General Discussion

obamanut2012

(27,884 posts)

112. Why?

Reply to Liberal_in_LA (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:43 AM

Dec 2012

He is the one not paying support. I didn't read that the women are abusive and neglectful parents like the father is.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

135 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge orders father of 9 to stop having children until he can provide for them [View all] Liberal_in_LA Dec 2012 OP

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