Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Yeah to all that totally.She is a nut.But loads of people have kids they can't afford.What worries me most about this situation is that it may spawn a law.Knee jerk reactions in the end take away our freedoms - we still have the right to live the way we want in america even if it means doing something stupid.I do feel sorry for the kids too though.
Instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax; thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are sweetness and light.
Yeah to all that totally.She is a nut.But loads of people have kids they can't afford.What worries me most about this situation is that it may spawn a law.Knee jerk reactions in the end take away our freedoms - we still have the right to live the way we want in america even if it means doing something stupid.I do feel sorry for the kids too though.
I do agree with what you're saying. There is a delicate, fine line there. I'm def against making new laws in most cases, but when you start leeching off the government, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Maybe mandatory birth control to welfare recipients. Seems harsh at first....but then not so much when I know I'm footing the bill.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
That lady is obviously mentally unstable. She wants to be Angelina Jolie. Plastic surgery FTW!!! Seriously though, her kids should be taken away from her and that doctor should be put in jail.
It's ok plenty of work hard everyday (even those of us who walk a mile in the snow to get there), and play plenty of income taxes. She can sit back and be a bad parent from the comfort of her own home. We'll pay the bills.
To those who are saying there should be a law restricting how many children a person can have, I've got some bad news. The Supreme Court already ruled against you 60-some years ago.
The case that brought along this judicial viewpoint was Skinner v Oklahoma, which was decided in 1942.
Oklahoma had a law which essentially said "three strikes and you're neutered." However, the law exempted some Prohibition-related and white-collar crimes from counting as strikes. It's important to note that the state exempted certain crimes as strikes, despite simultaneously reasoning that the law was made to reduce a possibly-inherited trait of criminality in the gene pool.
Defendant Skinner had two burglary charges (or something like that) already on his record when he got caught stealing a chicken. The state of Oklahoma was going to give Skinner a vasectomy on account of his third strike, and he appealed it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said: 1. The Oklahoma law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, by prescribing different punishments for different offenses - while doing so on a genetic (and, presumably, universal) basis. 2. Procreation is a basic liberty, an inalienable right. Even if such a punishment were to be universally applied, the state denying an individual the right to procreate was violating the 8th Amendment. The Court said it is cruel and unusual to punish someone by prohibiting them from procreation, period.
Then a few years later, the Holocaust came to light and the eugenics movement lost a lot of steam. A lot of states quietly rolled back similar laws in the wake of WWII. There haven't been many cases of this nature since.
Any law the state of California would impose to limit Nadya Suleman's reproductive capacity would almost certainly be challenged. Perhaps not by Nadya Suleman herself, but I'm sure there's some pro-lifers out there who would be willing to take up that cause.
Post by AgainstNunes! on Mar 3, 2009 10:11:31 GMT -5
she's been getting offers from a bunch of porn companies to star in some films. But I thought this next part was cool... one ceo of a porn company said he'd give her a full years supply of diapers if she didn't do porn.
2/5- Papadosio 3/3- MUSE 3/12- John Mayer 3/19- The Werks 3/31- Passion Pit 4/18- Ben Folds 4/20- Against Me! 6/10- Bonnaroo 6/30- Eric Clapton and Roger Daltrey
To those who are saying there should be a law restricting how many children a person can have, I've got some bad news. The Supreme Court already ruled against you 60-some years ago.
The case that brought along this judicial viewpoint was Skinner v Oklahoma, which was decided in 1942.
Oklahoma had a law which essentially said "three strikes and you're neutered." However, the law exempted some Prohibition-related and white-collar crimes from counting as strikes. It's important to note that the state exempted certain crimes as strikes, despite simultaneously reasoning that the law was made to reduce a possibly-inherited trait of criminality in the gene pool.
Defendant Skinner had two burglary charges (or something like that) already on his record when he got caught stealing a chicken. The state of Oklahoma was going to give Skinner a vasectomy on account of his third strike, and he appealed it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said: 1. The Oklahoma law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, by prescribing different punishments for different offenses - while doing so on a genetic (and, presumably, universal) basis. 2. Procreation is a basic liberty, an inalienable right. Even if such a punishment were to be universally applied, the state denying an individual the right to procreate was violating the 8th Amendment. The Court said it is cruel and unusual to punish someone by prohibiting them from procreation, period.
Then a few years later, the Holocaust came to light and the eugenics movement lost a lot of steam. A lot of states quietly rolled back similar laws in the wake of WWII. There haven't been many cases of this nature since.
Any law the state of California would impose to limit Nadya Suleman's reproductive capacity would almost certainly be challenged. Perhaps not by Nadya Suleman herself, but I'm sure there's some pro-lifers out there who would be willing to take up that cause.
Just because it there should'nt be a legal limit on how many kids you can have(I don't think there should be), doesn't mean it's moral to have 14 kids you can't support. Just like it's not immoral to smoke a little corn.
Just because it there should'nt be a legal limit on how many kids you can have(I don't think there should be), doesn't mean it's moral to have 14 kids you can't support. Just like it's not immoral to smoke a little corn.
