Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
December 8, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 370

Reproductive Rights, Penis Edition

:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Recently in Wisconsin, a judge forbade a man from having children as a condition of his probation. See, the guy already has nine children, and was in fact jailed because his child support payments and associated interest have exceeded a hundred grand.

I was surprised at some of the commentary here; people I was speaking to felt it was an unconscionable breach of the man's right to reproduce. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has in the past found similar rulings constitutional on the grounds that these men are still allowed to procreate provided they pay the associated costs.

Considering he has not been ordered to undergo any treatments to forcibly prevent him from having children, I'm prepared t think this is fine, but I'm curious what you guys think.

[link]
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconbryosgirl:
bryosgirl Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
In extreme cases, sentences that go against a community's recognized rights isn't all together uncommon. Criminals convicted of violent crimes are stripped of their right to carry/own weapons, pedophiles are forbidden from entering public places that are considered family/children-oriented, cyber criminals are forbidden from access to technology, etc.

It isn't a sentence that should be handed out to every deadbeat that ends up in family court, but in some cases I would definitely support it, as well as sterilization in extreme cases. It also should not be limited to men. There are some women who are just as bad as Curtis (if not worse).
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
thats fucked man, the gov cant control a man's junk
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist
over and over
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
maybe
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist
that's
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
dontcha think?
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist
everyone
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2012
i really like you
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Hobbyist
k
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
its fine, his right was taken from him after being convicted of a crime, the rights taken were in the scope of the crime. "Having kids and not paying for them."

He abused his "right", and then it was taken away from him after being found guilty in a court of law. Please note the distinction of court of law.

That said, instead of a judicial order, I would like it more if this was the finding of a jury.
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
if a right can be abused, is it really a right? or just a privilege?
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
yes.

Rights have natural limits.

Mainly when they impose on the rights of others.

Absolutism is the hallmark of authoritarianism, and by nature, designed to remove rights in general, not grant them.
Reply
:iconpicturefragments:
picturefragments Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
should we give women a hysterectomy for having welfare babies?
Reply
:iconvisionoftheworld:
VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2012
What's a "welfare baby" ?
Reply
:iconpicturefragments:
picturefragments Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
having a baby to get more welfare money
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No, and the comparison is inaccurate, since Mr. Corey has simply agreed not to have kids. No surgery required.

If the court had ordered a vasectomy, you might have a cogent comparison.
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
heaven-spawn Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
dude the gov can keep their hands off my parts
Reply
:iconhustlerdu:
hustlerdu Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012
if i get a girl pregnant i should have a right to force her to get an abortion if i dont want the baby. she should only be allowed to have the baby if we both agree, otherwise it gets aborted.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'm going to pretend that's a satire of something, and not just mindboggling stupidity.
Reply
:iconhustlerdu:
hustlerdu Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012
hey man just because my sperm is growing in a girls womb, doesn't mean that it's not still my sperm, i am still the rightful owner of that sperm and i am in charge of what happens to it, if i don't want my sperm growing into a baby, then it is my right as a sperm bearing man to put a stop to it, amen.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Of course, it's her ovaries and her egg. She'd be undergoing the medical procedure.

I'm sticking with "mindboggling stupidity".
Reply
:iconhustlerdu:
hustlerdu Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012
yeah im just fucking with you dude don't worry
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You've completely convinced me.
Reply
:iconlibegon:
Libegon Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2012
There's probably a way of temporarily preventing him from impregnating even more women, isn't there? I think it would be fine to enforce that, seeing as any other options I can think of wouldn't really be realistic. Especially if he has any sort of mental problem that might be causing this.

One thing I don't get though is why everyone is calling the mothers of his children stupid. How were they supposed to know about the child support thing? Just because they had his children doesn't mean he told them about it. the only cases I don't understand it is in the one(s) with multiple children, unless they had multiple children in one pregnancy. If they already knew about it, though, then yes, they are idiots.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012
Actually, they should've put him in a prison workstudy.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
He's not going to prison, though. Failure to pay child support is a that would probably yield jail time, not a prison sentence.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012
You can still get workstudy in jail. Plus, they usually send people over to correctional if their say is longer.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Racine does have a minimum security prison.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012
He'll probably end up there or something.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Question: Suppose a man, for whatever reason, is absolutely incapable of providing child support.

