• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Oh, FFS.

5-90

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Hammerspace
(Sorry, I didn't catch the long link before I copypasta'd. Link's down bottom.)

Could someone tell me why sterilisation isn't an option for these people? It's not like it's a mystery what causes kids, y'know...

He was trying to get a break on the 21 he already had and ended up with nine more while the court was deciding?!?!?

Seriously, what's wrong with these people?

As a judge, I'd be inclined to say the following:

"Ladies, your children will be removed from you and placed into foster care. You are all remanded into temporary custody, long enough to have a laparoscopic tubal ligation performed and to allow you to recover. All of you should be free to resume your lives within a month. The tubal ligation operations and maintenance of your bills will end up being far less expensive to us in the long run.

"Sir, I don't know what's going on in your head, and I honestly don't care. You are also remanded into temporary custody, pending castration. Vasectomies, as you may be aware, have been known to spontaneously reverse themselves. I expect that you should be free to resume your life within two weeks, once it is confirmed that you are fully sterile.

"Under State law, I cannot order you to stop having children. However, I can order you to be prevented from having children, and you obviously don't have the brains required to put a condom to use.

"I had considered total emasculation or possibly full gender nullification, sir, in your case. However, I expect that you should recover much more quickly from castration, and this reduces the costs to the State.

"I don't know what's wrong with you people, and I don't care. You continue to make mistakes, then expect us to pay for it and to save you from the consequences of your actions or inactions. By taking these actions, I am effectively preventing you from having negative consequences, but I am also preventing future expense and complication.

"Considering that you're not bothering to keep track of your children, I expect that nearly any home that these children may be placed into by the foster care system will be more attentive and loving than you are. It is my hope that most - if not all - of these children should actually be adopted, instead of merely fostered.

"It is important for you people to realise that you are not being placed under arrest - my order will reflect that you are in custody for your protection. Therefore, no criminal record should ensue - yet.

"However, I will also be dropping any public benefits you may be currently receiving to reflect the fact that you have only yourselves to support, and you will have six months to secure gainful employment. If you should require jobs training, this will be arranged for you.

"You have obviously misunderstood the purpose of social welfare - it's not to support people using unearned income for their entire lives, but to provide short-term assistance for people when they're down on their luck - if they haven't been able to plan ahead. I somehow would not be surprised to find out you people were not the first generation of your families to be supported by the public.

"Bailiffs, please remove these people and place them in custody. Inform the sheriff that my written order will follow within 48 hours, and I expect a plan for how it is to be implemented with 48 hours after that - I'd like these people to bet able to get on with their lives within thirty days.



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...5tZW50fGNlbGVicml0eQRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

(Alternatively - BAN HAMMER!)

sorry - reading stuff like this makes me cranky. I just wish I was in a position to actually do something about it - but people like me don't get elected to positions where that's possible.

EDIT - OK, the system shortened the link. In the window, it took up five lines...
 
Apoligies that due to physical handicap I can't post long or repeatedly here. Just a word, though: In principle you're undoubtedly right, but in practice, whom would you trust in government to specify how many kids, what kind, etc., are acceptable?

We may be heading in the way of government by groups we would rather not concur with. Beware of giving them expandable power, no matter how benign it seems at the moment.

Remember it was only 40 years ago that the Supreme Court overruled a Connecticut law that made it a felony for a doctor to recommend birth control.

Be careful what power you give to churches and social groups, no matter how much you think you have in common with them.
 
The State can't do anything to prevent this.

I have known Women who have had Babies to stay on AFDC and Welfare, and they didn't much care who the Father was. Since the State is picking up the tab for the Kids, and their Mothers, it doesn't matter if Dad can pay or not.
The justice system's thought is that 'you can't get money out of a Turnip, so why make it hard on the deadbeat parent?'.

For all the Anti-Morality folks here, there are few here that would argue that this man and his partners (multiple) actions are immoral (a crime to society). So, you see, there is a place for Religion and the teaching of Morality in today's society :D
 
Apoligies that due to physical handicap I can't post long or repeatedly here. Just a word, though: In principle you're undoubtedly right, but in practice, whom would you trust in government to specify how many kids, what kind, etc., are acceptable?

We may be heading in the way of government by groups we would rather not concur with. Beware of giving them expandable power, no matter how benign it seems at the moment.

Remember it was only 40 years ago that the Supreme Court overruled a Connecticut law that made it a felony for a doctor to recommend birth control.

Be careful what power you give to churches and social groups, no matter how much you think you have in common with them.

Which is why welfare needs to be reformed - you go on, you get your amount fixed to kids you already have or are currently expecting - if you have more, then it's your problem. Go without to feed your kids.

As far as "how many is enough?" If you can't support them on your own, I think it's too many.

"On your own" - which makes me wonder just how the Duggars are supporting their nineteen children? I somehow doubt they're doing it on their own. They may not be getting any public assistance, but I can't feature them doing it all on their own, either.

And don't even get me started on Nadya Suleman ("Octomom.") She's got fourteen kids - all through IVF, and no visible means of support! The had the last eight while still on public assistance!
 
I am all for reforming welfare, unemployment benefits, amongst many other things, the problem is who would be slicing? If its anyone currently in power, on either side, they will gut it for them, and gut it for your or me, should we ever need it. Then use the savings to give tax breaks to multi millionaires and large corporations.

Anything on the national scale, comes back to the broken government...
 
Not too long ago there was a sex offender who requested castration to help control his urges. There was a huge storm over it, especially since he was black. The usual suspects jumped in and made a racial issue instead of what it was: a man who saw no other way to control his own urges than to be castrated requesting it from the state. It was eventually thrown out (the case not his manhood) and he wasn't castrated due to human rights concerns.

If a convicted rapist and molester couldn't get castrated when he asked for it, there's no way a guy whose only crime is way too many kids by way too many women will get it.
 
Not too long ago there was a sex offender who requested castration to help control his urges. There was a huge storm over it, especially since he was black. The usual suspects jumped in and made a racial issue instead of what it was: a man who saw no other way to control his own urges than to be castrated requesting it from the state. It was eventually thrown out (the case not his manhood) and he wasn't castrated due to human rights concerns.

If a convicted rapist and molester couldn't get castrated when he asked for it, there's no way a guy whose only crime is way too many kids by way too many women will get it.

Kinda like that guy out here a few years ago - I think he was a "Men's Room Killer." Caught guys out in public loos and would kill them somehow (I don't recall how.)

Stood up in court and said, in effect, "You may as well execute me. If I get out, I'll kill again."

His PD was looking for some sentence where he could be paroled.

I'm not sure if this marks me as a bad judge or a good one -
"Very well. The Court accepts your confession, your plea, and your recommendation. You will be given thirty days to get your affairs in order and make your peace with the deity of your choice, at which time you will be put to death by hanging. Court is adjourned."
 
Back
Top