Judge orders couple not to have children - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 05-08-2004, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Judge orders couple not to have children
link
ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

A civil liberties advocate said the court ruling unsealed Friday was "blatantly unconstitutional."

Monroe County Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ruled March 31 that both parents "should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense."

"The facts of this case and the reality of parenthood cry out for family planning education," she ruled. "This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care."

The judge is not forcing contraception on the couple nor is she requiring the mother to get an abortion should she become pregnant. The couple may choose to be sterilized at no cost to them, O'Connor ruled.

If the couple violates O'Connor's ruling, they could be jailed for contempt of court.

"I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this," Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. "And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution."

Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.

The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

A case worker testified that the parents ignored an order to get mental health treatment and attend parenting classes after the 1-year-old was born.

The mother was still in the hospital after giving birth to her fourth child in March 2003 when authorities took the infant, according to court papers. Investigators said the mother was unprepared to care for the infant.

Attempts to reach the youngest child's guardian were unsuccessful. Information on the other children's guardians was not immediately available.

Attorney Chris Affronti, who chairs the family law section of the Monroe County Bar Association, said he's not sure how the ruling could be enforced.

"I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society," he said.

** stands up and claps **

I'm all for those that need to ACCEPT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN actions. A shame because this is not a solution, but at least it will get some media attention.

Fremen · 05-08-2004, 08:58 AM

So, basically they're unfit parents and have no business having more?
I dont like to see their rights infringed upon, BUT, they seriously need to be discouraged from breeding again.
Think of the children, people.

Strange Famous · 05-08-2004, 09:03 AM

Absolutely unbelievable.

How can the state imagine it has any legal or moral right to tell two adults whether or not they can have consensual sex?

The judge has been struck off already I hope?

ARTelevision · 05-08-2004, 09:08 AM

I'm in favor of as many restrictions as we can reasonably muster against irresponsible creation of more children.

Cynthetiq · 05-08-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Absolutely unbelievable.

How can the state imagine it has any legal or moral right to tell two adults whether or not they can have consensual sex?

The judge has been struck off already I hope?

doesn't the state have a moral obligation to those that it provides standard care?

If the parents aren't being dutiful parents is it MY responsibility to foot the bill when I have already decided that I wish to NOT have children?

rbox · 05-08-2004, 09:24 AM

If these kids are being born with Cocaine in them, isn't that child abuse? I thought I remember hearing something like that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous

How can the state imagine it has any legal or moral right to tell two adults whether or not they can have consensual sex?

It may not have any legal right, but morally its the right thing. These kids are being born on cocaine, and the parents are being told they should seek mental help?

You can be found to be unfit parents and have your children taken away, why can't you be found to be an unfit parent before you have anymore children and have that right taken away.

Strange Famous · 05-08-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
doesn't the state have a moral obligation to those that it provides standard care?

If the parents aren't being dutiful parents is it MY responsibility to foot the bill when I have already decided that I wish to NOT have children?

Either it is your duty or the children that are uncared for shall starve... I believe you and most people prefer to take responsibility when that is the choice.

As a society I think we all have a responsibility for each other.

if America can afford a war with Iraq I think it can afford to provide for children who's parents can't look after them.

When you think about, what is the option? The only way you can effectively stop people who are too poor or otherwise not fit to look after their kids from producing more children is forced sterilisation, or forced abortions.

I for one would rather pay a few extra dollars (or pounds in my case) than live in a society like that., or any society where the state is permitted to tell people they cannot have sex, or that they must not have children (the parents could well be catholic and thus unable to use contraception?)

viejo gringo · 05-08-2004, 09:36 AM

*****claps***

if they had done this to the couple in Brownsville she would not have held her three kids down while he cut their heads off...

---they could not afford both food and cocaine---

----he is already on death row....she is on the way---

----save the children at all costs...

maleficent · 05-08-2004, 09:38 AM

So only the rich can have children? When a woman gets pregnant, is she given a test to see if she'll be a suitable parent? Being poor doesn't make a person an unfit parent, nor does being rich make a person a fit parent.