Should he be legally required to inform his partner of this prior to having sex? Should he be legally forbidden from reproducing?

Is the special situation of this man that he's in debt? How would people on this board feel about restrictions on voting in federal elections for student loan delinquency?
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
"How would people on this board feel about restrictions on voting in federal elections for student loan delinquency?"

that is entirely irrelivant. A better anology, would be to ban students delinquant on debt for enrolling in any more college courses.

He's being banned from doing what got him in debt in the first place.

I'm OK with it because its a court order(be more OK if it was the decision of a jury), and he should have the right to appeal.

I also expect this order to be lifted if he comes into some money, and is able to pay child support.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
"I find it necessary to point out that the only reason delinquency in student loans doesn't have more serious repercussions is that the federal government abolished federal debtor's prisons. He was essentially released under conditions as a Wisconsin debtee prisoner. If government can attach provisions without limitation for release from prison, there are no constitutional rights whatsoever"
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Student loans are the only type of debt you do not qualify for debt relief.

If you max out your credit card spending on consumer garbage you can always claim bankruptcy.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think the special situation is the degree of debt he's in. It may also be the way he got into that debt, i.e. creating nearly a dozen adorable little burdens to the state.

I'd imagine it's those two factors in conjunction that encouraged the verdict we see here, and that individual debt or child-creation isn't sufficient to see the state intercede. Or it may be that the state simply cannot make a constitutional argument for simply chopping his dick off with a sword.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I don't find that the degree of debt matters; the marginal cost of an additional child is the same in both cases.

This is inherently a -punitive- act; somebody in a different situation with the same costs would be treated differently.

I find it necessary to point out that the only reason delinquency in student loans doesn't have more serious repercussions is that the federal government abolished federal debtor's prisons. He was essentially released under conditions as a Wisconsin debtee prisoner. If government can attach provisions without limitation for release from prison, there are no constitutional rights whatsoever in a nation in which the law has grown so complex and unknown that officials of the state are granted immunity from breaking laws they didn't know about - an immunity that common citizens are not afforded.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, the costs aren't strictly the same; incurring another $10k in missed child support payments isn't the same as incurring another $10k in delinquent student loan payments. Student loans seem to get by just fine without a dad.
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
That undermines the "welfare" line of argument, however.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
How so?
Reply
:iconunvalanced:
Unvalanced Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Because welfare does come out of the government's pocket, same as student loan delinquencies.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Included in my welfare cost calculations are the fractured childhoods of Curtis' abandoned, impoverished children.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmaddalinamocanu:
MaddalinaMocanu Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
But look at the point of view of the judge. he was fathering children so he could get money. That's a really unfortunate way to start out in life as a kid: an instrument in your father's greed spree.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What? No, that's the opposite of what's happening: he owes a hundred grand in child support. Every child he has costs him more money. He doesn't earn a nickel from their birth.
Reply
:iconmaddalinamocanu:
MaddalinaMocanu Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I presume you don't know how child support works :/ He gets the money. Not the state.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You presume incorrectly. Child support is not welfare; the Corey Curtis owes child support to the mothers of the children he helped conceive. I never stated or implied that the money goes to the state; the state's involvement is making sure he pays the money he owes.

From the article I posted in the OP:
Corey Curtis has fathered 9 children with 6 different people and is $50,000 behind in child support and owes an additional $40,000 in interest.
Reply
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Student Writer
In her country, child support is paid by the government.
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
She probably should have thought of that before telling me I don't know how it works in my country.
Reply
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Student Writer
Maybe she assumed it was like that in every country. :shrug:
Reply
:iconscythepuppet:
scythepuppet Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Then she probably should have taken a deep breath and read the supplied article before telling me that "[I don't] know how child support works".
Reply
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Student Writer
In America, child support money refers to the money a father pays the mother when they are not married. Hence, this man owes money to women. The state simply enforces this law.
Reply
:iconmaddalinamocanu:
MaddalinaMocanu Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
In our country it's another way. The state gives money to the family that has kids and and thus people here have kids for that child support money. They don't care about the kids. The more, the merrier!
Reply
Add a Comment: