At 9:30am this morning, Doug got called to bring a monitor (the screen in the slot machine) to his coworkers in Warroad, MN at Lake of the Woods Casino. I would have gone along, but I have trouble sitting still for a long time and didn't like the idea that the last 150 miles of the trip has no bathroom stops. Besides, Harry, Buster, Daisy, and Kiwi needed their cages cleaned and I need to get my hair cut before my last pregnancy pictures this weekend. I figured that I could get some stuff done here and not slow Doug down if I got hungry or had to go to the bathroom. After all, I want him to get home as soon as possible and Warroad, MN is approximately a five hour drive (one way) from our house. He shouldn't have to spend more than fifteen minutes at the casino, since he is just taking a monitor to some nimrods, but the roads up near the border aren't stellar. It snowed last weekend, and roads up there are not that frequently travelled.
So why does Doug have to run a monitor up there, and why am I calling these guys "nimrods"? Well...they are. They are up north doing "preventative maintenance" at several casinos and will be gone for two weeks. They obviously have either no common sense or insufficient foresight, because they brought two monitors to visit nine casinos, and they used both in the first casino. Some of those casinos are so far away that they don't get a tech up there unless there is something really wrong. They might get visited twice a year. You've got to figure that there is going to be lots to do when you do visit. Maybe I'm being to kind in calling them "nimrods".
As for why Doug usually likes to leave at 5am to go to Warroad, MN, and thus why he was unhappy about leaving at 10am to go there, why don't you check out the road atlas I know you have in your car. Look way up northwest, that is, on the North Dakota side of the state, but the Canadian border. Look for Lake of the Woods. It is a huge lake that is partly in the USA, but mostly in Canada. Notice how few roads are up there. The first time I was there with Doug, it amazed me to see the US Coast Guard station. I expected the Border Patrol. I like going up there and seeing the lake. But anybody reading this is probably thinking that I shouldn't be in that rural of an area so far from home so close to the end of my pregnancy. I wasn't worried about that so much as being hungry, uncomfortable, and having to go to the bathroom at an inopportune moment. After all, if I went into labor, I'd have my husband with me. He's participated in the birthing of many animals, and they aren't devoid of civilization up there. Warroad isn't that far from Roseau, which I guarantee has hospital. It doesn't matter, because I won't go into labor today, and I chose to stay home and clean bird cages, anyway.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
When personal responsibility is lost...
You know, I am amazed. No offense to our lawyer friend, H1, but some lawyers apparently will defend anything, no matter how clearly incorrect it is. This isn't an "O.J. Simpson" or Scott Peterson event I am talking about, but for some young people suffering because of their irresponsible parents, I am certain it is as dreadful as can be. What I am referring to is a family court judge in New York who has stirred a controversy for ordering two women to NOT reproduce. That sounds awful and audacious, doesn't it? Where does SHE (the judge) get the right to tell the parents they cannot have more children? The background would suggest this judge is onto something... it is called COMMON SENSE.
The first case in point, a 31-year old woman, who has seven children, lost custody of her children, ranging in age from eight months to 12 years, with six being in state-funded foster care and the seventh child living with an aunt. The youngest child and two others tested positive for cocaine at birth, and all seven were removed from her custody and care because she could not take care of them. This is a fundamentally free country but for the impoverished, drug-addicted or parentally insufficient, how many children are too many? True, one does not want to open that can of worms carelessly, but it begs the question, what can be considered parental inadequacy? Certainly, caution is required, as the answer is an ambiguous designation, but with drug addiction and seven children removed due to neglect, it can be safely assumed the mother isn't competent to bear more children or even raise those she brought into the world.
What is fantastic about this story is the level-headed raison d'être of the judge, who made a prudent decision: "Because every child born deserves a mother and a father, or at the very least a mother or a father, this court is once again taking this unusual step of ordering this biological mother to conceive no more children until she reclaims her children from foster care or other caretakers,'" Judge Marilyn O'Connor said.
The second woman I refer to, in a case decision from last March, the same judge, Marilyn O'Connor ordered a drug-addicted, homeless mother of four to refrain from bearing children until she won back care of her children. The decision, the first of its kind in New York, is being appealed. APPEALED? APPEALED?!?! While the rights of procreation and parenthood shouldn't hastily be abridged or constrained, doesn't common sense dictate that a homeless woman who just happens to be drug-addicted and cannot provide any manner of shelter for her children, gee, Wally... maybe she shouldn't bear any more children?
There are "big picture" questions here that can apply to everyone, and for anyone with a conscience, the questions should apply, insomuch as in living the principles taught by our parents, knowing right from wrong and living honorably as best we can. For one, what happened to personal responsibility? Dare I say that the woman has no business bearing children that she cannot provide a good life for? (For the record, I am staunchly pro-life, so the children shouldn't be conceived in the first place if they cannot be properly cared for). Then, what crosses my mind next is, where are the many fathers of the eleven children in question? Can you guess how many fathers sired these eleven children? Eleven children, eleven fathers. There is something to be said for a stable home and hopefully, two parents. In this case, eleven children are paying the price for their parents being completely inadequate.