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
When you think about, what is the option? The only way you can effectively stop people who are too poor or otherwise not fit to look after their kids from producing more children is forced sterilisation, or forced abortions.

maleficent · 05-08-2004, 09:41 AM

So then it's OK for the government to enforce morals on people. Who's set of morals are we going to use? Premarital sex is morally wrong -- according to some, homosexuality is morally wrong - -according to some, where does legislating morality begin and where does it end?

Quote:

Originally posted by rbox
It may not have any legal right, but morally its the right thing. These kids are being born on cocaine, and the parents are being told they should seek mental help?

Strange Famous · 05-08-2004, 09:44 AM

This definitely will be applauded by those who want to make homosexuality criminal, it sets a definite precedent, if a judge is allowed to tell this couple they cannot have sex, it is not a long stretch for the state to find other reasons people cant have sex.

maleficent · 05-08-2004, 09:45 AM

What qualifies as the responsible creation of children? And who is the decision maker?

Since sex can lead to children, unless you can prove yourself infertile, you can't have sex. Good heavens that's gonna make for a lot of really cranky people.

There was a book a decade or two ago, The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, that told of a society where only one group of women could have children, and they turned those children over to "morally" fit, wives of the rich.

You can't control reproduction by forcing people to be sterilized, or forcing them into abortions, people need to be educated

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'm in favor of as many restrictions as we can reasonably muster against irresponsible creation of more children.

Lebell · 05-08-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

I completely agree with the judge.

Lebell · 05-08-2004, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by maleficent
You can't control reproduction by forcing people to be sterilized

Oh, I don't know.

It seems that sterilization controls reproduction pretty well and would be appropriate in this case.

Cynthetiq · 05-08-2004, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Either it is your duty or the children that are uncared for shall starve... I believe you and most people prefer to take responsibility when that is the choice.

As a society I think we all have a responsibility for each other.

if America can afford a war with Iraq I think it can afford to provide for children who's parents can't look after them.

When you think about, what is the option? The only way you can effectively stop people who are too poor or otherwise not fit to look after their kids from producing more children is forced sterilisation, or forced abortions.

I for one would rather pay a few extra dollars (or pounds in my case) than live in a society like that., or any society where the state is permitted to tell people they cannot have sex, or that they must not have children (the parents could well be catholic and thus unable to use contraception?)

sorry, I pay enough taxes for programs that I don't benefit from already...

First Public Schools, fine. I'll pay for that because an educated person uses less programs in the future.

WIC - Women Infant Children welfare program, I pay into that specifically because I live in NYC, sure, that's fine.

how many more programs do I have to pay into because someone else can't be responsible? these people were specifically drug users, the money they spent on drugs should have been spent on the 4 kids they have. Why should I have to continue to pay for someone else's misdeeds?

Lebell · 05-08-2004, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq

how many more programs do I have to pay into because someone else can't be responsible? these people were specifically drug users, the money they spent on drugs should have been spent on the 4 kids they have. Why should I have to continue to pay for someone else's misdeeds?

I personally think it funny/sad that WE are supposed to take responsibility while he absolves the parents of all responsibility, like we're the ones making babies.

Something isn't right about having to pay child support and not even getting the poon...

sexymama · 05-08-2004, 03:47 PM

First, I don't read that the judge said to this couple no sex -- he/she said no more children!

We have a lot of sick people in our society: rich, poor and middle class. None of whom, imho, should be allowed to have children. But we have a free society that allows us to procreate at will. Yet, we must have licenses to carry guns (despite the first amendment), to drive a car, etc. I'm not saying we should give out licenses to procreate -- I'm just saying there must be a better way! I'm not sure what it is -- just know it must be out there somewhere. Hmmm????

Strange Famous · 05-08-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sexymama
First, I don't read that the judge said to this couple no sex -- he/she said no more children!

