Judge orders couple not to have children

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by numediaman, May 8, 2004.

  1. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #1
    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.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    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?")
     
  3. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #3
    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.
     
  4. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #4
    Better yet "grandstanding."

    Money says he's planning a run for higher office and wants his name in the paper.
     
  5. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #5
    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.
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #7
    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
     
  8. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #9

    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.
     
  10. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    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.
     
  11. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #12
    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

    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.
     
  13. numediaman thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #14
    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.
     
  15. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #17
    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.

    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 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.
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #19
    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.
     
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    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.

    By all means, let's. But to do so at the expense of practicality is unwise.
     
  21. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #21
    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?
     
  22. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #22
    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.



    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.
     
  23. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #23
    That is my fault. I brought up "religions who don't want you to use birth control"

    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.

    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.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    With that combination, you could so easily end up with the wrong person! Sensible experimentation is cool. :rolleyes:
     
  25. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page