1
   

The verdict: no more babies for you!

 
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 08:41 am
No-baby ruling sets off storm of debate

Judge's move to end 'cycle of neglect' resonates worldwide.
Reactions?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,721 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2004 09:23 am
Although in my opinion the judges ruling will not stand he IMO is on the right track. As long as these people are on the public dole and the taxpaying public is forced to pay the freight after the deed is done they should have the right intervene.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 07:19 am
Shades of Buck vs. Bell. See http://www.dnalc.org/resources/buckvbell.html for a quick summary.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:37 am
jespah wrote:
Shades of Buck vs. Bell.

Jespah, I was thinking the exact same thing. "The cycle of neglect … needs to stop" sounds a lot like "three generations of idiots is enough."

So, do you think this is any different from a forced sterilization case?
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:44 am
I think the amount of money this is supposed to save (the money that would go into child care!), is well balanced in the amount of time&money lost in the case, following suits, debates spawned, and people dying of heart attacks enraged by the ruling.

Relative.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 08:57 am
Well, joe, about the only thing that's different is that allegedly this isn't permanent loss of opportunities to have children. However, the biological clock would say otherwise, if this woman is prevented from having kids for a long enough period of time.

It's also (and this is more a function of the mechanics of the two genders) sexually discriminatory, as it will be obvious if the woman is having more kids, but not so obvious if the man is. Kudos to the court for attempting to make the ruling gender-neutral, but biology dictates otherwise.

It's disturbing to me. I can see Relative' and au's point, and I'm certainly not interested in paying more $$ for the care of more wards of the state, if that's at all possible, but in the absence of a finding of incompetency, having children is a fundamental right of adults. Would the court force an abortion on this woman? Have a pharmacist or doctor force-feed her a morning after pill? The implications are frightening.

Three generations of idiots are enough, indeed. Sure, but there are far less intrusive means of dealing with this problem. How about mandating that these people visit doctors in order to explore birth control options, including stuff like Depo Provera? Either that, or declare both parents incompetent. It's this half-measure that gives me the willies.
0 Replies
 
onyxelle
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 09:13 am
jespah wrote:
Either that, or declare both parents incompetent.


the court would have to get doctor's to evaluate the defendants in this case and find them incompetent to do that. It's not something you can just 'declare' from the bench.

ordering birth control presents the same problems you mentioned jespah -how do you know if the man is using it?

this is another of those situations that i think the sort of thing was done, but maybe not exactly - but I don't have a real solution.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 11:02 am
Well, I don't love either solution I'm proposing, and inherently all of it's gender discriminatory. And of course you're right, a declaration of incompetence would require a hearing with expert testimony. The main thing I'm getting at (rather badly, I can see) is that I think more safeguards would be in place if the judge had to work harder, and had to prove more and meet a higher standard. And I don't like the chipping away at rights when it comes to people who are otherwise considered to be competent or at least haven't yet been declared to be incompetent.

After all, if these people aren't allowed to have any more kids (at least for a time period to be determined), why should they be considered to be competent enough to, I dunno, pay taxes, hold drivers' licenses, take out loans, etc.?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 11:06 am
interesting
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 11:20 am
jespah: I commend your latest posts: you raise some very interesting issues, upon which I must, for the nonce, silently cogitate.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 12:14 pm
Jespah--

Well spoken.


I notice no one has suggested allowing the Mama and Papa here to have custody of their brood and raise them as best they can. We have to be fair to these carelessly spawned children.

Meanwhile, most middle-class families here in the US have one or two children--and stop.

Bribery with controlled substances is illegal....but tempting.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 02:28 pm
Quote:
Meanwhile, most middle-class families here in the US have one or two children--and stop.


That is because they have to pay the bill. People like this and I would include welfare mothers{not all] are getting a free ride. Is there a solution? Of course there is however, this so called humane society would never allow it.
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 07:34 pm
I think he made a good choice (after reading everyone's arguments). Forced sterilization would be absolutely horrible in my opinion. It would be entirely inhumane. However, I think it's sad that anyone who wants to is allowed to have children. Of course, there's nothing you can do about it. Take it the extreme--what if only christians with bachelors degrees were allowed to mate. I think there is a line, but it is not necessarily meant to be specified. Tear me apart.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The verdict: no more babies for you!
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.72 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 08:24:03