Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Common sense indeed. unreadierLizard Dec 2012 #1
BIG slippery slope. Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #2
^ This. This again. Still this. nt Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #4
Really? atreides1 Dec 2012 #7
I'd file it under Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #17
+1 HonEur12 Dec 2012 #41
When the burden of feeding and housing those children falls to the state, LiberalAndProud Dec 2012 #73
Reproductive rights involve caring for children BainsBane Dec 2012 #77
Yes, a woman can blueamy66 Dec 2012 #91
Those are consequences BainsBane Dec 2012 #93
Then why sleep with a man who already has 9 children? blueamy66 Dec 2012 #94
"Women aren't stupid." intheflow Dec 2012 #97
Why not use protection? blueamy66 Dec 2012 #106
Np, a woman doesn;t take ANY blame for someone not paying support obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #109
Last time I checked, support was based on both the mother and the father's salaries blueamy66 Dec 2012 #123
Yeah, the Woman Does RobinA Dec 2012 #127
Who says she can't support her kids??? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #131
The issue is the children BainsBane Dec 2012 #98
True that, I guess. blueamy66 Dec 2012 #108
You stated this so-called "debate" obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #110
obviously the women are responsible BainsBane Dec 2012 #124
This obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #132
Some of them may not have known of his other children Marrah_G Dec 2012 #113
"So, who files for this "taxpayer" assistance?" Exactly. n/t lumberjack_jeff Dec 2012 #118
Its called the 9th amendment Ya Basta Dec 2012 #22
Only if it is, in fact, a right. Is it a right to create life and then violate its right to life, patrice Dec 2012 #44
only corporations have the right to create life. and destroy it. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #54
Define right tama Dec 2012 #83
Using the 9th Amendment is a BIG slippery slope dballance Dec 2012 #80
no, the constitution only guarantees reproductive freedom to corporations, as well as the HiPointDem Dec 2012 #53
+++1 patrice Dec 2012 #71
Agreed. n/t gollygee Dec 2012 #20
Yep n/t LadyHawkAZ Dec 2012 #30
one that badly needs to be slid down, IMO.... mike_c Dec 2012 #35
I've read a few of your posts lately, and we've got quite a lot in common. Gregorian Dec 2012 #40
There's a lot of confusion out there about the differences between liberty and freedom. nt patrice Dec 2012 #46
not to mention the Judge's inability to enforce the order. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #67
No just throw his sorry arse in jail if he does. TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #75
Is he on probation for life? Luminous Animal Dec 2012 #76
Why not? He's probably sentenced his kids to life behind the 8-ball. TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #107
I'd agree as long as it was the same for everyone. Live and Learn Dec 2012 #86
So you're anti-choice. nt Union Scribe Dec 2012 #89
only to the extent that, say, Garrett Hardin was "anti-choice...." mike_c Dec 2012 #128
Yes. There are a lot of seemingly good 1 offs to violate Constitutional Freedoms. 99.99999% are bad stevenleser Dec 2012 #38
How? RomneyLies Dec 2012 #50
Unfortunately, rejecting the conditions of his probation defacto7 Dec 2012 #82
Agreed. nt Live and Learn Dec 2012 #85
Life is a slippery slope and ashling Dec 2012 #117
I agree. Third Doctor Dec 2012 #3
9 children by 6 women. Seems like the women should get the same sentence...no? Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #6
are they each having nine children? moreover are they not providing for their kids? La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #33
I don't know blueamy66 Dec 2012 #95
Who cares -- the guy is 100K in support arrears obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #114
Why? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #112
Is this a "poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids" post? noamnety Dec 2012 #12
isn't that what the judge is saying with the sentence? Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #15
Yep, but I expect that from some judges, noamnety Dec 2012 #34
You don't know DU very well then, I guess. closeupready Dec 2012 #47
yes, and getting lots of support from the good liberals here. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #56
That could be the result and why it is a very poor decision. nt Live and Learn Dec 2012 #87
So, if he fathers another child, thats a violation of his probation and he goes to jail? Beaverhausen Dec 2012 #5
Apparently he is not making them out of jail either... peacebird Dec 2012 #9
So why not jail him now? closeupready Dec 2012 #13
he's behind 50K and 40K is interest (that's student loan type interest accrual) Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #14
doesn't MrDiaz Dec 2012 #11
Not making them now. At least that way he's not making babies anymore. nt geek tragedy Dec 2012 #27
Doesn't it take two people to make a baby? blueamy66 Dec 2012 #96
Where did it state the mothers are neglectful and not caring obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #115
I'm not slagging moms blueamy66 Dec 2012 #121
Stupid. closeupready Dec 2012 #8
I would say the same thing for a mother of 9 Quantess Dec 2012 #10
