Judge orders woman to stop having babies.

[David S]

From CNN.com

Judge orders drug addict to stop having children
Wednesday, January 5, 2005 Posted: 7:44 AM EST (1244 GMT)
   
   
ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A Family Court judge who last year stirred debate about parental responsibilities ordered a second drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.
The 31-year-old mother, identified in court papers only as Judgette W., lost custody of her children, ranging in age from eight months to 12 years, in child-neglect hearings dating back to 2000. Six are in foster care at state expense and one lives with an aunt.
The youngest child and two others tested positive for cocaine at birth and all seven "were removed from her care and custody because she could not and did not take care of them," Judge Marilyn O'Connor said in a December 22 decision made public Tuesday.
"Because every child born deserves a mother and a father, or at the very least a mother or a father, this court is once again taking this unusual step of ordering this biological mother to conceive no more children until she reclaims her children from foster care or other caretakers," O'Connor wrote

[Jake]

No brainer

If your on drugs you shouldn't be allowed to have children. On top of that she has seven already that are in danger if they live with her.

[stry_cat]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

[opebo]

I disagree with the judge.  His interference in this woman's private life is an outrageous violation of individual rights, and so are the drug laws.

[David S]

This issue is not so clear cut to me. On the one hand the mother should have the right to make her own decisions about childbearing. But on the other hand, with rights come responsibilities and this woman obviously is totally irresponsible. Is it a right for her to keep having drug-addicted babies which she cannot support and which ultimately become wards of the state?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

oh shut up you idiot

[Trilobyte]

The judge is not forcing contraception on the mother, and she would not be forced to have an abortion should she become pregnant again. I think the ruling achieves a reasonable balance.

[J-Mann]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

I suppose that leaving children in a dangerous and poor situation in which they are exposed to drugs is a libertarian ideology, too, eh?  I'd say that rulings like this one don't happen enough.

[opebo]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

I suppose that leaving children in a dangerous and poor situation in which they are exposed to drugs is a libertarian ideology, too, eh?  I'd say that rulings like this one don't happen enough.

Something like a third or more of children in the US are born in to a dangerous and poor situation.   

[Akno21]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

oh shut up you idiot

Now I'm convinced your side is correct. Thanks for entertaining me with that great debate.

[David S]

BTW the article also went on to say that judge  really has no way to enforce the order other than by throwing her in jail for contempt of court if she gets pregnant again. That doesn't seem like an ideal solution either.

The article raises a broader question of what to do with people who are basket cases who will not live their lives in a responsible manner and consequently become a problem for the rest of society. Seems to me that communism was made for people like that.

[J-Mann]

Something like a third or more of children in the US are born in to a dangerous and poor situation.   

OK, to be a bit more specific...situations in which drugs are prevalent and that is the parents' priority - getting drugs, doing drugs, living their life however they please and the kids are an unfortunate side-effect of unprotected sex.  Kids should not have to be in situations like that.

[David S]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

Something like a third or more of children in the US are born in to a dangerous and poor situation.   

May I ask where you got that information?

[Trilobyte]

Something like a third or more of children in the US are born in to a dangerous and poor situation.   

But that is not the same as having a mother who clearly has no intention of taking care of her children. Most low-income children do have loving parents who give them the best of what they can afford.

[Jake]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

How terrible that the judge would look out for her children and prevent her from endangering anymore young lives in the future.  Hopefully the average Libertarian doesn't believe this drivel, because if it does, your party isn't going anywhere.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

oh shut up you idiot

Now I'm convinced your side is correct. Thanks for entertaining me with that great debate.

There is no debate, he and anyone who agrees with him should be poked with sharp objects

[Gabu]

It's not clear-cut at all, but I agree with this ruling.  The rights of her children to a basic level of parental care are being violated and will continue to be violated if she has any more children.  I personally believe that one's rights should only extend as far as the point when they begin to violate others' rights.  Allowing her actions to continue is simply not fair at all to the children, who are at a much higher risk than she is.

[Akno21]

I don't exactly see how this solves the problem. She can still have the kids, yes, there will be jail time, but unless they force her to have an abortion, the kid will get born and need to go into foster care.

[Lunar]

It's a bad precedent, so I voted no.

However, I'm starting to change my mind.  As someone said earlier, rights come with responsibilities.  If you accidentially shoot someone out of negligence and are convicted for manslaughter, I'd be tempted to prevent you from owning any more firearms, and so on.

[Hatman 🍁]

The right to have children should not be taken away, however the right to keep your child should be under certain circumstances.

[Jake]

The right to have children should not be taken away, however the right to keep your child should be under certain circumstances.

So what happens to the child poisoned with cocaine or crack.  It grows up severly impaired or they abort it.  Either way it is a piss poor way to resolve the situation.  Ideally, we would have laws that would take away this women's reproductive rights permenantly.

[J. J.]

In a word, Norplant!

[bullmoose88]

Gabu basically said what I had in mind.

[Jake]

In a word, Norplant!

That would be the most effective way to do it, short of removing the women's ovaries which would be just slightly unpopular.

[stry_cat]

Outrageous that the state would take a mother's children from her and even more outrageous that it would deprive her of her reproductive rights to have more children.

How terrible that the judge would look out for her children and prevent her from endangering anymore young lives in the future.  Hopefully the average Libertarian doesn't believe this drivel, because if it does, your party isn't going anywhere.

I hope someone is around to defend you when the state comes and takes  your children away for whatever trivial reason.