NationStates Jolt Archive

Man convicted of failure to provide child support to 3 of his 7 children (from 5 different women) was ordered as a provision of his probation not to have any more children while on probation. This decision was later overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court where 5 of the 7 judges voted that the state didn't have a right to infringe on a man's right to procreate.

The man has already proven himself unable or unwilling to support children he has already fathered, should he be allowed to father even more?
Or is this a case of gross governmental interference?

oh, i can't wait for the pro-lifers advocating forced sterilization of women who have multiple abortions to come in here...

Man convicted of failure to provide child support to 3 of his 7 children (from 5 different women) was ordered as a provision of his probation not to have any more children while on probation. This decision was later overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court where 5 of the 7 judges voted that the state didn't have a right to infringe on a man's right to procreate.

The man has already proven himself unable or unwilling to support children he has already fathered, should he be allowed to father even more?
Or is this a case of gross governmental interference?

The govt should NEVER have control over a persons reproductive ability. That being said, I think that in this case the judge gave the defendant a choice. One of the options available to him was no jail time but a restriction on reproduction. I could be thinking about a differant case though. I know there was a judge on FOX news explaining that it was a voluntary descision by the defendant.

A huge part of me wants to say "Let the decision stand - serves him right." However, I recognize that this would be allowing the government to overstep its boundaries.

A better solution would be to begin garnishing his paycheck for child support for each of the seven children. If he cannot pay all of it, take all of it and give him just enough back for rent and food. At that point, the monetary problems alone should convince him to stop having kids and not supporting them.

I actually do wish they kept more irresponsible people from having kids. I think that you should have to pass a class to get a license before you were allowed to have kids... or at the very least get any sort of aid for those kids.

oh, i can't wait for the pro-lifers advocating forced sterilization of women who have multiple abortions to come in here...

Dont knock forced sterilization. We tried that program in India(under sanjiv gandi I think). Doctors were directed to sterilize certain groups(poor) woman and men when they came in for medical procedures. Program didnt last long. I think they also tried an incentive based sterilization program for a while.

Eventually, the politicos realized that the size of the population wasnt India's problem.

Dont knock forced sterilization. We tried that program in India(under sanjiv gandi I think). Doctors were directed to sterilize certain groups(poor) woman and men when they came in for medical procedures. Program didnt last long. I think they also tried an incentive based sterilization program for a while.

Eventually, the politicos realized that the size of the population wasnt India's problem.

no, there are a bunch of anti-choice people who will rant about women who have multiple abortions should be sterilized.

well this man is at least as bad or worse than those women and i'm sure they'll sit there and defend his right to inseminate as many women as he pleases and not take care of them.

no, there are a bunch of anti-choice people who will rant about women who have multiple abortions should be sterilized.
I normally would not be for such a thing, unless the woman is using abortion as a form of birth control (and I realize these type of women are few[hopefully]).

well this man is at least as bad or worse than those women and i'm sure they'll sit there and defend his right to inseminate as many women as he pleases and not take care of them.

He does have the right to inseminate as many women as he pleases as long as:
A: The women allow it to happen (willingly & knowingly)
B: He's got the money to cover the expenses WITHOUT gov't assistance. I don't want to be paying for it. I would, however, be willing to pay for sterilization for this guy. Probably will be cheaper in the long run.

we require a license to drive a car, to own a gun, or to have a dog. i don't see any reason not to require basic licensing for child-production.

we require a license to drive a car, to own a gun, or to have a dog. i don't see any reason not to require basic licensing for child-production.
In the UK a license is required to watch television- thing is to get the license you just have to pay the license fee- whereas with a driving licence you have to demonstrate the ability to drive. Which type of license do you have in mind?

Man convicted of failure to provide child support to 3 of his 7 children (from 5 different women) was ordered as a provision of his probation not to have any more children while on probation. This decision was later overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court where 5 of the 7 judges voted that the state didn't have a right to infringe on a man's right to procreate.

The man has already proven himself unable or unwilling to support children he has already fathered, should he be allowed to father even more?
Or is this a case of gross governmental interference?