We have a lot of sick people in our society: rich, poor and middle class. None of whom, imho, should be allowed to have children. But we have a free society that allows us to procreate at will. Yet, we must have licenses to carry guns (despite the first amendment), to drive a car, etc. I'm not saying we should give out licenses to procreate -- I'm just saying there must be a better way! I'm not sure what it is -- just know it must be out there somewhere. Hmmm????

Well, the people must be disarmed, the first amendment causes 9,000 deaths a year, but I dont really see how it is relevant to this issue.

And the choice is pretty stark,,, either people are free to make love and reproduce, or you have state sponsored sterilisation, that is the choice - that is the reality, mass sterlisation of the socially disadvantaged, or a social welfare system.

The tax argument is illogical to me, I think many people dont understand... the purpose of tax is the redistribution of wealth, the purpose of tax is to take from the rich and give to the poor... social services is the means of taxastion, not the end of it.

We have tax to take money that the rich exploit and return it to the working class people.

KWSN · 05-08-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Absolutely unbelievable.

How can the state imagine it has any legal or moral right to tell two adults whether or not they can have consensual sex?

The judge has been struck off already I hope?

so... you'd rather the couple had more children born into the world to be abused to the point where they're thrown into foster care than those children simply not be concieved?

am i missing the point?

maleficent · 05-08-2004, 04:20 PM

That almost sounds like an argument for communism.

China has a law(?)/policy where it's one family one child, I have more than one friend who has adopted Chinese girls from their overcrowded orphanages. Because that one child/one family thing puts very little value on girls and those girls are thrown away, the lucky ones, end up in the orphanages and adopted by people who care.

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
The tax argument is illogical to me, I think many people dont understand... the purpose of tax is the redistribution of wealth, the purpose of tax is to take from the rich and give to the poor... social services is the means of taxastion, not the end of it.

Confederate · 05-08-2004, 04:22 PM

I agree totally with the judge, come one the kids were tested positive for cocain, there's no telling what kind of ill effects that'll show up later in life

KWSN · 05-08-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maleficent
That almost sounds like an argument for communism.

China has a law(?)/policy where it's one family one child, I have more than one friend who has adopted Chinese girls from their overcrowded orphanages. Because that one child/one family thing puts very little value on girls and those girls are thrown away, the lucky ones, end up in the orphanages and adopted by people who care.

Yes, because that policy in China has everything to do with communism and nothing to do with overpopulation whatsoever. I don't appreciate being called a communist because I believe that it is OK to limit the number of children a CERTAIN couple has because of their track record.

onodrim · 05-08-2004, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'm in favor of as many restrictions as we can reasonably muster against irresponsible creation of more children.

I agree with Art on this one. These people are not mature or responsible enough to be parents, and I think the judge absolutely did the right thing.

sprocket · 05-08-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Well, the people must be disarmed, the first amendment causes 9,000 deaths a year, but I dont really see how it is relevant to this issue.

And the choice is pretty stark,,, either people are free to make love and reproduce, or you have state sponsored sterilisation, that is the choice - that is the reality, mass sterlisation of the socially disadvantaged, or a social welfare system.

The tax argument is illogical to me, I think many people dont understand... the purpose of tax is the redistribution of wealth, the purpose of tax is to take from the rich and give to the poor... social services is the means of taxastion, not the end of it.

We have tax to take money that the rich exploit and return it to the working class people.

What?!?! What?!? I'm almost at a loss for words I'm so stunned here. Taxes are not for the redistribution of wealth. The purpose of taxes is not to take from the rich and give to the poor. In no way shape or form. Taxes in the US are charges levied by the government for the purpose of financing services performed for the common benefit of the community. The US government IS NOT Robin Hood!!

The problem in this story is that people like this are overburdening our social programs.

You also keep making the assumption in your posts, that the judge ordered these people not to have sex. Nowhere in the story does it say this. The judge also says he is NOT trying to enforce sterilization ( I dont think he would get away with that anyhow ), nor is he enforcing contraception. So what happens if they have another baby? Contempt of court. The judge is trying to "redistribute" the burden of responsibly caring for these kids back to the parents and not on our overly exploited social programs.

