Judge orders couple not to have children

[numediaman]

Judge orders couple not to have children

Saturday, May 8, 2004 Posted: 9:18 AM EDT (1318 GMT)

ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

A civil liberties advocate said the court ruling unsealed Friday was "blatantly unconstitutional."

Monroe County Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ruled March 31 that both parents "should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense."

"The facts of this case and the reality of parenthood cry out for family planning education," she ruled. "This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care."

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.

If the couple violates O'Connor's ruling, they could be jailed for contempt of court.

"I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this," Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. "And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.banned.ap/index.html

Shouldn't a judge have a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution before making suchn a ruling? Clearly these parents are losers, but the judges ruling is so out of bounds. Maybe a higher court should rule that this judge can not rule on cases until all her other rulings are overturned.

[zimv20]

Shouldn't a judge have a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution before making suchn a ruling?
i'd bet the judge knows the ruling will be overturned, but wanted to make a statement. and we're talking about it, so that was successful.

is this what people so often call, "ruling from the bench?" (that phrase never did make much sense to me, shouldn't it be "legislating from the bench?")

[Neserk]

After 18 months if the parents can't take care of thei r children they are suppose to be placed for adoption. It seems that the "thing to do" would be to terminate their rights to the children they already have.

[pseudobrit]

is this what people so often call, "ruling from the bench?" (that phrase never did make much sense to me, shouldn't it be "legislating from the bench?")

Better yet "grandstanding."

Money says he's planning a run for higher office and wants his name in the paper.

[Krizoitz]

Personally I don't see this as un-constitutional. He isn't telling them they can't have sex, he's telling them they can't continue to bring children in the world since they aren't willing to support them. That is unfair to the rest of us AND especially to the children.

[zimv20]

Personally I don't see this as un-constitutional. He isn't telling them they can't have sex, he's telling them they can't continue to bring children in the world
i don't know of anything in the lawbooks or the constitution that permits the state to stop reproduction. highly unconstitutional. and i'm not sure why having sex is a more precious right than having kids.

[Sayhey]

During the 1920s and '30s there was a "eugenic" movement that advocated just this type of thing. Many poor women were sterilized by court order. This was something the Nazis took as a precedent for their own movement. It is horrifying to see it coming back.

edit: spelling

[SlyHunter]

During the 1920s and '30s there was a "eugenic" movement that advocated just this type of thing. Many poor women were sterilized by court order. This was something the Nazis took as a precedent for their own movement. It is horrify to see it coming back.
Its horifying to see people who can't support their own kids continually making more kids for us to have to support. We as a country don't have a bottomless wallet.

[Neserk]

Its horifying to see people who can't support their own kids continually making more kids for us to have to support. We as a country don't have a bottomless wallet.


Indeed it is. The real problem is religions that teach birth control is a sin. All in all though I think the average child per family is under 2 kids. So I guess on average we aren't that bad off.

[Sayhey]

If people want to advocate that public policy should be changed on limiting benefits to couples to cover only so many children, then that is one type of discussion. I would disagree with the limitation, but an argument can be made for such a public policy. This case is entirely different. Here we have a Judge believing she has the right to impose judicial punishment on people for having children. This steps way beyond what anyone who has any respect for individual liberty should accept. It is fascist to its core.

[SlyHunter]

If people want to advocate that public policy should be changed on limiting benefits to couples to cover only so many children, then that is one type of discussion. I would disagree with the limitation, but an argument can be made for such a public policy. This case is entirely different. Here we have a Judge believing she has the right to impose judicial punishment on people for having children. This steps way beyond what anyone who has any respect for individual liberty should accept. It is fascist to its core.
The consequences of that would be starving children in the streets. Which in my opinion is much worse then forced sterilization of those to irresponsible to have more children.

[Neserk]

If people want to advocate that public policy should be changed on limiting benefits to couples to cover only so many children, then that is one type of discussion. I would disagree with the limitation, but an argument can be made for such a public policy. This case is entirely different. Here we have a Judge believing she has the right to impose judicial punishment on people for having children. This steps way beyond what anyone who has any respect for individual liberty should accept. It is fascist to its core.

My guess is that if the older children are in foster care the system will simply take away the next infant that is born to them. The judge has the right to terminate parental rights and place the child/ren up for adoption.

Edit: Yup. They can have all the children they want. But they won't be allowed to raise them. This is what I pulled from the article


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. Both parents had a history of drug abuse.

It also said that when the 1 year old was born s/he was removed from the mother immediately. The judge made a mistake. She simply should have told them that until they are able to care for their children she will terminate their parental rights and place them for adoption.

[numediaman]

The consequences of that would be starving children in the streets. Which in my opinion is much worse then forced sterilization of those to irresponsible to have more children.

Torture is OK. Forced sterilization is OK.

Well, moderator, at what point does the political discussion area have to be a place where people can advocate their extremist views -- and not even be a Mac user? There are plenty of forums for extremists to populate -- the Macrumors forums don't have to be one of them.

[Sayhey]

Torture is OK. Forced sterilization is OK.

Don't forget genocide. It was Sly's push for genocide of Palestinians that got me to put him on my "ignore" list. Life is much better since; I highly recommend it.

[SlyHunter]

Torture is OK. Forced sterilization is OK.

Well, moderator, at what point does the political discussion area have to be a place where people can advocate their extremist views -- and not even be a Mac user? There are plenty of forums for extremists to populate -- the Macrumors forums don't have to be one of them.
So according to you allowing people to keep pumping out kids to starve in the steets is ok. And anyone who has an opinion that you don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to post here unless their a mac user. That isn't a open minded way of looking at things.

I never said torture was ok. I never said what those soldiers did in those pictures was ok. I did say that calling it torture minimizes what Saddam did to his prisoners and what Hitler done to his. Calling it something that brings it equal to that is wrong also.

But you just want to find things I do thats imperfect so you can find excusses to continual put me down and insult me.

[Rower_CPU]

...
Well, moderator, at what point does the political discussion area have to be a place where people can advocate their extremist views -- and not even be a Mac user? There are plenty of forums for extremists to populate -- the Macrumors forums don't have to be one of them.

We don't moderate viewpoints here - only rule infractions. Report rule infractions and we can take action to remove a troublesome poster.

SlyHunter has been warned about trolling. If you see something that steps across that line (or any of the other lines: insults, flamebait, etc), please report it.

[Neserk]

So according to you allowing people to keep pumping out kids to starve in the steets is ok.


That is a bit over the top. There kids aren't starving. They were being neglected, which is very serious. 3 of them tested positive for cocaine so that would constitute abuse.


And anyone who has an opinion that you don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to post here unless their a mac user. That isn't a open minded way of looking at things.


