http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.banned.ap/index.html
…the clearly unconstitutional ruling or the stupid parents.
Is it even legal to do that?
“Unconstitutional” implies “illegal.”
They should rebel and do another Baby Boom.
What the hell…
I tell people to never breed all the time.
Why do they want more children if they can’t raise the ones they have now? I think they should not only be disallowed to have children, but they should have surgery disallowing them to ever breed again. They clearly aren’t responsible parents, and the last thing we need is more children who grow up without a proper mother and father.
I read this about a week ago, and I don’t think it’s unfair. If they’re fucked up parents, why bring more suffering to their children? I dont have any respect for idiots who can’t take care of FOUR children. They fucking ignore everything and look what it comes down to. Rotten bastards.
Exactly, there are a lot of people who can’t have children who would make great parents, but some morons who can have children treat them like shit. THOSE are the ones who shouldn’t have kids.
I feel sorry for the kids… they’ll have to live their whole life with inferior genes. :-/
I was expecting the couple had about 6 or more kids though.
" All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers." 0_0 what the…
Thats a tough ruling but other solutions should have been tried before something such as that. Did the couple get called to court before for their lack of parenting?
I do like the harsh ruling but it is unconstitutional in taking away their right to bear children.
Off with their genitals! the parents that is.
What rights? They sold those “rights” after ignoring 4 children. As far as I’m concerned they don’t have any say in the matter.
I’m playing devils advocate i guess as well as trying not to seem so much as a spiteful person. If i had my way all those who have commited crimes would suffer eye for an eye treatment if it applies.
So if someone raped a child, a child should rape him back?
I said if it applies, but no the offender should be tortured in a way s/he doesn’t enjoy and endure the torture for as long as they live.
The “eye for an eye” policy has never been completely literal, TD. =P
If anything it’d be closer to, “If someone rapes a child, they should have their genitalia removed.”
I don’t think she means that the victim should deal the damage back in terms of abuse. Usually doing that doesn’t help, but in the case of uncaring, unfeeling parents, maybe it would give them a wake up call to the type of pain they could be inflicting upon their babies.
The judge doesn’t really have ground to stand on with this ruling.
I’m glad she made it, though.
“Great! Another unwanted, unloved, illiterate child! Why don’t we just take the “COPS” camera, shine it up your pussy, and film the little criminal coming out? THIS is crime prevention.” – Bill Hicks.
See, people have forgotten in this country that with rights come responsibilities. And just because you “have the right” to do something doesn’t mean you have to, or that you should, or that you should even want to. Eventually common sense, taste, and republican virtue (note the small “r”) is supposed to kick in.
The only red flag that goes up is the history of eugenics and the socities that have adopted eugenics as a policy, and the discriminatory policies that a eugenic approach “justified” in that society.
“I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society,” he said.
^^ and it would seem its a much needed one.
I agree with the judge. 
But I’m sure there’ll be an appeal.
I like the ruling.
The judge gets a cookie.