I've always been one of those people that believe that there are a LOT of people in this world who shouldn't have children. I mean, you have to pass a test to learn to drive, but just anyone can have a child.
I know it probably goes against everything I believe about living in a free society, but I kind of agree with this judge's decision.
When I first saw the headline that a judge mandated that this women not to have any more kids, I thought it was because she had like 17 kids or something (a practice that part of me wouldn't oppose) imagine my surprise.....
What do YOU think?
4 comments:
Oh my. Now that is just a BAD idea. WHAT was she thinking? Geez. I think the judgment was a little harsh personally. How many people out there do through life daily and do not put their kids in carseats or the proper carseats? A lot more than I care to think about. I guess from the Christian point of view, she made a really bad choice and should have to suffer some consequences. To mandate that someone like that not be able to procreate - I'm not so sure about that. That's taking God's work into the hands of the government right? So, I guess this naturally leads into discussions of capital punishment, huh? (The whole taking God's work into the hands of government.) Am I way off base here? At the same time, there are many people in the world who should absolutely not be able to procreate or have custody of any children - period. "Should not" vs. are "legally unable to" are big differences, though.
Oh, wow. While I TOTALLY hate the idea of mandating sterility, and think that this case should be overturned just because it's a dangerous precedent to set, I hear you on your sorta-agreement.
This girl is only 20, and to give her a little advice not to have kids for 10 years is probably a good idea. Maybe by the time she's thirty she'll have grown up a little bit. There are a lot of people who don't start having kids until then.
I have nothing major to say except that the picture made me chuckle. I so needed that! What are people thinking???
I agree that she is NOT ready or is capable to raise children. Anyone that would let someone else hurt their child needs to be hurt themselves! About the judges sentence...from a parents view point, I agree with it. It's not like the judge is keeping her from EVER having child...she just needs time to grow up. My husband and I adopted a special needs child. His birth mother was 27 and her boyfriend was 47. They both were on Meth, Cocaine, and were drunks! Ian was born @ 25wks due to this. 1lb 10ozs, 12in. long. His prognosis was not good. He was expected to die at any point. He sayed in NICU for 4mths before he was released to us as a foster child. The government was giving him back to his parents! Fortunately after 8 mths of trying to teach them Ian's medical, physical, and emotional needs, they were told to give up their rights or else they would be taken from them. They gave them up. They already had 3 special needs children, then had a 26 day old baby die with an unknown reason of death, and now have Ian to care for. She knew what she was doing when she was doing those durgs, but did she care how it was affecting the unborn child? NO. The birth mother said she was going to keep having children until she had a healthy one...now is THAT fair? Is THAT right? She needs to be stopped and if it's a judge that can do it...then so be it. By the way, she had that "other" baby, which will probably be taken away, along with the other 3, due to their use of drugs and alochol again. Luckily for Ian, he WAS taken away from that situation permanently. He is now our son!! HIS little body IS paying though for HER mistakes! Only through God's miraculous Love and Grace is Ian with us today!! From a medical standpoint, his Dr.'s have no answer of why he did not die. We do though!!...
Tiffany Turner
Post a Comment