Author Topic: Judge says no more children (Read 1350 times)

Tiffany · « **on:** December 14, 2012, 06:22:56 AM »

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/free/20121204wisconsin-judge-orders-father-stop-having-children.html

RACINE, Wis. — A Wisconsin father of nine who’s behind on child support payments has been ordered by a judge not to have any more children until he can show that he can provide for them.

Racine County prosecutors say 44-year-old Corey Curtis, who fathered the children with six women, owes nearly $100,000 in back child support and interest.

The Journal Times says Judge Tim Boyle on Monday sentenced Curtis to three years of probation for failing to pay child support, with the condition that he is not to procreate until he can show he can support his children.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2001 upheld an appeals court ruling that affirmed a similar probation condition in Manitowoc County. The justices ruled that David Oakley’s constitutional right to procreate wasn’t eliminated because he could still reproduce — if he supported his children.

sedetrad · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2012, 10:09:58 AM »

Quote

44-year-old Corey Curtis, who fathered the children with six women, owes nearly $100,000 in back child support

They should castrate this man. Of course, the "women" are no better.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2012, 04:49:14 PM »

They should castrate this man. Of course, the "women" are no better.

No, the man should be forced to work to pay back his support.

Its against the teachings of the church to castrate. Would you men want to be castrated if you have a lot of children? It could happen.
Where is the morality?

Everything is so morally out of control! I wonder what a priest would say for a solution to this.

ggreg · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:27:08 AM »

What was the Churches opinion on castrating the children that sang in its choirs for decades.

I assume they didn't believe them all to be caused by freak accidents.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2012, 01:13:33 AM »

Never heard of this. - :shocked:

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 15, 2012, 04:37:13 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

What was the Churches opinion on castrating the children that sang in its choirs for decades.

I assume they didn't believe them all to be caused by freak accidents.

It was against Canon Law.

Tiffany · « **Reply #6 on:** December 15, 2012, 05:57:14 AM »

I posted this because a judge is ruled someone should not reproduce under penalty of incarceration.

I'm surprised at the response though. In other threads members seem to be highly critical of state enforced child support laws.

ggreg · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2012, 07:37:04 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: ggreg
What was the Churches opinion on castrating the children that sang in its choirs for decades.

I assume they didn't believe them all to be caused by freak accidents.

It was against Canon Law.

Was it against Canon Law for the 400 years that castrated boys were paid to sing in the Sistine chapel. Or was Canon Law sort of ignored, like it was in Holland in the 1950s?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9153676/Dutch-Roman-Catholic-Church-castrated-at-least-10-boys.html

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 15, 2012, 07:47:20 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

Was it against Canon Law for the 400 years that castrated boys were paid to sing in the Sistine chapel.

No, it wasn't against Canon Law to hire them, but it was to castrate them.

It's not something that should have been happening, but in the old days singers were demanded, not just for church choirs. It was a way to have a career - when life was typically hard. Some became famous opera singers - those who didn't make it would be hired in churches.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** December 15, 2012, 07:48:15 AM »

PereJoseph · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:00:11 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

What was the Churches opinion on castrating the children that sang in its choirs for decades.

The Church was against it, though I am not sure about churchmen. The practice itself was never officially approved, only employing those who were castrated so that they would have a chance at a respectable living was. Of course, this created an incentive for parents to have their boys castrated, since it was a great honour to be a singer in the Sistine choir.

Quote

I assume they didn't believe them all to be caused by freak accidents.

I think you're right. The early modern world was a strange place.

sedetrad · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2012, 10:32:11 AM »

I would assume that he man in question in the article is from the lower classes and probably from a minority group and will "never" be able to pay the financial penalty of having six children with six different women. These women are just as disgusting. They would sleep with a man that has had x number of children with other women. This reminds me of women that receive services that have 4 children from 4 different fathers. The immorality is enough to make you gag.

Marlelar · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2012, 11:58:06 AM »

One of the roles of government is to encourage its citizens to behave morally and not facility immorality. Our modern welfare state does nothing to encourage moral behavior, but does in fact reward immoral behavior. Men and women should act morally but if they do not the government should not step in and minimize the consequences.

A situation like this is only the fruit of our actions as a nation.

Marsha