Straight From His Mouth: Should A Judge Control A Man’s Ability To Have Children?

May 19, 2014  |  

 

The Lorain County Sherrif’s Office

To be completely honest, something has to be done about men who have children with multiple women without any means to take care of them. I’m sure the chances of those children ending up in bad situations later on in life sky rockets when you have an absentee parent who compounds the mistake by not providing any financial help too. And yes, I do place some of the blame on the woman who has children with this type of man because it takes two people to conceive a child and as an adult you should be able to see a pattern  — meaning baby mama #3 and on should know what to expect. However, generally speaking I think that something has to be done about this epidemic. Especially when a man, or anyone for that matter, shows that they intend on having more children they cannot provide for adequately.

That’s why when I heard a story about a judge ordering man to pay back $100K in child support before fathering another child, I applauded that judge for his candor. And moreover, I think the claim that it’s unconstitutional to stop a man from procreating is complete bull on so many levels. Let’s think about it, you don’t have to go far to see that the very document declaring our independence says that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, when you bring a child into this world that you can’t take care of, you’re stripping away that child’s inalienable rights. How can that possibly be constitutional at all?

When I think about what would happen if the government started limiting people’s privileges concerning procreation, I think we would see some good out of it. It’s, of course, a very subjective measure and it would probably prove dangerous in places like Florida, which we already know is not the place to ever give a judge too much power. There’d be a Black man locked up for life without parole meanwhile a white (or Mexican) man would be free to have eight children and never pay a dime of child support. That said, my only concern about the precedent this sets is that laws are frequently applied differently based on class and race.

Overall, we’ve seen pleas from the top (President Obama) all the way to the ground level (single mothers) for fathers to be present and assist with the raising of their children. We also haven’t seen a lot of progress lately and that’s troublesome. Just the other day I saw a man who had fathered over 20 children on television. We can’t have that. We cannot have that. What these examples tell us is that we need some help in ensuring that our children are given the best chance to succeed. That mothers are put in a position where their lives are fair and just too after childbirth. And while I do think a judge should have the power to tell a woman that if she can’t take care of the kids she already has then she shouldn’t be having anymore, I think it’s okay to start with men.

So if you want my opinion on this Ohio man who a judge told he couldn’t have children anymore until he paid his $100,000 debt in child support? I’m with it. And his claim that it’s unconstitutional? Laughable.

Trending on MadameNoire

View Comments
Comment Disclaimer: Comments that contain profane or derogatory language, video links or exceed 200 words will require approval by a moderator before appearing in the comment section. XOXO-MN
blog comments powered by Disqus