From CNN: Wednesday, January 5, 2005 Posted: 7:44 AM EST (1244 GMT)
ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A Family Court judge who last year stirred debate about parental responsibilities ordered a second drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.
I know what you are thinking; finally, someone is putting the responsibility of child bearing on parents and not the government, and they are going to force contraception, abort, sterilize or shoot this loser who has had 3 of her 7 babies born addicted to cocaine. No, unfortunately she hasn’t been taken out of the gene pool yet, but will be thrown in jail for contempt if she gets pregnant again. So, it’s a start, and you can thank Judge Marilyn O'Connor of NY for this spark of rationalism.
But, of course, the NY Civil Liberties Union is piping in saying the judge has no right to do such a thing because it "tramples on a fundamental right -- the right to procreate." and "Ordering a woman under threat of jail not to have any more babies ... puts the court squarely in the bedroom. And that's no place for the government."
That’s funny but isn’t that what got Dubya elected, putting the court in the bedroom? Why is it ok to put laws into the bedroom in one place and not the other? Having a child that you can’t take care of is hardly a personal, private issue or a fundamental right. I’ve put more thought into which aspirin to put in my body than this lady puts in deciding which dick to put into hers. Where in the constitution does it say everyone in America has the right to have 7 babies with 7 different fathers (which she did) and that the tax payers have to pay for all of them, especially when they end up in foster homes. Hmmm... Looking, looking… nope, nowhere!
In fact, I think the more kids you have, the less welfare and the fewer food stamps you get. Also, if you live in public housing and have a 2 bedroom with 2 kids, and have another baby, they should force you to move you to a one bedroom. Maybe that will teach people that if you can’t afford or take care of the first baby, then maybe it’s not a good idea to have another one.
It’s basically like me going out and buying a Porsche and when I figure out I can’t afford it, I’ll go out and buy another one, and make you pay for both of them, while I go out and shoot dope.
God Damnit, I have a fundamental right to own a Porsche! That’s what I call “the pursuit of happiness.”
Man, I don’t know why I haven’t run for office yet.
8 comments:
Well I don't think the problem is really having all of the kids. If you can have all those kids and take care of them, so be it I guess. But I think the problem here is, that you have 3 kids born hooked on coke and the other 4 highly susceptible to becoming drug addicts. That in turn is going to cause more problems than one stupid slut, the fact that you have 7 more coke heads on the street. They should abort all crack/heroin babies. I'm sorry, i'm not pro-choice, i'm not pro-life, i'm pro abortion. Fuck you and your kids. Kill them if its going to make our world and THERES a better place. And trust me, being born hooked on heroin or coke (especially heroin) probably isn't much fun, these poor kids never have a fucking chance. But, I think if you're going to buy a Porsche, you need to buy that 2nd one and give it to me. umm, a Carrera will do just fine, 2004, or 03 will do too.
By the way, I heard that some chick in California was giving drug addict chicks $1000 to have their tubes tied. Fucking brilliant. I myself am a ex/recovering whatever you wanna fucking call it, heroin addict. And I'm totally down for this. Fuck them, they shouldn't have kids. Just like me, I knew that I shouldn't have any, so I didn't.
No kids as far as you know anyway.
Looking at the people who post on your blog it appears that you have been indulging in a whole lot of intellectual incest.
"the right to procreate"
Looking...looking...looking. Nope, not in the US Constitution. Maybe they could argue on the "right to life" part, saying that she has the right to create all the life she wants.
Being probably one of Darwin's biggest supporters, I would be in full support of getting this woman sterilized, just like my cat. Unfortunately for us all, there isn't nearly enough chlorine in the genepool. People like her are infecting the rest of the human waste with their inferior intelect and common sense. As she is obviously not one of the "fittest" why are we all paying for her and her crack-baby offspring's survival? Let's ship all these people to Mexico as an exchange, as they're obviously too incompetant to do anything as mentally challenging as crossing the boarder.
Interesting idea, give Mexico all of our losers in exchange for all their hard workers looking for a better life. The Mexicans can take the place of the smack losers and the smack losers can go be closer to the source of the smack, and would never figure out how, nor have the energy to come back across. Thus you are rewarding people with ingenuity (able to cross international borders undetected) and punishing people who are a dredge on society. Not bad, I may want a subscription to your news letter once you can convince me that the losers won’t end up on some sunny beach paradise while we stay here and shovel snow. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Perhaps just make them all go to TJ.
Yo John,
I agree with you. Take all the welfare reciepients and send them to Mexico in exchange for two hard workers.
That would be one way to wean people off of the system...or maybe we should put people on Welfare to work.
RE: Joe
Yes it would be nice to make them work, such as making prisoners pick up garbage, but the problem is most of them have 12 kids and no father. But for the men, yes pick up my garbage.
Post a Comment