PDA

View Full Version : Judge Orders Couple Not to Conceive



Linus1223
05-08-2004, 04:33 PM
From AOL News:



ROCHESTER, N.Y. (May 8) - 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.''

Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.

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 was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

A case worker testified that the parents ignored an order to get mental health treatment and attend parenting classes after the 1-year-old was born.

The mother was still in the hospital after giving birth to her fourth child in March 2003 when authorities took the infant, according to court papers. Investigators said the mother was unprepared to care for the infant.

Attempts to reach the youngest child's guardian were unsuccessful. Information on the other children's guardians was not immediately available.

Attorney Chris Affronti, who chairs the family law section of the Monroe County Bar Association, said he's not sure how the ruling could be enforced.

''I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society,'' he said.

zitra
05-08-2004, 04:35 PM
I agree with this. If you can't take acre of the ones you have enough, that they have to be put into foster care, you should not be allowed to have any more period.

freeby4me
05-08-2004, 06:17 PM
Woooooo Hooooo!!! Bout time and thats all im saying :D :D :D :D

kimp67
05-08-2004, 06:20 PM
WOW!!!! I know a lot of ppl that this SHOULD happen to!!!!

JENNIFERCATLADY
05-08-2004, 07:21 PM
It's about time someone finally got smart and made a ruling like this. I, for one, am sick to death of paying for this. Don't even get me started on this subject. Before anyone decides to flame me, let me be the first to point out...I do not have kids, I can not have kids, nor do I want any. But I'm sick of working 50+ hours a week and having 1/3 of my paycheck going for chit like this.

It's just MY opinion, but the judge should have taken it a step further. The judge should have made the so called "parents" be steralized. But again, that's just MY opinion.

justinenycole26
05-08-2004, 08:59 PM
From AOL News:



ROCHESTER, N.Y. (May 8)
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.''


AMEN! Bout freakin time! I hope to see more and more cases like this. The BABIES tested positive for cocaine for God's sake. You think they should be given a 5th chance????

VALENA-)45
05-08-2004, 09:15 PM
Ita~ With What The Judge, Has Ruled, Now If Only This Ruling Can Be Upheld, And Used In Alot Of Cases. There Should Be A Petition, That Could Be Signed To Make This Ruling Into A Bill, And Then Into A Law. So, That Other Judges Can Use This As A Ruling. There Are A Lot Of People That Should Be Told The Same Thing. A Judge Cannot Inforce Stearilization, But Imagine What It Would Be Like If They Could.

Mystic32
05-08-2004, 09:20 PM
ITA...I saw this earlier online & was like woo-hoo. Too bad it couldn`t become a law. These people are definitely unfit to care for kids.

DAVESBABYDOLL
05-09-2004, 06:29 AM
JMO, but it seems to me like they have all the evidence they need right there. They both seem to be unfit parents. It isn't the fact that society has to bear the cost of taking care of these kids that bothers me. It's the fact that the children are being neglected, and people do nothing but complain when Children's services representatives step in............. :mad:

It's too bad that they probably won't be able to enforce that ruling.
The sad thing is, that some Civil rights activist will stick their nose in this case, and the Judge will end up looking like the bad guy.... and will probably end up getting removed from the bench.

I'm getting out of this thread before I leave more fuel for someone to flame me with. :D


I Agree with you Tina.

schsa
05-09-2004, 06:37 AM
It can;t be inforced so if they have another child, they go to jail for contempt and then that child will be part of the foster care system. I wish you had to take classes before you were allowed to have your first child, the same way that many churches provide marriage counselling before people get married. People might feel differently about having children if they really understood what was involved and if birth control was easy to get and cheap to buy. I know that condoms are readily available but there are so many other options that are available that don't involve taking a pill every day or finding a condom every time you want to have sex. After all, some people will never be responsible with their partners but if you could provide birth control that lasted a few years rather than a day, you would have better control of reproduction.

