Printable View
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.