization (Balakrishnan,

In the United States during the 1920’s, the welfare of society was in jeopardy due to the number of feebleminded. With such a high number, the risk that these undesired genes would be passed on to future generations of offspring was a leading concern for scientific figures of the time. Whether or not this statement was actually the case, it was widely believed at the time. It was felt that the only logical way to ensure a better future for the rest of society was to segregate this class of impaired citizens apart from others. Sterilization, which was supported by many, became the best known solution to this rising problem during this time period (Cynkar 1981). Buck vs Bell is an example of the fight against sterilization laws that ultimately made its way to the United States Supreme Court. Many states had eugenic laws that were in force long before the Supreme Court case, but revisions were made after the ruling of Buck vs. Bell (Nourse 2016). Historically, this court case rested on many issues that were seen as acceptable at the time, but by today’s standards are considered consciously wrong. The majority opinion regarding the legalization for sterilization from the iconic court case Buck vs. Bell still remains in effect today, but the misrepresentation of constitutional rights and ethical questions posed by this case are altogether still a question that remains up for debate. Unfortunately for Carrie Buck, and many like her, the consequences are and will remain

Minority women shouldn’t be forced for sterilization just because they do not outnumber white women. People shouldn’t be looked down because race and gender. If a country wants to control its population, it shouldn’t force women to control the population. Some women probably would want more children and would like to have a larger family but with restrictions with such as being sterilized just takes that right away from a woman. On the other hand, you have women who are sterilized without their consent. If I were sterilized without any consent, I would probably be emotionally traumatized. Women can also take pills and injections without going through knives and cutters to be sterilized.

Abortion is the medical procedure when it is induced on purpose to extract the fetus from the uterus. When abortion occurs without purpose, it is usually referred to as miscarriage; such instance causes psychological problems in a woman and affects her perception of the fetus. The number of moral and ethical considerations on the problem of abortions can be considered from a variety of perspectives that include economic, medical, social, and religious aspects of the phenomenon. Many case studies are based on the need to make a choice, especially when talking about professional duties of doctors and such medical practices, as Hippocratic Oath. The controversy occurs every time some people cannot accept the right of the woman to have an