My only recent experience with a Mac is in the classroom and it kept freezing up on me... I don't use Mac's at home, can't afford one. So for that part you and I are in the same boat. I came here for the political discussions, not because I need info on Mac's.


I never said torture was ok. I never said what those soldiers did in those pictures was ok. I did say that calling it torture minimizes what Saddam did to his prisoners and what Hitler done to his. Calling it something that brings it equal to that is wrong also.


I disagree with you. What was being done is/was torture... if Saddam had been doing it to Americans you would have called it torture... the only reason you don't is because it is Americans doing it.

[skunk]

So according to you allowing people to keep pumping out kids to starve in the steets is ok. And anyone who has an opinion that you don't agree with shouldn't be allowed to post here unless their a mac user. That isn't a open minded way of looking at things.

I never said torture was ok. I never said what those soldiers did in those pictures was ok. I did say that calling it torture minimizes what Saddam did to his prisoners and what Hitler done to his. Calling it something that brings it equal to that is wrong also.

But you just want to find things I do thats imperfect so you can find excusses to continual put me down and insult me.
I don't agree with forced sterilization, any more than any other kind of medical or surgical treatment: it's what Hitler did to the disabled and other undesirable contributors to the gene pool, and we must find a more humane alternative. It's against the Hippocratic oath anyway, at least in principle, so doctors should refuse to do it.
Clearly also, what went on at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere is disgraceful, brutal, inhumane, dehumanizing and degrading - and probably in a few cases, fatal - but all the same, it is true that it does not compare with the wholesale toenail-pulling, death-squads, gassing, starvation, forced migration, massacres and massive reprisals meted out by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, the Japanese and the Red Guard. To claim otherwise is a disservice to the truth, just as it is to claim that this behaviour, vile as it is, is just an aberration by a few over-excited reservists.
There is a fundamental problem with racism in both the US and UK forces, and no doubt those who train the soldiers think that this kind of insensitivity is required for survival and effectiveness. We should be thankful that this has come out, so that it is SEEN to be unacceptable.
We all must have been aware that this kind of thing goes on: it's in the manual, for god's sake. But now it has been exposed, those who allowed it to manifest should leave, in the hope that they can take the foul smell of our own rottenness with them.

[Krizoitz]

Indeed it is. The real problem is religions that teach birth control is a sin. All in all though I think the average child per family is under 2 kids. So I guess on average we aren't that bad off.

Actually the REAL problem is people who can't control themselves and realize that there are consequences for their actions.

As for teaching that birth control is a sin, why shouldn't they teach that if they are taught that it is? I assume you are referencing Catholicism, given that we are one of, if not the only one who does teach that. See the thing is when you believe in God you don't get to decide for yourself what is right and wrong based on convenience.

Interestingly enough when contraceptives were first being introduced alot of other prominent people opposed them too. For example Mohandas Ghandi said the following:

"[contraceptive methods] are like putting a premium on vice. They make men and omen reckless."

he goes on to say

"As it is man has sufficiently dgraded woman for his lust, and contraception, no matter how well meaning the advocates may be, will still further degrade her."

Which is actually one of the issues at the heart of Catholic teaching. Its not about making sex a bad thing or making people have lots of kids. Its about treating it with respect and reverence.

So instead of blaming a group who urges self control, why don't we blame the large number of people who can't control their raging hormones and so produce a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

[pseudobrit]

See the thing is when you believe in God you don't get to decide for yourself what is right and wrong based on convenience.

Don't you mean "religion" instead of "God"? Let's be honest here, to make an huge understatement there are plenty of people who believe in God and not all of them agree what's right and wrong.

So instead of blaming a group who urges self control, why don't we blame the large number of people who can't control their raging hormones and so produce a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

By all means, let's. But to do so at the expense of practicality is unwise.

[Sayhey]

Let's not turn this into a debate on Catholic teachings on birth control. Every religion has a right to its views and this subject is no exception. This case does not turn on whether the Catholic Church should decide its ideas are wrong.

What we are talking about is a judge using the power of the state to penalize a couple for having children. The couple may well be incapable of raising children and may well have had parental rights taken away for very good reason. That does not mean we should give over to the government the right to determine if individuals can have children. That is a step that is extremely dangerous for individual liberty. I repeat - this is precisely the kind of power those who believed in eugenics thought was necessary for the state to have. How can anyone think that is ok?

[Neserk]

Originally Posted by Krizoitz
See the thing is when you believe in God you don't get to decide for yourself what is right and wrong based on convenience.


Don't you mean "religion" instead of "God"? Let's be honest here, to make an huge understatement there are plenty of people who believe in God and not all of them agree what's right and wrong.


The answer would be yes, you do. Religions, in the name of God, decide what is right and wrong based on convenience. At one time the admonition against birth control made perfect sense. Now it doesn't. The world has changed. That is why most Christian denominations advocate it. (Don't know about other relgions)

So, if relgions can use God's name to determine what is right and wrong out of convenience than certainly those who don't believe in God can use science and common sense to determine what is right and wrong.




So instead of blaming a group who urges self control, why don't we blame the large number of people who can't control their raging hormones and so produce a lot of unwanted pregnancies.


By all means, let's. But to do so at the expense of practicality is unwise.


Exactly. If you are going to have sex and are not ready, willing and able to take care of the possible consequence of those actions USE BIRTH CONTROL. Please. I'm a big advocate of abstinence and then monogamy. But I realize my values are not other people's values.

[Neserk]

Let's not turn this into a debate on Catholic teachings on birth control. Every religion has a right to its views and this subject is no exception. This case does not turn on whether the Catholic Church should decide its ideas are wrong.

That is my fault. I brought up "religions who don't want you to use birth control"


What we are talking about is a judge using the power of the state to penalize a couple for having children. The couple may well be incapable of raising children and may well have had parental rights taken away for very good reason.


They did. They are drug users. 3 of their children tested positive for cocaine present in their bodies. All of them are under the age of 6.


That does not mean we should give over to the government the right to determine if individuals can have children.


Well, they are determining that they couple may not raise said children. Having worked in foster care I have really mixed feelings on this issue.


That is a step that is extremely dangerous for individual liberty. I repeat - this is precisely the kind of power those who believed in eugenics thought was necessary for the state to have. How can anyone think that is ok?

But is it okay for them to take the children away? I say it is. Does it make more sense to tell them not to have children or to take those children away? Are their personal liberties being violated there? It is a sticky issue.

[skunk]

I'm a big advocate of abstinence and then monogamy. But I realize my values are not other people's values.
With that combination, you could so easily end up with the wrong person! Sensible experimentation is cool. :rolleyes:

[Sayhey]

Well, they are determining that they couple may not raise said children. Having worked in foster care I have really mixed feelings on this issue.