You seem to want to not only redistribute wealth by taking it from those you deem unworthy to have it, but redistribute guilt as well. In all your posts so far you try to place the burden of guilt for the mistreatment of these kids on all of society while absolving the parents who caused the problem in the first place. There is no rich evil white guy at the head of some multinational corperation that forced cocaine up this "poor working class" mothers nose while she was pregnant.

Destrox · 05-08-2004, 06:56 PM

First off, good job Judge! Its about damn time a judge does somthing like this, letting these two bags of shit keep pumping out children born with heroin inside thier systems should be deemed worthy of the death pentally. Its not like they are taking care of the kids anyways, and jail wouldnt help, it'd just add to the amount of money they would be wasting on our tax payers.

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
This definitely will be applauded by those who want to make homosexuality criminal, it sets a definite precedent, if a judge is allowed to tell this couple they cannot have sex, it is not a long stretch for the state to find other reasons people cant have sex.

Could you really stretch it any more into left field, cmon honestly now... This judge is doing this for the benifit of the children, and possible future children. NOT for some self-centered racism towards any two set of people. Shit I'd hapily see their kids handed off to some gay couple, at least there they'd get parents.

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
The tax argument is illogical to me, I think many people dont understand... the purpose of tax is the redistribution of wealth, the purpose of tax is to take from the rich and give to the poor... social services is the means of taxastion, not the end of it.

We have tax to take money that the rich exploit and return it to the working class people.

And you really need to look at how our tax system works on this side of the pond again, because that is a complete and utter falsehood.

ChrisJericho · 05-08-2004, 07:08 PM

I agree that these people should not have any more children. However, the government should not be choosing which citizens have the right to reproduce. I think it would be much easier just to charge the parents with multiple counts of neglect and jail them for the longest possbile terms.

mingusfingers · 05-08-2004, 07:39 PM

I see nothing wrong with this. And free sterilization? No problem.

animosity · 05-08-2004, 09:57 PM

*only read the first post* (drunk)

well it seems like we give up all our other freedoms. might as well give up my right to have children, not sure i want any of the fuckers any way. maybe some good will come of this... perhaps iq test to reproduce...? (i long for a powerfull and merciless dictator)

-im out

Jam · 05-09-2004, 01:52 AM

jeez... strange famous did you read that all?

it doesnt say they cant have sex the judge told them they shouldnt have kids and can be held in contempt if they do, but its basicly just saying not to have a kid... doesnt say they cant do the nasty..

why do you think these people are fit as parents? the kids tested positive with cocaine..

its one thing if they cant care for the baby, but if their being born with cocaine in thier body thats not really good now is it?

Anomaly_ · 05-09-2004, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'm in favor of as many restrictions as we can reasonably muster against irresponsible creation of more children.

Amen!

I believe the well-being of a child is more important than the right to conceive a child. (And to clarify, this statement has nothing to do with a position on abortion so don't drag this discussion there). I find it amazing that as a society we largely don't realize problems originate from children being raised in abusive and neglectful environments. It becomes a perpetual cycle of pumping out kids who grow up with severe trauma and then become sociopaths who have kids themselves. Yet we seem to be keen on building prisons instead of making birth control mandatory for those collecting welfare and/or abusing their present children.

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
This definitely will be applauded by those who want to make homosexuality criminal, it sets a definite precedent, if a judge is allowed to tell this couple they cannot have sex, it is not a long stretch for the state to find other reasons people cant have sex.

Not only did you not read the article, you made a ridiculous inflammatory remark. I absolutely support the right for gays to marry.

Eugeni · 05-09-2004, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous

if America can afford a war with Iraq I think it can afford to provide for children who's parents can't look after them.

Good point but these two better stop having children for now.

Cynthetiq · 05-09-2004, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
This definitely will be applauded by those who want to make homosexuality criminal, it sets a definite precedent, if a judge is allowed to tell this couple they cannot have sex, it is not a long stretch for the state to find other reasons people cant have sex.

