Ever think having children should be a privilege, not a “right”? Well, a recent ruling from Racine County Circuit Court Judge Tim Boyle lends a hand to anyone subscribing to such a notion.

Corey Curtis, 44, has fathered nine children with six different women and owes more than $90,000 in total back-logged, court-ordered child support. The judge sentenced Curtis to three years probation with the caveat Curtis does not procreate until demonstrating the ability to financially support his offspring.

Oh, OK, so the guy needs to pay off his debts… wait a tick, the judge made a ruling to try and stop procreation? In what way does that work out?

But this isn’t an isolated incident. A judge in Kentucky ordered Luthor Crawford, sire of 12 kids with 11 different women, to abstain from any sexual intercourse during the one to five years he would be on probation; he owed $33,000 in support for two of his brood.

Despite how morally sound the ruling might seem, the logistics behind it are lacking.

Think about if such rulings set a precedent for procreation rules. Some arbitrary number might be assigned that a given parent, or both, had to have regarding finances should an attempt to bring a child into their life be permitted. I mean, the case and ruling are about money, right?

Those of lower income could then be partaking of criminal activities should they want a bouncing baby but only have available poverty-level living funds. Abortion would not only become a popular option, but necessary to avoid jail time.

Maybe the buck would stop with the non-preggers policy regarding court-ordered payments, but why stop there? Why not begin prosecuting parents for not providing an “adequate” upbringing based on what other people define to be reasonable?

Wouldn’t it seem reasonable to say that if parents don’t have a joint income of the national median, then they shouldn’t be having children?

The 2011 Census Bureau information has the lowest median single-year household income listed as $39,856 in Kentucky, while the highest has Maryland at $68,876. With cost of living varying so much between states, let’s call $50,000 the arbitrary number for being able to provide for and therefore have a child, for sake of argument.

The 2009 Census data lists 117,538,000 households in the United States, according to the “Distribution by Income Level and Selected Characteristics.” Approximately 58,962,000 of those households make less than $50,000.

What that would mean is 50 percent of households would not be allowed to have children. Which has got to be OK given the 2010 Census data lists 55 percent of households as having no children, right?

Those 45 percent of households with one or more children in 2010 all had an average household income of at least $50,000. So, making it essentially illegal to have a kid without making $50,000 wouldn’t even have an effect on citizens of the United States.

Yeah, I didn’t think you’d fall for that. Though the numbers make sense, the reality of it all doesn’t really stay in line with what the figures might suggest.

So why would a judge make a ruling to stop someone making more miniature people?

And think about the nightmare of figuring out what happens should accidental procreation occur. What happens when incomes change?

Back to the actual case, what happens if Curtis becomes financially stable — however unlikely that is — and then knocks up another woman? Then suddenly Curtis’ financial stability — for the sake of argument that came from stock market gaming and was then lost one morning — is depleted and he can no longer support his progeny.

Is he in technical violation of parole, or would he get to just play out the nonpaying years all over again? What if he pays all the back-logged funds, expands his nearly full baseball team of kids, and then builds up a new debt? What was the purpose of the pseudo-abstinence?

Yes, yes, it is all rather silly, but so is the ruling.

Trying to get those women their money is a good thing. Trying to encourage Curtis to be more “responsible” and keep another person out of already crowded jails is also probably a good thing.

“Common sense dictates you shouldn’t have kids you can’t afford,” Boyle said in the courtroom.

“Common sense,” as ambiguous as that phrase is, is not how to maintain legal proceedings. Common sense would make the whole legal system even more convoluted than it already is, what with the unlikelihood for consistency of rulings. 

What we do is examine and interpret the Constitution to make rulings. And I seriously doubt the Constitution has any areas intended to stop people making babies. This isn’t China.

So, despite the seemingly positive ruling, it is not in line with what this country is about. There are a great many things already pushing the line of legality that continue to occur, so let’s not add to those.

Or maybe folks will find this to be the clarion call for preventing population expansion. Maybe the United States should instigate an entire process of application and review of would-be and current parents to determine parental fitness.

Perhaps we should go all the way and force people to be more fiscally responsible by not allowing the freedom to choose children, much like the efforts underway attempting to force people to eat more healthily and live more healthily.

Sure, this is stretching it a bit, but it bears discussion. Are the above ideas things you want your government to determine? Some folks might agree, some not. Think about it.