But is it okay for them to take the children away? I say it is. Does it make more sense to tell them not to have children or to take those children away? Are their personal liberties being violated there? It is a sticky issue.

When there are children the state has an interest in the children having basic standards met for their care. I have no problem with taking away children from families that abuse them - including through neglect.

I also have no problem with encouraging the use of birth control, including sterilization. It is that fateful step of the State actually taking on the right to say who and who cannot have children that is the problem. This Judge takes that step when she uses the power of the State to threaten sanctions against this couple if they have more children.

[Neserk]

With that combination, you could so easily end up with the wrong person! Sensible experimentation is cool. :rolleyes:

I didn't say anything about waiting until marriage ;) I think there comes a time when it is natural to move into a sexual relationship beyond kissing/petting. The chances of that happening on the wedding night are slim to none.

OTOH, I don't believe incompatiblity exists. It can take a while for two people to figure each other out. Let me put a disclaimer on that. If two people are incompatible it is in desire. But desier fluxuates over time and if they are truly incompatible than it will show up, w/o having to hop into bed together.

If I went by our first time together my husband and I would have been a disaster. But we figured things out and they are great :D (TMI?)

What I completely against is casual sex. Hooking up with whomever is available when you are horny at the moment. I have problems understanding that. I don't know how it is for a male but as a female sharing my body is a very intimate and vulnerable act. I couldn't do it with someone who I wasn't completely committed to and someone who wasn't committed to me. Masturbation is for relieving the itch, not some girl from a bar.

[Voltron]

Just reported on Fox TV Dayside That woman is pregnant again. They also mentioned that she gets drug rehab appointments and then not shows up.

OK Because she was not sterilized another child may have to live the life brought on by cocaine abuse. Another child may be born with cocain in its system. Another child that is going to have to be raised by the foster care system. Another series of expensive problems that our tax money is going to have to be spent on in the name of humanity. Problems that would not exist had that woman been sterilized. How many more kids is she going to bring into this world hooked on drugs hooked on drugs before they are even born?

[skunk]

If I went by our first time together my husband and I would have been a disaster. But we figured things out and they are great :D (TMI?)
Yeah, TMI. But don't stop. :D

[skunk]

Just reported on Fox TV Dayside That woman is pregnant again. They also mentioned that she gets drug rehab appointments and then not shows up.

OK Because she was not sterilized another child may have to live the life brought on by cocaine abuse. Another child may be born with cocain in its system. Another child that is going to have to be raised by the foster care system. Another series of expensive problems that our tax money is going to have to be spent on in the name of humanity. Problems that would not exist had that woman been sterilized. How many more kids is she going to bring into this world hooked on drugs hooked on drugs before they are even born?
It's really not valid to try to build your argument on one case. There are far more expensive problems to deal with, like occupying foreign countries illegally.

[Krizoitz]

It's really not valid to try to build your argument on one case. There are far more expensive problems to deal with, like occupying foreign countries illegally.

In this case it is valid. Its proof that this couple doesn't care about anything but themselves and therefore are abusing not only their kids (not by beating them obviously) but also placing an unfair burden on the rest of us.

Oh and just because there are other problems, doesn't mean we should ignore this one. Uh oh, we are at war, we better start ignoring things like the occasional bank robbery, its not as big a problem.

[Sayhey]

In this case it is valid. Its proof that this couple doesn't care about anything but themselves and therefore are abusing not only their kids (not by beating them obviously) but also placing an unfair burden on the rest of us.

Oh and just because there are other problems, doesn't mean we should ignore this one. Uh oh, we are at war, we better start ignoring things like the occasional bank robbery, its not as big a problem.

Let's be real specific. On the basis of this case, do you want to hand over the power to sterilize people against their will to the government? These folks may be horrible people, I don't know because I haven't read anything from their point of view. However, none of it justifies the state making that decision for people. Drug rehab or jail might be in order for drug possession, but not forced sterilization.

[skunk]

In this case it is valid. Its proof that this couple doesn't care about anything but themselves and therefore are abusing not only their kids (not by beating them obviously) but also placing an unfair burden on the rest of us.

Oh and just because there are other problems, doesn't mean we should ignore this one. Uh oh, we are at war, we better start ignoring things like the occasional bank robbery, its not as big a problem.
Preventing abuse is one issue: your government has a responsibility to uphold and enforce the laws which your lawmakers agree on in order to ensure that those the laws are designed to protect are afforded that protection. Take the children into care, prevent the mother abusing them further. Put her in jail if there's enough to convince a jury. Fine. But advocating medical intervention to save money (which is presumably that "burden" you are referring to) is quite another issue. Who is the Mengele you will find to carry out this procedure? Is the doctor to become the judge? Is it going to be disabled people next, or gypsies, or Muslims, or Communists, or Democrats? Don't even start on that road.

If you want to save some money, however, there are 135,000 pink slips you could start handing out right now....

[Krizoitz]

Let's be real specific. On the basis of this case, do you want to hand over the power to sterilize people against their will to the government? These folks may be horrible people, I don't know because I haven't read anything from their point of view. However, none of it justifies the state making that decision for people. Drug rehab or jail might be in order for drug possession, but not forced sterilization.

If these people were only hurting themselves I'd say who cares, let them ruin their lives, but they are repeatedly bringing unwanted children whose lives are going to be harmed into society because they can't control their animal desires.

But heaven forbid we actually advocate responsible behaviour.

These people have obviously demonstrated that they are incapable of making the decision for themselves. And extending this to say we are going to start sterilizing people based on broad catagories such as race or religion as skunk does in his next post is called arguing ad absurdum. You try and de-rail the argument by taking it to its extremist and absurdist lengths.

There is a HUGE difference between stopping this couple from furthering ruining their kids lives and force sterilizing people because we disagree with their beliefs.

Oh and in case you failed to read the part, these parents are DRUG USERS. These kids all had cocaine in their system. And the oldest one is 5! Have you ever seen a crack baby before? I have. Its a heart wrenching sight. These kids have done NOTHING wrong and are going to live incredibly difficult lives because their parents are so irresponsible.

But heaven forbid we suggest that people stop having sex. Heaven forbid we actually expect people to behave responsibly when it affects other people. Wouldn't want to get in the way of their having a good time now would we. It doesn't matter that their good time hurts other people, if we start telling them that they have crossed the line we are apparently Nazi's all of a sudden as Skunk implied.

Give me a break. We take away peoples right to drive if they demonstrate they are a danger to others, why not their right to have kids too? It never ceases to amaze me how the liberal left will go out of their way to stand up to convicted criminals being killed (which I agree with btw) but will let people harm and even kill kids in the name of "freedom". The most innocent in our society suffer but we wouldn't want to stop people from screwing around, cause that would be wrong. I may disagree with the right wingers on gun control, the war, the economy, gay marriage, and everything else, but at least they seem to think that children are worth protecting too.

