http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...-regional-wire

Thoughts? Comments?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision

__________________

I think a lot of people will approve of what the judge did, but I am not too sure that it is Constitutional or even practical.

Having a child, even when that child will end up in the "system" is simply not a crime so imposing punishment is inappropriate.

Like it or not, irresponsible people exist. I am sure we would all like to see this woman stopped from having more children but I don't think we can legally do so.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

I think it's completely un-Constitutional, and I agree completely with the Judge's decision. It's the type of problem we run into when we start creating rights out of thin air and place the burden of everyone's support on the shoulders of the state. We are stuck - we can't make this woman stop having children, and every child she has puts us, as a society, deeper in debt.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Legally it may be wrong, but I still agree with the Judge and all of you.

You have to have certificates and licences for driving and whatnot, but any asshole can have children and abandon the baby once it's born, or raise the child in a way that one day we'll have a twisted person with a fucked up childhood and a fucked up mind. Or the child may even have a nice childhood but the values his parents have spoonfed him have messed him up so bad that he in turn will continue to spread them to his own children and so the story goes on...

Sorry for the rant, but it often makes me angry to think how many parents have messed up their child's life. If you can't do your job as a loving parent you shouldn't have kids.

__________________

UNconstitutional, yes. Right thing to do, yes. Likely to succeed, No. Unfortunately.

But then again in the Organ donor thread someone laid into me about the self determination of ones person and body... This is a prime example when one should be forced to give up this right.

__________________
_____________________________________________

I'm not really sure, what's so unconstitutional about it. It's not uncommon when the state takes a child away from a dysfunctional family, thus rendering the parents' rights for this child to be null and void. So, how's the judge's order different?

__________________

I think you mean me. If so, I apologize if it seemed like I "laid into" you. That wasn't my intention.

The crack-smoking baby machine isn't doing anything wrong that requires the intrusiveness of the state. We set up the rules, she's just playing by them. We said, if you can't care for your children we'll care for them, no matter how many you have.

Now, I wouldn't have a problem with arresting this woman and putting her in jail for child endangerment, neglect, and/or abuse. That's what should have been done first. But I'm sure she's got a lawyer who successfully argued that she has a "disease" and needs treatment rather than incarceration. And the state said, "Oh! Well, you have a disease, it's not your fault. You need treatment. We'll pay for that." The problem is, rarely are fictitious diseases cured through real (and real expensive) treatment.

So, here she is. Getting drugged out and knocked up and we keep coming to her rescue. But that's not her fault. We set it up and now we have to live with the consequences.

We'll start paying for everyone's health care and they'll get fatter and smoke more and take more drugs and some day, years from now, you'll read an article about a judge forbidding a man from eating any more cheeseburgers, or a woman who has to stop smoking because both have chronic health problems that are costing the state too much money. The case will go to the SCOTUS and the court will rule that the state has a legitimate interest in forbidding dangerous activities because it has bought that right. Then you will not own your body, it will belong to the state. Just like a slave.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

The children have been taken away, that's not the issue. The issue is that the judge ordered the woman to have no more children. The judge is telling the woman that she does not have the right to procreate.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

And this right is embodied in the constitution?

__________________