Absolutely, 100% correct! Rider3 Dec 2012 #28
Octomom should be in the klink? Cayenne Dec 2012 #84
So, exactly where would you put the limit on kids for the poor? Live and Learn Dec 2012 #88
Nobody would listen to me anyway, when policy is made. Quantess Dec 2012 #101
Yeah.....I totally agree blueamy66 Dec 2012 #122
I'm glad people on DU don't make laws. closeupready Dec 2012 #16
legislating reproductive rights, and based on finances? NightWatcher Dec 2012 #18
it seems that the the fact that there are 6 mothers makes the guy look like a bum. if it Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #23
If he were not married to her he would. alphafemale Dec 2012 #42
Well apparently he's good at something. ToxMarz Dec 2012 #102
An outlet for his "talent" alphafemale Dec 2012 #130
Exactly - it treats poor people differently treestar Dec 2012 #65
In most cases of fines and fees and so forth, I'd agree with your rationale. joeunderdog Dec 2012 #134
You're right re: fines treestar Dec 2012 #135
I would say... Though almost appropriate in this case, too dangerous a road to go down... Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #19
agreed La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #36
What is the criteria? zipplewrath Dec 2012 #21
How about complying with court orders and legal obligations? geek tragedy Dec 2012 #29
Right, where they are neglected by state child welfare agencies. closeupready Dec 2012 #32
You think he gives a shit about having his kids taken away? Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #37
Ah, the answer to poverty! me b zola Dec 2012 #78
reproductive rights should be equal across the board. period. backtoblue Dec 2012 #24
off topic: your sig line is cute. lol Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 #26
thanks! lol backtoblue Dec 2012 #39
Good! Rider3 Dec 2012 #25
sometimes what seems like a commonsensical decision, would be extremely La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2012 #31
i agree backtoblue Dec 2012 #45
Love! that sig! such a darling little stick-person! patrice Dec 2012 #70
Are we sure that it is about finances? or the level of personal responsibility for those lives? patrice Dec 2012 #72
Obviously you can't outlaw consensual fucking, so what if Ya Basta Dec 2012 #43
Unless the judge plans to have him castrated, I don't see how he can enforce this SoCalDem Dec 2012 #48
The judge said (in the article) that he didn't have the authority to have him sterilized. Angleae Dec 2012 #99
I hope he appeals, and that part of the ruling overturned. closeupready Dec 2012 #49
Most communities wouldn't allow you to have 9 CATS if you couldn't take care of them. alphafemale Dec 2012 #51
Cats can be euthanized, too. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #59
Good for the judge. Subsidizing those that overpopulate is ridiculous. nt Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #52
yes, only the reproduction of those who can afford to consume 100 times their weight HiPointDem Dec 2012 #55
At best, this man is a bit player in his children's lives-- TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #57
Stay the fuck out of my bedroom! Ya Basta Dec 2012 #58
As almost a pure aside: Technically, this deadbeat dad is genetically WAY ahead of the game. Poll_Blind Dec 2012 #60
I agree with the Judge but how do you enforce it? arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #61
Ball peen hammer, hatchet, anvil, scalpel............ kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #104
Penis belt?;). n/t arthritisR_US Dec 2012 #129
I understand this but it scares me. This can be turned around against the mothers of these children jwirr Dec 2012 #62
Can't he just say he aborted them (financially)? The Straight Story Dec 2012 #63
Uh, no treestar Dec 2012 #64
It is a patently illegal order... ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #66
The alternative was prison time. Angleae Dec 2012 #100
Other. Care Acutely Dec 2012 #68
How can that be done? Spirochete Dec 2012 #69
I too don't see how this can be enforced. KitSileya Dec 2012 #74
I don't know if the ruling is legal or not BainsBane Dec 2012 #79
Is the court going to provide free birth control for the man and any potential AllyCat Dec 2012 #81
Common sense dictates that you don't have another child with a dude that already has 9 blueamy66 Dec 2012 #90
It would be wonderful if more people applied some common sense to their family planning decisions slackmaster Dec 2012 #111
He should have given him 5 years probation and reduce it to 3 if he'd get a vasectomy TexasBushwhacker Dec 2012 #92
I think that's a wonderful solution. hamsterjill Dec 2012 #119
Take away tax deuction for more than 2 children ok maybe 3 thats it........ kooljerk666 Dec 2012 #103
I agree with the judge on this one. Ferretherder Dec 2012 #105
The problem I have with this is that Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #116
Bad sentence because it is near impossible to enforce AlexSatan Dec 2012 #120
Law student here, support the judge, totally- and I think within his power. nt cecilfirefox Dec 2012 #125
Support your kids, you fucking loser! Throd Dec 2012 #126
As Judge Judy says, "Snip it or zip it" obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #133
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Judge orders father of 9 ...»Reply #34