Whaddaya think a this...?

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.wbns10tv.com/global/story.asp?s=1859951&ClientType=Printable>Court to Decide if Man Can Be Barred From Fathering</a></h1></center>

<blockquote>Can someone be ordered not to have more children? That's the unusual condition a judge placed on a convicted felon as part of his probation for failing to pay child support.

The debate is now in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court. And the future of a 32-year-old window installer from Akron is at stake.

A Medina County judge handed down the sentence two years ago: five years probation instead of prison. But there's a catch.

Convicted deadbeat dad, Sean Talty, must make "reasonable efforts" to not father any more children. Talty's attorney argued before the Ohio Supreme Court Tuesday that it is unconstitutional because it makes wealth a requirement to reproduce. </blockquote>

The guy has 7 kids by 5 women, he owes $38,000 in child support. I believe that if you can't support the children you already have, you don't have any business having more. If there was any justice at all, they would sterlize his dumb ass.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Wow, to think I agree with you 100%

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I thought this was a joke at first, as I saw it on the local news. But it is something that would be a REAL good idea.

 

[NewGuy]

You people are as bad as the ones in support of the patriot act.

You would gladly fork over a bit of liberty for security.

 

[Big D]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crawfordplea1.html

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by NewGuy
You people are as bad as the ones in support of the patriot act.

You would gladly fork over a bit of liberty for security.

If I didn't have to pay the entitlements for these kids since he can't keep it in its pants, I really could give a rat's ass about him.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
If I didn't have to pay the entitlements for these kids since he can't keep it in its pants, I really could give a rat's ass about him.

Then you would be in favor of stiffer sentences against him, or existing ones to be enforced over actually taking away liberties, right?

 

[nycflasher]

Throw the fucker in jail. I don't see how you can order someone not to have kids. Can he not eat chocolate, too? I don't want to live in China, which is the only other country I know of to do this (enforce the number of kids you can have).

 

[acludem]

I agree that this guy should quit fathering children, but the women have to take responsibility, too. Men can't father children unless women let us. My question is what constitutes a "reasonable effort"? Does that mean he can still sleep around as long as he uses a condom?

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
I agree that this guy should quit fathering children, but the women have to take responsibility, too. Men can't father children unless women let us. My question is what constitutes a "reasonable effort"? Does that mean he can still sleep around as long as he uses a condom?

acludem

I would think that would be a "reasonable solution," according to the judge. However, the whole sentence is BS, IMO. I agree with NewGuy - this tramples on a basic human liberty (the freedom to get laid, which I'm sure is in the Declaration of Independence somewhere! ) and the judge is out of line ordering it.

My solution: start auctioning off the guy's possessions if he owes money. Bye bye car, TV, furniture, CDs, etc.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Then you would be in favor of stiffer sentences against him, or existing ones to be enforced over actually taking away liberties, right?

How's about we keep his dumb ass outta prison and employed so he can support his kids instead of the state. And while they're at it, give him a vasectomy so as to make any further chances of him procreating nil.

The freedom to procreate, like any other freedom, entails responsibilities. If you can't live up to the responsibilities, you don't deserve the freedoms.