Judge orders couple not to have children
 

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/co....ap/index.html

..and in related news, a judge in Connecticut ordered the sun to stop shining.

Good for the judge, although the decision will likely be overturned on appeal. I'm all for everyone on public assistance OR having children in DHS/CYS custody having to be on either the Norplant or the Depot Provera shots.

"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."



GO, JUDGE! Go, Judge! Go, Judge!

A friend of mine knows a girl who's had TEN children. She did drugs with all of them, KNOWING she was pregnant, and five are now in foster care. The rest are dead because of her drug use. She says she's going to keep having kids until she gets a girl (her last one was a girl--it died inside her because of the drug use). She's constantly in jail.

People like that should be sterilized. Sometimes forced sterilization isn't a bad thing. They aren't "sick," they're addicted. Addiction isn't a sickness--I don't care what people think. Calling it a sickness is just an excuse.

These people are happily destroying their children's lives. Think of the problems these children will have in the future due to the drugs in their systems. Not only health problems, but emotional problems and learning disabilities.

Yeah, I think they should hold them both down and just rip out their reproductive organs, then give them all the cocaine they want. That would solve the problem real quick.


Sidhe

I'd rather live in a country where the government can't choose which citizens are allowed to reproduce.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think that certain people shouldn't be able to reproduce.

People who can't take care of themselves, much less a child, should not be able to reproduce. Child molesters shouldn't; abusers shouldn't; drug abusers shouldn't (until they've proven drug-free for a year--how's that?); people who neglect the children they already have shouldn't be able to have kids.

I'm more concerned for the children, or possible children, than I am with these people. They are a threat to any potential children, so why should we give them a ready-made victim?

If you show that you're irresponsible in a car, we take away your license (your right to drive, in other words), sometimes permanently. Why should it be any different when a child's well-being, and perhaps life, is at stake?


Sidhe

Yeah.....lets sterilise the poor that'll larn em......fuckin wasters whadda they want with kids anyway? It'd allow us to dispense with all forms of social provision once and for all yah! Good plan. Fuck it lets sterilise the insane too. Disabled? sure why not, lets sterilse them too. How bout communists? well they could be a bad influence to their kids so we should bang them on the list too.

Drug addicts?....Fuck em....It's their own damn fault and they shouldnt be allowed to procreate.

Am I right wing enough to join your club yet?

Only if you promise to go to church each week, claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, and be a horrible asshole to those who don't. :D

I love how you use the phrase "we." Like you assume it won't be YOUR rights taken away. Once you let the government start taking away rights from some groups but not others, they aren't rights anymore. They are priviledges. Once they are priviledges, they don't have to let anyone have them. They will be coming for YOU next.

Honestly, I'm with Sidhe. I don't buy into her reasoning, but I agree at the end:

Lots of people are stupid.
Lots of people breed.
Lots of stupid people breed.

These are problems. Somewhere along the line, something should be done.

Having listened to you and Sidhe I am inclined to agree. Some people are too stupid to be allowed progeny

How do you stop the cycle of people abusing their children, who in turn abuse their children, who in turn.......:confused:

Put people through a birth control boot camp.

You have got to be shitting me...

Research shows an inverse correlation between education and reproduction.

I've said it before ... the stupid people are outbreeding the smart people. We are in major trouble ...

This has been tried...information is out there in so many forms nowadays. For anyone to say that "they didn't know" about birth control and how a person gets pregnant...sorry, I don't buy it.

I don't see anything wrong with sterlizing child molesters/rapists/pervy relatives into incest or any type of sex offender. I figure if they want to use their genitals as weapons, they don't deserve to freely use them anymore..period. This would cut down the amount of babies conceived from rape. I mean, my god, I once read about a 10 yr old GIRL who was inpregnanted by her FATHER!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck sterlization for this creep and people like him...castrate his punk ass! :angry:

This has been tried...information is out there in so many forms nowadays. For anyone to say that "they didn't know" about birth control and how a person gets pregnant...sorry, I don't buy it.