MamaFairal
05-09-2004, 06:44 AM
OK i know someone i could nominate for this.......lol

I have this ex SIL that has already had 5 kids and she's 26(started at 16) and she informed me the other day she is pregnant AGAIN!
She has 3 boys and 2 girls(ages 5 &1) now and only has custody of her girls...the boys she gave to either the dads or relatives cuz "she doesnt wanna raise boys" thats what she says!Well i guess this one is a boy also and she doesnt know what she'll do?
They(the father of this and the last one)move from place to place..last time i stopped by when they had a place the kids had no beds but Louis(the b/f) sure nuff had a big screen TV and stereo.Neither one works and they end up losing the place after 4 mos tops everytime......everytime!Since i have been in KC they have lived in 9 dif places. I never know where they are to visit.
I feel for the kids if nothing else.they didnt ask to be born and brought into a life like that.
Mary & Louis smarten up huh..wrap that sucker!

AngelGrim
05-09-2004, 06:56 AM
I agree that they shouldn't be able to have more kids when they are doing what they are doing and the kids are suffering, but I get chills thinking that we can be told if and when we can have kids. That to me doesn't seem right. Why don't they jail them for child abuse instead of letting them walk the streets and then that way they pay for what they do and can't get get pregnant either. Sorry jmo but I think that it's creepy.

llbriteyes
05-09-2004, 07:11 AM
While I applaud the judge for his stance, what he did was unconstitutional. Its sets a bad presidence. It opens the door for this to happen more. It opens the door for abuses. It opens the door for it to happen to anyone. NOBODY has the right to tell you as a person that you cannot have children. Yes. It definitely WAS wrong for these parents to behave has they have and put their kids in jeopardy. There were other ways the judge could have handled it.

Linda

fatesfaery
05-09-2004, 07:27 AM
This is something I usually wouldn't talk about (not thrilled this person married into my family), but I have a SIL who has 3 daughters, all three were molested by a man SIL was living with (and possibly also by her brother).From what I understand, SIL was hot and heavy into drugs at the time. SIL was supposedly at work when the abuse took place, but she was charged along with the boyfriend(this took place in SC). She lost all three of her daughters, custody of the oldest and youngest was given to her brother and SIL, the middle daughter was placed in a group home, where she stayed until she was 21. SIL was court ordered to have a hysterectomy to prevent her from having other children( she did have the surgery). I consider this person to be redneck white trash, so my opinion is biased, but I think she got off a lot easier than she deserved. There are people who will never be fit parents, and I think the court system should step in and prevent people like this from breeding!
Two of SIL's daughters now have children of their own, and SIL is hurt that they consider the aunt and uncle who raised them(the daughters) to be grandparents and not SIL............my brother can sure pick them!

ahippiechic
05-09-2004, 08:02 AM
I agree with what the judge did, but think it IS unconstitutional.
He could have sent them both to jail, and that would have punished them for the child abuse plus they wouldn't have been able to have any more children.

I think all the classes and things they have for people like this are great, but in a case where they wouldn't even make an effort at learning how to take care of themselves and their children, they should have been put in jail before they ended up with 3 more. I think abusers are just given too many chances and end up really hurting or killing a child, instead of being sent to jail the 1 st time!

freeby4me
05-09-2004, 08:18 AM
With all the people in the world that are not able to have a child but have the love and intellegence and money, Is it fair to them that people like this can have child after child after child? I think not. Perhaps it is time we re-evaluate this "Constitutional" right to have children. I was watching Cops one time and this street "worker" woman had 9 children!! YES 9!!! That was unbelievable. Her 16 year old was home with all the rest of the children including the youngest which was 2 months old. Now tell me why we have "Constitutional" rights for a person like that? She needs to have her legs sown together :eek:

ahippiechic
05-09-2004, 08:28 AM
I'm not taking up for the abuser, ok? But I was thinking about, that if it's ok for the judge to do this, this time, what if next time, he decides that 2 working patents don't have time to take care of more than 2 children? Can he tell all those parents they can't have a 3rd child or they will go go to jail? What if CPS THINKS you are not taking care of your children, they way THEY see fit? Can they force you not have anymore?
Like I said, I don't blame the judge one bit for his decision, but just worried about how things will progress if this ruling sticks.

I still think he should've just thrown them in jail and that would have solved the problem. After all, they can't have more children, but they ones they already have have been, at the very least, neglected and are being cared for by someone else. They can still get out & party, drink, whatever. I don't think that's very much punishment for neglecting to care for their children.

freeby4me
05-09-2004, 08:31 AM
I wasnt in any way trying to jump you or anything! I completely understood what you meant and Yes I agree they should be just thrown in jail but for how long? He can have kids until he's well very old. Im just saying it might be time to re-evaluate the whole system. People like that should not be reproducing LOL!

ahippiechic
05-09-2004, 08:41 AM
I knew you weren't jumping on me! :) I just didn't want it to sound like I was taking up for the couple or anything. Just trying to clarify my thinking a little bit.

And you are right, I think the whole system needs a re-evaluatation!

llbriteyes
05-09-2004, 09:48 AM
With all the people in the world that are not able to have a child but have the love and intellegence and money, Is it fair to them that people like this can have child after child after child? I think not. Perhaps it is time we re-evaluate this "Constitutional" right to have children. I was watching Cops one time and this street "worker" woman had 9 children!! YES 9!!! That was unbelievable. Her 16 year old was home with all the rest of the children including the youngest which was 2 months old. Now tell me why we have "Constitutional" rights for a person like that? She needs to have her legs sown together :eek:

But it isn't unconstitutional "just for some." If it is allowed to happen, it can happen to YOU too. Right or wrong, it can happen. When the laws of this land were made, they were made to apply to EVERYONE. If we take away our constitutional rights for some, we take them away for everyone. Then the United States becomes communistic and we have a dictatorship. We can't have it both ways.

It reminds me of the FCC these days. I call it the "Federal Communist Commision."

Linda

Linus1223
05-09-2004, 11:05 AM
Well since I'm the one who posted it, I thought I would give my two cents. If the ruling is enforced, I do believe that it is unconstitutional. However, I think that offering no-cost sterlization to people unfit to be parents is a very interesting concept -and if it is approcahed like that - not necessarily unconstitutional.

ahippiechic
05-09-2004, 11:18 AM
However, I think that offering no-cost sterlization to people unfit to be parents is a very interesting concept -and if it is approcahed like that - not necessarily unconstitutional.

I agree. I also think the punishment should be greater for these people. They have kids, get them taken away, & go right back to doing whatever they want, and end up having more kids. Maybe a harder punishment would make them think twice about having children they have no intention of caring for.

AngelGrim
05-09-2004, 12:22 PM
But it isn't unconstitutional "just for some." If it is allowed to happen, it can happen to YOU too. Right or wrong, it can happen. When the laws of this land were made, they were made to apply to EVERYONE. If we take away our constitutional rights for some, we take them away for everyone. Then the United States becomes communistic and we have a dictatorship. We can't have it both ways.

It reminds me of the FCC these days. I call it the "Federal Communist Commision."

Linda

I totally agree and you put into words just how I felt. It is just a doorway to what could happen!!!!!!!!!!!!

mustanggir
05-09-2004, 01:54 PM
libriteyes said : When the laws of this land were made, they were made to apply to EVERYONE.






i understand that but those laws were written in 1789(so my son says i am not sure about that ) and we now write the year 2004 last time i checked.
that constitution needs some updating.

suziebee20
05-09-2004, 02:44 PM
My two cents: I agree these people were horrible parents and should not have anymore children. I think it is a wonderful idea to offer free steralization to people unfit to be parents. However, I do find it kind of scary if the courts would be able to order someone not to have children. While I agree that these people deffinetly should not be able to have more children, with every person who is unfit to be a parent, there is someone who would make a wonderful one, and what if these people are no longer allowed to conceive because they got screwed over by the system like many do all to often. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I'm just afraid that if the courts can tell people they can't have babys, one day will they be able to tell prefectly wonderful people that three kids is enough and they can't have another because their house is too small, or tell a young woman she can't keep her baby since she is 17 and doesn't have a job even though she was perfectly willing to go get one. I dunno, I just don't think that the ruling was right.

