1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Judge tells addict parents - No more kids

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Strong, May 15, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Strong

    Strong Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    603
    0
    Jul 30, 2003
    Democratic judge tells drug addicted parents that they can't have any more kids unless they can take care of the ones the already have. The ones they already have are in Foster care, the mother is currently pregnant with her 5th child.

    Do we have an inalienable right to procreate? Should the government stay out of the bedroom?

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=5&u=/ap/20040516/ap_on_re_us/no_more_children
     
  2. Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,498
    5
    Mar 21, 2002
    No problem Strong, moving Potpourri....
     
  3. hax0r

    hax0r AllStar

    50
    0
    Aug 10, 2002
    With rights come responsibilities. Along with your right to pop out Xerox copies of your genes comes the responsibility to care for them until they become adults. If you aren't willing/able to handle the responsibility, then that right should most definitely be taken away. I only wish it would happen more often...
     
  4. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    In my personal opinion, this "right" became "alienable" when society decided children NOT provided for by parents or family would become responsibilities of the state. While I agree with this as a societal decision, it also means society in general has an interest in who procreates and when, as well as with custody of those already "procreated". As far as I'm concerned, if you're not willing to permanently sign off custody should the state reasonably decide you are not doing all in your power to support your offspring financially, you should be entitled to no government assistance if for some reason you won't do everything in your power.

    This does not mean children should be snatched from their parents for circumstances beyond their control such as illness, disability or even national or regional economic factors. It means that beforehand, individuals understand the responsibility involved in deciding to have children, something I feel is sorely lacking in our society today, rich and poor. And that the government may remove those children, in the interest of the children AND the state, should an individual or couple, OR family, not make reasonable, good faith efforts to meet those responsibilities.

    AND, I believe all this should be made clear to potential "procreators" as soon as possible so abortion may be offered as an alternative!

    So, I fully support the judge's decision and I hope it becomes precedent for other judges to deal similarly with other cases.
     
  5. Strong

    Strong Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    603
    0
    Jul 30, 2003
    This is a tough issue with no easy answers. The deciding factor is usually 'what's best for the child'...this is usually closely followed by 'whats best for society'. Once a parent has been deemed 'unfit', they are usually the last consideration.

    Obviously most children are better off with their parents. We all know, and some of us were, children that grew up in difficult circumstances but still somehow thrived and visa versa. Even children of homeless crack addicts can succeed if given the support of extended families, charitable organizations, as well as the government/taxpayer.

    I recently read an article on why crime rates are low in certain European countries. I don't have a link, but part of the reason was a traditional social welfare policy for criminals. The govt actually studied the 'why' of criminal cases and applied their full resources to the core problems of the individuals as well as their families. That and not treating drug users as criminals but potentially productive individuals with a current drug problem also helped.

    If we are the richest country on earth and can afford to spend countless trillions on the capabilty to destroy the world many times over, why are we so unwilling to spend money to try to turn around the life of our most destitute adults and their vulnerable children?
     
  6. JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,127
    1
    Nov 16, 2003
    I'm pretty liberal, but this one isn't a close call in my mind. This pair doesn't appear to interested in looking out for their own well being, let alone their children, so the judge's order makes pretty good sense to me. He didn't order the pair to be sterilized.
     
  7. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    And thus the burning question of the day, if not the millenium. A while back there was a thread about some social welfare officer in a European country(I believe it was Belgium or Holland, maybe Denmark) who authorized monies for prostitution services for one of their clients. It was of course ridiculed here as being "welfare run amok". I believe it was an older single man with some sort of physical disability, and let's guess he was no Brad Pitt either. But the point is that they considered more then just keeping this person alive. They were concerned about his quality of life, about bringing a little joy into what otherwise might be a pretty empty existence. Whether he was an "asset" to society or was "contributing" took second place to the fact he was a fellow human being and deserving of some compassion.

    In this country we hand out some surplus cheese and powdered milk and hope we don't hear from them for thirty more days. And if they trade their dairy stash for crack, who cares? We'd rather not know about it. Perhaps if our involvement went beyond filling out forms and a ten minute bi-monthly interview, some of these people, whom many of us consider as pretty much worthless dregs, would amount to something and even become "contributing assets" to society. And maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't mindlessly procreate because there's nothing better to do, or there's some extra cheese and milk in the deal.
     
  8. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Gee, possibly because they don't WANT their lives "turned around".
     
  9. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    And they've told you this themselves?
     
  10. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    According to members of the GOP, including the President, our bedrooms are subject to scrutiny and we should have no expectation of privacy anywhere, anytime. However, given that the defendants are heterosexual and desiring to breed unheeded, I'm sure that same GOP and all the "pro-family" groups are howling over this "activist judge" daring to interfere. Or do they only protest when the "activist judge" goes against THEIR agenda?
     
  11. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Let me see if I have this right... A Democrat judge passes judgement on this couple telling them they can have no more kids. You expand this to the GOP wants to monitor everyone's bedroom. Is that correct?
     
  12. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    That the GOP wants to be the bedroom police preceeds this event. They have made that concept well known for years. My statement in no way made the suggestion that you've spun to suit your own agenda. Now, will the GOP and their "pro-family" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) groups lambast this "activist judge"?
     
  13. freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003

    Actions speak louder than words. And their actions show exactly what Richard stated.
     
  14. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Your words tell me that you're a very unstable, reactionary, immoral person with a penchant for violence and deceit.

    Richard and you have a tendency to stereotype and generalize about anyone other than yourselves, which is a big error.
     
  15. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    :lol:
     
  16. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Happy, do you realize the irony of the above statements? I hope it was intentional.
     
  17. freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
     
  18. MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know what others think, but I think this is dangerous. Just the way Nafis Sadik would like it, one step away (if that) from China's forced abortion policy...
     
  19. MagicConch

    MagicConch Cool Member

    22
    0
    Nov 10, 2003
    I worry the criteria for such a judicial judgement could evolve over time into something dangerous. As far as the judge being a Democrat, I am sick of how every single issue in America today = Democrats vs. Republicans.

    A dog pissed on my tire today, I'm certain he was a Republican.
     
  20. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I didn't stereotype nor generalize the freakmonkey. His statements on this and other topics in this forum have clearly demonstrated, without question, that my observation about him is correct.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page