I believe he means in the more general sense, the more educated an individual is the less likely they are to have kids. Same goes for entire countries, the more educated/civilized countries aren't the ones with population problems...

Only in the long term. And I'm making sure my descendants won't have to worry about it (by not having any).

But guns are fine

Absolutely.

Ah, but it's already illegal for most felons and violent criminals to have guns.

Huh? Where did i say that??? :confused:

My apologies Lady S, I thought you were against greater gun control.

Oh, I don't know about that....after all, look at China.

Of course, China's got the right idea. They offer incentives to have only one child, such as free schooling and the guarantee of a job after graduation....there are a few other things they offer, as well.

I only planned to have one child. I only wanted one, and that's what I have. If my government gave me free schooling for her, and guaranteed her a job after graduation, that would rock.

I think that the more educated a person is, the more they PLAN whether or not to, and when, to have children. Like it or not, when the government gives people money for every child they spit out, that there are those who are going to keep spitting out kids cause they're too lazy to get off their asses and work (NO, I am not saying EVERYONE does this, so chill out). Anybody who doesn't see the evidence right in front of their eyes every day has their eyes closed.


And for those who made/agreed with the "Right-Wing" comment, I ask this:

Do you REALLY think that someone who is so profoundly retarded or mentally ill that they can't take care of themselves should be allowed to have a child they can't take care of, and that they may pass on their illness/defect to? Especially those with profound retardation. These are people who can easily be taken advantage of by someone who wants sex. It's happened. They don't know any better.

Do you REALLY think that child molesters, and rapists, and abusers and people who habitually neglect their children, thus endangering their lives, should be allowed to have MORE little ready-made victims? Pedophiles and rapists tend to abuse their own children, stepchildren, and younger members of their families.

Do you REALLY think that people who abuse drugs should be able to procreate, passing the addiction, and the resultant brain damage, along to innocent children? These people don't care about themselves, and they certainly don't care enough about the fetus to quit while pregnant, so what makes you think that they will care about it once it's born? Especially if they have a history of this (like the girl I cited). Don't you think that they should prove that they can stay drug-free for at least a year before being allowed to consider procreation?

It seems that the rights of the deviant are more important to you guys than the rights of the potential person or the innocent child. Some people should NOT be allowed to procreate, and I see no problem with making sure they don't.
They've claimed enough victims as it is. No sense in giving them the go-ahead to grow their own supply.

AND...

I did NOT advocate sterilization for the poor. That was an assumption you guys made.


Sidhe

It's a cunundrum. On one hand, I agree with shee. Why would we allow the aforementioned types of people to have MORE kids? yet, on the other hand, who are we to ALLOW it in the first place. Free means free, right? then, again, if we stand back and watch these welfare abusers and foster care kid generators make more and more babies, don;t they then impinge on OUR rights? I mean, we are the ones supporting them through the state and federally funded foster care programs.

I honestly don;t know how I feel about this. My gut says sterilize them permanently after the second offense..... my brain says, Shut up, gut! once they start that shit, we won't be able to stop them.

I agree that if you cannot take care of your child, you should not have more. I also agree that the state should not have ANY control over our bodies.

I guess in the end it comes right down to personal freedom. When you have to guess, err on the side of caution. In my mind, the loss of control over our bodies is worse than the scenario described in the beginning of this thread.

i'm glad I'm not King.

"Lady" Sidhe,
are you deliberately trolling here, or do you actually believe the vile filth that spews from your maw?

No Lady Sidhe you did not, however Wolf posted "I'm all for everyone on public assistance OR having children in DHS/CYS custody having to be on either the Norplant or the Depot Provera shots." I was poking fun at more than just your posts LS.

Oh and
Perhaps ( if indeed the number of people having children in order to claim welfare is anything other than negligible when compared with what I would imagine are the majority of claimants who simply need a little assistance ) it might be useful if your government made social provision a) easier to get and b) not dependant upon having young dependants.