You obviously dont' know anything about the previous laws on the books against ANAL and ORAL sex. It was only in the past few years that ANAL sex laws were rescinded.

why were these laws in place? Not to descriminate against homosexuals but because of procreation. These laws were all in bible thumping states.

Hrothgar · 05-09-2004, 11:07 AM

My desire for forced sterilization is slowly coming together.

shakran · 05-09-2004, 11:51 AM

It's amazing how everyone wants a black and white solution to a problem like this.

You've all divided into "it's ok for the government to stop people from having kids" vs "the government should let me have as many kids as I want, no matter what I do to them or how much money I steal from other people to care for them."

The reality is that this is a special case. These people already have 4 kids who have cocaine in their systems. The kids are in foster care. The kids are being paid for not by the people who brought them into this world, but by everyone who pays taxes.

I'm a tax payer, and I view it as stealing when someone knowingly has a kid that he/she cannot afford to have, then goes running to the government with their beggar's cup. If you can't afford to have a kid, then don't have a damn kid. I have enough to worry about paying for myself, I do not wish to pay for your children.

If you can't handle that idea, and/or you can't avoid abusing children, then you should be forbidden to have them. Don't give me that crap about constitutional rights. Even if you believe that the second amendment allows citizens to have guns (it doesn't, that's a misinterpretation, but for the sake of this argument let's say it does), felons are not allowed to have them. If you're going to protest the idea that a child abuser is not allowed to have children, then you should protest the idea that a felon is not allowed to have a gun.

Someone suggested that it would be easier to jail these people. Sure, it would, but then I am still paying for their sorry asses. Instead, the judge tried to find a solution for which Joe Taxpayer would not have their money taken from them to pay for the mistakes of these two idiots. I don't see a problem here.

maleficent · 05-09-2004, 12:02 PM

There are a lot of people out there who couldn't afford to have children, yet they did anyhow, and most of those kids turned out ok (Least I think I did) You make it work, you might not have brand new sneakers every year, you might not have brand new clothes every year, you might not have filet mignon for dinner every night, but you make it work. (my parents, at no point, ever accepted welfare, they just cut back)

These people's financial standing have no business being part of this case, and that's where I am drawing my objections. because if it's OK for these two, then you have a precendent set, it will make it ok for any other couple.

No matter what, taxpayers are on the hook for these kids, foster care? Bullshit, the parents lose the children. Foster care is a temporary solution to a permenant problem. These people should never be able to get their children back, that way, I'm not paying for them. If the parents love their children, and I question it in this case, they'd agree because they'd want what is best for the children.

shakran · 05-09-2004, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by maleficent
There are a lot of people out there who couldn't afford to have children, yet they did anyhow, and most of those kids turned out ok (Least I think I did) You make it work, you might not have brand new sneakers every year, you might not have brand new clothes every year, you might not have filet mignon for dinner every night, but you make it work. (my parents, at no point, ever accepted welfare, they just cut back)

Then your parents didn't do anything wrong. Had they said to themselves "I can't afford a kid, but I really want one so I'll make the taxpayers pay for it" THEN I'd have a problem with it. And you'd be amazed how many people say just that.

Quote:

These people's financial standing have no business being part of this case, and that's where I am drawing my objections.

Yes, it does, when they have a track record of making others pay for the kids. They've got 4 kids who are being paid for by tax payers already. Their financial situation therefore is quite important in this case.

There is nothing wrong with saying "Until you can take care of the ones you already made, don't make any more."

