ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.banned.ap/index.html)

After having read this article, I didn't know whether to be appalled or slightly impressed at this Judge's ruling. It seems that the 4 children already parented by the couple are in foster care, 3 of whom have tested positive to cocaine. The State has deemed the parents unfit to care for the children, who are aged 1, 2, 4 and 5.

Now, how this ruling is to be enforced, no one knows as the Judge has not forced the parents to take contraceptives or be sterilised. But there appears to be a catch:
The judge is not forcing contraception on the couple nor is she requiring the mother to get an abortion should she become pregnant. The couple may choose to be sterilized at no cost to them, O'Connor ruled.

If the couple violates O'Connor's ruling, they could be jailed for contempt of court.


While it might appear obvious that this couple are unable to care for their children, I feel discomfort at the State and the Judiciary becoming involved to the point of ordering them not to have any more children. Actually no. I feel extreme discomfort at the thought of the State having such a power. I think back to those cringing days when the State had taken it upon itself to sterilise any individual with a mental illness. Civil liberties people are screaming out that this is unconstitutional and they would be right:
"I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this," Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. "And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution."
But in the back of my mind I think about the children they've had already. They are unable to care for the children, the last one born was taken from the mother very soon after the birth and placed in foster care. Three of the four children have tested positive for cocaine and the parents have a history of drug abuse. I admit, I feel torn between this couple's civil liberties and the right of their children not to have them as parents. So should the State be forced to care for any more children this couple may have? Should the State have so much power that it is able to tell people whether they can have children or not? A final quote from this article, as stated by the Judge in this case:

"The facts of this case and the reality of parenthood cry out for family planning education," she ruled. "This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care."
What will be next I wonder? Who else will the State order to not have children? I agree that some people should not have children. Or to put it in a different manner, should not be allowed to have children. But when I see it put into practice, I feel uncomfortable that such a right could be taken from any individual. Scary thought and a scary beginning...

Interesting topic.

It's quite clear these two individuals are unfit to be parents for a number of reasons and the judges decission, in my opinion, in no way threatens the civil liberties of others but, i would argue, protects civil liberties.

Rights and liberties are not limitless, we have obligations to each and every right or liberty we may exercise in that ones 'pursuit of happiness' cannot impede or infringe on anothers 'pursuit'.

I believe the judges decission to disallow these two to concieve more children relieves any possible further burden already placed on society - the burden to care for their children. My thought is, if you want children you better well care for them yourself and if you can't you shouldn't have children - albeit I understand mistakes happen and in those instances i'd say okay but these two have four kids, at what point do we say enough is enough?

Another aspect to consider is that children do not necessarily have the same rights or liberties as adults. They have no right to vote, there are laws prohibiting them from entering the workforce, they can't drink, they can't drive, they are restricted at theatres - to name but a few. Ultimately, it is the judicial system which protects (and i use that term loosely) the welfare of children. In this case, I'd say the judge is being proactive based on the couples history and the fact that their four children have been neglected.

I don't think it's any coincidence the judge stopped short of ordering sterilization. If that were the case then the couples civil liberties would be restricted unjustifiably. A simple court order, as is the case here, can be reversed when circumstances change i.e. the couple gets their act together. When that happens, everyone will live happily ever after and the burden placed on society will disappear.

A classic joke from the 1980s. For some reason I think it was Poundstone, but don't quote me on that:

• "You need a license to have a dog in this city. Anyone can have children."

I might manage a more useful response after I do some requisite reading.

What a load of progressive socialist bullshit. Let's stoke the fires in the Red Ark!

Stokes Pennwalt
...progressive socialist...

Why, thank-you very much!

EDIT: Was that directed towards me? If not I'm thoroughly disappointed.

While it might appear obvious that this couple are unable to care for their children, I feel discomfort at the State and the Judiciary becoming involved to the point of ordering them not to have any more children. But in the back of my mind I think about the children they've had already.I will be most interested to see how the pro-abortion and anti-abortion factions line up on this one. (Screw these stupid politically correct "pro-choice" and "pro-life" labels. Everyone I know is either for abortion or against it.)

