OMG about friggin time

[Evil Dave]

If Andrea Yates, who drowned her 5 kids, is found innocent, through an insanity plea, should she be allowed to have more kids?

What about Amanda Hamm, who drowned her 3 kids?

What these parents are doing is the same only slower.

We as a society have a responsibility to our citizens and our children. We take away certain rights all the time from prisoners.
I\'m not saying that we should stop people from breeding if they spank their kids...but 3 of the 4 kids all under the age of 6 were cocaine addicted.

When I was stationed in California, they released this prisoner from prison.
He had gone to prison for kidnapping women, raping them, cutting off their arms and legs and leaving them to die.
He did this to four women, the last one lived and identified him and he was incarcerated.
He got out in 15 years and did it again.
Now the questions are these:
1.) How did he NOT get the Death Penalty?
2.) How did he get parole?
3.) Do we have the right, to take away his right to live, to protect society?

To the first two questions I have no answer.
To third...No, we do not have the right, we have the responsibility. In order for this to never happen again he should be put down, he should have been put down immediately the first time.

These parents are similar, they are repeat offenders who obviously have no desire to own up to their responsibilities and will continue to bring a life in this world so they can ruin it.
This should not be...It is not our right to take away their right to have children, it is our responsibility.
But today\'s society is not about responsibility. It is about helping yourself, \"these are my rights\", yet \"I\'m not responsible\", \"someone else is always to blame.\"

Now I\'m not a very religious guy, my morals are probably different from ya\'lls, but anyone with any ability to tell right from wrong should be able to see these parents are dead wrong.

I applaud this Judge, may we get more like her.

**edited for punctuation**

 

[darthfoley]

I saw a special on A&E concerning parole not too long ago, and they profiled that very case you mentioned, Dave. All I can say is that for at least a period of time in the past, California did not have the death penalty (which is the only reason Charlie Manson is still tossing around out there); the case may have occurred during that time frame (I\'m not too sure about the specifics on it). I do know that he was supposed to be released earlier than he actually got out, but they had to keep him on the grounds of the prison in a specially maintained trailer home just to keep him safe from the outside world\'s population. When he finally did get out he moved to MN (IIRC) and a few years later did indeed attack another woman and was put back in jail.

As for the parents in this case - again, I\'ll agree in theory with the sentiment expressed - but Pandora\'s box, once opened, cannot be resealed. When this same judge, or another like her, decides that a smoker can\'t have any more kids because her first has, say, asthma or something worse...

 

[Smoth]

OMG that is seriously messed up dave! GEEZ! That is pretty scary man. I have to say I agrea with your post.

 

[Valander]

Originally posted by Nelson
Bahh, forget all that, you just need a good way to deal with \'the little gits......


Quick Solution

:bouncy::bouncy:

ROFLMAO! lol

That was a damn funny link there, Nelson!

(Of course, I would never actually treat my kids this way... but since I don\'t plan on having any, I guess we\'ll never know! )

On a more serious note, I agree that this could possibly set some dangerous court precedents. I think, though, that it\'s not very likely to stand up to any appeals based on constitutional issues. Even if it\'s tossed out on appeal, though, it\'s an important message: \"you better show you\'re a decent parent, or we\'re going to take away your right to have kids.\"

While I\'m appalled at the disregard for Human Rights here (according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to \"establish a family\" is a fundamental human right), I can see a need for some kind of intervention. Of course, I thought we pretty much already had laws that covered neglect and abuse, which is not much of a reach here. A bit of jail time would prevent some breeding, and might do more to help them realize where and how they\'re screwing up.

 

[Mosch]

Orginal gepostet von Valander
While I\'m appalled at the disregard for Human Rights here (according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to \"establish a family\" is a fundamental human right), I can see a need for some kind of intervention.

Well, the right to establish a family, granted. But from what I\'ve read, this is by no means a family. A family is not only a collection of persons, it\'s also how they live together, hoiw the parents educate their children, things like this. While this court intervention may not be constistutional, it brings its message across.

 

[wyrmling_x]

Originally posted by Nelson
Bahh, forget all that, you just need a good way to deal with \\\'the little gits......


Quick Solution

:bouncy::bouncy:

That\'s guy\'s entire page is one of the most hilarious things I\'ve ever seen!

On the topic of the childbirth-control thing, I disagree that anyone should be able to tell you whether or not you can have children, however I do agree that something must be done about such a reckless act of \"breeding\".

 

[Valander]

Originally posted by Mosch
Well, the right to establish a family, granted. But from what I\'ve read, this is by no means a family. A family is not only a collection of persons, it\'s also how they live together, hoiw the parents educate their children, things like this. While this court intervention may not be constistutional, it brings its message across.

True, in this case it wasn\'t a direct violation of that, since these folks were obviously screw-ups who were doing nothing but creating a burden on society. So, in this particular case, the action may well have been justified. After all, one of the theories of Human Rights (and the one I subscribe to) is the Social Contract Theory: bascially, you should uphold these rights as long as doing so for any particular individual is conductive to social living, since we are a society. If one person behaves in a manner that infringes on the rights of others in the society, then they need to be punished/corrected/whatever.

Still, the thing that\'s dangerous about this particular court case is that it could put undue power in the courts\' capabilities to determine exactly which rights a given person has; which is completely incompatible with the idea of human rights; i.e., the rights one has simply for being human.

Maybe the solution Nelson suggested should be applied more liberally to parents who behave like this?

 

[Braveheart712]

My thoughts...

First let me start off by saying that I am from Rochester, NY. I also am an American so this hits home and affects me personally. I applaud what the judge is attempting to do regardless of whatever rights may be at risk of violation, Our constitution gives everyone the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These fundimental rights are the reason laws exist in my country, but know this I also know that rights in my country have responsibilities that are attached to them to. Yes Americans have the right to procreate, but you also have the responsibility attached to care for the results of your conception. Parenting doesn\'t end after conception, but with these two sad individuals it seems it had. I strongly believe that the judge did not go far enough, I feel she should have tried to push for manditory steralization. I do think she would have little chance of actually obtaining this because my country is cursed with a plague of liberal lawyers that fight for the \"rights\" to continue any sort of sick and unresponsible behavior imaginable. It is obvious to me that this couple has not shown responsibilty for their actions and should be punished before I am punished financially with higher taxes to raise the offspring of these two losers. I am a parent, I have one child. Why do I have one child? Cause I didn\'t want two, so I have taken responsibilty for my actions. Again these two losers are incapible of responsibility so our courts are trying to force either responsibilty or consequences on them. It would be nice if they and everyone else in their situation woke up and did the right thing but that is only a dream at best. I think the more realistic view is that somewhere down the road laws may be passed similar to those in China where multiple births are illegal. Who knows, all I know is society is going to Hell in a handbasket.....maybe I should start selling handbaskets????

\"Of course that is just my opinion, I could be wrong...\" -Dennis Miller