It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge tells woman to stop having kids

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Judge tells woman to stop having kids


www.statesman.com

A judge in Travis County has ordered a woman to stop having children as a condition of her probation in her case of injury to a child by omission, an extraordinary measure that legal experts say could be unconstitutional.

The order was for Felicia Salazar, 20, who admitted to failing to provide protection and medical care to her then-19-month-old daughter last year. The girl suffered broken bones and other injuries when she was beaten by her father, Roberto Alvarado, 25, who was sentenced t
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I am really torn on this case. The mother in me verse the government telling us what to do.

I think this woman is a horrible person, for allowing her child to be abused. She is clearly incapable of caring for and protecting her own child. IMHO I do believe that many people out there should NOT be parents.

But I'm torn on the government stepping in and saying who can and can not have kids.

This is her punishment:



In addition to requiring Salazar to perform 100 hours of community service and to undergo a mental health assessment and setting other typical conditions, Baird told Salazar not to have any more children.


She is getting a mental health "assessment". But is she getting any parenting classes in case she does get pregnant? And if she does get pregnant, is that child going to be in danger again - because this woman clearly lacks good judgement.

What is the line in an adults rights verse the right for children to be protected from horrible parents?

www.statesman.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


*Ed for spelling

[edit on 9/12/2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 
Ms. Salazar should be told to stay away from all men. Most of the horrible cases of child abuse involve men who are shacked with women who have had children from previous relationships. Of course ,with no more men in Ms. Salazar's life there would be no more children.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
This judge should simply allow her to be fixed for free. Many people don't care for children, and should not have them.

Assure is a great, simple, easy procedure. Much more affordable than many alternatives and it's over quick. In combination with one last depo shot, she should be fine.

No the govt should not be able to say who can and can't have children. But people obviously don't know that there are alternatives to be willing breeders of cannon-fodder to the govt's future wars.

Seriously, life doesn't have to be so complicted, just get fixed.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
A judge has no constitutional authority to restrict the reproductive activity of a citizen. It won't stand up in court. Only if the woman were convicted of a crime that directly associates her with imminent danger to children might lead to such a judgment, and even then, it would probably call for forced tubal ligation, or something.

He can advise her - "don't have anymore more kids' but he can't take any legal action if she gets pregnant. At least he can't do that and not be challenged by about 100 courts around the world, not least of which would be our supreme court.

Perhaps I'm wrong and this state has other overriding ordinances, but telling someone not to reproduce - as a command - is far beyond the reach of a single judge.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
You have to have a license to drive a car, to teach, to be a construction contractor, a doctor, a lawyer, and many other positions that have a direct effect on peoples' lives.

But any *SNIP* can be a parent. While I am no fan of government intrusion into our lives, I'm torn on this issue. There is no easy answer, and unfortunately countless children suffer every day at the hands of their worthless parent, and then, more often than not, grow up to be just as worthless.

Breaking the cycle and preventing idiots from having children would be a step in the right direction, humanitarianly speaking. But, from a standpoint of liberty and freedom, it would be a step backwards. What is more important, freedom or humanitarianism? I can't answer this question. But I take care of my own family to the best of my ability, and if some government agent wanted to come "inspect" my family in order to "license" me for parenthood, I'd be pretty pissed.

But, there are many people who should NOT, under any circumstances, be parents. What should we, as a society, do about this problem?

Mod Edit: no profanity please, even abbreviated.

[edit on 12/9/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostNemesis
This judge should simply allow her to be fixed for free. Many people don't care for children, and should not have them.


Exactly, they should sterilse everyone, and when people want kids, reverse it, after you get a permit or something. Would save on abortions too.

He is right though, people get a license to drive, but do not get one to have kids.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by keeb333
Breaking the cycle and preventing idiots from having children would be a step in the right direction, humanitarianly speaking. But, from a standpoint of liberty and freedom, it would be a step backwards. What is more important, freedom or humanitarianism? I can't answer this question.


I can. Freedom for the sake of freedom, and at the cost of broken baby bones, is criminal. Look, after all nobody's complaining that it's unconstitutional to ban s3x offenders from loitering around playgrounds.

I say if anyone is guilty of gross child abuse, sterilize them.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I love how the lawyer and the defendnt did not object at all, and later the lawyer says "This is PROBABLY not constitutional."

As a lawyer, should't he at least know that it's not constitutional?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


there loads of people of both sexes that should be neuterd
so they dont have kids,

im refering those that torture kids, Neglect their kids and so on



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I understand all the emotions , but this is a very slippery path. I am not sure that it is business of the law if person can have children or not. There are cases when such a decision is morally justified - but if in those cases precedents will be laid then it will spread to other areas where the line is less clear. I am not even speaking about ill people (genetically or over wise) where this argument will be also very heated.
I simply do not like the direction in which this kind of approach will eventually lead.
There are other (also traumatic and more costly - but much more humane) ways to help the children that are mistreated by their parents.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I think prison would have solved both problems..