Well....yes actually I do think they should be allowed to have children . If when the child is born they are unable to look after it then the state may step in and insist on a level of care for that child up to and including fostering/adoption. Not eveyone who is mentally retarded is unable to look after a child. Who do we choose to make the decision of just how retarded someone has to be to be unable to parent? Can you not see how profoundly dangerous that precedent might be?


Especially if they have a history of this?.......ESPECIALLY? So......you still think they should be disallowed even if they do NOT have a history of this? Is being a drug addict enough reason alone to warrant enforced sterilisation? Again, do you not see how dangerous it could be to set such a precedent? What if the prospective mother can't stop smoking? is a hopeless nicotine addict? Do "we" step in and sterilise her? Who decides to do this? How enforcable would such a measure be? How about marijuana? There was a time when the medical fraternity in the USA swore blind that marijuana made you mad. Which drugs do we consider dangerous enough as to require the protection of the unborn foetus from them? Alcohol? Heroine? Cannabis? Crack cocaine? Tobacco?

I understand ( I really do) your concern for the unborn child. But it strikes me that we really must protect the rights of the currently extant human being rather than the idea of future progeny

For all you capital punishment, no excuses, sterilise the unfit and keep us clean mob
Google Search Results.....Follow the View as HTML link if you are unable to view page.
{The link which heads directly to the HTML page for that site doesnt work, hence this edit :P Its the first result on that page}
What I found most interesting was this part....-:


I think basically Lady Sidhe you are verging onto the territory of Social Darwinism of the very worst kind. I fight shy of calling you a fascist, that would be rude

quote:Do you REALLY think that someone who is so profoundly retarded or mentally ill that they can't take care of themselves should be allowed to have a child they can't take care of, and that they may pass on their illness/defect to? Especially those with profound retardation. These are people who can easily be taken advantage of by someone who wants sex. It's happened. They don't know any better.

Quote:

Well....yes actually I do think they should be allowed to have children . If when the child is born they are unable to look after it then the state may step in and insist on a level of care for that child up to and including fostering/adoption. Not eveyone who is mentally retarded is unable to look after a child. Who do we choose to make the decision of just how retarded someone has to be to be unable to parent? Can you not see how profoundly dangerous that precedent might be?

I don't know if I would advocate putting mentally retarded children in the system the way it is handled currently. The chances of that child being adopted, I'm guessing, would be very slim (along with minority children, etc.).

Then perhaps a close examination and possible overhaul of the caresystem is in order.

But it's not all about the system: people who want to adopt want "perfect" children and in most cases, white healthy children.

Try to change *that* "system".

No I dont mean change the system by which people adopt. I mean change the system which takes car of those children who arent going to be adopted and whose parents arent able/allowed to raise them. In such cases the care afforded those children by the state should be the best your society can offer in terms of trained careworkers, foster families and specialised units which give the basics of a homelife to these kids. In such a system it is less critical that each child be adopted out. As long as the care they recieve is intimate enough ( small scale carehomes with permanent staff who can provide a reasonable rolemodel as defacto parent figure or heavily governed fostering )they can be given much of what they would have/should have been getting from their flesh and blood in terms of foundation and character building. With enough attention given to the care system it is possible to give these kids warm and affectionate environments in which to grow up.

another judge decision regarding having kids
 

Scripps Howard News Service
May 07, 2004

- CAMPBELL COUNTY, Ky. - A judge has been giving some men who are tens of thousands of dollars behind on child support the option of going to jail or having a vasectomy.

Family Judge D. Michael "Mickey" Foellger also suggested to at least one woman - who was having her eighth child taken away from her because of neglect - that she have a tubal ligation.

As the only family-court judge in the county, Foellger said he adopted the policy because he feels it's an effective way to get his message across - that having children is a responsibility that is not for everyone.

"If these children are in poverty because these guys are not paying their child support, I have no qualms about it," he said. "I don't think these men deserve to have any more children."