People who favor abortion cite several reasons, but one of them is that the world cannot continue to support the children of incompetent parents. People who by their own soul-searching and/or objective analysis decide that they don't have what it takes to be good parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy, and if they have that then they certainly have the right to be sterilized. Therefore, if a couple has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard of our entire legal system) to be incapable of competent parenthood, it's no stretch to decree that society has a right to sterilize them in order to avoid having one or several more children become wards of the state.

But -- since they're generally left-liberals -- this will come smack up against their reverence for civil liberties. How can the state tell people they're not fit to have children? (Even if they've demonstrated that unfitness several times. In the left-liberal model the state has no memory of past events.)

People who oppose abortion say that it doesn't matter whether a child will be born into an environment in which he can't be raised properly -- indeed one in which he isn't even likely to survive all his one-digit birthdays. God will provide. The country needs more native-born Americans to keep it strong and oh by the way to keep Social Security solvent. It's no stretch to be outraged and protest that the state must not take away anyone's right to have a precious child: a draftee- and/or taxpayer-to-be.

But -- since they're generally conservatives -- this will come smack up against their disdain for the underclass. They don't really want poor people having children who might need public assistance, much less people whose children are guaranteed to end up being wards of the state and using up the precious tax money that they want the police and the military to have.

Both the left and the right will be in a quandary over this. Let's watch them fight it out to (hopefully, please) the death.

People who favor abortion cite several reasons, but one of them is that the world cannot continue to support the children of incompetent parents

The problem, I think, is that the decision that the couple cannot have children is just as infringing on the right of the couple to abort any child. The argument for choice is that the fetus is owned by the mother. The argument here, however, is that the State owns the fetus and hypothetical children. Of course, neither of them is right, though it should be noted that evil laws by nature are unstable, liable to reinterpretation into more evil laws.

I asked a lawyer the same question about enforcing a court condition that a woman could not have a baby last week. The defense attorney, who is very adroit in his profession, said that he thought it could not hold water because it was un-enforcable and that the political climate surrounding the position of judgeship would discourage enforcement of such a parameter. He said, that if a client of his was told to do this and she got he would feel confident in amending the courtcondition after the fact. I found the case of a woman named Relf

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_035500_sterilizatio.htm

that kinda gave some background on forced sterilazation in the United States. That article suggesed midway down that there are no current laws that are pro-sterization in existance.

I have a friend who is a cps caseworker and he has story after story after story about parents having kids and not being able to care for them...cps taking them away and the parents having more kids...at some point, morally, there has to be some accountablity on the parents part. The judge in the article appears accomodating at least in offering sterilazation at no cost to the couple. Somewhere somehow, there has to be sanctions on their pattern of drug use and reproductivty irregardless of their mental state. I am not positive on the answer either but I cannot fault the judge for drawing a line in the sand.

as a tree-hugging liberal, i say they should sterilize them right now and throw them both in jail for at least 5 years. and jail for anyone else who gives birth to children that test positive for cocaine.
god, telling them to stop having kids is just common sense. how can it be violating their rights when they're too stupid and drugged up to have any? they weren't even ordered to use birth control, just told what they should have been told all along.

I agree that there has to be some accountability and that parents should not have children if they are unable to care for them. However, who should the parents be accountable to? The State or the children themselves? In a deep recess in my mind I find myself wishing that some people were sterilised because of the crimes they have committed against their own children. Lets face it, some people just should never have had children. But I still feel that discomfort that any State should have the power to take away the right to reproduce from anyone. I find myself thinking that it is too much power to the State. Hence why I feel as though I'm stuck in the middle of this argument. I generally believe that some parents should be sterilised and/or should never be allowed to have any children. But I also believe that to give such power to any State is dangerous. Where would we draw the line as to who could and could not have children? Would there be a criteria that would be followed?

