Day by Day

Monday, October 01, 2007

Here's why I'm not a complete libertarian

I agree with libertarianism on quite a few fronts. But here's something I cannot agree with.

A family court judge overstepped her authority by ordering a drug-addicted homeless couple to have no more children, a state appeals court ruled Friday in overturning the ban.

Judge Marilyn O’Connor banned Stephanie Pendleton and Rodney Evers in 2004 from having more children until they could get back the four children they lost to foster care, three of whom tested positive for cocaine at birth.

Pendleton, now 38, challenged the ruling.

“We conclude that the court had no authority to prohibit (Pendleton) from procreating,” a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court wrote.

Yes, a normal person has the right to procreate. But I do not agree that you have that right if it damages the children and causes the rest of the country to take up the burden of raising your kids.

I might get flamed for this, but I've seen too many drug addicts popping out kids as fast as they possibly can, all of whom become wards of the state and have some major health issues because of the drugs the "mothers" were using while they were pregnant.

I mean, let's toss the fact that these drug-addicted shitheads are costing US taxpayers flaming assloads of money by forcing other people to raise their kids; let's look at the effect on the kids themselves. They were born ADDICTED TO CRACK! All the development that normally takes place in the womb either cannot or will not happen because the mother WAS USING CRACK WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT! They are irreparably damaging these kids before the kids are even born!

Do any of us have the right to force someone to do crack? No? Then what gives the mother the right to do so? We're not talking about a glass of wine, we're talking about crack cocaine here, something that will damage this kid for the rest of his life. And since they're homeless crack addicts, the cost of taking care of those kids is born by society.

That's not right. And to be perfectly honest, I have no problem telling a couple of crack addicts that they can't have ANYMORE KIDS ADDICTED TO CRACK!

Yes, I know this could become a slippery slope. But there is a fine line between what's good for an individual and what's good for the country. We tread on that line every day. Speed limits? Who sets speed limits? Is that not the same thing in a different form? I can safely drive at high speeds, so why shouldn't I be able to do so? There's no adoption agency in the world that would let me adopt if I went in and said "Oh, by the way, I'm a crack addict and I plan on getting these kids hooked on crack as soon as possible." People understand that this is not a good thing. And yet we are just supposed to allow two homeless crack addicts, who have no intention of getting off crack, to have yet ANOTHER child who's addicted to crack?

Nope. Here is one situation where I have no problem with those two being forcibly sterilized.

Now let the flaming begin.

By the way: There's a commenter at Rachel's place who had this to say:

That being said:If we put the drug addicts who are breaking the law in PRISON for their CRIMES, then this whole problem goes away! Poof! Like magic or somethin’.

If we put them in prison it would certainly prevent them from having any more drug-addicted kids. But just how long would they stay in jail, hmmmmmm?

There are too many problems involved in this one case to solve with one solution. But until we as a country are ready and willing to deal with the harsh realities of drug addicts, the cultures that create them and the way we deal with them, preventing them from reproducing is the only thing we can do.

No comments: