I used this link because it’s the best commentary I’ve read yet. Kirsten Johnson, a 26-year-old with brain damage, was taken to court by her legal guardian, her aunt Vera Howse, to order her sterilization because, as a mentally challenged person, she allegedly is incapable of caring for children.
That may be so, but let’s look at the following statement from a University of Chicago professor:
The article was about Kirsten Johnson, 26, who suffered a brain injury years ago
and today requires help with basic tasks. She is sexually active
If she only has the “cognitive abilities of a pre-teen,” then why is she sexually active? It’s funny. She’s allegedly incapable of the adult decision of having children, but she’s allowed to make the adult decision of having sexual intercourse?
How about taking her to court to force her to remain chaste? But *that* would be moral outrage to liberals. Then they’d be crying “individual rights.” Uh-huh. . . .
Now, in addition to the usual problems with birth control, sterilization violates the principle of bodily integration. The Church teaches that the body of an “innocent person” should never be altered except for medical necessity (many of us interpret this to include ear piercing, and it definitely includes circumcision).
The “innocent person” qualifier leaves room for corporal punishment of criminals, and that would seem to include sterilization under certain circumstances.
However, Kirsten Johnson is not a criminal. There is a clear alternative, stated above. And as “Minivan Mom,” whose post I linked in the title, points out, this just sets precedent for anyone deemed “incompetent” to care for a child, whether due to mental or physical disability.
Harold Pollack, the sociology professor above, throws out the following Culture of Death bugaboo:
“Would you stand ready to raise that child in the likely event that she proves unable? “
Short answer? Yes.
One of my favorite priests, Fr. Deusterhaus (can’t recall his first name; last I heard, he was active duty in Iraq), gave a homily on this very topic once. He said, “I don’t know a single family in this parish [it was a very conservative parish] who wouldn’t love to adopt a child that would otherwise be aborted. And I know every one of those families would very easily qualify for adoption, except maybe a couple families whose fathers work for parts of the government that don’t exist. . . .”
This is one of those issues that liberals like to claim are “complicated” and “heart-wrenching” as they goose-step along in their agenda of forced eugenics.
But it’s really much more simple. A person with the cognitive abilities of a child should not be having sex. Anyone having intercourse with such a person is no better than a pedophile.