Drug addict ordered not to have any more children

Remove all ads!

Erm...i don't exactly regard a judge as guidance, nobody does. I meant psychiatrists, people who know what they're talking about. A judge is just someone who comes to a verdict, and often enough it's not even a good one too.

 

Well I don't think the article presented the standpoint of the woman very well. I would like to know why she did not have abortion and I would also like to know if she really wanted to have anything to do with those children or not. If the state does not offer free abortion (I assume the lack of money was the biggest reason she did not have an abortion but of course I could be wrong) these are exactly the sorry cases that will happen.

Putting the woman to jail just because she has a child is just stupid. What should she do if she for example got raped or is taken advantage of by some drunk? Should she be put to jail for that?

The courts are practically forcing her to get sterilized or abstain of having sex since preventation is not 100% certain and probably not very well available for her either. Personally I think she should be put to jail for neglecting her children or because of drug abuse but to threaten her with a jail sentence if she gets a child is just stupid.

 

Perhaps in this case the judge considered her having another child as a form of child abuse. I would certainly consider any form of excessive drug or alcohol use during pregnancy that could have an adverse affect on the child once it's born to be child abuse.
Threatening to put her in jail may be stupid, but I'm guessing this judge is trying to provide more consequences to this lady's lifestyle since she doesn't seem to be phased by having children.

 

I'm just wondering how that woman has reacted to this verdict. You know, she might have just snubbed and ignored it...

 

I don't.

You'll note I said that government intervention isn't an option. I agree with you. That doesn't change my belief that many people out there shouldn't be having kids.

 

Chance to right the wrongs has been given, anyway. It's only reasonable that the woman should start giving a damn about all her seven previous children who are in foreign custody right now than produce another five just to leave them on their own.

People have some right to procreate but not to reproduce and have someone else do the job of caretaking and upbringing.

News: people don't have to get stoned and put out with strangers. It's their own choice. If someone can't hold her legs together, abortion is not a solution to the problem.

1 There would be no guilt for conception on the woman's part if she were raped, so no punishment would apply. 2 The judge said she didn't require abortion, so there would be no guilt for carrying the child, and so no punishment would apply.

Taken advantage by a drunk in a situation other than rape? Well, she doesn't have to get stoned as a rock with lonely strangers.

The judge said she didn't require any form of contraception or infertilisation or abortion. So yeah, this sounds like abstinence. People don't have to shag like bunnies; if she can't take the responsibility for having fun with guys, she should be out rather than producing more and more cocaine-positive children each with a different man.

Perhaps the judge actually wanted her to start working on reclaiming the children. Putting her to jail would delay the process.

If I were the judge, I would give the woman a choice: therapy and reclaiming her children under some penalty or going to jail right away for child abuse, drug possession etc. I would seriously think about the ban on further children, as it could lead to the woman having abortion and that's not exactly the way to teach her responsible parenting. Doesn't mean I wouldn't heavily limit her social life along with those drug orgies, effectively forcing her to keep her legs crossed.

 

Ideally, she should be put into rehab to get her off the drugs first, then helped to find a job so she could afford a house and afford to take care of her kids.
Since none of this is going to happen, and without knowing anything more about the woman and her life, my sympathies in this case lie with the children.

Agreed, and I'd be curious to hear what the judge had to say about that.

I'm curious as to how you would limit the social life of a homeless drug addict? This is a sad situation all around, and regardless of everything thing else, getting the children in to foster care was probably the best thing to come out of all this.

 

Yeah free will is great and all but if she's seriously an addict then she has really not much choice than get the drugs where ever they are available. To say that it's her own choise is stupid. Once one gets addicted to the drug the drug will control her thoughts and her will. It's quite naive to say that it's her choice to get stoned at this point.

Sexual intercourse can't be a punishable act. It may be so in the bible but it can't be so in the law, unless you live in a theocracy that is.

No people don't have to shag like bunnies. But who are you or the courts to say that they should not be able to do so? One has a right to decide about his/her own sexual behaviour.

Personally I feel the woman should be given the choice of anti-drug treatment or prison sentence. Trying to limit her sexual life with a threat of a jail sentence is wrong and something I would not accept.

 

Morgoroth is right. The Woman should be in treatment or jail. That would be a step to get her on the right track or out of sexual circulation...

 

I agree. Jail or treatment makes the most sense for this woman. I'm pretty sure we don't allow this, but I would also forcibly remove her from her situation. After her treatment or jail time was over, I would place her on a farm a thousand miles away from her problems. Returning to the origin of her problems can't possibly help her.