Warning! Sticky situation ahead in 5, 4, 3, 2 ... and here we go! A deadbeat dad in Wisconsin has been given a strange sentence from an angry judge. Corey Curtis has been banned from breeding.
Got that? No more making babies! At least not until Corey can demonstrate that he will not only support his potential progeny but also the nine kids (by six different women) he already has.
Go ahead and say it.
What about his rights? Does the state really have any right to stick a hand in his pants and pull the trigger? Maybe not. These sorts of sentences are highly controversial because they come perilously close to eugenics.
And yet, every time we talk about the "rights" of men like Corey Curtis, I want to remind people that children have rights too. The nine children Corey Curtis already helped bring into this world have the right to a certain amount of care. The potential children Curtis could help create have a right to be brought into the world by parents who have the means and the plan to care for them.
This man is already some $50,000 in arrears on his child support. He owes another $40,000 in interest, bringing his bill to a cool $90K. If he can't come up with that, how is he supposed to pay for diapers, bottles, and car seats?
Is it fair to a child, who has absolutely no means to make that kind of money, to be put in a situation where he or she is shorted on the necessities because people simply have the "right" to procreate?
I admit I'm over-simplifying here. I'm not about to support state-mandated sterilization. But when do we get to the point where we start acknowledging that the ability to procreate does not equal the ability to support a child? When will we acknowledge that people can't simply bring a child into this world because they "can"?
Do you think this breeding ban is fair or just? What else would you suggest?
Image via police handout