Is having children a right?

DWAlphaGam · #1 12-23-2003, 10:58 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/relat...en031223.html#

Conception Concern
Court to Hear Case of Man Barred From Having More Children
The Associated Press

A K R O N, Ohio, Dec. 23— The Ohio Supreme Court will review the case of a man who was ordered by a judge to avoid fathering children for five years.

Medina County Common Pleas Judge James L. Kimbler issued the no-procreation order to Sean Talty in September 2002 as part of his sentence on a felony conviction for failing to pay support to three of his seven children.

In June, the 9th District Court of Appeals in Akron upheld Kimbler's order in a unanimous three-judge opinion stating that it was constitutional because it was related to Talty's rehabilitation.

The state's Supreme Court has voted 5-2 to review the case.

**See link for full article**

Personally, I don't think that the Supreme Court will uphold the decision, but you have to admit, it does make sense. If this guy can't take care of the 7 kids he already has, he shouldn't be going around making more.

Lady Pi Phi · #2 12-23-2003, 11:07 AM

With rights comes responsibility. If you're not going to take the responsibility to raise your children then you have no right to continue to procreate.

That's just my opinion.

The1calledTKE · #3 12-23-2003, 11:12 AM

Throwing him in jail is fine but telling someone not to procreate is against part of what it is to be human.

bethany1982 · #4 12-23-2003, 11:42 AM

Interesting how HE has a place of responsibility here, whereas, if the mother wanted to abort the child, he'd have no recourse.

krazy · #5 12-23-2003, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Throwing him in jail is fine but telling someone not to procreate is against part of what it is to be human.

That's GREAT!! Let him have kids, then throw him in jail. Those kids will be successful. Having no father figure is always the best way to grow up.

The1calledTKE · #6 12-23-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by krazy
. Having no father figure is always the best way to grow up.

Well there are fathers that have nothing to do with their child but pay child support so same effect. You think they should not have children? How about mothers that walk out on the family?

krazy · #7 12-23-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The1calledTKE
Well there are fathers that have nothing to do with their child but pay child support so same effect. You think they should not have children? How about mothers that walk out on the family?

Fathers who only pay child support are not fathers, they are
s--theads. Mothers who walk out are just as bad. Now, should you disable someone from having kids... errr... I hate to say it, but it IS a basic human right. Hard question... I would like to hear what people have to say.

#8 12-23-2003, 12:42 PM

I am ALL FOR this.

You know that radical and controversial thread? Well here's my radical and controversial idea.... I think people should be required to get a permit/liscense to have children. If it's an unplanned pregnancy, you still have to apply, and if you don't pass, your child goes up for adoption.

There are too many shithead parents in the world, and too many loving couples in who can't have children and can't afford the adoption process.

As someone who's ability to have children is in question, this makes me VERY ANGRY.

DeltAlum · #9 12-23-2003, 12:50 PM

I guess that's why they pay the Supreme Court Justices the big bucks.

Pretty strong arguments on both sides of this one.

On the face of it, though, I agree with the present court ruling. If he can't support his present children, he shouldn't have more.

Jill1228 · #10 12-23-2003, 01:50 PM

Yup, that man should get snipped. If you can't afford them, then don't have them!

But then again, it is the woman's decision that makes it final. She has the ability to CHOOSE whether it is carried to term or not. (and yes I LOVE CHOICE!)

SmartBlondeGPhB · #11 12-23-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jill1228
Yup, that man should get snipped. If you can't afford them, then don't have them!

But then again, it is the woman's decision that makes it final. She has the ability to CHOOSE whether it is carried to term or not. (and yes I LOVE CHOICE!)

Agreed, and very well said.......

After all, if he can't afford them, the rest of us taxpayers are the ones who will have to foot the bill and why should I?

xok85xo · #12 12-23-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ginger
I am ALL FOR this.

You know that radical and controversial thread? Well here's my radical and controversial idea.... I think people should be required to get a permit/liscense to have children. If it's an unplanned pregnancy, you still have to apply, and if you don't pass, your child goes up for adoption.

There are too many shithead parents in the world, and too many loving couples in who can't have children and can't afford the adoption process.

As someone who's ability to have children is in question, this makes me VERY ANGRY.

you took the words right out of my mouth. thank you.

Munchkin03 · #13 12-23-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ginger
I am ALL FOR this.

You know that radical and controversial thread? Well here's my radical and controversial idea.... I think people should be required to get a permit/liscense to have children. If it's an unplanned pregnancy, you still have to apply, and if you don't pass, your child goes up for adoption.

There are too many shithead parents in the world, and too many loving couples in who can't have children and can't afford the adoption process.

As someone who's ability to have children is in question, this makes me VERY ANGRY.

Ditto. Having a child should be a privilege, not a right. Hell, it's harder to get a driver's license than it is to have a child--isn't there something wrong with that?

bethany1982 · #14 12-23-2003, 05:29 PM

I can see it now. The Office of Reproductive Qualification and Behavior. The Democrats dream. Another way of forcing themselves into the lives of everyday Americans. Perhaps they could issue licenses to F’ somebody, before the act actually takes place. That way, they could tax sex. Damn!

I’m sorry sir, but your license to F’ has expired, besides that you were doing someone outside the age range of your license. Miss, may I see you license?

The1calledTKE · #15 12-23-2003, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bethany1982
I can see it now. The Office of Reproductive Qualification and Behavior. The Democrats dream. Another way of forcing themselves into the lives of everyday Americans. Perhaps they could issue licenses to F’ somebody, before the act actually takes place. That way, they could tax sex. Damn!

I’m sorry sir, but your license to F’ has expired, besides that you were doing someone outside the age range of your license. Miss, may I see you license?

Where did that come from. I would think democrats would fight for the right to procreate. Not make laws and Get a license to have sex. Its the republicans that have and want laws to ban oral sex and sex toys in some states.