Freedom of choice is not meant to be used as an excuse to force responsible people to fork over their hard-earned money to irresponsible people. I'll put it another way. If you have no money and you exercise your freedom to choose to have a kid anyway, then I should have the freedom to choose not to have to pay for it. I don't have that choice.

maleficent · 05-09-2004, 01:01 PM

Some places are forcing sterilization
Kentucky Offers Deadbeat Dads Vasectomy or Jail

greytone · 05-09-2004, 02:05 PM

I think we need to ensure people who have repeatedly proven themselves to be unfit for parenthood are prevented from having more children the state will have to protect and raise. This does not mean you have to infringe on their freedom to have sex. They get a choice; sterilization or imprisonment. The imprisonment would favor women over men because they could be released after menopause.

sexymama · 05-09-2004, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greytone
I think we need to ensure people who have repeatedly proven themselves to be unfit for parenthood are prevented from having more children the state will have to protect and raise. This does not mean you have to infringe on their freedom to have sex.

The problem with this is what about the children these people already had who are abused, neglected, etc. It seems to me that there must be some sort of system that would require people to be held accountable PRIOR to the hurt and pain. I just can't put a finger on what that would look like. (Note: In no way am I advocating that the government regulate our sex lives -- just wondering how to prevent the abuse to begin with.)

Tuffy_McGee · 05-09-2004, 03:48 PM

If they already had some children whom had to be taken away and cared for by the state or put into a foster home, then they shouldn't be having more!

"The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers."

Die bitch die! She should be in fucking jail!
Damn that makes me angry!

05-08-2004, 08:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
Fremen With a mustache, the cool factor would be too much Location: left side of my couch, East Texas	So, basically they're unfit parents and have no business having more? I dont like to see their rights infringed upon, BUT, they seriously need to be discouraged from breeding again. Think of the children, people. __________________ Google

05-08-2004, 09:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Absolutely unbelievable. How can the state imagine it has any legal or moral right to tell two adults whether or not they can have consensual sex? The judge has been struck off already I hope? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-08-2004, 09:08 AM	#4 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I'm in favor of as many restrictions as we can reasonably muster against irresponsible creation of more children. __________________ create evolution

05-08-2004, 09:44 AM	#11 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	This definitely will be applauded by those who want to make homosexuality criminal, it sets a definite precedent, if a judge is allowed to tell this couple they cannot have sex, it is not a long stretch for the state to find other reasons people cant have sex. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-08-2004, 03:47 PM	#17 (permalink)
sexymama My own person -- his by choice Location: Lebell's arms	First, I don't read that the judge said to this couple no sex -- he/she said no more children! We have a lot of sick people in our society: rich, poor and middle class. None of whom, imho, should be allowed to have children. But we have a free society that allows us to procreate at will. Yet, we must have licenses to carry guns (despite the first amendment), to drive a car, etc. I'm not saying we should give out licenses to procreate -- I'm just saying there must be a better way! I'm not sure what it is -- just know it must be out there somewhere. Hmmm???? __________________ If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

05-08-2004, 09:36 AM	#8 (permalink)
viejo gringo Registered User Location: Deep South Texas	***claps* if they had done this to the couple in Brownsville she would not have held her three kids down while he cut their heads off... ---they could not afford both food and cocaine--- ----he is already on death row....she is on the way--- ----save the children at all costs...

05-08-2004, 04:22 PM	#21 (permalink)
Confederate Death Leprechaun Location: College Station, TX	I agree totally with the judge, come one the kids were tested positive for cocain, there's no telling what kind of ill effects that'll show up later in life

05-08-2004, 07:08 PM	#26 (permalink)
ChrisJericho eat more fruit Location: Seattle	I agree that these people should not have any more children. However, the government should not be choosing which citizens have the right to reproduce. I think it would be much easier just to charge the parents with multiple counts of neglect and jail them for the longest possbile terms. __________________ "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

05-08-2004, 07:39 PM	#27 (permalink)
mingusfingers Psycho Location: uhhhh	I see nothing wrong with this. And free sterilization? No problem. __________________ Still Looking

05-08-2004, 09:57 PM	#28 (permalink)
animosity on fire Location: Atlanta, GA	only read the first post (drunk) well it seems like we give up all our other freedoms. might as well give up my right to have children, not sure i want any of the fuckers any way. maybe some good will come of this... perhaps iq test to reproduce...? (i long for a powerfull and merciless dictator) -im out

05-09-2004, 01:52 AM	#29 (permalink)
Jam Junkie	jeez... strange famous did you read that all? it doesnt say they cant have sex the judge told them they shouldnt have kids and can be held in contempt if they do, but its basicly just saying not to have a kid... doesnt say they cant do the nasty.. why do you think these people are fit as parents? the kids tested positive with cocaine.. its one thing if they cant care for the baby, but if their being born with cocaine in thier body thats not really good now is it?