Finally, the ACLU, malevolent extremist organization that it is, has stuck their figurative legal nose into the middle of this argument, saying, "The right of procreation is a fundamental right that should never be limited." Their words, not mine. I consider myself a constitutional constructionist and therefore, would have to insist that the government should be small, efficient and should stick to what it was constitutionally mandated to do, defense of the state and administration of the rule of law. Less government control is almost always a very good thing. In this case, what about the rights of those children? I do not believe that because a child can be born, either parent should create children just because they can, and should, in fact, take pains to prevent children they cannot support from being conceived irresponsibly. We are not fascist Nazis here, and obviously, the government should not have the right to mandate sterilization or require contraceptives against the will of the mother and father, but there comes a time when irresponsibility has to be tempered with a firm hand. The judge in this case has stated that the women, should they reproduce again, will be held in contempt of court and jailed. At what point does irresponsible behavior become not just immoral, but illegal? Certainly this is not a victimless act, even though irresponsible reproduction is not a crime per se. When it becomes negligence and neglect, it then becomes an unambiguous criminal act.
I am going to be a father this month. I am eager and happy about the upcoming birth of our child. I have to tell you, truthfully, it makes me anxious, or I would be misleading you. This is a constructive nervous energy, asking myself questions, how will I be a good father, how can I provide a good home, good leadership and role models, that sort of thing. This baby is a precious gift in my life and I am delighted and determined to be a good parent and to have a solid, joyful home where my children know right from wrong and where personal responsibility is held in high regard. As a father-to-be, this does frustrate me that people would bring children into the world without the means to provide for them, not just a good home but an upbringing with ethical principles and integrity. Last question: what about adoption for those children, when there are many childless adults who long for children of their own? It is a sad state of affairs when no one is held accountable for their self-seeking misdeeds.
Thinking about all of this leaves me with far more questions than answers. What do you think?
The first case in point, a 31-year old woman, who has seven children, lost custody of her children, ranging in age from eight months to 12 years, with six being in state-funded foster care and the seventh child living with an aunt. The youngest child and two others tested positive for cocaine at birth, and all seven were removed from her custody and care because she could not take care of them. This is a fundamentally free country but for the impoverished, drug-addicted or parentally insufficient, how many children are too many? True, one does not want to open that can of worms carelessly, but it begs the question, what can be considered parental inadequacy? Certainly, caution is required, as the answer is an ambiguous designation, but with drug addiction and seven children removed due to neglect, it can be safely assumed the mother isn't competent to bear more children or even raise those she brought into the world.
What is fantastic about this story is the level-headed raison d'être of the judge, who made a prudent decision: "Because every child born deserves a mother and a father, or at the very least a mother or a father, this court is once again taking this unusual step of ordering this biological mother to conceive no more children until she reclaims her children from foster care or other caretakers,'" Judge Marilyn O'Connor said.
The second woman I refer to, in a case decision from last March, the same judge, Marilyn O'Connor ordered a drug-addicted, homeless mother of four to refrain from bearing children until she won back care of her children. The decision, the first of its kind in New York, is being appealed. APPEALED? APPEALED?!?! While the rights of procreation and parenthood shouldn't hastily be abridged or constrained, doesn't common sense dictate that a homeless woman who just happens to be drug-addicted and cannot provide any manner of shelter for her children, gee, Wally... maybe she shouldn't bear any more children?
There are "big picture" questions here that can apply to everyone, and for anyone with a conscience, the questions should apply, insomuch as in living the principles taught by our parents, knowing right from wrong and living honorably as best we can. For one, what happened to personal responsibility? Dare I say that the woman has no business bearing children that she cannot provide a good life for? (For the record, I am staunchly pro-life, so the children shouldn't be conceived in the first place if they cannot be properly cared for). Then, what crosses my mind next is, where are the many fathers of the eleven children in question? Can you guess how many fathers sired these eleven children? Eleven children, eleven fathers. There is something to be said for a stable home and hopefully, two parents. In this case, eleven children are paying the price for their parents being completely inadequate.
Finally, the ACLU, malevolent extremist organization that it is, has stuck their figurative legal nose into the middle of this argument, saying, "The right of procreation is a fundamental right that should never be limited." Their words, not mine. I consider myself a constitutional constructionist and therefore, would have to insist that the government should be small, efficient and should stick to what it was constitutionally mandated to do, defense of the state and administration of the rule of law. Less government control is almost always a very good thing. In this case, what about the rights of those children? I do not believe that because a child can be born, either parent should create children just because they can, and should, in fact, take pains to prevent children they cannot support from being conceived irresponsibly. We are not fascist Nazis here, and obviously, the government should not have the right to mandate sterilization or require contraceptives against the will of the mother and father, but there comes a time when irresponsibility has to be tempered with a firm hand. The judge in this case has stated that the women, should they reproduce again, will be held in contempt of court and jailed. At what point does irresponsible behavior become not just immoral, but illegal? Certainly this is not a victimless act, even though irresponsible reproduction is not a crime per se. When it becomes negligence and neglect, it then becomes an unambiguous criminal act.
I am going to be a father this month. I am eager and happy about the upcoming birth of our child. I have to tell you, truthfully, it makes me anxious, or I would be misleading you. This is a constructive nervous energy, asking myself questions, how will I be a good father, how can I provide a good home, good leadership and role models, that sort of thing. This baby is a precious gift in my life and I am delighted and determined to be a good parent and to have a solid, joyful home where my children know right from wrong and where personal responsibility is held in high regard. As a father-to-be, this does frustrate me that people would bring children into the world without the means to provide for them, not just a good home but an upbringing with ethical principles and integrity. Last question: what about adoption for those children, when there are many childless adults who long for children of their own? It is a sad state of affairs when no one is held accountable for their self-seeking misdeeds.
Thinking about all of this leaves me with far more questions than answers. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
