"Pay up or zip up:" Deadbeat dad told to avoid having more kids

The BBQ Pit
61

Actually, you said “If procreation is a human right…” (emphasis added) and the rest of your argument stemmed from that. It isn’t firmly established that procreation is a fundamental right, or at least it isn’t enshrined in the U.S. constitution. Besides, we’re arguing about different things. The issue isn’t directly about preventing the guy from reproducing, it’s revoking his probation on past offenses if he rather stupidly makes his situation worse. Following your libel analogy, it’s as though a person was told by a court “We’re slapping a judgement of $1 million on you, but we’ll hold it in abeyance as long as you stop libeling people. If you publish another story about Billy Graham and the altar boys, it’s clear you’re not able or interested in changing your ways, so you’ll have to pay the fine in full.”

In any case, discouraging further procreation until and unless this guy gets his act together is pretty mild as punishments go. It’s not nearly as much of a hassle as house arrest.

Well, there’s another of those tricky “ifs”. There are numerous rights that can be taken away from convicts. Even if we grant that procreation is one of them, why can’t it join protections against search & seizure and the vote and other rights commonly denied prisoners?

62

Nope, that doesn’t fly either. It’s prejudgement. The whole innocent until proven guilty thing. Besides, you twisted my analogy. I didn’t say that the guy couldn’t be ordered to stop libeling. I said he couldn’t be ordered to stop writing.

To abandon that awkward analogy, even if a guy isn’t suporting his present children, there’s no way to prove that he won’t support the next one. Because he hasn’t yet commited the crime of non payment of child support for the as of yet unconceived child, it can’t be a factor in the punishment of the crimes he already has committed.

Because there are differences between human rights, which are inviolable (such as security of person), and constitutional rights, which aren’t. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, and because it isn’t a human right, we revoke it when necessary. Human rights can’t be revoked. You can’t violate someones security of person by forcing surgery or beatings on them, no matter the circumstances.

I believe that procreation is a human right. The UN and human rights organizations appear to agree with me. You don’t seem to believe it’s a human right. Why?

63

If you’re going to have children, you’re making an 18 year financial commitment to that child.

Those children may not have been starving, but IME, most of the women I know who’s children’s fathers don’t pay child support are using some kind of government service to help them raise that child - be it Medicare, AFDC, food stamps, or complete welfare. That means I’m paying to raise their children.

My father never paid child support. We suffered. We suffered big-time.

My mother was a stay-at-home mom and hadn’t had a job in 18 years. After months and months of searching, she finally found work. At one time she was working 3 part-time, minimum wage jobs to support us, trying desperately to get off welfare. My father at the time made about $40k a year.

We didn’t starve. We did get food stamps.

The electricity and gas were never shut off. We did receive utility assistance.

We had clothing. We shopped regularly at the Wardrobe, where all the donated clothes were 25 cents. My clothes didn’t always fit, but I was dressed.

When I was 12, I tore my ACL. Completely tore it. I didn’t go to the doctor about it until I was 22 (it bothered me for 10 years and would cause me to fall down 2-3 times a month) because by then I had my own health insurance and could pay for it myself. You see, we couldn’t afford to go to the doctor.

I suggest you talk to some adult children who grew up with dead-beat dads. See how they feel about it. I doubt there are many who feel the right of the parents to procreate is more important than the rights of the children to grow up in a comfortable, safe and financially secure environment where their basic needs (such as food, shelter, clothing and healthcare) are met.

64

I said before that this isn’t going to be taken literally or upheld, and I guess that’s right, but there’s certainly justice to this ruling. The guy should either pay his fucking child support or spend a couple bucks on some condoms so he doesn’t have more kids and make his dead-beatness worse.

Actually he should do both. But a guy this irresponsible is probably not going to get his shit together just because it’s the right thing to do and a judge said so. Sigh.

65

Esse quam videri, I reckon. I have a bit more than 15,000 posts, and I’ve probably said in at least 1,000 of them that the state should regulate nothing but coercion. Abandonment and neglect of children is — okay, wait for it — COERCIVE. If procreation is an unqualified “right”, then so is rape.

