OMG about friggin time
- Thread starter Evil Dave
- Start date
:flame:
I have two points of view here:
1) To be a Parent is an awesome responsibility. Future parents need to be educated -- forcibly if necessary in child care, in order to protect the rights of children.
2) You need a license to drive a car, but not to have a child. You can do far more harm to a child (and society) by being a bad parent, than a bad driver
Both of these are controversial points of view but I work in the Education Department of a council and have learned just how much the taxpayer has to fund for children without proper parental guidance.
Rant over. :flame:
I have two points of view here:
1) To be a Parent is an awesome responsibility. Future parents need to be educated -- forcibly if necessary in child care, in order to protect the rights of children.
2) You need a license to drive a car, but not to have a child. You can do far more harm to a child (and society) by being a bad parent, than a bad driver
Both of these are controversial points of view but I work in the Education Department of a council and have learned just how much the taxpayer has to fund for children without proper parental guidance.
Rant over. :flame:
Reasonable on the face of things these people are obviously not fit to be parents, but how about the next who are too stupid, too poor ,too fat, too likely to have children who are ill/criminal (substitute your own anything). It sounds to me like a slippery slope to Eugenics.
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Steelcult, I agree, Big Brother should not be telling us who should have children, but these people are not parents, they are breeders.
\"Oops, cranked out another one. Oh well, give it to the state to raise.\" I don\'t understand the attitude, but I know that there are people out there that do not think having children should make them responsible for anything.
The judge cannot enforce the \"no more kids\" order, but he can hold them accountable for the cost to the state - if these two actually had jobs instead of being wards of the state (welfare?) already. Sad.
\"Oops, cranked out another one. Oh well, give it to the state to raise.\" I don\'t understand the attitude, but I know that there are people out there that do not think having children should make them responsible for anything.
The judge cannot enforce the \"no more kids\" order, but he can hold them accountable for the cost to the state - if these two actually had jobs instead of being wards of the state (welfare?) already. Sad.
Smoth
New member
another instance of people being incapable of thinking for themselves in a correct mannor. This is in my mind a justified ruling. Do I think it is going to lead to a big brother-esq management of our lives? NO.
The \"people\" in question are under the states care. if they were taking care of themselves and living a productive life then I would be against the ruling. However, I see it like living in your parents house... you have limited rights. when you are out there on your own and supporting yourself. I don\'t care what you do as long as it doesn\'t affect my life in a negative mannor.
Now, I don\'t want to hear the \"what is correct\" retort. Someone always likes to say that, I don\'t care it is an easy understanding to me if you cannot handle having a child DON\'T!
Bravo for the judge!
-Edit- /me seconds airheads post.
The \"people\" in question are under the states care. if they were taking care of themselves and living a productive life then I would be against the ruling. However, I see it like living in your parents house... you have limited rights. when you are out there on your own and supporting yourself. I don\'t care what you do as long as it doesn\'t affect my life in a negative mannor.
Now, I don\'t want to hear the \"what is correct\" retort. Someone always likes to say that, I don\'t care it is an easy understanding to me if you cannot handle having a child DON\'T!
Bravo for the judge!
-Edit- /me seconds airheads post.
Sand Rat
New member
But there is a slippery slope here - If we allow the government to say who can have children - as irrisponsible as these folks are, they are still adults, regaurdless of where they live or on whose expense they do it - then, as Graymane says what is to stop the government from deciding that you cannot breed with someone - or cannot hang with them or date them?
darthfoley
Active member
It\'s a nice statement by the judge, but it is completely unenforceable and will not stand if challenged on constitutional grounds (IMO).
Simply put, whether anyone likes it or not, they still have all the rights of any other American. And I agree with steelcult - if this one small case is allowed to stand, it opens the floodgates for any number of similar rulings.
Simply put, whether anyone likes it or not, they still have all the rights of any other American. And I agree with steelcult - if this one small case is allowed to stand, it opens the floodgates for any number of similar rulings.
