Day by Day

Sunday, May 09, 2004

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

We've all either had personal contact with or heard stories of the welfare moms who pop out kids after kid, haven't we? I've had personal contact with hundreds of these women, due to where I work. Women who have had anywhere from three to ten kids, all of them taken away by DSHS or CPS. It's infuriating on many levels. One, you have a kid who's life is screwed up from the get-go. Either the mother was a drug fiend, and the kid has tons of problems right out of the womb, or the kid gets bounced around from foster home to foster home, causing all kinds of emotional and mental issues. All because mommy wouldn't put down the crack pipe. The burden on society caused by these oxygen thieves, and the damage done to the children that they invariably pop out like clockwork is immeasurable.

Let's just look at it from the child's perspective, shall we? As a baby, the kind of attention and care that you need is withheld from you, because mommy is too busy getting high, or trying to get high, or planning on how to get high, and mommy can't be bothered with this annoying smelly bundle. Daddy, when he's around at all (which is almost never) is either also a drug fiend, or his efforts are negated by the mother's life. There's nothing as frustrating as trying to raise a kid when the mother can cancel all your efforts out of negligence, spite, or actions caused by her addiction. What kind of life can the kid expect when his parents are, quite honestly, not worth a squirt of piss? And what kind of person will that child grow up to be? Good people don't just appear out of thin air, they have to have the proper guidance and instruction. A child learns from what's around him. If a kid is surrounded by nothing but welfare families, crack whores, and criminals, do you honestly think that the kid will grow up to be a functioning member of society? No, of course not! Not without a serious form of intervention. And yet America seems to allow the welfare families, crack whores and various other criminals the ability to have kid after kid after kid, causing untold amounts of misery for those children as well as placing an ever growing burden on society.

Which is why I smiled when I saw this.

A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

Will this work? Will the ruling even be allowed to stand? I'm not sure, but I think it's a good start.

A civil liberties advocate said the court ruling unsealed Friday was "blatantly unconstitutional."

Standard rhetoric from a civil liberties advocate. I'm sorry, but the ACLU has come up with more mysterious "civil liberties" and "constitutional rights" than I can count. Can't get something accepted? Call it a constitutional right and take it to court. Standard procedure. See NAMBLA for examples.

Monroe County Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ruled March 31 that both parents "should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense."

"The facts of this case and the reality of parenthood cry out for family planning education," she ruled. "This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care."

Start cheering at this point. I think we've found our next Supreme Court nominee.

The judge is not forcing contraception on the couple nor is she requiring the mother to get an abortion should she become pregnant. The couple may choose to be sterilized at no cost to them, O'Connor ruled.

If the couple violates O'Connor's ruling, they could be jailed for contempt of court.

The choice is actually quite simple. Stop being a worthless drugged out skank, stop being a deadbeat dad (in the worse sense!), stop popping out kids you can't raise, and become a functioning member of society. Then you can have kids. Otherwise, stop screwing!

"I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this," Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. "And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution."

I would like to see the part of the constitution which states that I, and everyone else who is shouldering their responsibilities as a member of society, should be forced to take on the burden caused by this couple's CHOICES. I would like to see the part of the constitution that says it's OK for the state to take the fruits of my labor and use them to prop this woman's lifestyle up. I would like to see the section of the constitution which says that this woman is allowed to burden the rest of society with the costs of her lifestyle. Please, show that to me.

And here's where I started to blow my top.

Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.

Daddy must have been too busy getting high. If they don't care enough about their kids to even show up in court to fight for them, why the hell should they have any more? Can someone answer me that?

The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children. (emphasis mine)

COCAINE! The oldest kid is FIVE YEARS OLD AND HE TESTED POSITIVE FOR COCAINE! This woman isn't just a shitty parent, she's a fucking CRIMINAL! As far as I'm concerned, she should have her uterus ripped out without the benefit of painkillers or knock-out drugs, and then she should be tossed in jail! The daddy should have his shriveled little dick chopped off at the same time! I would like to see ONE DAMN PERSON try to justify giving this woman those children back! ONE DAMN PERSON! Jebus H. Bend-me-over-and-fist-me CHRIST!

And you just KNOW that there will be lawyers running to this worthless fucking crackwhore's aid. "Oh, it's unconstitutional! A child should be with it's mother! Blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah fucking blah!" Fuck them, piss on this woman, and piss on the father as well. There are responsibilities that go with the rewards of living in a society. You can't have one without the other. This woman is worse than worthless, she's not only fucked up her life but most likely the lives of those poor kids. More importantly, the damage she is causing due to her being a worthless fucking crackwhore isn't going to go away any time soon, it will extend for years with her kids. Bravo on the judge for attempting to stop this woman from causing any more harm.

She chose to be a worthless crackwhore. It's now time for us to choose not to support her or her choices. I don't think that a person who contributes less than nothing to society should expect the support of that society. More to the point, there shouldn't be any child who has to be tortured by having this worthless fucking crackwhore as a parent.

Found via Right Thinking.

No comments: