Date: 5/9/2004 8:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 10030
It is unconstitutional. HOWEVER, the parents are not being forced to listen to the ruling...and I'm not quite sure what I believe! Wow-- I want to say I agree with the court, but a ruling like that goes againts the right to privacy. At the same time, these are unfit parents. It's a very iffy issue, and I'd like to know what happens.  |
Date: 5/9/2004 9:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 49763
No because that would turn the US into China. If I wanted to live in China I would move there. Nothing Against China. ~~  |
Date: 5/9/2004 10:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 62682
Well, I am not sure if I agree with this or not...However I do think that if you are unable to care for the children you have properly than you shouldnt have any more children untill you can care for them...on this Case, I think I do agree with the court..after all, the public (being us) has to pay for it with taxes and other fees for those who cant take care of their own children...
~~~Humming Bird  |
Date: 5/9/2004 11:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 42945
I think it has to be a fairly desperate way to get these so called parents to get their act together....the poor little kids, if I had anything to do with it, I demand them to be sterilized so they couldnt produce any more, the drug addicts who live near me just had twin baby girls taken from them, well actually they had them taken from the mother in hospital...she already has another little girl about 5 who is being raised by the father's (a different one)mother...so in all fairness to the children who are being born into this type of situation, I agree with the judge...I wish they could do that over here in Australia, they wonder why there are so many screwed up kids in the world today...with parents like that, why wouldnt they be!!! good post Dizzy  |
Date: 5/9/2004 11:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 12133
I agree to a point. On one hand, if we let this stand, it is the start of giving away people's right to have children as they see fit. On the other hand, if these people are this sorry, they shouldn't breed anyway.  |
Date: 5/10/2004 5:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 60685
I agree with the judge, why should the general public pay for these people's poor choices, it's not like they're bringing up their children in a happy and healthy environment. It's sad how the goverment doesn't have much control on these sort of cases and before people start misinterpreting what I'm saying, I don't think this should become China, I do however think they should be taking measures such as the judge's against dead beat parents and have more control on who really deserves wellfare and such benefits and who doesn't. I believe in giving people a chance, say have wellfare for a year which in my opinion is more than enough to get a job, it's sad to see parents having one child after another just to get more checks and that those kids in return are learning such bad habits from their parents,I dunno, but that doesn't seem fair to the kids or anyone. Best case scenario is the kids being annoyed by having so many sibblings that they will in return have smaller families when they grow up, I've seen it in my own family, and the kids aren't exactly annoyed by their brothers and sisters but more by the fact that the mother expects to have her older daughters miss school and stay home taking care of the bunch while she goes and gets her nails and hair done and fyi, she has 10 kids! Now isn't that abusing the rights given by the constitution???  |
Date: 5/10/2004 5:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
Well I believe it is against the constitution... like a lot of things that go on is against it too. When someone threatens the life of another, like their own children, then we have the right to separate the child from the threat. But we cannot order someone to be sterilized (although this has been done, and especially to native American women under anaesthesia). It is virtually impossible to force someone to use contraceptives either. To have children when you have a proven record of abuse is ignorant and morally wrong. To force a woman to stop having children is constitutionally wrong. I am not considering the emotional right and wrong about it. The question is whether it is constitutionally wrong and I have to say it is in my opinion. There are plenty people willing to adopt children, and I don't think adopting someone's else's children, even against their will, is againt the constitution when to do so would be protecting the child.  |
Date: 5/10/2004 6:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 62675
I agree with the judge. Especially since an abortion will not be forced nor will sterilization. For parents like this you need to draw the line or they will keep breeding and think about those poor kids. There are plenty of other families in my area too that need this done to them. If you support your self and are decent parents have all the kids you want but when you live off of tax payers dollars and are dead beat parents you should be banned from having more. -Sunni818  |
Date: 5/10/2004 9:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 62682
Very Well said Zemma! I completly agree with you!