[Neserk]

nevermind

[skunk]

If these people were only hurting themselves I'd say who cares, let them ruin their lives, but they are repeatedly bringing unwanted children whose lives are going to be harmed into society because they can't control their animal desires.

But heaven forbid we actually advocate responsible behaviour.
Nothing wrong with advocating responsible behaviour. Rehab, counseling, a single-sex camp where they can learn self-respect with other women, sure. That's different from forced sterilization.

These people have obviously demonstrated that they are incapable of making the decision for themselves. And extending this to say we are going to start sterilizing people based on broad catagories such as race or religion as skunk does in his next post is called arguing ad absurdum. You try and de-rail the argument by taking it to its extremist and absurdist lengths.
I'm not trying to derail the argument. I'm trying to show that forced sterilization is (to use current parlance) "crossing a red line".

There is a HUGE difference between stopping this couple from furthering ruining their kids lives and force sterilizing people because we disagree with their beliefs.
But you are not talking about them further ruining their kids' lives: that you can sort out by taking the kids into care. This must be done anyway for the kids' protection.

Oh and in case you failed to read the part, these parents are DRUG USERS. These kids all had cocaine in their system. And the oldest one is 5! Have you ever seen a crack baby before? I have. Its a heart wrenching sight. These kids have done NOTHING wrong and are going to live incredibly difficult lives because their parents are so irresponsible.
You could - though you personally might not - say the same of AIDS babies.

But heaven forbid we suggest that people stop having sex. Heaven forbid we actually expect people to behave responsibly when it affects other people. Wouldn't want to get in the way of their having a good time now would we. It doesn't matter that their good time hurts other people, if we start telling them that they have crossed the line we are apparently Nazi's all of a sudden as Skunk implied.
Tell them they have crossed the line, by all means. Take the children away. But do not cross the line yourselves.

Give me a break. We take away peoples right to drive if they demonstrate they are a danger to others, why not their right to have kids too? It never ceases to amaze me how the liberal left will go out of their way to stand up to convicted criminals being killed (which I agree with btw) but will let people harm and even kill kids in the name of "freedom". The most innocent in our society suffer but we wouldn't want to stop people from screwing around, cause that would be wrong. I may disagree with the right wingers on gun control, the war, the economy, gay marriage, and everything else, but at least they seem to think that children are worth protecting too.
This is a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION of what I said. :mad:
I have never even suggested that the children should not be protected, and you know it. And what on earth has this got to do with liberalism or leftness? Give ME a break, K!

[Neserk]

And what on earth has this got to do with liberalism or leftness? Give ME a break, K!


Standard response when there is nothing legitimate to say? :eek:

[skunk]

Standard response when there is nothing legitimate to say? :eek:
I was hoping for something better, really. :(

[skunk]

nevermind
Nah, go on, we want to hear it! :)

[Neserk]

Nah, go on, we want to hear it! :)


I was minformed :eek: Thankfully I checked my facts and came back to correct what I had said...

[skunk]

I was minformed :eek: Thankfully I checked my facts and came back to correct what I had said...
That minforming can be a painful procedure. Are you feeling better now? :D

[Krizoitz]

I'm not trying to derail the argument. I'm trying to show that forced sterilization is (to use current parlance) "crossing a red line".
Well guess what, you're red line and others red line is different. Not all of us see limiting reproduction on an individual basis such as this case as akin to what the Nazi's wanted to do. We aren't talking about eugenics here. We aren't talking about stoping people from having kids cause we don't like their ideas. We are talking about people who have demonstrated on MULTIPLE occasions that they are incapable of taking care of children. If these were animals PETA and the SFPCA would be up in arms about letting them have any more pets. Yet we can't stop them from continuing to abuse their children? And by that I don't just means the ones they allready have, but the ones that they keep having as well. Allowing them to have children is allowing those children to be born into an abusive situation. You don't let children go into a home if you know the parents are beating them, why let them be born into the same home?



But you are not talking about them further ruining their kids' lives: that you can sort out by taking the kids into care. This must be done anyway for the kids' protection.

As I said above, allowing them to have more children is allowing those children to be put into an abusive situation. If you can forsee that they are going to be put into an abusive situation why is it not ok to stop that?


Tell them they have crossed the line, by all means. Take the children away. But do not cross the line yourselves.

So we keep letting them have kids, and keep taking them away? Let them be born addicted to cocaine to parents who don't care one ounce for them.


This is a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION of what I said. :mad:
I have never even suggested that the children should not be protected, and you know it. And what on earth has this got to do with liberalism or leftness? Give ME a break, K!
You are saying that their freedom to have more kids is more important than the welfare of those children. How is that not saying that children shouldn't be protected? As for what it has to do with liberalism or leftism, thats exactly what this is. The lefts belief that freedom to have sex trumps the rights of the children.

[Krizoitz]

I was hoping for something better, really. :(

Or you were hoping for was that we only agree with your side. Sorry, this place may be mostly on the left side when it comes to politics, but that doesn't mean the left is always right.

[Sayhey]

Or you were hoping for was that we only agree with your side. Sorry, this place may be mostly on the left side when it comes to politics, but that doesn't mean the left is always right.

This is not necessarily a left/right issue. Forced sterilization has, unfortunately, been practiced by folks on both sides of the ideological spectrum. In this country it has most often been advocated by those on the far right who target poor and racial minority women because they are a "burden on society." What this means is we have given over to the government a very special and important liberty. The right to decide who can have children. I'm with skunk, this is a red line we do not want to cross. I'm all for taking away this couple's freedom is they continue to abuse drugs; I'm not for taking away their freedom for having children - no matter how stupid I think their decision to have more may be.

[Neserk]

That minforming can be a painful procedure. Are you feeling better now? :D

not yet ;)

[pseudobrit]

We aren't talking about eugenics here. We aren't talking about stoping people from having kids cause we don't like their ideas.

Ah, but once you start stopping people from having kids for any reason, it becomes acceptable to do so. We become accustomed to forced sterilsation and it's only a small matter of definitions until it's misapplied.

Who decides who can have children and who gets sterilised? Judges? The legislature? What are the definitions? Are there any? Must one make a certain amount of money a year in order to be allowed to have children? Must one test free of drug use in order to qualify? Is there an upper limit on amount of children one may have?

You realise you are talking about something utterly abhorrent, a true class warfare type of action; the rich will surely be unaffected by such an order, while the poor will have their God-given right to procreate and carry on their bloodlines taken from them.

As I said above, allowing them to have more children is allowing those children to be put into an abusive situation. If you can forsee that they are going to be put into an abusive situation why is it not ok to stop that?