Tough question. What about the women this guy got pregnant? Don't they bear any of the responsibility for allowing themselves to be impregnated? This seems to be one of those "cutting edge of the law" issues. My personal opinion is that it's the height of irresponsibility to help create a child without accepting any responsibility for caring for this new person until they are able to care for themselves. I suspect the only solution might be to lock this guy up until he agrees to help support all these children he helped create, then place him on probation until the youngest reaches adulthood. Not a great solution, I know, but perhaps the only one available.

Just arrange an accident involving a razor blade and him being drunk and shaving in the wrong place!
Surely the government get do something simple as that.

In the UK a license is required to watch television- thing is to get the license you just have to pay the license fee- whereas with a driving licence you have to demonstrate the ability to drive. Which type of license do you have in mind?
basic requirements; you must establish that you can financially support a child, you must have no documented history of spousal or child abuse, you must be currently supporting any children who are your legal responsibility, etc. really basic qualifications, honestly; much looser standards than are used to choose parents who are looking to adopt.

basic requirements; you must establish that you can financially support a child, you must have no documented history of spousal or child abuse, you must be currently supporting any children who are your legal responsibility, etc. really basic qualifications, honestly; much looser standards than are used to choose parents who are looking to adopt.

Very interesting! And when people have children without a license?

Very interesting! And when people have children without a license?
first offense, sterilize both parents using non-reversible methods. second offense, life in prison, no possibility of parole, no contact with any children (including their own), must work 70 hours per week and all wages will go to support their children.

i think having kids is a serious business. if we are going to impliment a licensing process then we have to make it stick, and we have to make it clear how seriously the matter is taken. especially since the licensing for parenthood would be free (in my hypothetical world), and would be such basic requirements...there would really be no excuse for failing to get a license, so punishment should be extremely severe.

oh well, it's a pipe dream anyway. people believe that their ability to have sex makes them qualified to be parents, and that they have the automatic right to bring a new person into the world and then treat it as their personal property. there will never be laws restricting who can have children, only laws restricting the rights of people who want to choose NOT to have children.

first offense, sterilize both parents using non-reversible methods. second offense, life in prison, no possibility of parole, no contact with any children (including their own), must work 70 hours per week and all wages will go to support their children.
how is there a second offense with irreversible sterilization?

how is there a second offense with irreversible sterilization?
if the parents did it twice or more before being caught. sorry to have not made that clear...i'm simply too familiar with the American legal system to expect that first-offenders would always be caught promptly.

if the parents did it twice or more before being caught. sorry to have not made that clear...i'm simply too familiar with the American legal system to expect that first-offenders would always be caught promptly.
but then there is no second offense, unless they are like hiding a kid in the closet from the heavily armed government agents :rolleyes: otherwise its a ex posto facto punishment, and illegal

first offense, sterilize both parents using non-reversible methods. second offense, life in prison, no possibility of parole, no contact with any children (including their own), must work 70 hours per week and all wages will go to support their children.

i think having kids is a serious business. if we are going to impliment a licensing process then we have to make it stick, and we have to make it clear how seriously the matter is taken. especially since the licensing for parenthood would be free (in my hypothetical world), and would be such basic requirements...there would really be no excuse for failing to get a license, so punishment should be extremely severe.

oh well, it's a pipe dream anyway. people believe that their ability to have sex makes them qualified to be parents, and that they have the automatic right to bring a new person into the world and then treat it as their personal property. there will never be laws restricting who can have children, only laws restricting the rights of people who want to choose NOT to have children.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about having children being a serious business ... very serious indeed! And perhaps a license COULD work, although getting it passed would be chancy in the extreme. However, I cannot agree with enforced sterilization ... way too much opportunity for people or the government or whomever to decide who is "permitted" to have children.

I'm unaware of any laws restricting the rights of people who choose "NOT to have children." Are you talking about anti-abortion laws, or what?

there should be a limit on number of kids: 2 or 3
EVERYONE of legal age should take a test to get a lience to have kids, but we all know thats not gonna stop alot, especially in america.
1st offense: warning/small fine
2nd offense: all kids are taken away and given to sterile people who have passed the test to get the licence.
3rd offense: take away kid, sterilize both parties

there should be a limit on number of kids: 2 or 3
EVERYONE of legal age should take a test to get a lience to have kids, but we all know thats not gonna stop alot, especially in america.
1st offense: warning/small fine
2nd offense: all kids are taken away and given to sterile people who have passed the test to get the licence.
3rd offense: take away kid, sterilize both parties

I think there would be major problems enforcing this, witness China, which has tried something very similar.