JENNIFERCATLADY
05-09-2004, 04:01 PM
Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that you are allowed to pop out as many kids as you want and not have to take care of them? I would be very interested in reading that part of the Constitution.

DivineMsDi
05-09-2004, 04:28 PM
I feel sorry for the kids in these situations. If you have a screwed up life, try to think about limiting your family size. Bringing more lives into a bad situation will not help anyone.

It never ceased to amaze me in 2004 we have these people living on generational welfare, families with numerous problems with the courts, and so on who keep breeding up large families. Then they have their kids taken away and HAVE more.?? (birth control is cheap... or go get sterilized!)

My friend is a foster mom of 2 kids, so I hear a lot about this. Her oldest foster kid has a mom I'll call "Ginger." Ginger lost the kid over neglect. She has a history of problems with the law. She had another baby (miscarried) with some other guy (an abuser). She has various orders of protection against her from the father of her current baby. She is in and out of jail. It is just screwed up! She's young and probably will continue this pattern.

Should the courts mandate sterilization? I think if you are having a child yearly and shown yourself to be repeatedly unfit then at some point you lose your constitutional rights to keep having kids.

It's not fair for them to be farmed out to foster homes or for the rest of us to pay for it.

JENNIFERCATLADY
05-09-2004, 06:23 PM
Should the courts mandate sterilization? I think if you are having a child yearly and shown yourself to be repeatedly unfit then at some point you lose your constitutional rights to keep having kids.

It's not fair for them to be farmed out to foster homes or for the rest of us to pay for it.


I repeat, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that it's a RIGHT to have kids?!?!?!

YankeeMary
05-09-2004, 08:29 PM
Mama...tell them someone in Georgia would be happy to adopt that little boy...I am very serious if they are willing to put it up for adoption let me know.

Wanted to add...that if these people are put in jail then we will be supporting 2 adults as well as their offsprings...I am not really sure of the answer here...I think the judges heart is in the right place but this will haunt him forever.

I tell my boys (not that they listen to me...lol..) that they aren't allowed to marry until they are graduated from college with a job that brings home at least 6 figures, and their college is paid off and they own their own car and house (also paid off) and at least $50,000.00 in the bank, then and only then are they allowed to consider marriage..they are also taught no sex before marriage (at least I am teaching them that...lol)...so hopefully no babies before they can afford it....

I wish I knew the answer but I don't but I know the cause....people just do not realize how lucky they are to have children.

justme23
05-10-2004, 12:46 AM
I haven't read all the replies... so maybe this has already been said... anyways...

I was a child of an abusive home and I am all for rulings like this in cases like this... but I truely fear that this is going to become OVER used... and especially on parents who are genuinely good but some busy body has made life hell for... I think, even tho that's the only cases we really hear about, that this is still rare... my only hope is that this is reserved for severe cases like this one (and good for the judge, btw... I'm in no way saying what he did was wrong!) and a bunch of high and mighty judges don't start using it just because they don't like alot of the ppl that come into their court rooms.

llbriteyes
05-10-2004, 09:09 AM
libriteyes said : When the laws of this land were made, they were made to apply to EVERYONE.


i understand that but those laws were written in 1789(so my son says i am not sure about that ) and we now write the year 2004 last time i checked.
that constitution needs some updating.

And who will update them? Lawmakers. And you will abide by what THEY think is right. You will FOLLOW someone else's view. Even if it takes liberties away from you. Right or wrong, what they says goes. And what if they take the right to protest away from you? Are you willing to live in a communist state? What laws will they they change? The ones you think need changed, or what THEY think need changed?