And how can you foresee such a situation? If you open this door, there will be many cases where it's assumed, and just as many cases where assumptions are wrong.

You are saying that their freedom to have more kids is more important than the welfare of those children. How is that not saying that children shouldn't be protected? As for what it has to do with liberalism or leftism, thats exactly what this is. The lefts belief that freedom to have sex trumps the rights of the children.

This isn't about sex. It's about tyrrany. It's about a rule that would have vast implications and many chances for misapplication.

Give me a break. We take away peoples right to drive if they demonstrate they are a danger to others, why not their right to have kids too?

This isn't about a person's "right" to have sex and their "right" to have children.

It's about the government's complete lack of authority over such an issue.
You're making a moral argument for a legal issue and it doesn't work.

There is no constitution, federal or state, that can be reasonably applied and allow a law upheld to allow forced sterilsation. Show me one line from any of them that allows the government to step into this territory.

Don't come at me with this crap about the "liberal left" wanting to ensure "free love" and the right to abuse children. This "save the children" **** is the cause for more irrational and emotionally charged unconstitutional government action than you can shake a stick at (as in the FCC telling us all programming must be suitable for a six year-old).

[Neserk]

Personally, I think you should have to have a license to have children. Think about it. You have to have a license to drive a car, catch a fish, build a house (permit, but same idea); even cut someone's hair! Why not a license to have children?

[Krizoitz]

Ah, but once you start stopping people from having kids for any reason, it becomes acceptable to do so. We become accustomed to forced sterilsation and it's only a small matter of definitions until it's misapplied.
Ah the old slippery slope argument. By that same logic we shouldn't ever limit freedom of speech. Yep we shouldn't stop people from yelling fire in a crowded theater because by limiting their freedom of speech. And we shouldn't stop people from buying anti-tank missles, they just might turn all authoritarian and opress us. See the problem with the slippery slope argument is its easy to throw out there and scare people with.


Who decides who can have children and who gets sterilised? Judges? The legislature? What are the definitions? Are there any? Must one make a certain amount of money a year in order to be allowed to have children? Must one test free of drug use in order to qualify? Is there an upper limit on amount of children one may have?

We aren't talking about licensing reproduction, just stopping people who have demonstrated that they are incapable of behaving responsibly. They are a danger to their current AND future children.



You realise you are talking about something utterly abhorrent, a true class warfare type of action; the rich will surely be unaffected by such an order, while the poor will have their God-given right to procreate and carry on their bloodlines taken from them.

Where does this become class warefare. We aren't talking about stopping poor people from having kids, or people who don't believe what you do, we are talking about people who have SHOWN that they can't take care of kids. Its not about predicting. Its about reacting. They had the freedom to live their lives and have kids, and they showed that they couldn't do that without putting their children in danger, so they shouldn't be allowed to have kids unless they can prove that they can be responsible. Its not that much different from taking thier current kids till they clean up their act, you take their future kids undtil they are ready too.


And how can you foresee such a situation? If you open this door, there will be many cases where it's assumed, and just as many cases where assumptions are wrong.

Again we aren't talking about PRO-active approaches we are talking about RE-acting to a demonstrated problem. I agree that trying to predict problems would be too far, I'm just saying that once it has happened you stop it from happening again.

It's about the government's complete lack of authority over such an issue.
You're making a moral argument for a legal issue and it doesn't work.

Every legal issue is based on morality. Not being able to steal. Thats a moral issue. Not being able to kill someone else. Moral issue. The idea that there is no morality involved in building a society is absurd.

There is no constitution, federal or state, that can be reasonably applied and allow a law upheld to allow forced sterilsation. Show me one line from any of them that allows the government to step into this territory.



Don't come at me with this crap about the "liberal left" wanting to ensure "free love" and the right to abuse children. This "save the children" **** is the cause for more irrational and emotionally charged unconstitutional government action than you can shake a stick at (as in the FCC telling us all programming must be suitable for a six year-old).
See this is the extremist attack that I was hoping wouldn't happen. Left/right, its all the same. Neither side is ever willing to budge. They are so full of themselves that they are never even willing to approach a problem with even an ounce of understanding. Both sides accuse each other of it. Both sides do it. And it makes me sick.

Society is about balancing freedom and order. You can't have one without the other. You let it go too far to freedom, you end up with anarchy and everyone loses their freedom. You let it go too far towards order and you end up with totalitarianism and the protection that the order was supposed to provide gets tossed out the window.

Its about balance. Neither side is willing to admit that though. They want their way or no way. Just like here. Someone suggests a moderate approach to a problem that leans slightly towards the order side and suddenly the left is screaming about an attack on freedom, and closes their ears to anything at all. Don't worry I think the right does the exact same thing.

[Voltron]

We can't just incarcerate them. What would we jail them for child endangerment or cocaine abuse? They would be in jail less than 2 years and then out again making drug abused babies. Or we can wait till they have a still birth and put them away for Murder 2 I think it is, death due to reckless disregard. Why clutter the jails? Why put further burden on society when all you have to do is tie her tubes. Remember it is in almost 99% of all cases reversable. So if they ever clean up their act they could petition the court for permission, or move to another state and reverse the situation and start having kids again.

On another note.
Personally, I think you should have to have a license to have children. Think about it. You have to have a license to drive a car, catch a fish, build a house (permit, but same idea); even cut someone's hair! Why not a license to have children?
Someday we will probably have to do this. We cannot continue adding to the population without serious consequences unless we increase our elbow room by colonizing space which I doubt we will be prepared to do in time to make such controls not necessary. To save the environment, insure a ample water and food supply etc it will be necessary to someday control the population. And somebody is going to have the right to decide who has kids and who doesn't.

[skunk]

Someday we will probably have to do this. We cannot continue adding to the population without serious consequences unless we increase our elbow room by colonizing space which I doubt we will be prepared to do in time to make such controls not necessary. To save the environment, insure a ample water and food supply etc it will be necessary to someday control the population. And somebody is going to have the right to decide who has kids and who doesn't.
Still completely unacceptable. Period.

[Voltron]

Originally Posted by Voltron
Someday we will probably have to do this. We cannot continue adding to the population without serious consequences unless we increase our elbow room by colonizing space which I doubt we will be prepared to do in time to make such controls not necessary. To save the environment, insure a ample water and food supply etc it will be necessary to someday control the population. And somebody is going to have the right to decide who has kids and who doesn't.

Still completely unacceptable. Period.
When the time comes that the alternative is much worse people such as yourself will start changing your minds. When more and more starving people are in the streets. The number of extinct species start multiplying due to poaching by a starving populace. And H2O cars become an impossibility due to the fact that water is too highly valued as a drinking source. Only the rich can afford fresh water due to the extreme cost due to the scarcity of the resource in comparisson to our increased population.

