Judge orders couple not to have more children

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: SampSon
It gets to the point where it's child abuse. So they shouldn't be able to bring more children into the world to suffer the same fate.

I mean, these kids are all born with cocaine in their system. You think it's ok to let them continue that?

So you're saying it's ok to let them continue to abuse drugs, but not ok for them to have children?

How do you construe that out of what I said?

I didn't construe that out of what you said, I was asking you a question so you can clarify your point. My point is that the reason for the ruling is so that the couple can stop their addiction. Not because of the child abuse. If the couple violates the ruling, what happens?

They get thrown in jail.
Did you even read the entire article?

If you did, then you would already KNOW the answer to your question. Since you don't I'm nearly positive you didn't read more than the first few lines, if that.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Yeah... they should start offering voluntary free sterilizations at Planned Parenthood, welfare offices, unemployment offices...
I know it seems like quite a callous thing to say, but I would wager many people would actually jump at the chance, and society as a whole would likely be better off.

I like that idea. Voluntary, free sterlization would be the way to go. I'm sure there are quite a few nut jobs that would go for it, which would prevent them from having any more kids. Some ppl just don't want to pay the $ for such an operation, but might do it if it is free. Like these ppl.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

To do this, the Constitution needs to be amended to allow the states this power. People are missing something very important. When judiciary or any branch of govt. can do these things which are outside of their granted authority, where does it stop? I am not happy about these kinds of situations, but they need to be addressed in a rational and legally appropriate way.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: SampSon
It gets to the point where it's child abuse. So they shouldn't be able to bring more children into the world to suffer the same fate.

I mean, these kids are all born with cocaine in their system. You think it's ok to let them continue that?

So you're saying it's ok to let them continue to abuse drugs, but not ok for them to have children?

How do you construe that out of what I said?

I didn't construe that out of what you said, I was asking you a question so you can clarify your point. My point is that the reason for the ruling is so that the couple can stop their addiction. Not because of the child abuse. If the couple violates the ruling, what happens?

They get thrown in jail.
Did you even read the entire article?

If you did, then you would already KNOW the answer to your question. Since you don't I'm nearly positive you didn't read more than the first few lines, if that.

The reason I asked you the question of what happens if they violate the order is because I wanted to know if YOU read the article. I did read the whole thing, specifically the following:

"By putting a potential penalty on the couple?s actions, O?Connor was trying to force the couple to get help for their addictions so they can reclaim their children, he said."

Wouldn't you agree that the root of the problem is NOT the child abuse, but the drug abuse? If this is true, then what has been done about the drug abuse? If they wren't drug abusing, do you think the child abuse would still be happening? No abuse = no cocaine = no cocaine in the child's system.

This couple seriously needs help regarding their drug abuse. I highly doubt that this court order is going to prevent them from abusing drugs. Addicts put their addiction above anything else, including their own children.

 

[whiteboy81]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
I think in order to be eligible for 'human' rights you must first have to show that you are indeed human or to be eligible for civil liberties you must first show that you are civil, which these people clearly are not. To be a human being carries with it more than just being a mammal who walks upright and can speak. These kinds of people disgust me, the funny thing is that they are probably purposely getting impregnated either A to collect welfare or B because they think having a child will make them straighten out...which clearly it has not.

If it is a violation of our civil liberties to tell people like this that they can not have anymore children, then you can take whatever liberty it is and shove it up your arse.

I remember someone using similar justification... he had a charlie chaplin mustache, you might have heard of him.

So in your mind it is their RIGHT to have as many children as they want, who will be born into a life of poverty, abuse and neglect, who will have to be raised by the state and paid for with your tax dollars and who will eventually probably become drug addicts or criminals themselves?

Compare me to Hitler if you want, but I don't really see the connection there...I guess if you took how Hitler hated the Jews...and pretty much everyone who wasn't German and compare that to how I hate anyone who would treat children in this way, then I guess Hitler and I are the same.

 

[Imdmn04]

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
I think in order to be eligible for 'human' rights you must first have to show that you are indeed human or to be eligible for civil liberties you must first show that you are civil, which these people clearly are not. To be a human being carries with it more than just being a mammal who walks upright and can speak. These kinds of people disgust me, the funny thing is that they are probably purposely getting impregnated either A to collect welfare or B because they think having a child will make them straighten out...which clearly it has not.

If it is a violation of our civil liberties to tell people like this that they can not have anymore children, then you can take whatever liberty it is and shove it up your arse.

No, human rights are rights, meaning regardless of the person, he is entitled to these basic human rights whether he is a criminal or white trash.

What you are decribing is turning these rights into privileges(driving is a privilege), whether giving birth is a right or privilege in the future, that is left for the court to interpret. But currently, it is probably a right.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: SSP

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Kenazo

I remember someone using similar justification... he had a charlie chaplin mustache, you might have heard of him.

Exactly. While what this couple has done is abhorrent, it does not mean the gov't has a right to directly prevent them from having children.

It gets to the point where it's child abuse. So they shouldn't be able to bring more children into the world to suffer the same fate.

I mean, these kids are all born with cocaine in their system. You think it's ok to let them continue that?

How about throwing them in jail for possession of COCAINE!!

That would solve the problem.

Yeah, for a few months... Not exactly a long term fix is it? Unless of course, you'd like to throw them in jail for the rest of their natural lives for cocaine possession?