05-09-2004, 11:07 AM	#33 (permalink)
Hrothgar He's My Girl Location: The Champagne Douche	My desire for forced sterilization is slowly coming together. __________________ The fortunes of war favored Hrothgar.

05-09-2004, 11:51 AM	#34 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	It's amazing how everyone wants a black and white solution to a problem like this. You've all divided into "it's ok for the government to stop people from having kids" vs "the government should let me have as many kids as I want, no matter what I do to them or how much money I steal from other people to care for them." The reality is that this is a special case. These people already have 4 kids who have cocaine in their systems. The kids are in foster care. The kids are being paid for not by the people who brought them into this world, but by everyone who pays taxes. I'm a tax payer, and I view it as stealing when someone knowingly has a kid that he/she cannot afford to have, then goes running to the government with their beggar's cup. If you can't afford to have a kid, then don't have a damn kid. I have enough to worry about paying for myself, I do not wish to pay for your children. If you can't handle that idea, and/or you can't avoid abusing children, then you should be forbidden to have them. Don't give me that crap about constitutional rights. Even if you believe that the second amendment allows citizens to have guns (it doesn't, that's a misinterpretation, but for the sake of this argument let's say it does), felons are not allowed to have them. If you're going to protest the idea that a child abuser is not allowed to have children, then you should protest the idea that a felon is not allowed to have a gun. Someone suggested that it would be easier to jail these people. Sure, it would, but then I am still paying for their sorry asses. Instead, the judge tried to find a solution for which Joe Taxpayer would not have their money taken from them to pay for the mistakes of these two idiots. I don't see a problem here.

05-09-2004, 12:02 PM	#35 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	There are a lot of people out there who couldn't afford to have children, yet they did anyhow, and most of those kids turned out ok (Least I think I did) You make it work, you might not have brand new sneakers every year, you might not have brand new clothes every year, you might not have filet mignon for dinner every night, but you make it work. (my parents, at no point, ever accepted welfare, they just cut back) These people's financial standing have no business being part of this case, and that's where I am drawing my objections. because if it's OK for these two, then you have a precendent set, it will make it ok for any other couple. No matter what, taxpayers are on the hook for these kids, foster care? Bullshit, the parents lose the children. Foster care is a temporary solution to a permenant problem. These people should never be able to get their children back, that way, I'm not paying for them. If the parents love their children, and I question it in this case, they'd agree because they'd want what is best for the children. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

05-09-2004, 01:01 PM	#37 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Some places are forcing sterilization Kentucky Offers Deadbeat Dads Vasectomy or Jail __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

05-09-2004, 02:05 PM	#38 (permalink)
greytone Junkie	I think we need to ensure people who have repeatedly proven themselves to be unfit for parenthood are prevented from having more children the state will have to protect and raise. This does not mean you have to infringe on their freedom to have sex. They get a choice; sterilization or imprisonment. The imprisonment would favor women over men because they could be released after menopause. __________________ I was there to see beautiful naked women. So was everybody else. It's a common failing. Robert A Heinlein in "They Do It With Mirrors"

05-09-2004, 03:48 PM	#40 (permalink)
Tuffy_McGee Crazy	If they already had some children whom had to be taken away and cared for by the state or put into a foster home, then they shouldn't be having more! "The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers." Die bitch die! She should be in fucking jail! Damn that makes me angry! Last edited by Tuffy_McGee; 05-09-2004 at 03:51 PM..