Too many people in this world keep expecting those in power to be able to wave a magic wand and solve the problems of this world. There are answers. The problem is the only viable answers are sometimes the ones that are hard for some to swallow. And if we keep living in fantasy land we could end up on the extinct species list.

[skunk]

When the time comes that the alternative is much worse people such as yourself will start changing your minds. When more and more starving people are in the streets. The number of extinct species start multiplying due to poaching by a starving populace.
Homework time. A, you are not going to have any effect on the argument by claiming that a few unsuitable mothers having excess children would make ANY significant impact on starvation in the street. B, extinctions - other than those caused by meteor impact - have been mostly contemporaneous with the arrival of humans in each area, more to do with armed gangs of hunters going ape**** than shortage of food. Your argument is absurd at best.

[Ugg]

A few years back there was an uproar about a private women's foundation in Southern California that was paying female drug users around $500 to be implanted with Norplant. Norplant is a long term contraceptive (10-20 years?) and is placed under the skin. The foundation was highly criticised because the money would probably go to pay for drugs. However, it meant that fewer drug babies would be born. I think this is a viable option. If and when the woman is able to overcome her addiction, the Norplant can be removed and she can have babies.

Forced sterilisation is always abhorrent IMHO. When does it stop? Should the women who bashed her boys' heads in because her "God" told her so, be sterilised? Once sterilisation starts there is no going back and with all laws, they seem to only expand not contract.

[Neserk]

Someday we will probably have to do this. We cannot continue adding to the population without serious consequences unless we increase our elbow room by colonizing space which I doubt we will be prepared to do in time to make such controls not necessary. To save the environment, insure a ample water and food supply etc it will be necessary to someday control the population.

I'm hoping people will come to their senses and realize that their right to have children does not mean they have to have a dozen of them or even more than 2 or 3.

I'm personally of the belief that our homo/heterosexuality is on a continum for a reason. As the population increases we will lean more an more toward our non-reproducing side and will see heterosexuals become the exception and not the rule.

[Neserk]

Still completely unacceptable. Period.


Today it is. But my guess is that in the future it will become completely acceptable and the norm.

I'm sure 150 years ago it would have been unheard of to have someone need a permit to build a house in the US. Or to have a license in order to fish. OR even to get married! But times changes. The world changes. What is acceptable to one society is not acceptable to another.

[Neserk]

A few years back there was an uproar about a private women's foundation in Southern California that was paying female drug users around $500 to be implanted with Norplant. Norplant is a long term contraceptive (10-20 years?) and is placed under the skin.

5 years. There would be no reason to develop a form of birth control that lasted that long. It would take women past their prime for having children ;) I had a friend who had it done. She was a part of an experimental group. It made her sick so she ended up having to have it removed.

[pseudobrit]

Ah the old slippery slope argument. By that same logic we shouldn't ever limit freedom of speech. Yep we shouldn't stop people from yelling fire in a crowded theater because by limiting their freedom of speech. And we shouldn't stop people from buying anti-tank missles, they just might turn all authoritarian and opress us. See the problem with the slippery slope argument is its easy to throw out there and scare people with.

Your argument is scary enough without the slipperly slope.

We aren't talking about licensing reproduction, just stopping people who have demonstrated that they are incapable of behaving responsibly. They are a danger to their current AND future children.

Here's an idea, instead of physically mutiliating a human being because society deems them unfit for parenthood, why not force abortions on them instead?

Where does this become class warefare. We aren't talking about stopping poor people from having kids, or people who don't believe what you do, we are talking about people who have SHOWN that they can't take care of kids. Its not about predicting. Its about reacting.

And you really think that the poor aren't going to be the ones targeted by your plan?

Again we aren't talking about PRO-active approaches we are talking about RE-acting to a demonstrated problem. I agree that trying to predict problems would be too far, I'm just saying that once it has happened you stop it from happening again.

No, you're talking about a proactive approach. Anytime you're talking about stealing someone's sterility, you're most definitely not reacting. Reacting is dealing with the aftermath of someone's sterility.

Every legal issue is based on morality. Not being able to steal. Thats a moral issue. Not being able to kill someone else. Moral issue. The idea that there is no morality involved in building a society is absurd.

Legal issues are not comparable to moral issues in our nation. They have overlap, for sure, but property and individual rights and limited government constuction that are based on English Common Law have nothing to do with any idea of morality that's not coincidental.

They are so full of themselves that they are never even willing to approach a problem with even an ounce of understanding. Both sides accuse each other of it. Both sides do it. And it makes me sick.

The idea that you would rob someone of their God-given ability and gift to bear children makes me sick!

I'm appaled as an American and as a Catholic at such an idea!

Someone suggests a moderate approach to a problem that leans slightly towards the order side and suddenly the left is screaming about an attack on freedom, and closes their ears to anything at all.

Dude, cutting people's sexual organs up to take away their ability to conceive and bear offspring is hardly what most people would consider a moderate approach, it's ****ing insane!

[Neserk]

Dude, cutting people's sexual organs up to take away their ability to conceive and bear offspring is hardly what most people would consider a moderate approach, it's ****ing insane!

Being a bit dramatic aren't we? One judge telling one couple that they can't have children is hardly a national policy. I think this conversation has gone on too long and has decended into stupidity from both sides...

[Voltron]

Homework time. A, you are not going to have any effect on the argument by claiming that a few unsuitable mothers having excess children would make ANY significant impact on starvation in the street. B, extinctions - other than those caused by meteor impact - have been mostly contemporaneous with the arrival of humans in each area, more to do with armed gangs of hunters going ape**** than shortage of food. Your argument is absurd at best.
A few unsuitable mothers is one case for sterialization.

My statement was for another case. One which will take place further in the future when we over populate our land.

[Voltron]

We aren't talking about licensing reproduction, just stopping people who have demonstrated that they are incapable of behaving responsibly. They are a danger to their current AND future children.
Your argument is scary enough without the slipperly slope.

Here's an idea, instead of physically mutiliating a human being because society deems them unfit for parenthood, why not force abortions on them instead?

Wait you mean instead of sterilizing people because its inhumane you recommend committing murder? Sterilization prevents the fetus being formed and is much more humane. Even if you don't consider it as murder it is better to not create a "problem" then to have to destroy the "problem".



Disclaimer: I personally don't have a hard set belief on early abortions being murder or not. I still don't know where the line is between human life and biological tissue waste product. I'm not the right person to make that kind of judgement. I stated the above the way I did tho because there are those that do and I'm willing to accept the possibility that it is murder.

[Voltron]

Again we aren't talking about PRO-active approaches we are talking about RE-acting to a demonstrated problem. I agree that trying to predict problems would be too far, I'm just saying that once it has happened you stop it from happening again.