To those who are saying there should be a law restricting how many children a person can have, I've got some bad news. The Supreme Court already ruled against you 60-some years ago.
The case that brought along this judicial viewpoint was Skinner v Oklahoma, which was decided in 1942.
I said, in her case, yes, there SHOULD have be a law restricting how many children she could have. But I am well aware that there is not one and probably never will be in this country. I know it sounds like some 1984 shit, but we just have to draw the line when someone is causing such financial burden on society...imo.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
And I agree with y'all. But you can regulate when someone is disrupting the peace and harmony of society (whether it's "moral" or not), and she's doing so buy causing a financial burden on the tax payers. I think when the government is supporting you with tax payer money, then THAT is when it can tell you what to do. But when I'm supporting myself, stay the fuck up out of my biz-nass.
2012 Wishlist: Radiohead Phish Daft Punk Ghostland Observatory Broken Social Scene Roger Waters Bell X1 Bonobo Chemical Brothers Fiona Apple Built to Spill Modest Mouse
Post by AgainstNunes! on Mar 4, 2009 14:27:00 GMT -5
The economy is already in the shitter... she is just making it worse... now instead of the government supporting 6 of her kids, they now have to support 14. The earth is already overpopulated, god damnit
2/5- Papadosio 3/3- MUSE 3/12- John Mayer 3/19- The Werks 3/31- Passion Pit 4/18- Ben Folds 4/20- Against Me! 6/10- Bonnaroo 6/30- Eric Clapton and Roger Daltrey
What do you mean? The gov't does it all the time. Not that I'm saying it's right for them to do, but gay marriage and marijuana legalization are two that I can think of off the top of my head that are legislated pretty heavily.
What do you mean? The gov't does it all the time. Not that I'm saying it's right for them to do, but gay marriage and marijuana legalization are two that I can think of off the top of my head that are legislated pretty heavily.
my dream is to smoke a fat blunt at a gay wedding reception...
To those who are saying there should be a law restricting how many children a person can have, I've got some bad news. The Supreme Court already ruled against you 60-some years ago.
The case that brought along this judicial viewpoint was Skinner v Oklahoma, which was decided in 1942.
I said, in her case, yes, there SHOULD have be a law restricting how many children she could have. But I am well aware that there is not one and probably never will be in this country. I know it sounds like some 1984 shit, but we just have to draw the line when someone is causing such financial burden on society...imo.
Alright. How about you tell me how much you pay in taxes each year? If by my arbitrary definition it isn't enough, how about I dictate what you are and aren't allowed to do as a member of this society? Seems pretty fair, right?
Honestly, this thread is sickening. It's really sad that on a board for a festival that is all about espousing personal freedom, there is so much judgment and a seeming lack of compassion.
I don't think crazy people should be allowed to have 14 kids, especially when 8 of them were intentionally implanted and she knows she can't take care of them. Her own mother is against her on this. I don't think it's about compassion. It's about common sense, IMO.
Well the fact of the matter is that the children are here now and compassion is, in fact, necessary for their survival. It's not a decision I would have made for myself, but I think the whole welfare argument is complete and utter crap. And I'm very careful about bandying the term "crazy" about. I won't ever be comfortable with the concept of anyone telling anyone else what they are allowed to do with their own body. And I completely agree that her parents and the physician are 100% complicit in what is looking to be a poor choice. But the fact remains...the children are here and they have to be cared for, be it by the family personally or with the aid of the government.
What do you mean? The gov't does it all the time. Not that I'm saying it's right for them to do, but gay marriage and marijuana legalization are two that I can think of off the top of my head that are legislated pretty heavily.
my dream is to smoke a fat blunt at a gay wedding reception...
Come to Mass - gay marriage is legal, and possession is just a $100 slap on the wrist.
Just because it there should'nt be a legal limit on how many kids you can have(I don't think there should be), doesn't mean it's moral to have 14 kids you can't support. Just like it's not immoral to smoke a little corn.
This reminds me of an interview with Johnny Rotten I once saw - he was talking about the song Bodies and how it's not pro-abortion or anti-abortion, but written just to make you think about it. He said something along the lines of "don't treat a human life so carelessly, but don't let something let morals tie you down, because it's not very moral to bring a child into this world and not give a toss about it".
Last Edit: Mar 4, 2009 15:41:34 GMT -5 by jack324 - Back to Top
There shouldn't be a law against it, but we should stop giving free handouts. If you can't support the kids you already have, stop having them. Granted certain situations arise where forces beyond their control leave parents (single or not) in a financial bind, and need some assistance. But if you're receiving Welfare/WIC, you should not be having more kids. Period. You are already in a dire situation, when you have human beings that are your responsibility, that you can't support. Having more kids is beyond irresponsible at that point. Their aid should be cut off, then they can have as many kids as they want.
I don't understand the point of this thread. There hasn't been any healthy dialogue...it's been a bunch of criticism -- some of it unsubstantiated, some of it misinformed and some of it downright assuming. There are limits in place within the welfare system and it's hardly as though this woman is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government. You should be more worried about people like Ted Stevens and all the other nimrods up on Capitol Hill. Those are the people really going to town with your tax dollars.
