Ah, and who do you think should be the arbitrator of what constitutes the ability to take humane responsibility
?
Embedded in your argument, right there, is that at least some people do not need/deserve the right to reproduce; that it is not inherent in our very humanity.
Nothing good will come from that.
We need to cut some slack and aid young couples who love their children and need some temporary assistance to keep their families intact. In order to do so, we cannot supply endless resources to the promiscuous, drug-addled and dullards who repeatedly demonstrate that they have no intention of taking any responsibility whatsoever as this woman has done.
I said nothing regarding the expenditure of resources; nothing about whether or not the state should be caring for anyone.
Embedded in your expressed thought is that government ought to be involved; I do not believe that to be the case.
You speak of conservative utopian choices versus liberal utopian choices which are only available in a theoretical world where unicorns also poop out Skittles.
I speak of choices in a real world which has limited resources and which liberals have at least some political power.
In a theoretical world where:
Absent either of the above cases, the real choices are to either (a)do as the court ruled or (b)allow her to kill herself with a 7th irresponsible decision.
Since neither utopian view is realistically available and you are clearly opposed to (a), that leaves your default position as (b). Understood.