Your argument is scary enough without the slipperly slope.
No, you're talking about a proactive approach. Anytime you're talking about stealing someone's sterility, you're most definitely not reacting. Reacting is dealing with the aftermath of someone's sterility.


This follows the same logic that you can't do anything to terrorists until they pick their target and attack and thus you are required to defend all possible targets. An argument used vs Israel's strategy of removing Hamas leadership members.

Its better to solve a problem before it becomes a problem. Your method would have babies hooked on cocaine being born. A situation that should be prevented before it happens if it is possible to do so. This woman is pregnant again. Sending her to jail is not going to save the baby for a future of torture. Sending her to jail is not going to save our tax payers from having to pay for the baby's life support and multitudes of medical bills resulting from its poor parantage. All sending her to jail will do is delay when the next baby will pop out of her. It will not stop it from happening again.

[Neserk]

. This woman is pregnant again. Sending her to jail is not going to save the baby for a future of torture. Sending her to jail is not going to save our tax payers from having to pay for the baby's life support and multitudes of medical bills resulting from its poor parantage. All sending her to jail will do is delay when the next baby will pop out of her. It will not stop it from happening again.

Here is what needs to happen: The mother is placed in a hospital setting where she has no access to drugs. She is given excellent prenatal care. The day the baby is born her parental rights are terminated and the baby is placed for adoption.

Then she has a choice. She can choose to go on a long term birth control (like depo-vera) where she is required to report to every 4 months (or is it 3?) for her shot *and* goes into rehab to get clean *or* she can go to jail. She has obviously broken the law by using an illegal drug. IF and when she becomes clean for a period of time after her pregnancy for 18 months than she no longer has to get the shot. But she must report regularly for drug testing. If she resumes taking drugs then she must use the birth control again.

You know a felon can't vote or own guns? Well, a person who continually uses drugs to the detriminate of her unborn child loses her constitutional rights, too.

Just to make things exciting: Cocaine also attaches itself to sperm. So a non drug using mother who's partner uses drugs can have a cocaine addicted baby.

[skunk]

Here is what needs to happen: The mother is placed in a hospital setting where she has no access to drugs. She is given excellent prenatal care. The day the baby is born her parental rights are terminated and the baby is placed for adoption.

Then she has a choice. She can choose to go on a long term birth control (like depo-vera) where she is required to report to every 4 months (or is it 3?) for her shot *and* goes into rehab to get clean *or* she can go to jail. She has obviously broken the law by using an illegal drug. IF and when she becomes clean for a period of time after her pregnancy for 18 months than she no longer has to get the shot. But she must report regularly for drug testing. If she resumes taking drugs then she must use the birth control again.
That sounds almost reasonable! :)

[Neserk]

That sounds almost reasonable! :)

almost? :p


It is what is most likely to happen...

Don't take this the wrong way... no judgement intended... but do you have a hangover this morning?

[skunk]

almost? :p


It is what is most likely to happen...

Don't take this the wrong way... no judgement intended... but do you have a hangover this morning?
I only drink champagne: no hangovers. Was it something I said? :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

Just to make things exciting: Cocaine also attaches itself to sperm. So a non drug using mother who's partner uses drugs can have a cocaine addicted baby.

So then what? We force women who sleep with cocaine users to be sterilised too?

I realise that this isolated case is just one judge expressing his powers in a way he probably doesn't have the authority to do, but I'm not (over)reacting to that.

What's so disturbing to me is that there are people who advocate taking it to the next level and applying it as policy nationwide.

[pseudobrit]

Just to make things exciting: Cocaine also attaches itself to sperm. So a non drug using mother who's partner uses drugs can have a cocaine addicted baby.

One more thing on this: GW Bush would have to have had his balls cut off if this were policy about 20 years ago.

That, or Laura would have to have been sterilised. Which brings up another point: women are the target of too many of these types of morality attacks.

[Neserk]

I only drink champagne: no hangovers. Was it something I said? :rolleyes:

You just seemed to be less inhibited, that's all ;)

[Neserk]

So then what? We force women who sleep with cocaine users to be sterilised too?


No, it was just an interesting bit of information that wasn't known until the early 90's.

[/quote]
I realise that this isolated case is just one judge expressing his powers in a way he probably doesn't have the authority to do, but I'm not (over)reacting to that.
[/quote]

You jumped from a judge telling a couple not to have more cocaine addicted children to "cutting up reproductive parts."


What's so disturbing to me is that there are people who advocate taking it to the next level and applying it as policy nationwide.

There should be a national standard when it comes to what is prescriptive for people who have drug addicted babies in order to (a) prevent it, and (b) deal with a woman who is pregnant and is a drug user.

[Neserk]

One more thing on this: GW Bush would have to have had his balls cut off if this were policy about 20 years ago.



hmmm... ;) But they don't remove the testicals. Simply snip the van deferens...


That, or Laura would have to have been sterilised. Which brings up another point: women are the target of too many of these types of morality attacks.

It isn't a morality attack. If you'd seen the aftermath you might feel a little differently about people producing children who are addicted to cocaine...

Honestly, when I read the topic before I ever clicked on it I expected the "liberals" to be in favor of her not having more children and the "conservatives" to be against it... go figure...

[pseudobrit]

You jumped from a judge telling a couple not to have more cocaine addicted children to "cutting up reproductive parts."

I didn't; others who advocated forced sterilisation did.

[pseudobrit]

It isn't a morality attack. If you'd seen the aftermath you might feel a little differently about people producing children who are addicted to cocaine...

Honestly, when I read the topic before I ever clicked on it I expected the "liberals" to be in favor of her not having more children and the "conservatives" to be against it... go figure...

I'm not in favor of her having more children damaged by drug abuse. I'm also not in favor the government deciding that she cannot have children for the rest of her life; it's a genetic death sentence.

[Voltron]

So then what? We force women who sleep with cocaine users to be sterilised too?

I realise that this isolated case is just one judge expressing his powers in a way he probably doesn't have the authority to do, but I'm not (over)reacting to that.

What's so disturbing to me is that there are people who advocate taking it to the next level and applying it as policy nationwide.
No actually while she's stupid he would be the more guilty person in that coupling. And you don't sterilize someone unless it gets habitual or out of control. Not saying you sterilize all drug users. How about starting with that one woman who already now has what 5 drugged kids and another on the way?

[Voltron]

I'm not in favor of her having more children damaged by drug abuse. I'm also not in favor the government deciding that she cannot have children for the rest of her life; it's a genetic death sentence.
Nobody said it had to be for the rest of her life. It is in most cases undoable. Although I liked Neserks idea better than mine. Instead of using surgical sterilization use drugged sterilization. In fact add someone else's idea into it and used that thing that goes in her arm making her sterile for 5 years. Then she wouldn't have to pay to get her womb back.

