Herewith the latest idiocy from our friends at the ACLU:
-the ACLU project on “prisoner’s rights” have concluded that being incarcerated for life should not prevent a prisoner from fathering more social problems! Thjey actually sued to allow a prisoner (serving 110 years in california) to send his semen to his 46 year old wife, so they can have a child “together”!
Quite apart from the fact that a prisoner has no right to propagate, why should the taxpayers be forced to support a flon’s child? And, given the age of the new mother, I’m sure this child will have more that its share of problems.
I was actually on the verge of conributing to the ACLU-this really convinced me of the inherent evil of this organization.
I’ve often been amazed by what they do. Sounds typical to me, at least of the stuff that makes the news.
And why isn’t this in the Pit?
The ACLU exists to defend the civil rights and liberties of everyone, including you, me, and that scumbag who insert evil thing to innocent people/person.
How do you know that the child will be supported by the tax payers?
Can you give me a cite on the idea that convicted felons have no right to have children?
Also please explain your idea that crime is a genetic condition that will be automatically passsed down to a child.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that procreation is a fundamental right. The state by sentencing this person to the term that it did has foreclosed on that right, but the state may not interfere with the exercise of a fundamental right absent a compelling state interest. I haven’t seen the particulars of this lawsuit. Perhaps you could provide a link to support your rant?
How and why would you be on the verge of contributing to an organization that you obviously were * almost * convinced was “evil”?
And your assessment of what constitutes “evil” is strange and broad if it includes this, which is yet one more example of the ACLU (God love 'em!) doing exactly what they always do: protecting the civil rights of all United States citizens. Protecting our rights is *** evil ** *?
I think the ACLU is one of the most amazing organizations ever. They are about as ideology-free as it gets… they never test the case for political correctness, only for whether civil rights are being violated. Anyone’s civil rights. And I never cease to be amazed that anyone who claims to love this country and our constitution can possibly find fault with that.
stoid
And this thread belongs in GD or the Pit.
Well, I certainly don’t agree with every position taken by the ACLU, but I don’t see what’s the matter with this one.
The guy was sentenced to prison, right? Nobody sentenced to him to childlessness. I can think of certain criminals who should be sentenced to childlessness, but it ought to be done by a judge and jury; some prison bureaucrat has no business deciding who can or can’t have children.
My view is that the taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to support anyone’s child, but since the law says otherwise, I see no reason specifically to discriminate against a felon’s child; it’s not the child’ fault who its father is. In any event, your opposition to supporting the child with tax dollars has nothing to do with whether this prisoner and his wife can be prevented from having children by a prison bureaucrat’s whim; it just means that the wife should have to work to support the child, or else the child should be taken from her and placed with parents who can support it properly.
The ACLU has gone so far beyond its original mission, protecting people’s rights, it’s getting ridiculous. They have done some worthwhile things in the past, but have “evolved” into just another liberal mouthpiece.
Has anybody ever noticed that there main goal anymore is to get almost every criminal conviction overturned, or at least have the sentence reduced?
Ah. I thought you were refering to the “NAMBLA” case, which is pretty low too.
Speaking as the former wife of a man who is currently serving a sentence in Virginia, I find attitudes like buddy1’s to be utterly ignorant and disgraceful.
It is the convict being punished, not his wife or family. On the other hand, society seems to think that for one criminal (who might not even be guilty, for IPU’s sake), the entire family deserves to be shunned.
The wife has every right to be impregnated with her husband’s sperm and bear a child. The child may or may not become a criminal later in life. But let’s not play God and decide to punish the wife and possible child for the misdeeds of the father, m’kay?
Robin
NAMBLA as in National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
Mods, could you please move this to the pit. I will add my 2¢ there.
In anticipation of this thread being moved to the Pit, where it belongs, I will make a two word reply to this:
Second Amendment.
Got any cites for these assertions? Or is it just a feeling you have?
stoid
First of all, I state up front that I am unwilling and uninterested and unqualified to really debate this topic in depth.
What I DO know for sure is this: the interpretation of the second amendment continues to be an unsettled matter. It probably always will be, until someone can have a chat with the Fathers. (Although I and many others think it couldn’t possibly be clearer; Joe Blow with his Saturday night Special ain’t part of any militia.)
stoid
That’s not a bad point, but there’s another organization out there who will allocate resources for this. Nobody but the ACLU is willing to do what it does.
–Cliffy
This sounds suspiciously like you support eugenics…
The fact that the father is in prison is no indication of the social proclivities of his offspring.
The OP is upset because the ACLU is protecting a prisoner’s right to have child with his own wife? How is fathering a child evil?
Perhaps I need to see the particulars. Is the ACLU saying that the state should pay for this proceedure? As you can see, I’m having trouble grasping where the “new low” is.
I think buddy needs to get in here and 'splain hisself.
stoid
I imagine this is going to be a typical “fire and forget” thread, with an OP that is never followed up on by the originating poster…
In any case, the ACLU should be surrounded by controversy at all times - “popular” civil rights positions don’t need to be defended.