Judge orders couple not to have children
 

** 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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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?)

*****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...

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.

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?

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.

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

I completely agree with the judge.

Oh, I don't know.

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

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?

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...

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

*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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

My desire for forced sterilization is slowly coming together.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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.)

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!

I think that what the judge did was something that a lot of people wish they could do. I applaud him for telling these people that they need to grow up. However, what he did was also clearly unconstitutional. What if the woman gets pregnant again? Would the court force her to have an abortion like in communist China? What if she got pregnant from a different man? Would that count against the judge's ruling?

It said what would happen right in the article. They (or she, if with a different man) would be found in contempt of court. That means she gets jailed, fined, or both.

Western culture in general is due for a renaissance in philosophy, and sexuality/morality must be included.

In otherwords, with the advances in medicine and our understanding of how drugs affect children, we need to figure out how to balance personal freedom with responsibility.

I definately know some couples who should have seen this judge before contemplating having kids...

In my opinion there are certain occasions that ones rights should be waived. This should be when the person in question has over stepped the boundaries and no longer has earned the right to have rights. these parents who have neglected their childrens right to live in this country and have all the benifits that should have been givin to them by their parents, should be forced to never have children again. If you are not prepared to have children by the time the fourth one comes around dont you think they need a wake up call. maybe becoming sterile will make them realize all the horrible things they have been doing. and if they dont realize it then that just means that that is one or two more of their children our tax dollars dont have to support just because they think they can fuck like rabbits and let other people take care of their responsibilities.

Rights guaranteed by The US Constiutional are waived all the time. Convicted Felons cannot vote and cannot bear arms.

Good.

id choose jail :D

I can honestly say that, despite the fact that I agree with the judge's ruling, I can also see why people have a problem with it.

Let's look at facts:
The Judge didn't say "No More Sex." he said "No More kids until you can care for the ones you've already produced." The couple will face no sanctions at all unless they produce a fifth offspring before they take responsibility for the first four.

They are not being forced into sterilization, though it was offered to them at no personal expense. What would you choose to pay -- $2000 each right now to prevent or a fifth lifetime of expenses to care for kids fucked up beyond comprehension by being exposed to cocaine in the womb?

No where did the ruling state she'd have to abort the fetus if she did become pregnant. At the very least I would expect them to throw her ass in jail and get her off the drugs so the baby is born healthy before it immediately becomes a ward of the state.

This isn't licensing people to have kids. It's preventing people who have proven beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt that they have no intention whatsover of caring for kids that they do have from having any more.

If I can't afford car insurance, I can't drive. The state doesn't sponsor insurance for my car. Is that infringing on my rights?

If I can't afford a new PC, I can't get one short of breaking the law. The state doesn't subsidize my PC desires. Does that infringe on my rights?

These stupid fuckers can't afford more kids. The state is already footing the bill for the four kids they've abandoned. I think they're well an truly within the bounds of law and common sense to keep from subsidizing the fruits of the loins of these two morons. For Christ's sake if they want to keep on fucking at least get some goddamned free birth control. All they have to do to keep out of jail is not get her pregnant.

Could this get out of control? Very easily, but I applaud this ruling and sincerely hope it sets precedent for deadbeat dads and welfare reform alike. I honestly see it as being no different than forcing a known drunk driver to breathalyze before his car will start. If you can't be trusted to be responsible, we'll take steps to make sure you don't harm yourself or others.

I really do think there should be mandatory parenting classes for anyone wanting to have a child or already expecting one.

If it could be done the right way, I would even advocate a "test" of some kind to determine if people are at least capable of being fit parents. This could be psychological, not an IQ test. Just something to identify potential abusers before they have a child to start in on.

Would this really be so bad? I don't think money should factor in, but I do think you should be responsible enough to know you shouldn't have more children than you can feed. One of the reasons I don't have kids right now is I can't afford them. Why don't other's seem to feel this way?

If people are too irresponsible to have children - they shouldn't.

/wishes that folks like these won Darwin awards to prevent themselves from adding to the genepool

*Gives the judge a standing obation*

I agree with the ruling. I don't think it has anything to do with their finances. It never once said they were too poor to care for the children. If they can afford the drugs, then they can easily afford to take care of the children! I think that these people need to be forced into rehab, forced to come clean, and then forced to take a parenting class. Only after that would I allow them to get their children back, and only after they prove that they can take care of those should they be allowed to have more. It's not fair for the children to be born into a world where they're not going to be cared for. These people need that wakeup call, and the judge was giving it to them.

Education. That's how you prevent the abuse.

education would prevent a lot of these unwanted children in the first place.

This is not a case of forced sterlization. The state isn't telling a poor working class couple not to have sex. This is a pair of negligent drug addicted parents being told not to have any more children when they cannot/will not take care of the FOUR children they already have.

taxes are the price we pay as citizens for the benefits of our government. Social services are an example of the benefits of government that lots of us taxpayers DON'T see.

It's our responsibility to be considerate and care for these kids when their parents are too busy snorting cocaine or smoking crack (with a bun in the oven) to buy cereal for them... but we can't tell these unfit parents that they shouldn't have any more children?

.....no.

Works for me.

That about does it for me. If they're that interested in what happens to them and their children, then let what will happen, happen.

If society doesn't start making the tough calls like this, we're fucked. That much is obvious.

Maybe it's just me but I think you're missing some of the important points of this ruling. First I do agree with you that the state has no right to tell this couple that they can no longer have children. But that's not what the ruling says. The ruling says that the couple should not have anymore children until their current children are out of foster care, meaning that they can take care of these children themselves. Now whether or not this couple attempts to change their lifestyles toget their kids back, the choice is up to them.
Now say the ruling is reversed, and by chance this couple have another child, and it dies at birth or shortly after birth or maybe even before birth, shouldn't they be charged with premeditated murder since they have been told that what they are doing to their bodies can't possibly be good for their "unborn" child? Threr should be no room for ignorance here, not after the media the fact that this whole ruling has been blown out of portions.
And just one more thing, you comment about taxation...Maybe in England, taxation take back from the rich and distributed to the masses, but in the US, it doesn't work that way. There's a good reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it because of rich republican law makers making laws that mostly benefits themselves so that everyone else can't help but get screwed by these assholes. I'm not one for tax cut, I would like more taxes, and have that money be spent properly on education, healthcare and other things are actually do matter to common people like myself. Never the less, I fail to see how any of these chages will occur in my life time.