- Cincinnati Post

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story...-05-07-04&cat=

Watch it...

Eh, no. I was actually thinking along the lines of the post you made directly after the above one.

*Coughs* aheh.
May I refer my honourable friend to the reply I gave earlier.


Whilst we're on sweeping generalisations about other people's arguing techniques I would point out Lady Sidhe's tendency to print ranting diatribes which focus on individual non typical cases and then spin off into right wing stereotypes
I dont imply what is meant by those rants, I take them to their logical conclusion or I interpret what is said according to the words that are printed. If someone doesnt want to be interpreted as a right wing extremist maybe they shouldnt use their terminology and arguments.

Do I believe she is a fascist? No I dont. I am sure she is as horrified by the idea of fascism as most of us are. Do I think some of her ideas verge into their territory? Well frankly yes. Eugenics can sound a little fascistic when proposed as solutions to social problems. Not of course that this is something just Lady Sidhe argues. I notice quite a few people on this board are comfortable with such matters

There used to be a saying in my country. "Say what you like about Hitler at least he made the trains run on time" Perhaps then not all his ideas were so way off base? That's the trouble with fascism. As a political ideology it has certain elements within it which ordinary decent folks can relate to and see the value of.

You think I can argue better than this? I am flattered really. No really Onyx. Coming from you that means a lot.

Just to reign this away from personal insults and back to the issue at hand. What about people who are not mentally disabled/retarded whose future progeny are substantially at risk from certain serious hereditary disorders ? Would you advocate enfored sterilsation so as to prevent that furture child having to suffer ?

What if tests have shown that a feotus is likely to be born with downsyndrome? What if the child is likely to be profoundly disabled? Would you advocate enforced termination? ( assuming this is discovered early enough )

My Apologies. After looking back at my post, I realize how harsh it sounds. I didn't mean for it to be that harsh.

.......Likewise it was not really warranted or fair that I respond to a shot across my bow from OnyxCougar by swinging at Lady Sidhe:P

Onyx.
I disagree. I merely point out what I see as the implication inherent in what I have read. When you make a statement your words carry a literal meaning but they also (often) carry with them implications. Your words do not exist in a vacuum, if someone suggests that the mentally retarded shouldnt be allowed to breed the implication is clear, without that person having to say we should sterilise them. If someone's words carry with them an implication of something else/ further, then I will use that in my argument. It's a fairly standard debating technique. I would point out also that I am often misunderstood ( by you) to have implied someone's words to have been other than they were when in fact I was taking what they had said to absurdity to illustrate a point.

Enforced Termination? No. If the child was shown to actually be Down's or profoundly retarded then sterilization can be considered I think.

So, if a person had a strong probablity of passing along genes which may result in severe disablement of their future child, is it their choice or the governent's as to whether or not they take that risk?

That's what we're discussing.

The point is for everyone to put forth ideas until everyone agrees with me.

:D

*Raises en eyebrow and lights another joint*

So.....which do you think Trouble ( do you mind if I call you Trouble?) Whose decision do you think it should be? your last post left me unsure as to what you meant *smiles* thats why I sought clarification. I am talking about a non disabled prospective parent, with a high probability that their future child would be born severely disabled ( such as downsyndrome) In such a case does society have the right to enforce sterilisation?

I've always thought if people do that that risk the state should NOT be picking up the tab for special education, massive medical expenses......

Problem is that hurts the kid, not the irrisponsable parents.

Just so we are all on the same page here, we're talking about strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming so you can administer the anesthesia and then cut out some of her reproductive organs.

Or maybe it would be a different technique:

Strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming, and implanting something under her skin. She will probably try to remove said implant with a kitchen knife later.

Edited to say that it also might be a man you are strapping down, against his will, while he's kicking and screaming, so you can do a little of the old snip snip.