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: whiteboy81

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: whiteboy81
I think in order to be eligible for 'human' rights you must first have to show that you are indeed human or to be eligible for civil liberties you must first show that you are civil, which these people clearly are not. To be a human being carries with it more than just being a mammal who walks upright and can speak. These kinds of people disgust me, the funny thing is that they are probably purposely getting impregnated either A to collect welfare or B because they think having a child will make them straighten out...which clearly it has not.

If it is a violation of our civil liberties to tell people like this that they can not have anymore children, then you can take whatever liberty it is and shove it up your arse.

I remember someone using similar justification... he had a charlie chaplin mustache, you might have heard of him.

So in your mind it is their RIGHT to have as many children as they want, who will be born into a life of poverty, abuse and neglect, who will have to be raised by the state and paid for with your tax dollars and who will eventually probably become drug addicts or criminals themselves?

Compare me to Hitler if you want, but I don't really see the connection there...I guess if you took how Hitler hated the Jews...and pretty much everyone who wasn't German and compare that to how I hate anyone who would treat children in this way, then I guess Hitler and I are the same.

The part in bold are the parts of your statements that worry me. And hey, I basically agree w/ you, they shouldn't be having any more kids, but your statement is quite worrisome.

 

[whiteboy81]

I guess I can see your point. It just disgusts me to hear people defend these people, it violates all common sense. To me these people are criminal and should therefore be locked up, not out free to procreate.

It's similar to the zero tolerance threads that have been around lately, some of the ways people are expelled from school are simply idiotic and it is because of blanket rules which are supposed to apply to all people, but the pure fact of the matter is that nothing can apply to all people in all situations. There needs to be a little bit of common sense used in situations like these, which apparently the ACLU lacks.

Don't get me wrong, the ACLU has done some excellent things. Racism and bigotry disgusts me and they have done an excellent job at curtailing some of these things. However, in this case, their cause is disgusting.

 

[daveymark]

The ACLU has it right, IMO. They realize that the root problem is the drug abuse, not the horrible things done to the children. Yes, it is sad to see the children in the situation that they are in, but the children's problems are the result of the drug use, and the drug use is what needs to be focused on. Give an addict a choice betweeen their drug and their child, and I guarantee they will choose their drug. So what will the court order accomplish? They're still going to use, and maybe they'll have another kid. So they go to jail, and then what? Yet ANOTHER child is a victim of the parent's drug abuse. The court order will do nothing to keep these parents from using. I wish I knew what a better solution would be, but I can't think of one. Perhaps a stay at a rehab center, but that costs taxpayers money.

So let's ahead and feel sorry for the children, and hate the parents, but we must realize this court order is a waste of taxpayer money, as far as I'm concerned. It will have no effefct on the actions of these two addicts.

 

[TheBDB]

I think this is a case where most people agree these people shouldn't be allowed to have more kids, but I don't think the method used is the right one. A judge should not be able to order something like that unless it is legislated by the people.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: SampSon
My initial knee-jerk reaction would be to say this is a gross violation of human rights.
but...

The couple?s oldest child is 6 and the youngest just turned 1. Three children tested positive for cocaine after their birth; one wasn?t tested.

Eight days after the fourth child, a girl, was born in March 2003, the Department of Human and Health Services filed a petition asking O?Connor to find that the child was neglected because of her mother?s cocaine use and the child?s positive test for cocaine. O?Connor put the child into foster care and ordered a trial on the allegation.

The mother, who had lost her oldest three children, all boys, to foster care, waived her right to a lawyer and said she wanted the child to live with a relative. Neither the mother nor the father appeared for the trial.

In testimony cited by O?Connor in her decision, a caseworker noted the mother?s history of giving birth to ?cocaine babies? and said the mother hadn?t followed through with numerous attempts at drug treatment.

I'm sorry, these people should have their ability to make children taken away permanently.

Absolute trash. Now the bill to support these children and all costs incurred for legal matters rests on the shoulders of the NY taxpayer (me).

It's about time someone put their fvcking foot down!! I am sick of supporting these freeloaders who have baby factories just to get more welfare!.

Sysadmin

 

[Gurck]

Good sentence. Ideally it'd be the start of a paradigm shift, starting with requiring courses on child-rearing & anger management, further along the line having a required IQ to breed, but I'm realistic enough to realize it won't happen in my lifetime 🙁 Ah well, beats the 'regular' news stories.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Wish I had caught this the first time it was up. Finally someone does something on this issue! Love the verdict, wonder how long it will hold. Rock on!

So some drug-addicted white trash wife can't squirt out any more kids. Boohoo. There should have been a control like that on the system long ago.

 

[klah]

Send them to Gitmo or sterilize them.

 

[StageLeft]

If they shouldn't because of constitutional reasons, well the Cst is short-sighted. These people are useless parents cranking out kids who then need to be taken care of by the state, as opposed to a loving home, independent from social services. They shouldn't have children, PERIOD, and should not be ever allowed to have them again until getting themselves sorted out AND repaying the state what it cost to care for the kids.

Unfortunately when the cst was made and says people can't have things like this done to them, there weren't laws to help them through their problems - one has to change, be it the Cst, or these kids to foster care, and you can't leave them with sh*ty parents just to make a point.

 

[Babbles]

Guess I agree with most of you. In one way I think it is an awesome decision, but on the other hand the entire removing of civil liberties and the precedent that it would set is kind of scary.
I think if there was some good federal and/or state regulation and review of such court orders, then I would be 100% all for it.