Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I remember a news story from a few years back (don't have a link, sorry). Some guy had fathered 8 or 9 different children with as many women. He was refusing to support anyof them.

The court was debating on whether to medically (not literally) "castrate" him so he could no longer father any children. The jury was deadlocked. All six male jurors voted for medical castration while all six female jurors voted against it.

My question is this, should men who father children and refuse to support them be medically castrated? I say yes. Not in every instance but it should be considered on a case by case basis.

cut it off i say

Funny that the men would be so hard on him while the women went easy on the guy.

Originally posted by docb77
Funny that the men would be so hard on him while the women went easy on the guy.


Doesn't surprise me. The fact that he fathered so many kids with so many different women shows he's the kind of man women want as the father of their children, if not the kind they want a long term relationship with. It also shows than women, more so than men, view procreation as an absolute right.

Hard one

If he is destroying the womens lives by just leaving them afterwards, then he is playing a negative role on peoples lives. If you want to father a child, care for the child.

Originally posted by The thinker
Hard one

If he is destroying the womens lives by just leaving them afterwards, then he is playing a negative role on peoples lives. If you want to father a child, care for the child.



what if he didn't want to father the child, they just had them?

Originally posted by Soleran
what if he didn't want to father the child, they just had them?

If he did not want to father them then he is a idiot. He was most probably taken to the court becasue the mothers wanted finacial help with the child, aswell as support for the child. If he is willing to have children and he knows that he wont support the mother and child, then he making society even worse by bringing children into the earth with no father figure.

I can't think of any reason where it would be justified to do that to a person. You can force him to pay, but to take away the possibility to get children (even if it is revertible) is cruel and certainly not a fit punishment for anyone.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus

My question is this, should men who father children and refuse to support them be medically castrated?

No.

of course not, to do that would be to take away our most natural right. If he refuses to pay child support or to help father the child, I say take 1/4 of his paycheck and split it between the women. I don't understand how this world works. If the ignorant jerk won't help the women who gave birth to his children, his punishment would be to never be able to have a child again? Nobody can take that right for you, and just the thought that it was considered and voted upon disgusts me.

Child Support is already in existance for this very reason. Castrating a man for that is way too extreme and just stupid suggest it.

I agree.

i have a better solution.

line all his pants pockets with uranium and force him to smoke a bag per day. That way, any sterilizing effects will be incidental

Originally posted by Bardock42
I can't think of any reason where it would be justified to do that to a person. You can force him to pay, but to take away the possibility to get children (even if it is revertible) is cruel and certainly not a fit punishment for anyone.

True, and it puts the legal system on a slippery slope, as there are a dozen other groups that people have wanted the legal power to do similar to in the past - including drug addicts, people with the potential for hereditary diseases, the disabled, gays (remarkably), those in poverty and so on.

Generally I believe that it would be over the top, and open to abuse when a judge can say "I believe you are/could be putting a strain on society, thus I will take away your ability to have children." While it could be certainly argued that it has the potential to remove plenty of trouble, it does go against one of those percived fundamental rights.

Originally posted by cking
I agree.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I remember a news story from a few years back (don't have a link, sorry). Some guy had fathered 8 or 9 different children with as many women. He was refusing to support anyof them.

The court was debating on whether to medically (not literally) "castrate" him so he could no longer father any children. The jury was deadlocked. All six male jurors voted for medical castration while all six female jurors voted against it.

My question is this, should men who father children and refuse to support them be medically castrated? I say yes. Not in every instance but it should be considered on a case by case basis.

Why castrate the guy when you can sterilize him? cut/tie his reproductive tubes and no more offspring.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Why castrate the guy when you can sterilize him? cut/tie his reproductive tubes and no more offspring.

That's what he meant, I believe.

Yeah that's how I understood it. I'm all for it. If the guy don't want to play child support and keeps making all these kids....then yeah, get the scissors ready.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I remember a news story from a few years back (don\'t have a link, sorry). Some guy had fathered 8 or 9 different children with as many women. He was refusing to support anyof them.

The court was debating on whether to medically (not literally) \"castrate\" him so he could no longer father any children. The jury was deadlocked. All six male jurors voted for medical castration while all six female jurors voted against it.

My question is this, should men who father children and refuse to support them be medically castrated? I say yes. Not in every instance but it should be considered on a case by case basis.


Well if they had ruled in favor of \"castrating\" the guy, it would only be fair to circumcise and sterilize all the women who were stupid enough to get pregnant by him.

Originally posted by Mr Ed
Well if they had ruled in favor of \"castrating\" the guy, it would only be fair to circumcise and sterilize all the women who were stupid enough to get pregnant by him.
Were you castrated before you began your lengthy run on the boob tube and Nick at Night?

Originally posted by botankus
Were you castrated before you began your lengthy run on the boob tube and Nick at Night?


Actually I was never castrated, but they had to do a lot of creative editing while trying to get my lips to move. A carrot can only be stuck up the buttocks so many times, before the initial pain subsides and develops into complete male genital arousal. Many scenes during filiming only included headshots because of this problem.

thumbsup

horse