Another story making the rounds here in Madison is here.
In summary, a local man has fathered NINE kids by FOUR different women and he can’t support any of them. He was in court for non-support, was given probation, part of which was that he cannot have any more kids as a condition of his probation. He appealed to WI supreme court and just lost (narrowly).
What say ye, dopers? Can the courts try to prevent you from procreating?
I can’t quite decide where I come down. I normally don’t think the court would have any business telling someone they can’t, but this guy is pushing the limit.
Seems a better sentence would be forcing him to get a job that pays OT and making him work 90-100 hours a week. At least he’d be too tired or busy to spawn any more.
IIRC the bill of rights is a tad vague regarding an “inalienable right to spawn”. This leaves plenty of room for the courts to muck about. The guy was being a jerk, the women involved were as well. It’s in the states best interest to force them all to exhibit a little more restraint.
i’m sorry but having children is NOT a right, it is a privilege. It may be a privilege when your species is on the verge of extinction, but that is not the case with humans.
I say it is in the state’s best interest to sterilize the guy.
i’m sorry but having children is NOT a right, it is a privilege. It may be a right when your species is on the verge of extinction, but that is not the case with humans.
I say it is in the state’s best interest to sterilize the guy.
With the world as over-populated as it is, the teenage birth rate where it is, abortions flying around, deadbeat dads and neglectful moms, abuse, and all the other problems with having kids, I think people should need a lisence to have kids. Birth controll from puberty, take classes and hard tests to get off. Of course, there is no way to do it in the real world. It would be far to easy to abuse.
In the past (and possibly still?) some governments HAVE sterilized people, without them really understanding what had taken place. I beleive this was usually done to people with mental problems and a handful of backwoods groups that were “undesirable” to the powers that be… I haven’t researched it, so my details might not be right-on. I have seen on the news some people, and it seems to be women they sterilized, who found out what happened and raised holy hell about it. It can and has been done, although not to the people that seem to deserve it; one thing sure rings through though - human rights groups get really mad when it happens and you’ll have a ton of explaining to do… perhaps too much to make it worth while.
Although having children is still a right, there are always a few idiots out there who can mess up a whole lot of innocent lives (the kids) making it seem like it should almost be regulated. Some countries are doing it to some extent (China = 1 kid per family I think?), but it’s more for population control than quality-of-life control for the kids.
Think of the kids. They’re starting life out in a very bad situation. A father in jail, no financial support, no father figure. Is it fair for them to start out like that? It’s child abuse, to just have a kid and have them to fend for themselves.
We all could have more kids that we could support, but most of us choose not to because that’s not in the children’s best interest.
I think that’s the same reason we don’t let 12 and 13 year old children get married and have kids. Because they can’t take care of and support their kids. So maybe the same rule should apply here.
So this guy can’t have sex? He has to use a condom? The woman he’s sleeping with has to use birth control?
How are they going to enforce this? If the woman does become pregnant (hey, even with BC it’s possible) are they going to force an abortion? Is it even legal in Wisconsin?
They won’t require an abortion or any other such nonsense. If you would read all of the OP, you’d notice that it is a condition of probation. If he fathers another child, he’ll simply go to jail to serve the jail term and/or pay the fine he would have served/paid had the judge not decided probation was in the state’s interest.
Oh, it is not either. For one thing, in our country alone, the area between the coasts consists of mostly empty space. States like Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas could support much more population than they do. For another, as populations around the world become more affluent, the birth rate declines. The rate of increase of population worldwide has been declining for several decades, and may at some point become a decrease.
Declining. It’s in its 10th straight year of decline, according to the CDC, and at its lowest rate since . . . 1980, I believe.
First of all, please clarify what you mean by this. Second of all, do you want a higher teen birth rate, or fewer abortions? Make up your mind, please.
I think people should need a license to have opinions. They should have to prove that they actually know some facts concerning the subject that they’re addressing.
Kalt: Just so I’m clear, are there any other naturally-occurring biological functions that are priveleges rather than rights? I’d hate to think that I’m taking unlicensed dumps, for example, or sneezing at a time when it isn’t permitted.
Boy, I’d sure like to know how H. sapiens has managed to survive lo these thousands of years without the social engineers issuing licenses for the right to have children.
I’m ashamed today to be a Wisconsinite. This terrible decision sets a dangerous precedent which strikes at the heart of reproductive rights. It has implications far beyond this one man and this one situation.
If the state has the power to order people not to procreate, it also by inference has the power to order procreation. This kind of interference in the reproductive choices of adults is exactly what Griswold, Roe and other similar cases were supposed to prevent.
Much was made by the majority of how convicted people have fewer constitutional rights than others. But even some convicts get conjugal visits, and if a pregnancy results from that visit the convict can’t be punished for it.
The court, I think, will come to regret this decision in time.
You must be licensed by the government to perform surgery.
You must be licnesed (in many places) by the government to provide psychiatric or psycological treatment or counseling.
You must be licensed by the government to operate a motor vehicle.
You must be licensed by the government to cut hair as your profession.
You must be licensed by the government to paint toenails as your profession.
You must be licensed by the government to hunt.
You must be licensed by the government to fish.
Yet any idiot that can fit the plug in the socket is considered inherently qualified to bring an unlimited number of children into the world.
I aprove of the decision.
BTW, jk:
What employer will be willing to pay him that much overtime?
Otto, I think you’re missing the point. This guy has not been exercising his reproductive rights. He has been engaging in sexual activity without any consideration about the reproductive consequences of his actions (of course, it does take two to tango…)
I’m sure that if he were to enter into a stable relationship and desire to reproduce and support his offspring in a responsible manner and be a productive(heh) member of society, his probation would likely not be revoked.
I have the right to buy property and build any reasonable domicile on it that I wish. I do not have the right to allow it to become overrun with weeds and trash and become a fire hazard to the entire neighborhood. Same principle.
The alternative to this probation condidtion is that the idiot just be sent to jail. He wouldn’t be able to exercise his reproductive rights there, either.
Let me add that conjugal visits are a rare priviledge in most prisons. They also require a spouse. From the way this guy’s been dipping his wick all over town, I certainly hope that there isn’t a poor wife at home suffering through all this