After reading about this and thinking of those 3 out of 4 children who had cocaine in their systems, I think that the parents should be tied to an ants nest after being dipped in honey. Either that or they should be shot. Will this ruling stop the woman from falling pregnant in the future? Most probably not. Maybe she should be implanted with the contraceptives that last for a couple of months or years and both parents be forced into rehab. Who really knows what will come of this. This will probably be appealled (if the parents are aware enough to do so) and I have a feeling that once this precedent is set, more will follow.

But if the State is to take such a step in this direction, then guidelines need to be set down. Parents who have all their children taken from them because of drug abuse should not be allowed to reproduce until they've gone into rehab and not re-used after a number of years, and only then would they get their children back and be able to have more children if they so wish. Maybe something like that would be preferable to enforced sterilisation. Parents need to be accountable to no one but their children. If the children are in danger from the parents, then the parents should be held accountable for their actions towards those children. But as I said, to have such a precedent is dangerous. Clear guidelines need to be set down and quickly because I feel that this case wont be the last one we see of this type.

How does such a case affect the issue of child support?

Forcing responsibility among parents is part of what we do when we track down deadbeat dads (and mothers) and force them to cough up child support. Forcing responsibility is such a controversial issue that I would not be entirely and cleanly detached from liability were I to donate sperm that is used to inseminate a woman anonymous to me.

On the drug issue - it's untenable without being considerably more specific.

• What if (and just work with me here) my child turns out to be brilliantly functional? Can the fact that either her mother and I used drugs heavily in our lives be attributed to her brilliance? Seriously ... if my kid grows up to be a perfect, productive citizen, can we blame the drugs?

Now, certain drugs, I admit, the case can be made for, as their effects are observable. But compare some things people put in their bodies that are illegal to alcohol and caffeine. You can have a baby born that is addicted to either. Doctors are prepared, by the sound of it, to intervene in some way in alcohol use, but caffeine addiction is just given an air of inadvisability.

Now, we might choose to blame television, music, and movies for problems perceived with contemporary youth, but I'm personally looking to the steady diet of Chee-tos and Pepsi, and am keeping an eye on bovine growth hormone. And then, of course, there's all the usual issues of family dynamics.

I don't expect the ruling to stand; the shortest way to do so would bring about a paradigm shift that advances the reduction of human beings to numbers in a bank ledger. (Amendment on Edit: I stand corrected; sort of. I see a cycle of argument that I can't quite follow all the way through yet that opens up a less-sinister avenue. I'll try to figure it out.)

So what happens if someone assaults this woman outside a crack house and she gets pregnant? Will the court be in the uncomfortable position of throwing her in prison if she does not miscarry or seek an abortion?

Stokes Pennwalt


Why, thank-you very much!

EDIT: Was that directed towards me? If not I'm thoroughly disappointed.
Nah dude. It was directed at this judge and connected pack of idiots who allowed this to happen.

Well seeing as how the government is what keeps worthless people alive, thus allowing them to breed, it should be their right, no, RESPONSIBILITY to govern who can and can not have children.
If anyone had a problem they would be free to abandon society all together, both its benefits and restrictions, and live in the jungle somewhere hunting and gathering to support the family they think they deserve.

I think most people here are allowing themselves to be blinded by the fact that they agree with the judge, causing them to miss the big picture. It’s pretty clear that these people are terrible, unfit parents who shouldn’t have any more children. Never the less, a judge can’t simply decree orders like this, regardless of whether or not the orders are a good idea. Our entire justice system is based around the premise that judges shouldn’t be able to just arbitrarily order people around.

I think most people here are allowing themselves to be blinded by the fact that they agree with the judge, causing them to miss the big picture.

The big picture? Okay, lets see if I'm able to capture it (the big picture that is): It's about justice, no? And justice to whom, right? If not, then I'm quite puzzled considering this;

Our entire justice system is based around the premise that judges shouldn’t be able to just arbitrarily order people around.

Good point, it really is. Although I'd suggest this statement is very presumptuous. It presumes this judge took it upon himself to rule in this matter, which is not the case. It presumes an individuals right supercedes any other right. It presumes the couple in question are the only ones affected by the decission/indecission of the judge.

