Like the title says. Check it out:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/co....ap/index.html
Printable View
Like the title says. Check it out:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/co....ap/index.html
I hope it sticks.
As much as I might like it if some people were forced not to reproduce...
She can't do that! Hopefully a higher court will lay the smackdown on that judge...
I totally agree with this kind of thing. Fuck 'em. Some people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. If we can start controlling all of these people from having kids, we don't have to worry about abortions. But no, having a child is a civil liberty. It's a beautiful thing, to bring a life into this world and raise it. Stupid egotistical bastards.
Did anyone see the story about the stripper who left her 4 month old in the car to die in the heat?
well, technically, the judge could say whatever he damn well pleases, but if they appeal, and it goes to the Supreme Court, they can overturn it. But yeah, the judge could rule people to turn aroung three times and dump pudding on their heads.
It's unconstitutional.
A good idea, maybe, but unconstitutional.
These people aren't even looking after their first kids, they sent them to foster care. This kind of crap is a crime against those that are infertile and want to have kids.
These guys should be on Springer.
Well, it's completely wrong, yet I can understand the logic behind the decision.
Good. My tax dollars support enough little bastards born to irresponsible (and inconsiderate) fucks.
Yeah, I think I remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
And wasn't there a woman whose baby died in the car because she was too busy playing Everquest?
Wasn't there a case where the a court ruled that a family with a long history of inbreeding couldn't have anymore children becuase they were all comming out retarded hemopheliacs and terrorizing a town with their stupidity. I remember the quote "Four generations of idiots is enough!" or something to that effect.
These statements alone prove to me that they're not worthy of being parents, especially of any new children.Quote:
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.
A law calling for mass sterilization of all stupid people should be passed through congress and signed into law.
If only I were presedent . . . and at least 51% of the House and Senate.
You would have died from obesity before you were able to pass the bill into law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I agree with the desicion, about time the government stops paying for stupid peoples mistakes and neglect.
This is actually the case that established procreation as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineAqua
One of the lower court judges made that remark, but the Supreme Court eventually ruled the other way.
Just have them play a marathon game of lawn darts, the problem will solve itselfQuote:
Originally Posted by ShineAqua
You know what? You know how you can't get a decent loan without good credit?
You shouldn't be able to have kids if you have a bad FICO score (or you don't even have one).
So tell me, then, how many children is it ok to have in foster care? Draw me a line and explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
This is not a black and white issue. The government shouldnt have a hold on what people do with their lives, but those parents shouldnt have kids when they cant even take care of themselves. This sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I don't completely understand what you mean but I think I get what you're saying.
Simple, foster care usually ends up screwing over kids, my dad spent a good deal of his younger years in foster care and was in his first drug rehab at fourteen. If absolutely neccassary then I can see why it is needed, but should be avoided. And if parents can't prove that they can support their children aquedatly then they shouldn't be allowed to have any.
See, I think the trouble is that people think it should be black and white. You will have someone going "Well, where do we draw the line? Think of the precedent it would set...a judge could then order people that they don't like to not have kids" or whatever. But the thing is that there is a huge difference between some responsible parents having 4 kids and sending them all to college or whatever versus a couple that has kids that a) they don't pay for and b) have freaking COCAINE in their system.
I hate the whole rights vs. privileges thing. It's not like people (judges, corts, whatever) will stop using good judgement because of some change in the rules.
The parents should be locked up and treated for their drug and parenting problems, drugging your kids isn't cool. No conjugal visits either.Quote:
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.
It makes sense.
A) They've proven to be bad parents with their current children in foster care
B) They're costing the state money because they have to be taken care of.
There's no reason for them to have children. Unconstitutional but right... and also funny. How would they even regulate this? I'm guessing a sterdy kick in the groin region of both adults.
http://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/Sc...riceright7.jpg
Help control the idiot population; Have all idiots spayed or neutered.
There are simply people in this world whose reproduction causes nothing but strife for everyone involved. Trample on moronic, irresponsible, and, in many cases, lawless peoples' constitutional rights or have them bear more than their share of neglected children whose caretaking will fall on society's ill-equipped shoulders? While I agree it's not a decision anyone should have to make or implement, sometimes everybody just needs to take off their PC goggles and realize that there are just some people that have proven time and again that they just need to have certain rights taken away until they can prove they can competently deal with the consequences of their actions, or else they will only keep on making things worse for all parties involved, as well as society as a whole.
Yea, but the constitution is based on hypocrisy. Like what George Carlin said, "the Constitution was written by white guys who were slave owners. Yea, all men are created equal; if you were white and not a woman. If you happened to be black or Native American, that shit didn't apply to you."Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Welcome to China.
Funny that you mention that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
Although most people today don't know it, forced sterilization was government policy in the US, and probably elsewhere too, until as recently as the 1970's. Here's a quick link (but you can probably find better ones):
http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=9440
Some states' eugenics programs were pretty ruthless and downright dishonest. People could be sterilized for vague ailments like "feeblemindedness" (some of which weren't real in the first place) and many of them were misdiagnosed. The patients were not always informed that they'd been sterilized - often they would be told that the operation was for appendicitis or something similar. Many of them spent years afterwards trying unsuccesfully to have children, never knowing the reason for their infertility.
Actually I think the case was Buck v. Bell, and Oliver Wendell Holmes made that infamous quote in the Supreme Court decision. Ironic considering he is one of the most, if not the most revered justice in our nation's history.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
It's not inconceivable that the right to procreate could have exceptions carved out from it, but I doubt it.