66

But someone doesn’t have to commit a crime to violate his probation,violation doesn’t have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and if the guy’s lawyer is to be believed, he can’t support seven kids, so how could he posssibly support 8 ? Or do you mean he might support the eighth one while still not supporting the first seven? In which case, it seems to me he is again willfully not supporting the first seven, repeating his original crime. Unless of course, he wins the lottery for millions, in which case I would support the restriction being removed.

I don’t know that they do agree with you. You quoted this

It says that men and women have the right to procreate without any limitation because of race, nationality or religion. It does not say that they have the right to procreate without any limitations due to punishment for a crime. If Mr Talty had been imprisioned, he almost certainly would have been unable to procreate during that time. How can it be worse to allow him a less restrictive punishment?

67

:smack:

68

I don’t think this is an awkward analogy. Libel is to writing as procreating is to having sex. The guy in the OP’s link isn’t being told he’s not allowed to fuck anymore. He’s been told to take every possible precaution against knocking anyone up. Maybe the best way to avoid that is to remain celebate for a while. However, if he were to go get a vasectomy, he could have all the sex he wanted and not be in violation of his court order.

69

For once (and ONLY in this thread), I wish more people would listen to Mgtman.

As someone who supports gay rights and reproductive choice 100%, I can’t support this. No matter how good it looks if you use “common sense”. In a perfect world, everyone would be responsible for their own offspring. In the real world, it doesn’t always happen that way. That’s why we have “safety nets”, like child protection agencies*.

*I am not a big fan of them, either, but they’re better than nothing, or sticking kids in dingy Dickensian orphanages, workhouses and poorhouses.

70

Well there’s a backhanded compliment. Any hints you want to drop as to the motive? I don’t recall hitting any dogs on my way to work this morning.

Enjoy,
Steven

71

I’m just covering my ass, seeing as how we’ve butted heads in threads before.

With all due respect, sir, I don’t usually agree with you, but you posted exactly what I’ve been thinking as I was reading this thread.

:slight_smile:

72

If we have we must have butted quite hard because I can’t recall any. I’ll take your word for it though.

And I will, in return, endorse your opinion, for once(and ONLY in this thread). May we both live long enough and healthy enough lives to butt heads many more times. And may neither of us ever prevail to the point where the other is incapable of butting back.

Cheers,
Steven

73

This is a fascinating philosophical question I have never really thought about before this thread. I understand that you believe it is a fundamental right. However, I am not convinced. It’s the same concept as someone believing in god, but I would need more proof to believe. Just because you strongly believe in this “right to procreate,” and the UN has backed you up, doesn’t make it so.

However, let’s say that I agree procreation is a fundamental right. OK, fine. You have the right to plant your seed (men) or get knocked up (women) in what is a primal animal activity. We all can do it if we want, sure. We’re all born with the parts to do it, so we can, right?

OK, so you have the right to reproduce, but you don’t have the right to keep the child if you can’t provide proper care for it. The state has a responsibility to protect the children and to make sure they are being taken care of in the appropriate manner. This is why child welfare organizations can come into your house and take away your kid and a judge can take away your custody. So you may have the right to pop 'em out, but if you can’t do what it takes to support the offspring, then society will find someone else who can.

Further, you may have the right to procreate, BUT do you have the right to force your fellow citizens to pay for your offspring’s care? Do I have the right not to be forced to pay for your irresponsible decision?

You know what I think is immoral? Bringing children into this world if you cannot support them.

74

Even if procreation was accepted as a right, it’s a right that clearly being abused in this situation. Freedom of expression is a right, certainly, but if you insist in libelling people or shouting ‘Fire!’ in theatres, you will (or at least should) face consequences. Offhand, I can’t think of any right that allows completely unfettered activity. It wil always be possible to imagine some extreme circumstance in which the state becomes involved (i.e. I declare myself head of the church of privately-owned nuclear weapons, and begin seeking tax exemption and stockpiling reprocessed plutonium).

Further, he isn’t going to be punished just for creating an eighth child; he’s going to be punished because the act of creating that child clearly shows a complete lack of interest in supporting his existing seven children (and that lack of support is something he’s already been convicted of).