Truth be told, the justice system is designed to protect us all - collectively.

You can not take some ones right to bear children. If they endanger a child then they should be arrested for endangering a child. The prosecutor should have tried them for that instead.

You can not take some ones right to bear children. If they endanger a child then they should be arrested for endangering a child. The prosecutor should have tried them for that instead.

So if someone commits habitua infanticide, they should continue to be allowed to produce more children?

The way I see it...the more defective people like this who are prevented from having more children the better....

The way I see it...the more defective people like this who are prevented from having more children the better....

I agree with you completely.

You can not take some ones right to bear children. If they endanger a child then they should be arrested for endangering a child. The prosecutor should have tried them for that instead.

Care to elaborate for us? I mean, you provided an opinion, how bout' offering support for that opinion.

California and several other states are in the process or have already made laws which state that if you kill a pregnant woman then you can be tried for two murders this implies that the fetus has some rights and would also seem to imply that the parent has some restrictions on the freedoms that a parent has with regards to what could cause damage to the individual. If you are taken to the emergency room in an accident and there are drugs in your toxicology screen then you will be charged for driving under the influence. So if their kids are born addicted to drugs it means that the parents are on drugs and can be prosecuted for those offenses.

Denying someone the most basic function of life without their breaking a specific law is unusual punishment. It also sets the precedent that the court should be allowed to decide who is an acceptable parent and which lives have a value. These are two powers that I do not think that the government has or should have.

I have a good friend who works as a casemanger over a set of caseworkers at child protective serices. His job gets to him alot. Everyday he goes into work and reads casefiles of parents who beat their children, torture their children, drug their children abandon their children ect ect. Every week he goes to court in another court battle of the state versus some parents in an effort to take the children legally away from the parents. Every week. The state already does intervine, all over the country and everyday in the affairs of famllies taking them away from torture and sometimes from future death. That is reality. How far of a stretch is it to intervention from early childhood to conception? We have age restrictions on drinking, on driving on voting....we have constraints..and wise ones for the most part, on all of them on those things and many others...but for some reason, conception, which is at least as important, and maybe more so than the others listed it completly unregulated and no morality assessed at all.....It is almost like it is a taboo to suggest, much less than impose santcions and regulations on conception. Why is that? Society exists because of rules (laws) that encourage a long lasting soical coehision as a whole. But not so much in this area. What if there were laws at least ideas, on how to regulate conception....just on paper..to test the idea of its feasablity......what would they be....what is amicable to the majority of society? What would be the youngest age that a couple could have children? What would be off-limits in terms or conception? It is really amoral or apprehensible to say that a woman drowing in cocaine not be allowed to concieve knowing that the woman is feeding cocaine to any children she becomes pregnant with by ingesting it during her pregnancy? All laws came from ideas at one point....right?

I concede that the state might have the right to regulate this case. A judge should not there needs to be some very clear restrictions and limitations on the reasons that can be used. To remove a persons right ton procreate is one of the harshest punishments that can be inflicted. If you do you are also violating the individual’s privacy. There is also the question of enforcement. How far and irreversible are you willing to go. I admit that my knee jerk reaction to this is that if someone is deliberately harming a child they should be punished extremely harshly but how do you go about it while not harming my civil liberties.

I admit that my knee jerk reaction to this is that if someone is deliberately harming a child they should be punished extremely harshly but how do you go about it while not harming my civil liberties.

I am not proposing punishment I am proposing absense before the crime is committed. There is no way to infringe on pro-creation without harming your or anyones civil liberties. That would be part of the package if there were laws and something to consider if there were laws in this area. Weasel, accepting the reality that this would infringe on your (and more so womans) civil liberites, do you have a loose paradign or idea on how the idea of banning child birth in some instances could be feasible?

The government should have to prove that these individuals were unfit parents using pretty much the same guidelines that we have for taking children away from their parents. Then the government would have to show a pattern of irresponsible behavior. The court would then allow the individuals to select a form of birth control that is approved by the court and should discuss the least intrusive way to verify continued use of the approved control. It probably should be blood test or some such test. The court should also set the conditions for a reversal hearing.