I think there would be major problems enforcing this, witness China, which has tried something very similar.
and china is huge and alot is in mainly ungoverned little towns, and its kind of working, parents are killing their daughters

what im saying is: china has alot of extremely rural VILLAGES that dont really care. even the most rural of american towns are answerable to the various government and covered by them much better. choice religious communities like the amish would be excluded from this policy, native americans MIGHT be able to be excluded, that would be based on its own test, the mormons can bite me

And most of the world considers China's policies of forced sterilizations and abortions to be horrible human rights abuses, and so do I. I would also consider any similar program initiated in America or Canada or whatever to be human rights abuses.

I am very surprised Bottle, that you would advocate the government having any control over the reproductive ability of citizens of their country. Particularily shocked that you favor capital punishment (i.e. forced sterilization) of people, particularly on the first offense. I oppose capital punishment in all of it's forms, and I don't believe the government has the right to kill, or mutilate it's own people under any and all circumstances.

I've always thought of you, Bottle, as one of the most intelligent people on Nationstates. But, I've lost some respect for you just now.

I suspect the only solution might be to lock this guy up until he agrees to help support all these children he helped create, then place him on probation until the youngest reaches adulthood. Not a great solution, I know, but perhaps the only one available.

Forget waiting for him to agree to do it - just garnish his wages. It's perfectly legal to do so in child support cases.

and china is huge and alot is in mainly ungoverned little towns, and its kind of working, parents are killing their daughters

what im saying is: china has alot of extremely rural VILLAGES that dont really care. even the most rural of american towns are answerable to the various government and covered by them much better. choice religious communities like the amish would be excluded from this policy, native americans MIGHT be able to be excluded, that would be based on its own test, the mormons can bite me

LOL! You certainly have an inimitable way of stating things! :)

And most of the world considers China's policies of forced sterilizations and abortions to be horrible human rights abuses, and so do I. I would also consider any similar program initiated in America or Canada or whatever to be human rights abuses.

I am very surprised Bottle, that you would advocate the government having any control over the reproductive ability of citizens of their country. Particularily shocked that you favor capital punishment (i.e. forced sterilization) of people, particularly on the first offense. I oppose capital punishment in all of it's forms, and I don't believe the government has the right to kill, or mutilate it's own people under any and all circumstances.

I've always thought of you, Bottle, as one of the most intelligent people on Nationstates. But, I've lost some respect for you just now.

I've come to think that she is, too. But we all have our "hot button" issues and I suspect this is one for her.

Forget waiting for him to agree to do it - just garnish his wages. It's perfectly legal to do so in child support cases.

True, but what if he won't work or just takes jobs which pay cash?

Before you get too tough, Bottle, you should know that in this same Ohio jurisdiction there is proposed legislation which would make all same sex intercourse illegal, just like the dark ages.

Dont knock forced sterilization. We tried that program in India(under sanjiv gandi I think). Doctors were directed to sterilize certain groups(poor) woman and men when they came in for medical procedures. Program didnt last long. I think they also tried an incentive based sterilization program for a while.

Eventually, the politicos realized that the size of the population wasnt India's problem.
Yeah. In the '60's. Slogans like: 2 children are enough were used. But it eventualy failed.

Before you get too tough, Bottle, you should know that in this same Ohio jurisdiction there is proposed legislation which would make all same sex intercourse illegal, just like the dark ages.
Are you sure it was illegal in dark ages?

True, but what if he won't work or just takes jobs which pay cash?

If he is "just taking jobs which pay cash," he is basically defrauding the government. I think this guy would rather have angry women after him than the IRS.

Are you sure it was illegal in dark ages?
It was under Church law. Just as masturbation. And in those days Church law preceeded worldly law.