Wow, I’m speechless and for damn sure I am seldom speechless.

exactly. i said in my earlier comments that this is a confusing issue, but at the end of it all there is the operating table.

no way. no how. the rest of the argument is mute.

what happens when the inevitable death as a result of surgical error occurs?


perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively. maybe....MAYBE penalizing people financially for abusing the foster care system through increased taxes could work.

I have no problems with incentives.

The government can give tax breaks (carrot), add taxes (stick) etc. etc. They do it all the time.

However, to give them ultimate control is abhorrent to me.

I've been called trouble for quite a while now. Adding your name to the list is no biggie.

Now, parents who knowingly jeopardize their progeny by willingly taking the risk should not be able to suck off of the gov't teat for an infintie amount of time or money. They knew the possible outcome and should not be able to flout that fact.

The sterilization in the context of this question, your quoted post, is that if the child is profoundly retard, Down's, etc, that person would be sterilized, not necessarily the parents.

Whoohoo! I wish I could get incentives for not adding to the population.

That's the problem with logic, if not used properly it's nothing more than a systematic way to make the wrong decisions.

Strictly speaking, I'm not interested in doing this "for the children." I'm interested in doing this for humanity. Now. before I get accused of megalomania, I'm speaking in the abstract, not because I'm some postern pounding preacher speaking about The Peepul.

I'm not pro-life(tm), I lean more towards choice, but I also believe that choice comes with responsibility.

The long-term chemical solution could be part of a program where the contraceptive is an option for reduced sentencing or also part of a pro-active aprt of the welfare program. Or, reduce benefits of people who don't subscribe to the free contraception programs available to them.

And I agree, some women just aren't cut out for the chemical solution.

I agree.

There are plenty of accepted (and acceptable) standards as to what constitutes profoundly retarded or incapable.

I think that part of the idea that scares people most about this idea is that is to be broadly implemented and easily enforced. I don't think that it should be broadly administered but should be a penalty for a provable trend of profoundly poor decision making or as a result of something that affects you so profoundly that you are incapable of adhering to your responsibilities.

How is it moot? This issue is going to be important in the future and like genetic research shouldn't there be some dialog about it before it becomes a pressing issue instead of an imminent one?

Good question. Who gets sued? The doctor, the gov't, both?

Incentivizing won't do anything because that would require some effort on the part of the parent to be.

I can only really see penalizing people having any affect.

IOW, if you're advocating forced sterilization to prevent harm to children/unborn babies, you're also advocating preventing them from being killed in healthy mothers.

Playing devil's advocate here, I don't think this ought to turn into an abortion debate... But here's a counter-example (and I apologize if it seems crass): The various animal rescue organizations around the country come and remove abused animals from their owners. A large percentage of these injured/diseased animals are immediately euthanized--the idea being that it is more humane to put them to sleep than to let them keep on living in such pain. In the same way, there could be a correlation between having an abortion versus carrying a crack baby to term, given that the baby will invariably suffer for many years. A painless abortion is in theory more humane. That is one way in which you could be in favor of stopping crack addicts from reproducing and yet still in favor of abortion.

Strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming, and implanting something under her skin. She will probably try to remove said implant with a kitchen knife later.

Keep in mind, this is the same woman whom we will restrain, kicking and screaming, while we pry her abused baby from her arms and take it into foster care. That part already happens and no one says it shouldn't. The fact that she's kicking and screaming is inflammatory and irrelevant. In addition, while we're talking about direct methods, the Depo Provera shot involves no invasive procedure at all.

I painted a picture with words.

Right now in other threads going on here in the Cellar, there are arguments about the use of war images. That in order to have an informed opinion about what war is, the images should be made available to the public. War is hell. People know this in the abstract, but images of it remind the public of that truth. Hopefully it will prevent wars from happening as easily in the future.

Talking in the abstract about sterilization while we all sit calmly at our keyboards is so clean and sanitary. So dignified. But we are talking about strapping people down and performing procedures on them against their will. It's worth at least mentioning that truth. It may be inflammatory, but it sure isn't irrelevant.