Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Honestly don't know how to react, here.

On the one hand, I love the judge's order that the deadbeat babydaddy stop procreating.

On the other...that's the executive judicial branch of government (thanks, Odysseus) poking its nose into a private individual's life and personal decisions. 

I don't know which I want to support: blocking babymaking by an individual who's proved to be an inferior provider to his children (making us pick up the tab), or the libertarian side that says it's not the government's business.

4 comments:

  1. Minor point of order, it's actually the judicial branch sticking its nose in here. While it would be correct to say that Congress shall make no law, there is no limitation beyond the eighth amendment on a judge's discretion in sentencing except where specified my statute. Had the judge ordered him castrated, there would have been a constitutional issue. Ordering him not to procreate is a discretionary limit on his freedom which is a not dissimilar to prison time. My question is how the heck does the judge intend to enforce this restriction. Probation revocation and jail time would seem to be the likely avenue but still results in yet another offspring loose in the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, the other half corrected me, and I've corrected the post. But you do have a point.

      (Personally, as a taxpayer, I'd be willing to take up a collection to pre-pay a vasectomy for that winner, but am sort of ambivalent on judges telling people how they can and can't conduct their sex lives.)

      Delete
  2. Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh. With some areas, I certainly wish that were an option.

      Delete