Ohio court bars man from having more kids

  • Thread starter Thread starter oldcelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t see a problem he is not being responsible for the kids he has he should not be out there having sex having more kids that he will not support. His sex privliledges should be revoked I mean they aren’t threatening sterilization it’s just telling him to abstain!

crack down on child support laws I mean the minimum in my state a man has to pay is 42 dollars a week for one kid, it goes based on the man’s income they cannot take more than 24 percent I believe. So why no pay it? If they would go hunt these men down and lock them up after missing the first month of payments men making babies and running might stop as well.
 
Stillsosola said:
I don’t see a problem he is not being responsible for the kids he has he should not be out there having sex having more kids that he will not support. His sex privliledges should be revoked I mean they aren’t threatening sterilization it’s just telling him to abstain!
Click to expand...
Sex is a privilege between two consenting adults, not granted from the state, which has little privilege to grant, given that the democratic, republican state is a utilitarian tool for governance, not an arm of the king to do his bidding.
 
Well according to the judge, you can have as many children as you can afford? So 10 really is irrelevant, one may be too many that be the case.

Perhaps we can solve this issue and abortion, only those who can verify through bank accounts they can afford to raise a child may partake in parenting and the acts which lead to parenting.

1 year punishment 1st offense

5 years second offense.

3rd offense 3-strikes -Life Sentence for persistent transgressions against life.

What the heck if we can’t or won’t teach morality and we can’t grasp safety, then we need to protect them from themselves and the rest of us.
 
The court has definitely overstepped its bounds. First off, why is he given full responsibility for bringing a child into the world? This is a two-person process.

Secondly, whatever his financial and legal responsibilities, it is not up to the court what this man does or does not do privately with another well within the norms of human behavior (moral or not).
 
SecretCatholic said:
it is not up to the court what this man does or does not do privately with another well within the norms of human behavior (moral or not).
Click to expand...
When what you do in private, which by contingent then involves the state, “child support” then you made it their responsibility. That’s how they ended up in court to begin with.

I propose the situation be removed from family court which is a kick down from criminal court. And remain in Criminal court to be subject to legal obligation.

And for the exact reason mention, we are not the moral police or in the family rearing business, nor in the population control of the morally absent. Take responsibility for your own actions.
 
The guy is obviously a total jerk and dead beat and I have complete empathy with the judge’s opinion. Having said that, how does the judge propose to carry out this sentence? Does he plan to have a cop live with the dude? Because, short of that (and I’m not trying to get into any discussion or argument here about the use of condoms and artificial birth control), the simple fact is that it’s an unenforceable sentence. What happens when the “mass-procreator” comes back with baby #12 on the way? Does he get thrown in jail? He should–but I doubt he will. Should he receive mandatory castration—which would be my actual first choice as it would end his ability to even have intercourse? I doubt that too. The ACLU would be all over that one.
 
Starrsmother said:
The guy is obviously a total jerk and dead beat and I have complete empathy with the judge’s opinion. Having said that, how does the judge propose to carry out this sentence? Does he plan to have a cop live with the dude? Because, short of that (and I’m not trying to get into any discussion or argument here about the use of condoms and artificial birth control), the simple fact is that it’s an unenforceable sentence. What happens when the “mass-procreator” comes back with baby #12 on the way? Does he get thrown in jail? He should–but I doubt he will. Should he receive mandatory castration—which would be my actual first choice as it would end his ability to even have intercourse? I doubt that too. The ACLU would be all over that one.
Click to expand...
The judge clearly didn’t think this through. Male female reversible sterilization another option. 👍 We want to keep the females in this loop, clearly they are delusional about their idea of equal rights. 😛
 
Thanks to those who have participated so far. What brought this up was a discussion of welfare benefits in Pennsylvania.
As a single, healthy male, there is essentially nothing available through the state. So, many use the dodge of finding a woman and keeping her permanently pregnant so she can get benefits for the children. The not-so-nice person then basically lives off the women and her ever growing brood.
While I am against restricting reproduction for responsible (in every sense of the word) adults, a case like this is quite different in my eyes. As others have pointed out, it is the taxpayer who is supporting this guy’s children.
 
