Best judge ever.

It's obvious that it violates the Constitution, but at the same time...who the fuck are these people?

Why can't the parents simply be jailed for child endangerment? Cocaine? I'd say you have a strong case.

Clearly, these parents wouldn't be able to breed in prison. And the kids get to escape from their psycho-parents.

But instead, a judge ordering parents to not have children sets an ugly prededent for the government interferring with our lives and decisions. I'm not cool with that.

Well, are they purposely having kids so that they can fuck their offspring over?

They Obviously don't want these children, all they want to do is snort cocaine and fuck... The state is going to pay for 4 children now, which even in the crappy and hellish state foster care programs is quite a bit. Not to mention the irrepairable damage that's most likey been done to 3 of these children because their mom couldn't stop doing drugs.

The ACLU might have a problem with this, but Honestly, I don't care. This couple has demonstrated that they are shitty parents; Not only do they not care enough to prevent these births through contraceptions or abortion, but they choose to damage these children and then throw them at the state as it's responsibility. If I was the judge, I'd have thrown them in jail for child abuse.

I'm not a lawyer, but the judge isn't preventing them from having children. She's simply punishing them for it... a small, but important distinction. The charge won't be "having children"... it'll be "contempt of court".

Plus, all they need to do is prove they can parent the other four and all is forgiven.

Honestly, good for the judge. I don't buy the slippery slope argument that says next stop sterilization. Besides, we need a license to drive a car, but we can unload drug addicted tax burdens every nine months?

We take kids away from shitty parents all the time. They end up in foster care, as the other four of their children have. I'm okay with a pre-emptive strike.

People fucking suck.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to have as many kids as they want? Huh?

Anyway, I'm surprised the Civil Liberties Union doesn't give a rat's ass about the kids. Where the hell are their priorities?

Right with you there.

But the Judge had a point about family planning education. Maybe if a little more personal responsibility and strong decision making-skills were taught in outr schools, we wouldn't have to resort to outrageous lows to cope with people who make poor decsions.



[Edited on May 09, 2004 10:01PM]

Yeah, as much as these people suck, Im inclined to disagree with this ruling. Put the parents in jail for a very long time on the charges of child abuse. The idea that the courts, and by extension the government, can 'decide' who can and cannot bear children, does not sit well with me.

A judge has offered that as an option to jail time. All but one guy took it.

If it's a slippery slope, we're already sliding.

Thats kinda fuck how they say anyone except homosexuals

Not the same thing at all. Normally he would go to jail. Now he can go to jail or get clipped. As long as he's given a choice I'm not even going to bat an eyelash.

Just for the record, I don't think banning assault rifles will eventually lead to all handguns being banned, either; so I'm not (usually) a believer in the slippery slope thing in general.

I'm not a big believer in the slippery slope argument, either. (I'm not even saying that this is one... just that if it is, the process has already started.)

As you wrote, if the parents in this situation can step up and take care of the children, they're in the clear. They can choose to do so; or they can choose to not have anymore children; or they can choose to violate and suffer the legal penalties.

The fact that these men were given a choice doesn't make the situation any different, after all... this couple was also given the choice of being sterilized at no cost to them. If anything, the difference between these cases is in the degree of punishment meeted out for the other choice, and the resulting degree to which sterilization seemed a more reasonable option to the defendant.

By making the alternative to sterilization less viable the effective degree of choice is curtailed. I think that that may fit the definition of a slippery slope argument.

[Edited after reviewing the situation a bit more.]


[Edited on May 10, 2004 by Infra]

good for him....if it happens again...maybe he should castrate the man and tie the brods tubes...or give her a historectomy...??? spelling not sure of....but remove all her stuff too!! theres no reason to put a defensless baby through the pain of detoxing...theres also no reason for these people to have any more kids if all they obviously care about is their fix...maybe they should be put through the pain of what their babies went through.
okay i've vented for the day!