On a similar note, i once argued ethics with a conservative christian as a part of my bioethics class at college. Without boring you to death, the basic case study involved a fifteen-year-old girl who refused a critical heart transplant as she did not want other people's organs inside her body (i don't even want other people in my *vicinity* so i can certainly empathize).
The position adopted by the christian right-to-lifers was simply that the girl be restrained, sedated and forced into the operation (the age of consent here, by the way, is sixteen-years-of-age).
Conversely, my only argument was another hypothetical; that a family of religious conservatives is admitted to the ER with a child in need of a blood transfusion - let's say, also of fifteen years - who is adamant that she does, in fact, WANT TO LIIIIIVE!... and so consents to the use of blood products. Should the parents refuse on religious grounds, it is illegal for treatment to be undertaken. My uncle, who is a general practitioner, made the judgement call that he would, in fact, have treated the patient as requested, then prepared for himself a good lawyer.
Needless to say, the christians weren't too impressed with my logic and asserted their own sense of dominance by debating ever-more trivial semantics, rather than simply admitting that i had a reasonable point.
Anyway, i was reminded of this occasion (and urged to share) by the fundamental problem which exists in all of parenting; personal responsibility and a healthy dose of common sense. It needn't be said that those who cannot raise children responsibly should NOT be allowed to breed in the first place. Moreover, in my humble opinion, children should be regarded as the responsibility of the State in so far as the parents are only the designated caregivers, and acknoelwedged as being not necessarily the most qualified for the giving of care.
If these people want to look after children, they should first learn to look after themselves.
Polemically yours, James.