75

You have got to be joking.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/frmwrkr/

http://www.libertyhaven.com/personalfreedomissues/freespeechorcivilliberties/americaschild.html

http://www.ucffuture.com/news/2003/04/21/Opinion/Child.Protection.Continues.To.Crumble-422157.shtml

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/Research/Disinformation_book/Peril/peril.html

http://www.now.org/eNews/april2002/042902judge.html

http://www.crossroad.to/News/child_protection.html

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/kentucky.htm

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/safe.htm

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/shadowsunshinestate.htm

76

Then you, of all people, know that it gets harder and harder with each child. This guy has fathered seven. SEVEN!!! I respect your experience, but we are not talking about a hard-working guy who’s trying to keep up and keeps falling behind. This is a guy who just ain’t making the effort at all. No payments for 2 full years? That just ain’t trying.

And I disagree with the argument that this guy will be jailed for procreation. He will be jailed for his failure to pay child support. Jail time for refusal to pay CS is OkeyDokey. If he does not procreate, he gets a reprieve from this just punishment.

77

It seems that my argument was lost in the text somewhere.

THis guy is scum. He’s the lowest of the low, no disagreeing there. Where I must disagree is where we allow the state to have more control over a person’s life(and reproductive rights), in an attempt to collect or enforce child support.

As Stuffy’s story proves, at least in California, the DCSS(support enforcement), is mismanaged, ineffective, insulting, and over-reaching. I see guys like Stuffy who get fucked over on a weekly basis. His story is far, FAR from a rarity. If we give states more power to collect, it will be even more commonplace.

I think we can all agree-those who won’t pay their spousal or child support and are like the story in the OP, rarely ever will. They refuse to aid their seed in life, and most times just want to fuck their exes over. These guys will almost NEVER pay off their bills, and taking more and more rights from them won’t help the matter at all.

Sam

78

To those of you who think others’ reproduction should be arbited somehow, a few questions:

Should all poor people automatically have their babies taken away or be forcibly sterilized? How about people who are rich, but who abuse children? What about someone who is in a temporary (but disastrous) financial situation? There are uncountable scenarios in which the “fitness” of potential parents could be called into question. So who gets to decide who reproduces or not - you guys???

If high-and-mighty people who don’t have the faintest idea what another person’s life is like got to pick and choose who could have babies, we would be in one hell of a mess IMHO. Perhaps if the government made these decisions for us preemptively, you might wind up under the knife, for circumstances that may be beyond your control. Then the judgmental opinions I see all over this thread might change.

Better to improve how we pick up the pieces for the children of those few who are too irresponsible or low-functioning to do a good job, than to risk the government possibly running over (yet another) one of the most precious freedoms for the rest of us.

79

Actually, I don’t think your argument was lost so much as contradicted.

You did post earlier:

In other words, it is OK to deprive this clown of the “right” to procreate by locking him up in jail. You just object if he is allowed to retain all his other rights (by being released on parole) but not that one.

If this is supposed to be a position in defense of maximum freedom, it lacks something.

Not all poor people. In this case, it is a poor person who is making the situation worse, for himself and the rest of us as well. And he is not being permanently deprived of procreation, only for a limited period. But yes, the decision that he not create more children is a reasonable one.

But obviously people who severely neglect their children should have their children taken away - by force, if necessary. You think this is a bad idea?

Yes, certainly. Abused children are removed from homes all the time - wealth or otherwise shouldn’t factor into it. Certainly there should be the option to ensure that child abusers not create more victims, depending on the severity. Just as in other crimes, the consequence can be made to depend on the crime.

Once you are convicted of a child-endangering felony, like the unpleasant person of the OP, society can decide whether or not your abuse of your freedom should cause you to be deprived of it. Just like other felons, who abuse their freedom, have it taken away from them - in prison, parole, probation, etc.

Are you objecting in general to the idea of judges determining how the laws passed by elected legislators should be implemented? Or are you arguing that procreation is a fundamental right that can never be taken away, no matter what the crime?

Like we take away the freedom of other criminals by locking them in prison?

Regards,
Shodan

80

I have nothing wrong with jailing offenders for a majority of crimes. That includes evading spousal/child support. For the very last time, what I DO have a problem with is the increasing amount of power and the misuse of said power of Child Support Enforcement agencies.

There is a monstrous difference and I don’t find it to be contradiction at all.

It’s not, it’s a position of limited power of state and local agencies.

Sam