Its constitutionally legal . And she cant have any kids .. Problem solved..

If A woman is this dumb . And would let THIS happen . You probably wont get to huge and outcry if you gutted her..

I mean she didnt stand up for her kid(s) and fight . Why stand up for her ?
I LOVE our rights . And would die to protect them . But in cases like this . Sometimes a blind eye can be turned.
I think she is getting off easy .. Maybe some time in an institution would clear her head up a bit?

See . There are may ways to outright take breeding rights away . In this case there just not locking her up to do it . I dont think the request is too out there .
And i hardly doubt IF she was to get pregnant there gonna force an abortion..
Probably lock her up and take the baby . Like we do to most unfit parents anyway. So the only "precedence" being set here she is not getting locked up to force her not to breed .. Which im sure could be aranged ..

(Sorry if this comes off wrong . But there are already pleanty of ways to stop people from breeding. This was a very polite way if you ask me)

Side note: I wonder if it was unconstitutional to take my license because i cant drive.. Hmmmm


[edit on 12-9-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
While the gov't has no right to tell anyone what they can or cant do, I have to wonder where common sense has gone these days.

Can people not see how irresponsible it is to have so many kids in this day and age? It seems very selfish to me, and shows a lack a critical thinking ability in this world.

it's a Vagina....it's not a clown car.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05
 


You'll get no argument from me. Child abuse is a weak spot of mine, and frankly, there is no excuse for allowing it to happen. I don't know the particulars of the case, but I suppose it is possible that she might not have been physically or mentally capable of dealing with her husbands physical assault of the child, so I hesitate to pass the blame on her. But the courts have heard the case, and presumably they took this action with all good intentions.

I just can't see how a judge can legally bind someone not to reproduce. It seems odd.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by d11_m_na_c05
 


You'll get no argument from me. Child abuse is a weak spot of mine, and frankly, there is no excuse for allowing it to happen. I don't know the particulars of the case, but I suppose it is possible that she might not have been physically or mentally capable of dealing with her husbands physical assault of the child, so I hesitate to pass the blame on her. But the courts have heard the case, and presumably they took this action with all good intentions.

I just can't see how a judge can legally bind someone not to reproduce. It seems odd.


Definately makes you think, too...if they will legally bind this woman from reproducing, why is it that child molestors, abusers, kidnappers etc do their jail time and head right back out? Yes, there are mandates against them having contacts with kids, coming near schools and the such, but they could go spread their seed to anyone and everyone that would have it, without a single repurcussion.

IMO, if you are going to start handing out these punishments, wouldnt these people be the logical place to start?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You know, I have read in more than one place that abuse of this nature is self-perpetuating. That the kids are prone to take up the habit of the parent in dealing with children when they are adults. I would have expected this to be of relevance when judges rule on cases of molesters and brutalizers of children. It never seems to come up though, I wonder if it's because children are legally chattel and have no rights under the law?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


They should forcefully sterilize the stupid wench.

In fact, ANYONE who is a part of a case like this, male and female, should be forcefully sterilized.

It's about time we take action to stop stupid people from reproducing damnit!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


They should forcefully sterilize the stupid wench.

In fact, ANYONE who is a part of a case like this, male and female, should be forcefully sterilized.

It's about time we take action to stop stupid people from reproducing damnit!


I agree with that, they can start with me, lol. So anyone saying i do not practise what i preech. They could steralise me anytime. I am all for that sort of thing.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


I agree in some ways .[ If ]the case is outright abuse . If the lady was seriously locked down and could NOT get help . Maybe a year or two of psych eval . Then see where it goes from there .. I would like to think that most people can be helped ,

If there was participation in the abuse . Then and i say this on a case by case basis . Sterilization should not be ruled out . As another poster eluded to . If this was me and there wasnt an outcry to "Chop my b@lls off" I would almost feel empowered.. (If i was "sick")

If years of abuse and punishment(?) were a huge factor in this(towards the woman in question) . Then i think she may be able to be "rehabilitated"
(10 years probation sounds about right)

I think the judge had a tough decision to make . He obviously had ALL or more info to go on to make this decision .
And i would like to think he made the right choice..

[edit on 12-9-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
LIke you, I'm torn on this, but it reminds me of a conversation I was having with someone on another message board regarding the way that the government takes such pains to ensure that prospective adoptive parents are fit to take care of children, but there's nothing at all preventing "unfit" parents from procreating naturally. (Not saying there should be, though.)




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join