Wow.
For the moment, I’m speechless.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Well. I guess we had this one coming eventually. At least the ACLU seems to be against this. The problem of course is enforcability. Similar to enforcing the “You can create clones and destroy them and sell their parts to the highest bidder, but the clone must not be allowed to be born” Law that New Jersey passed a while back. How do you go about forcing a woman to abort her child because the child is a clone that was created for the sole purpose of being destroyed and sold? Why would creating people for the sole purpose of destruction be higher moral ground than allowing a person who was cloned to be born?
I applaud the judge for doing the right thing. I’m surprised that you decry his judgement. The sad fact is both of the parents our drug users, they severely neglected their four children in which cocaine was found in each of their systems. These irresponsible people should not be allowed to bring children into the world.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
“ The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.”
The judge here is definitely misidentifying the problem. By requiring that the couple not have more children, it is saying that giving birth is the problem. The problem isn’t the kids, it’s the drug use and neglect of the kids.
If the judge wants to ensure that the couple gets cleaned up and doesn’t have more children, put one or both in jail… simply ordering them to not have children is not enforcable, bad precedent, and outrageously bad for a long term solution for neglect cases. This order IS the start down a more slippery slope to government enforced abortions.
Eric,
I’m sure the judge had her best interests for the children. But merely having good intentions doesn’t necessarily justify an act. The action she took is still wrong: the government has no right to force a couple from procreating. This is based both on the constitution and moral principles. The ends (children in a safe environment) do not justify the means (the court forcing certain practices upon a couple).
There probably were other ways of going about this. I’m not sure if any come to mind at this point, but notice the last quote:
“I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society.”
There are other ways to send a wake-up call to society, instead of violating their rights as a married couple.