Thursday, January 06, 2005
The Fundamental Right to Procreate?
A brand new "right" has been discovered by the liberal loonie defenders of psychotic and drug addicted, promiscuous mothers who neglect or murder their children:
The right to procreate.
Family court judge Marilyn O'Connor ordered thirty one year old judged W. to stop having children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has (by seven different men). Three of the children tested positive for cocaine at birth. Currently, all the children are in foster care.
Naturally, the New York Civil Liberties Union is up in arms:
Wrong Donna! What kind of society are we if we allow such abuse to take place. Clearly this woman has shown, by sleeping around and snorting coke that she has no interest in taking care of her existing children. And if she refuses to act responsibly, then somebody has to protect the children. But then again, the loonie liberals are not concerned with the rights of children to grow up in a loving home free from violence and neglect.
This all reminds me of the Andrea Yates case. Yates was found guilty of drowning her five children in the bathtub. Here was a clearly unstable woman taking psychotropic medication, who ignored the advice of her psychiatrist not to have more children (Heck, Bill O'Reilly, mentioned in one of his shows a while back that the doctor even wrote on the prescription pad "no more kids").
It seemed to me like Yates and her husband believed that their "right" to procreate trumped every other logical consideration. Obviously, when things got rough, Yates must have felt that her mental troubles must gave her the "right" to drown her children.
Currently Yates' murder convictions have been overturned due to the faulty testimony of a defense witness.
Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if Yates were to get pregnant yet again!
The right to procreate.
Family court judge Marilyn O'Connor ordered thirty one year old judged W. to stop having children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has (by seven different men). Three of the children tested positive for cocaine at birth. Currently, all the children are in foster care.
Naturally, the New York Civil Liberties Union is up in arms:
The New York Civil Liberties Union maintained that the opinion cannot be enforced because it "tramples on a fundamental right - the right to procreate."
"There is no question the circumstances of this case are deeply troubling," said the group's executive director, Donna Lieberman. "But ordering a woman under threat of jail not to have any more babies ... puts the court squarely in the bedroom. And that's no place for the government."
Wrong Donna! What kind of society are we if we allow such abuse to take place. Clearly this woman has shown, by sleeping around and snorting coke that she has no interest in taking care of her existing children. And if she refuses to act responsibly, then somebody has to protect the children. But then again, the loonie liberals are not concerned with the rights of children to grow up in a loving home free from violence and neglect.
This all reminds me of the Andrea Yates case. Yates was found guilty of drowning her five children in the bathtub. Here was a clearly unstable woman taking psychotropic medication, who ignored the advice of her psychiatrist not to have more children (Heck, Bill O'Reilly, mentioned in one of his shows a while back that the doctor even wrote on the prescription pad "no more kids").
It seemed to me like Yates and her husband believed that their "right" to procreate trumped every other logical consideration. Obviously, when things got rough, Yates must have felt that her mental troubles must gave her the "right" to drown her children.
Currently Yates' murder convictions have been overturned due to the faulty testimony of a defense witness.
Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if Yates were to get pregnant yet again!