Denying someone the most basic function of life without their breaking a specific law is unusual punishment. It also sets the precedent that the court should be allowed to decide who is an acceptable parent and which lives have a value. These are two powers that I do not think that the government has or should have.

I can agree with the first sentence. I DO think that the court should be allowed to decide who are acceptable parents and who aren't. Since the government is already trying to take parenting out of the hands of the parents (that is enacting laws to make parents less responsible for their children --> alcohol, smoking, video game ratings, you name it, these laws are designed to take the burden off of parents, to make their job easier.), I think they should go the whole way and take care of the children entirely, removing the parents from the issue entirely.

On the other hand, if the government removed these age restrictions on smoking, alcohol, video games, etc then parents would be more forced to protect their children and take care of them to further their gene lines.

The fact of the matter is that society these days is too protected. Protected people become complacent and lazy. "Oh, the government will pass laws to protect my children, I don't need to protect them myself." People of that type should not be allowed to have children. People who don't take an INTEREST in raising their child, an INTEREST in protecting their child from what they deem as harmful, should not be allowed to have children. And since the government has already stepped in and PROVIDED the means to create children who will survive with minimal parental supervision, the government should a) step in and take complete control over child production or b) roll back the laws which make parents complacent and lazy. The middle ground is obviously not working.

So the bottom line is that society needs to be mortally dangerous to children so parents will take a more active role in protecting their children from "unwholesome" (whatever those may be) influences.

I agree the first thing that we need to do is to outlaw women in the workplace because that will encourage them to stay home and supervise their children. We can get the money for this by savings that we will get from not having to educate them either. Let’s be rational children need to be cherished and cared for like the important resources that they are.

Wow, this debate has brought out a number of personal ideas and perceptions of what our justice system is and is not designated to do, better yet, and more appropriately, how it protects civil liberties.

I've posted, several times throughout this thread, that each and every right, or liberty, we have comes with an obligation to not infringe on the rights and/or liberties of others. These two fuq-ups are infringing upon all our rights, as tax payers, by burdening us with the financial, not to mention the moral, responsibility of ensuring their little bastards get a good up-bringing. It is not, nor will it ever be, my 'social responsibility' for their children - considering they are 'fuq-ups'.

You know what, I now wish the judge had sterilized them both.

I agree the first thing that we need to do is to outlaw women in the workplace because that will encourage them to stay home and supervise their children. We can get the money for this by savings that we will get from not having to educate them either. Let’s be rational children need to be cherished and cared for like the important resources that they are.

Oh, ouch, the sarcasm stings like salt-water on my sandals, and the assumptions cut right to the bone of the boneless chicken I'm eating.

Seriously, parents taking an interest in the raising of their children doesn't mean "women no work, Bubba Ugh man work", it means that parents don't depend on the government to take care of their children for them, instead if they can't be home to supervise, they hire someone trusted to do so. It means parents know what their children watch on TV, it means parents discipline their children so that later in life they can trust their children to not do anything overly stupid, and if the child IS going to break the rules, they're damn well going to go about it in an intelligent manner because otherwise they WILL get caught and appropriately punished. Children who grow up in households with rules, where their parents KNOW what those children watch on tv, what video games they play, what books they read, what they do on the internet, etc turn out to be much more well adjusted than children who don't. Laws which "protect" children from {BAD} take more of the burden of childrearing from the parents, which is what we DON'T need. People tend to value things by how much they invest in them. If a parent invests more time and effort into raising a child, they will value the child more and they will be more careful and thoughtful about decisions they make that effect the future of that child.

"women no work, Bubba Ugh man work"

Now that's funny, albeit a little off topic. :D

It’s pretty clear that these people are terrible, unfit parents who shouldn’t have any more children. Never the less, a judge can’t simply decree orders like this, regardless of whether or not the orders are a good idea. Our entire justice system is based around the premise that judges shouldn’t be able to just arbitrarily order people around.

huh? it's hardly arbitray. They've already had 4 children taken away, no one argued that, even the mother agreed that her last child should be put in foster care. I hope this ruling sets a precident but I have a feeling it will be struck down eventually.