Cerridwyn1st
New member
Make it possible to not have kids
If you are on welfare, most states will not allow you to get a tubal ligation until you\'ve had three kids. They won\'t pay for abortions, period. Getting other forms of birth control are often limited by availabilty. In my area, schools are not allowed to disburse condoms or give instructions for their use.
At least these folks were offered the chance to be sterilized for free if they wanted it. All too often, people who don\'t want kids don\'t have access to reaonable preventive methods, other than abstenance.
If you are on welfare, most states will not allow you to get a tubal ligation until you\'ve had three kids. They won\'t pay for abortions, period. Getting other forms of birth control are often limited by availabilty. In my area, schools are not allowed to disburse condoms or give instructions for their use.
At least these folks were offered the chance to be sterilized for free if they wanted it. All too often, people who don\'t want kids don\'t have access to reaonable preventive methods, other than abstenance.
Now we\'re all hearing about the rights of the Biological parents...but what about the millions of tax payer parents?
In other words if I\'m paying for the childs welfare when they are not, does this make me partially a parent?
Now while normally I am against any litigations on personal free choice, we are forgetting about the welfare of the children. These people made a choice to have children and took that responsibility...They however failed that responsibility numerous times...getting their children hooked (inadvertantly perhaps) on cocaine.
I am a true advocate of responsibility and if you cannot handle the responsibility that comes with the freedom, you should not have the freedom. You cannot have one without the other.
It is not right for society to pay and keep paying for people who want freedom but no responsibility.
In my opinion the judgement may be against their rights...but it is a just judgement.
In other words if I\'m paying for the childs welfare when they are not, does this make me partially a parent?
Now while normally I am against any litigations on personal free choice, we are forgetting about the welfare of the children. These people made a choice to have children and took that responsibility...They however failed that responsibility numerous times...getting their children hooked (inadvertantly perhaps) on cocaine.
I am a true advocate of responsibility and if you cannot handle the responsibility that comes with the freedom, you should not have the freedom. You cannot have one without the other.
It is not right for society to pay and keep paying for people who want freedom but no responsibility.
In my opinion the judgement may be against their rights...but it is a just judgement.
tabithatan
New member
although the ruling sounds \"big brotherly\" after a fashion, the sheer neglect that both parents have shown really makes it hard for anyone to really sympathise with them.
darthfoley
Active member
I completely agree that these people are failures as parents. Do I believe they deserve more kids? No. Do I believe that society or the government has the authority to step in and preclude them from having more? Dicey area, that. While I can agree in theory with the ruling, I cannot approve of it in practical terms. It\'s the potential for greater harm down the road that concerns me.
Mm... doesn\'t the US already have existing laws to handle a situation like this? Gross parental neglect=jail time? I don\'t think they\'d be able to have children if they were kept apart, and certainly cocaine abuse in the kids would warrant that. There wasn\'t really a need to break new ground here.
darthfoley
Active member
Actually, if you read the attached article, they were given that exact option. I seriously doubt they will take it.
\'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.\'
As for Chern\'s point, yes, if the two were placed in seperate jails, then certainly they would be incapable of having children between them. However, that\'s not going to stop either of them from having other relationships (conjugal visits or by who knows what other means, it\'s certainly not unheard of for inmates to have relations with guards) that might result in children. Which leads to another loophole against the ruling: no more kids together, or no more kids period for either of them? I\'m unclear.
Bahh, forget all that, you just need a good way to deal with \'the little gits......
Quick Solution
:bouncy::bouncy:
Quick Solution
:bouncy::bouncy:
darthfoley
Active member
It\'s rare that I\'m rendered speechless.
But after reading several pages of the site Nelson linked...I swear I couldn\'t form a complete sentence for close to five minutes.
But after reading several pages of the site Nelson linked...I swear I couldn\'t form a complete sentence for close to five minutes.
darthfoley
Active member
I\'m not entirely sure if it\'s good or bad.
It\'s just...rare.
It\'s just...rare.