So monetary effectiveness is the only concern, while that may well indeed be a primary factor, always is, the moral obligation of the court is still a reality-justice. And if a man can indeed be responsible for impregnating women, then our equal right activists ought to be just as responsible for 7 abortions. Just sayin.
 
oldcelt said:
While I am against restricting reproduction for responsible (in every sense of the word) adults, a case like this is quite different in my eyes. As others have pointed out, it is the taxpayer who is supporting this guy’s children.
Click to expand...
Here’s a thought: Maybe the state shouldn’t provide economic benefits to anyone for children. Maybe then people would be a little more responsible. I am not for forced population control of ANY KIND. We’ve allowed the state WAY too much power already.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Well according to the judge, you can have as many children as you can afford? So 10 really is irrelevant, one may be too many that be the case.

Perhaps we can solve this issue and abortion, only those who can verify through bank accounts they can afford to raise a child may partake in parenting and the acts which lead to parenting.

1 year punishment 1st offense

5 years second offense.

3rd offense 3-strikes -Life Sentence for persistent transgressions against life.

What the heck if we can’t or won’t teach morality and we can’t grasp safety, then we need to protect them from themselves and the rest of us.
Click to expand...
This isn’t an issue about wether or not someone can afford their children, this is about a reproductive abuser which this man clearly is if he keeps having sex unprotected out of wedlock knowing he can impregnate someone then he just skips out happy as lark knowing full well the mother is the one that will be supporting this child and he can just get off scot free basically. And if he owes 100000 then he obviously has never paid a dime to any of the children.

The judge in this case is just fed up with dead beats only a custodial parent who puts up with dead beats could fully appreciate what this judge is doing.
 
Probably he has to say to any woman interested in a relationship about his condition.Maybe is about alimony, new kids have no rights to it?
But in Canada there is a guy with 152 kids.
 
Ion said:
Probably he has to say to any woman interested in a relationship about his condition.Maybe is about alimony, new kids have no rights to it?
But in Canada there is a guy with 152 kids.
Click to expand...
152! how is that possible!! And his isn’t about alimony it’s literally child support, and I’m sure if he has anymore kids he will be ordered to pay for them as well like I said the judge won’t be able to hold up this ruling on him the liberals will come in and save him:rolleyes: and he will be out there in no time impregnating someone and then not supporting them.
 
Stillsosola said:
This isn’t an issue about wether or not someone can afford their children, this is about a reproductive abuser which this man clearly is if he keeps having sex unprotected out of wedlock knowing he can impregnate someone .
Click to expand...
In know what the article is about. As you said “repoductive abuser”

Did you say you have a logical answer why a man can’t impregnat 5 women but a woman can have 5-abortions?

I get the “current news” aspect, not really my point, sorry.
 
Stillsosola said:
152! how is that possible!! And his isn’t about alimony it’s literally child support, and I’m sure if he has anymore kids he will be ordered to pay for them as well like I said the judge won’t be able to hold up this ruling on him the liberals will come in and save him:rolleyes: and he will be out there in no time impregnating someone and then not supporting them.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the “repoductive abuser” aspect preceded the “financial” aspect? And aparently any thought about children. I’m just wondering.

I’m not sure what your saying, I’m rather confused.

Your saying our morality is contingent to how deep our pocket is?

Yet here you stated…
Stillsosola said:
This isn’t an issue about wether or not someone can afford their children.
Click to expand...
Surely you can see where the confusion resides. I also “clearly” understand why there is no response. None can be provided which makes “sense”. That is unless we are to get real honest here and admit morality is a back seat rider to finance.

And frankly equal rights is a figment of the imagination. Its a “lie” we sell ourselves.
 
SecretCatholic said:
Here’s a thought: Maybe the state shouldn’t provide economic benefits to anyone for children. Maybe then people would be a little more responsible. I am not for forced population control of ANY KIND. We’ve allowed the state WAY too much power already.
Click to expand...
What about the well-being of those children involved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top