If it doesn't work then we can move on to talking about surgical sterilization again.

[Krizoitz]

Here is what needs to happen: The mother is placed in a hospital setting where she has no access to drugs. She is given excellent prenatal care. The day the baby is born her parental rights are terminated and the baby is placed for adoption.

Then she has a choice. She can choose to go on a long term birth control (like depo-vera) where she is required to report to every 4 months (or is it 3?) for her shot *and* goes into rehab to get clean *or* she can go to jail. She has obviously broken the law by using an illegal drug. IF and when she becomes clean for a period of time after her pregnancy for 18 months than she no longer has to get the shot. But she must report regularly for drug testing. If she resumes taking drugs then she must use the birth control again.

You know a felon can't vote or own guns? Well, a person who continually uses drugs to the detriminate of her unborn child loses her constitutional rights, too.

Just to make things exciting: Cocaine also attaches itself to sperm. So a non drug using mother who's partner uses drugs can have a cocaine addicted baby.

You know Neserk, I owe you an apology. You are more reasonable than I gave you credit for. This is exactly what I have been trying to argue, but in a much more clear way. Two thumbs up.

[skunk]

You just seemed to be less inhibited, that's all ;)Me? Inhibited? I don't know what you mean! :p

[skunk]

You know Neserk, I owe you an apology. You are more reasonable than I gave you credit for. This is exactly what I have been trying to argue, but in a much more clear way. Two thumbs up.
Does that mean you're NOT a left-wing liberal then?? :eek:

[Neserk]

I'm also not in favor the government deciding that she cannot have children for the rest of her life; it's a genetic death sentence.


That wasn't part of the judge's decision, as I understand it... they weren't instructed to be permanently sterlized, they were not told not to have more children until they could take care of the ones they have already.

[Neserk]

Me? Inhibited? I don't know what you mean! :p

Just *less* inhibited... I wondered if maybe you were a bit tipsy last night...

[Neserk]

Does that mean you're NOT a left-wing liberal then?? :eek:


ME? Of course I am. And proud of it!

[skunk]

Just *less* inhibited... I wondered if maybe you were a bit tipsy last night...
Can't remember a thing! :D

[Krizoitz]

Does that mean you're NOT a left-wing liberal then?? :eek:

Nope I'm a moderate.

[skunk]

Nope I'm a moderate.
Moderate what?

[pseudobrit]

That wasn't part of the judge's decision, as I understand it... they weren't instructed to be permanently sterlized, they were not told not to have more children until they could take care of the ones they have already.

I know. I'm responding to people who have said that such people should be sterilised.

[Krizoitz]

Moderate what?

As in not liberal and not conservative.

[skunk]

As in not liberal and not conservative.
Your rather immoderate comments about "left-wing liberals" had me confused there for a minute. Anyway, everyone thinks they are moderate just like everyone thinks they are an above average driver.... ;)

[Neserk]

I know. I'm responding to people who have said that such people should be sterilised.

I don't recall reading that anywhere...

[Sayhey]

I don't recall reading that anywhere...

It is in Sly's post on the first page (if you have him on your ignore list like I do, look at numedia's quote of his post) and implicit in Krizoitz response to my direct question in post #33.

[Neserk]

It is in Sly's post on the first page (if you have him on your ignore list like I do, look at numedia's quote of his post) and implicit in Krizoitz response to my direct question in post #33.

Sly/Voltron are not on my ignore list. I have saved that feature for other special feature who likely know who they are but shall remain nameless here.

Sly's first post:

Its horifying to see people who can't support their own kids continually making more kids for us to have to support. We as a country don't have a bottomless wallet.

He does later say that it is better to be sterlized than to have children starving on the street. But I think that people went overboard and didn't quite understand the point he was trying to make. Yes, he is exaggerating to make a point but he is exaggerating on both ends.

And the sad matter of the truth is that if people don't take responsibility to not have so many kids the gov.'t will have to step in refuse to let people have children, eventually.

[Sayhey]

Sly/Voltron are not on my ignore list. I have saved that feature for other special feature who likely know who they are but shall remain nameless here.

Sly's first post:



He does later say that it is better to be sterilized than to have children starving on the street. But I think that people went overboard and didn't quite understand the point he was trying to make. Yes, he is exaggerating to make a point but he is exaggerating on both ends.

And the sad matter of the truth is that if people don't take responsibility to not have so many kids the gov.'t will have to step in refuse to let people have children, eventually.

If Sly wanted to make it clear he was not calling for sterilization he has had ample opportunity to do so. The same could be said for Krizoitz. I asked a direct question about his view on the subject and most of his response was a rant against liberals who dared bring up the idea that forced sterilization was something to be fought. And by the way that of course means we lefties are all for having drug addicted children.

One other thing, Sly/Voltron is the same character who advocated killing all Palestinians, so his support of forced sterilization is hardly surprising. It is difficult to tell if anything he says is just an outrageous exaggeration or more of the same unbelievable politics. I gave up on arguing with such a person, but you're welcome to it.

[Voltron]

If Sly wanted to make it clear he was not calling for sterilization he has had ample opportunity to do so. The same could be said for Krizoitz. I asked a direct question about his view on the subject and most of his response was a rant against liberals who dared bring up the idea that forced sterilization was something to be fought. And by the way that of course means we lefties are all for having drug addicted children.

One other thing, Sly/Voltron is the same character who advocated killing all Palestinians, so his support of forced sterilization is hardly surprising. It is difficult to tell if anything he says is just an outrageous exaggeration or more of the same unbelievable politics. I gave up on arguing with such a person, but you're welcome to it.
FYI I never wanted to kill all Palestinians. Hamas has stated that there shall be no peace as long as a single Jew is left alive. My response is to insure there is no Hamas member left alive. The ones that aren't smart enough to quit should be executed or jailed.

I did think that one women should be forced sterilized thru surgical means. However I think Neserk came up with a better idea. Sterilization thru drugs. Altho I prefer the IUD which lasts 5 years to the pill which only lasts 4 months that Neserk mentioned. Gives the irresponsible person or persons 5 years to straighten out.

If that doesn't work and solve the overall problem then I'll revert to wanting surgical sterilization of those who are proven to be dangerous to be allowed to have kids.

Also on a side note nothing to do with here and now or with this specific case I also do believe in the far future sterilization methods will have to be made on the regular populace in order to control over population. Course by that time they will probably have better methods than they do now. In the future it would be a smart idea for liscences before being allowed to give birth. But we are not at that point now and who knows maybe we'll colonize Mars between now and then and it'll be unnecessary.