Example of a communist state here in the United States: Some states have the right to medicinal marihuana. People grow their own, or go to the pharmacy to get it. Its legal according to that state. The Federal Government goes in and over-rules the state. They arrest people for smoking medicinal marihuana. Legitimately smoking it. People sick with cancer using it to take away some of their symptoms. They arrest them and take away their cars, their homes. Does that not sound like communism?

I would rather live with the laws laid down in the beginning than risk someone taking away my right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Linda

P.S.... I am not attacking you. Please don't feel that. I'm just stating my opinion.

llbriteyes
05-10-2004, 09:12 AM
Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that you are allowed to pop out as many kids as you want and not have to take care of them? I would be very interested in reading that part of the Constitution.

I'm not defending these people, I'm just saying... where in the Constitution does it say they may not?

Linda

llbriteyes
05-10-2004, 09:13 AM
I repeat, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that it's a RIGHT to have kids?!?!?!

And I again repeat... Where does it say it is NOT a right.

mlayton1994
05-10-2004, 02:12 PM
I am so glad someone finally stood up. I am extremely proud of the judge and ITA with the decision.

MommyG3
05-10-2004, 02:15 PM
If you had seen me 10 years ago, you probably would have said the same about me. I mean, I worked, but I was a single mom of 2. I lived off the system and worked and went to school. I guess I just wish all young moms would follow in my footsteps and take responsibility for their little ones. I, for one, feel the judge is absolutely right about this. Although the jail thing sounds real good too. I feel for their little ones.

JENNIFERCATLADY
05-10-2004, 02:32 PM
And I again repeat... Where does it say it is NOT a right.

People are saying its a constitutional right to have kids and sponge off the system. I have yet to see anything about it in the U.S. Constitution. If I'm wrong, please show me.

1tiredmom
05-10-2004, 02:51 PM
too bad all the judical system doesn't put it in law ---i have always have said that & got & the meanest person look from others-there several in my family-that could abide
by that-could go on a soap box but i won't--

ntgsmommy
05-10-2004, 04:07 PM
People are saying its a constitutional right to have kids and sponge off the system. I have yet to see anything about it in the U.S. Constitution. If I'm wrong, please show me.....

The right of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ;)

JENNIFERCATLADY
05-10-2004, 07:03 PM
People are saying its a constitutional right to have kids and sponge off the system. I have yet to see anything about it in the U.S. Constitution. If I'm wrong, please show me.....

The right of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ;)


That doesn't mean you have a Constitutional right to pop out kids left and right that you can not afford! I personally am sick to death of paying someone else's mistakes.

AngelGrim
05-10-2004, 07:36 PM
This thread has really bothered me, I come in and check it out, I just worry about what kind of bad things could happen with our constitution. I feel bad for the kids out there, but yet I still worry, not even calgon can take away worries like these, getting out of here and not coming back in, this has really taken a toll on me, good luck in your discussion on this.

zitra
05-10-2004, 08:13 PM
I repeat, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that it's a RIGHT to have kids?!?!?!

While I agree, with this judges decision (in this cases)...a country doesn't and shouldn't have any say UNLESS a child is endangered, or if there is enough proof that a future child would be. I think it should be illegal to make ANYONE have a surgery though. The parents shoudl be put on mandatory birth control, like nordeplant (sp)....

Now that I have said that. Having children is a GOD given right. No child will be born that wasn't meant to be (I truly beleive that), Every child born has a specific reason for being (wether they can see it or not..The may touch somone's life, and not even know it).

I don't think ANY country should be able to take away GOD given rights, unless like in the case above, that the child would be endangered. BUT just becuse something is not in the consitution, does NOT mean that it is illegal or wrong. That's kind of like somone saying "I don't think it's right for kids to have to walk to school", and getting a reply "well show me in the constitution where it says they can't", and gettign the answer "show me n the consitution, where it says that's it's a right".