Once you prove that you're a terrible parent I'd say it's pretty reasonable to lose your right to procreate until you get your shit together. The judge didn't say they can never have children again, they just have to show they can/will support them.

Once you prove that you're a terrible parent I'd say it's pretty reasonable to lose your right to procreate until you get your shit together. The judge didn't say they can never have children again, they just have to show they can support them.

I concur.............................. [damn character restriction]

It's obvious that some people should NOT be allowed to have children. Why
do you so passionately defend dysgenics ? Excellent decision by the judge.

I believe that the state only has power to punish people who break laws. If you give it the power to punish people who have broken no laws you end up with a system that allows people to be arrested and taken to jail with no trial. It is already happening in America. You have to oppose the government’s constant desire to gain the power to make everything better because it can also use that power to make everything so much worse.

If you get caught driving drunk, you lose your privilege to drive for a time. If you use a gun in a crime you lose your right to bear arms for a time.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that if you show (by way of losing your child/children to the state) that you cannot function adequately as a parent you lose your right to have more children until you can display the ability to bear the responsibility in this case as well.

I believe that the state only has power to punish people who break laws.

True, these two haven't broken any laws but is it that much of a stretch to see that these two may be infringing on others rights and liberties; those of the children, those of the taxpayer, those of the state(keep in mind the state has rights as well, the right to govern)? And, if so, how do you propose the court deal with that possibility, considering no 'specific' law has been broken here?

Isn't not supporting your children (to the point that the state can take them away) against the law? A father that doesn't pay support is breaking the law, I'd assume it's also the case if the parent with custody doesn't adequately support them. Otherwise how could the state justifiably take them to begin with?

So if someone commits habitua infanticide, they should continue to be allowed to produce more children?
This may come as news to you, but here in the United States, we have a legal system. And, last time I checked, infanticide was illegal.

The way I see it...the more defective people like this who are prevented from having more children the better....
The notion that you are important enough to ascribe your personal preferences to the lives of others is arrogant and idiotic. What makes your invective so important that society as a whole should embrace it?

That is why we have state and federal legislators to make laws and set reasonable punishments. The judicial systems job is to interpret laws not to make new ones. That is why we have separation of powers in America.

That is why we have state and federal legislators to make laws and set reasonable punishments. The judicial systems job is to interpret laws not to make new ones.

Point well taken, although it still does not address the issue, the issue some here claim, of rights and liberties... Question is, who provides and restricts rights and liberties?

EDIT: So much for the 'big picture', this debate is lost in the weeds.....

I believe the following: the judge should not be able to take away a person’s right to procreate; the legislator does have the right to set laws into place which would prevent these people from having children. This means that the judge was wrong to remove their reproductive rights. All rights that are not surrendered to the federal government are reserved for the states in the United States that is part of our constitution.

Okay, fair enough. My debate lies in the following comment:

This means that the judge was wrong to remove their reproductive rights.

That's not entirely true, the judge simply suspended their 'privilege' to procreating via court order - I don't recall procreation being an explicit entrenched right, see here (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14). The couple most certainly can procreate if they wish and, if they do, will be held accountable to the court - keep in mind that a punishment has not been handed down.......yet! When and if the couple decides to disobey the court order then, and only then, can we engage in a debate about the couples rights and/or liberties, if they have any with regards to procreation.

At present, I would argue that a persons right to 'liberty' may be infringed due to the burden placed on them [society] to care for the couples children.

In a warm and fuzzy kinda world we wouldn't have this situation, everyone would rise to the occasion and care for those kids without objection but, we don't live in a warm and fuzzy kinda world - we live in a world infested with fuq-ups. How do we deal with fuq-ups? The same way the judge in this case did, slap them upside the head and tell them to get their act together.