~~~Humming Bird |
Date: 5/10/2004 9:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 25390
In some ways, I think it is a bit unconstitutional. However, I am sick of paying the state to take care of these people when they do nothing to improve themselves or their situation. I will admit that we were on welfare for a while after Hunter was born in order to get some help until our situation improved. And now that our situation has improved, we gave welfare the boot. I am so sick of people, however, that keep popping out children in order to stay on the government's (and the people's) dime. That's really another debate, but I think that in extreme situations such as this one, the court may be right. When people keep having kids that they can't keep, that does become a governmental burden (welfare, foster care, adoption, etc).  |
Date: 5/10/2004 10:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 13729
I agree with the judge.....If you cant take care of the ones you have,......The kids tested positive for cocaine?....At birth or what, sorry,....*I visit*........  |
Date: 5/10/2004 10:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
While I agree with the judge's philosophy, you cannot take away someones constitutional rights just because you don't agree with how they are used. You cannot lock a person up for the natural function of their body. It would be the same as saying "You have had two children with Downs Syndrome who require state funded medical care, you cannot have any more children because your retarded kids are costing us money." or "Sir, you are on medicade, and you refuse to eat healthy. You have had two heart attacks and you are costing the system money. If you do not eat healthy and exercise we will lock you up and force you to." The philosophy is fine, but you cannot circumvent peoples natural rights to reproduce legally. If we create that sort of standard in our courts it will lead to the kinds of things I mentioned.  |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 10:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
Are there things I would like to have people locked up for? Sure, but can we do that? No, we have to be aware of the implications when a judge makes a ruling like this. |
Date: 5/10/2004 11:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 19460
hmmmm... first off i think people who choose to do drugs and then have a child or children who are born addicted should be jailed. That isnt even right. Secondly, yeah, someone should tell these parents to quit having drug addicted babies that the tax payers have to support, because the parents dont have enough sense to do what is right. It just sickens me how people can just pop out kid after kid and not have enough decency to take care of them. I think the judge has a good idea.  |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
A good idea does not make it a legal idea. I think it would be a good idea to put one of those electronic anklets on KKK members and make them live in purely black neighborhoods for five years, but it doesn't mean we can do that. |
Date: 5/10/2004 11:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 53052
i dont see why people would want to have children if they physically cannot take care of them... because they are not taking the child into consideration  |
Date: 5/10/2004 11:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 62624
since you are asking for someone's OPINION, I'll give you mine. Parents that knowingly take drugs...mothers that knowingly do drugs during pregnancy should not be allowed to have children. If you want to do drugs, don't have kids. The children are the ones that suffer the most. Why bring a child in the world that you cannot take care of especially since you've proven that you can't take care of yourself? I think that it is selfishness on the adult's part. The country has enough "throw away children". Someone needs to stand up and say, "STOP! ENOUGH!" You want to pollute your own body, go ahead. Don't put innocent children at risk.  |
Date: 5/10/2004 11:38:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
If someone continues to bring children into this world in a way that is harmful to those children, I am all for them being not being allowed to have them. I don't CARE about their constitutional rights. Not everyone in this world is meant to be a parent.  |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
Kimberly, you are talking about being responsible and rational. Cocain users are notoriously irresponsible and irrational. Also, people seem to be talking about the kids being born with a drug addiction a lot, but that is never mentioned in the report. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
Dizzy, you know as well as I do the constitution was not written for just some people, but encompases our whole population. If we start violating those rights, you may as well use the constitution as toilet paper. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:42:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Maybe the kids were born drug addicted, maybe the parents were feeding them cocaine-- OR maybe they just found it in the home and ate it-- either way, that's not exactly good for the children. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:43:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
The constitution is apparently meaningless these days anyways-- I mean if the president thinks he can change it at will because he wants it to coincide with his moral issues, why can't I feel that it shouldn't apply to all the idiots in the world who are mistreating their children? |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
Because the president is being an idiot. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 62624
correct, when you read about these things in the newspaper or whatever, you don't read about children being tested positive for drugs...rarely. But it does happen. Have you ever seen a drug baby? It is very sad. They cry ALL the time. You can't even touch them. They immediately start SCREAMING. You can't hold them. Essentially, they are in withdraw. An adult can go out and get more drugs, these babies have to basically "quit cold turkey". I've dealt with drug users (one person I knew had 9 children that her mother cared for and she was younger than me!) hookers that don't care for their children because they work the streets to get their drugs. Babies that are abandoned at hospitals because their parents don't want to take care of them. It is very sad. These people...even though they have the right...should not be allowed to have children. But then again, this is America and I'm just voicing my opinion. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 13974
I didn't say it can't happen. What I said was why is everyone saying it, it was not reported. Sure it is a possibility, but everyone seems to be acting as if it were a given. I see a lot of that in debates on here. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:48:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
phydeux-- true. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 11:50:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
I am not sure I get what you mean-- the children DID test postive for cocaine. |
|
Date: 5/10/2004 12:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 13974
Yes they did, but it said nothing of them being born with an addiction as a couple of people pointed out. |
Date: 5/11/2004 11:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 48809
I totally agree with the Judge in this case and if these poor little neglected children were found to have been given cocaine etc. then I think these kids should be adopted into good families and the parents both sterilized. That stops any addiction to these children right on the spot .... and assures that the parents will produce no more children to mistreat and neglect! I say that people who will bring innocent children into a household like this to be treated so pitifully ... have forfeited any rights they may have ever had!  |
Date: 5/11/2004 12:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
It's wrong.  |
Date: 5/13/2004 12:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Having children is not a constitutional right; it is a privilege that must be balanced with a level of responsibility. If parents cannot be responsible, they should not be allowed to be parents. We do not hesitate to take away the driver's license from someone that cannot drive safely, or the medical or law licenses from those that are not acting with maturity equal to the privileges. Parenting is much more important than any of these examples. The judge made the right decision. Why would someone think this ruling is unconstitutional?  |