IMO NO government, UNLESS there is emininate abuse or neglect (becuase of previous child in foster care) should have the ability or right to pick and choose who should have kids...

That would give the goverment full reign to decide "well, you let your kid walk to school/ride his bike to school by himself? I don't think I like that..you have to have a hysterectomy", "Oh, little Jimmy skipped school? I think that's neglect, hysterectomy time" "You and your hubby both work? Ohhh..I think that's too little time with your children, they COULD be neglected, sorry, Mr./Mrs. you surgery time" Even though in this case I think it's a good idea, the more I think about it, I think it would make a dangerous president, where people could lose the ability to have kids, for something as little not liking a child's hair cut/do/clothing .

JENNIFERCATLADY
05-11-2004, 12:19 AM
From AOL News:



ROCHESTER, N.Y. (May 8) - 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.''

Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.

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 was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

A case worker testified that the parents ignored an order to get mental health treatment and attend parenting classes after the 1-year-old was born.

The mother was still in the hospital after giving birth to her fourth child in March 2003 when authorities took the infant, according to court papers. Investigators said the mother was unprepared to care for the infant.

Attempts to reach the youngest child's guardian were unsuccessful. Information on the other children's guardians was not immediately available.

Attorney Chris Affronti, who chairs the family law section of the Monroe County Bar Association, said he's not sure how the ruling could be enforced.

''I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society,'' he said.


ALL 4 kids were neglected....ALL 3 that were tested for cocaine came back POSITIVE. It's apparent to me that these "parents" don't care too much about their kids, but yet they keep popping them out. They no longer have custody of the kids. So who is supporting them? Anyone that is working, that's who! I think that this is a GREAT ruling. It would have been better if they forced the couple to get steralized, though. Any one with HALF a brain cell left, would have learned the first time around. Has anyone thought about the kids that had cocaine in their systems? I don't think we need anymore crack babies. If a woman wants to be a junkie, then she has no right to be a mother. It's black or white, there's no happy medium in MY opinion.

justinenycole26
05-11-2004, 01:42 AM
ALL 4 kids were neglected....ALL 3 that were tested for cocaine came back POSITIVE. It's apparent to me that these "parents" don't care too much about their kids, but yet they keep popping them out. They no longer have custody of the kids. So who is supporting them? Anyone that is working, that's who! I think that this is a GREAT ruling. It would have been better if they forced the couple to get steralized, though. Any one with HALF a brain cell left, would have learned the first time around. Has anyone thought about the kids that had cocaine in their systems? I don't think we need anymore crack babies. If a woman wants to be a junkie, then she has no right to be a mother. It's black or white, there's no happy medium in MY opinion.

ITA!

ntgsmommy
05-11-2004, 06:13 AM
hitting the back button now, :rolleyes: because people are taking this discussion completely way out of line.......

msmom79
05-11-2004, 07:31 AM
although i somewhat agree with this judge,i have to go to the main book of life,the bible and say what god says"be fruitful and multiply".please dont flame me for my opinion here,i believe if this were a law,alot of innocent people could get hurt. but i also agree that im tired of working my butt off for people who just dont care!! and children are the innocent victims here.they didnt ask for this problem with mom and dad.put them in jail and leave them there give them 1 year jail time for every child they have,so if they have 5 children,that would be 5 years.this might open their eyes,and also dry them out from the drugs,let alone what would be done to them in jail,cause people just dont like it when you abuse a child.!!!!!!! this is just my opinions so dont flame me guys!! thanks ann

freeby4me
05-11-2004, 07:54 AM
The jail idea is a very temporary fix. Most people who are in jail come right back out and do exactly the same thing anyway. Not to mention how many people would be doing you know what after being locked up for that long if ya get my drift.
I hear people saying all the time about teenage parents that "they need to be responsible if they're going to do that" Well why cant that go for adults? They obviously arent very mature if they cant figure out where a baby comes from. Im getting to flustered to keep going I think. :o