I believe the following: the judge should not be able to take away a person’s right to procreate; the legislator does have the right to set laws into place which would prevent these people from having children. This means that the judge was wrong to remove their reproductive rights. All rights that are not surrendered to the federal government are reserved for the states in the United States that is part of our constitution.
And some of them are inalienable human rights, enumerated in the Constitution by the Framers. Free speech, firearm ownership, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - all of these cannot me infringed upon by any government, state, federal, or municipal.

The couple's children were taken from them because of the fact that the parents were not able to care for them in a proper manner. I am still uncomfortable with the ruling. One of the main reasons is due to this statement made by the judge:

"This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care."

This couple's right to have more children is taken from them because the State should not have to bear responsibility for the financial burden of care. It is a dangerous precedent as one only has to think of how many people depend on the State for financial aid in their day to day lives, not least the upbringing of their children.

And some of them are inalienable human rights, enumerated in the Constitution by the Framers. Free speech, firearm ownership, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - all of these cannot me infringed upon by any government, state, federal, or municipal.

As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't say anything about life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Those are in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document.

As to firearm ownership, the Constitution just says you have the right to bear arms, not necessarily own them. And that has been abridged.

Free speech has been abridged: try yelling "bomb" in an airport sometime.

What does that have to do with this thread? Well, it just goes to show that we don't really have rights, we have priviliges. And all it takes is some asshat to come along and do something stupid and we no longer have those priviliges.

Same thing goes with childbearing. We get someone like this woman (who should have been thrown off the cliffs at Sparta upon being born) who does something so incredibly selfish and stupid that the courts now must set a precedent to deal with people like this...except you get other people who abuse this precedent and use it to hurt everyone...bleh....

*ahem. both of them have been ordered not to breed.

even better.

The ninth amendment states that the enumeration of some of these rights does not mean that these are our only rights. The supreme courts job is not to abridge those rights but to determine which rights have precedence. Is your right to life more important than my right to free speech? People die in riots and panics every year.

[/QUOTE]The ninth amendment states that the enumeration of some of these rights does not mean that these are our only rights.[/QUOTE]

*pulls out pocket constitution*

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX).

Actually it seems to me that any amendment to the Constitution which could deny a previous right could not be used to deny that right. That is, even though an amendment may be added, anything in the amendment which could be used to deny a right would have no legal weight...I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not...


The supreme courts job is not to abridge those rights but to determine which rights have precedence. Is your right to life more important than my right to free speech? People die in riots and panics every year.

I can agree with that; that the Supreme Court defines the hierarchy of which rights override others, though I fail to see the implication that exercising free speech creates riots and panics. While exercising free speech certainly can create riots and panics, riots and panics aren't normally implied from the exercise of free speech, granted there are exceptions like yelling "BOMB!" in an airport but in the general case exercising free speech does not usually result in riots and/or panics...

Earlier you stated that the constitution does not cover reproductive rights. I was just stating that it does cover those rights as well as privacy and a host of other to be enumerated rights by denying them to the federal government. The constitution does allow itself to be changed and it has been changed several times: giving women the right to vote; taking away the right to own slaves; taking away the right to buy and restoring the right to buy alcohol. Some times the deadliest weapons are words. The deadliest ones I have heard are these two “get em”. You scan destroy someone’s careers with slander and their lives with libel. I was using the extreme worst case but there are many levels of control, which is why it is so dangerous to surrender any more control to the government than is absolutely necessary.

Like I said before, the problem here is that in the US judges just don't have this sort of authority. Of course it's in everyone's best interests if these people don't have any more children, and I wouldn't really have a problem if the legislature set up some sort of system to prevent obviously unfit parents from having children, but that doesn't give a judge the power to simply decree it without any sort of legislative backing. Judges are supposed to work within the context of the law. If this couple violated some sort of law by having children, then yes the judge could punish them for it. As it is, the judge appears to basically be saying “I think this is a good idea, so you have to go along with it, even though there's no law that requires it.” Sorry, but judges don't get to do that.