Instead of debating the matter, lets just eliminate all forms of welfare. I might be willing to concede that a prisoner has a right to procreate, as long as his offspring does’nt sponge off the taxpayers.
In this case. taxpayers have no obligation to support his offspring in any way via the welfare state. AFDC, Food stamps, Head Start, Medicare, “free” school breakfast, “free” school lunch, taxpayer subsidized college loans, and hundreds of other welfare programs would be off limits to the offspring of this inmate.
What logic is behind that, GENE? That child has done no wrong, yet you want to punish him/her and deny fair treatment on the basis of what the father’s done? Let’s not forget who’s being punished here. As MsRobyn has already pointed out, “It is the convict being punished, not his wife or family.”
There is no reason to discriminate against the child.
Hey, buddy, thanks for reminding me why I support the ACLU.
P.S. Why is the age of the mother relevant? Do you believe that both the families of convicts and people over a certain age should both be banned from having kids?
Hello Crunchy Frog.
The logic behind my post is that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO WELFARE. Should the government steal the earnings of a self supporting family in order to give those earnings to the offspring of a person who cannot, or will not support themselves?
BTW. Its not “punishment” to deny a person welfare, since there is no right to get welfare in the first place.
This may come as a surprise to many people on this board, but the government is UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT YOU.
Seeing as the person in in prison, he can’t do much. This is not the child’s fault.
It’s one thing if you’re talking about doing away with all welfare for everyone - that’s an entirely different subject - but you stated (bolding mine):
This implies we deny help to the offspring of the inmate only, while still providing relief to other children. This is not fair, since the child has done nothing wrong.
So are you suggesting we do away with all welfare, or just the welfare for inmates’ children?
I am not supporting the OP but I think I know why the age of the mother would be relevant. Over a certain age (40, IIRC) women have a greater risk in having an unhealthy baby (Down’s Syndrome, etc).
As for the OP, why do you automatically assume that this child would be raised on welfare just because his father is in prison?
I was a member for about 20 years and my leftist wife is still a member. If what ** Stoid** wrote were actually true, I’d re-join.
For me, the most striking decision of the ACLU was to not support various people unjustly accused of sexual harassment. These cases included several child-care providers who were rairoaded into long prison sentences. Thier trials made a mockery of civil liberties. Vey youn children were coerced into making false accusations. Fortunately, many, but not all, have been finally released on appeal. Another notorious case invloved Grant Snowden, a Florida policeman, who Janet Reno unfairly put in prison on trumped up child-abuse charges. He was finally released on appleal after serving 10 or so years.
The most shocking was the young dauther of a law enforcement person (sheriff?) in Wenatchee Washington, who accused any number of people of child abuse. This case was the closest thing we’ve seen to witch trials in centuries. Some of those accused were imprisoned. Some fled the country so their children wouldn’t be taken from them. in a horrible replay of the earlier witch trial craze, people who objected to the prosecutions were themselves accused of child abuse by this young girl.
Throughout this mania, the ACLU never supported these defendants. I presume the reason is that these prosecutions were supported by women’s feminist groups. (Oddly enough, the prosecutions were also supported by some of the religious right.)
The ACLU also failed to offer support to women who claimed to have been wronged by Bill Clinton – Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Katherine Willey, Juanita Broderick, etc. I also haven’t seen them jump to the support of Anne Marie Smith against Gary Condit. They don’t oppose Democrats.
Even when the ACLU agrees with Republicans, they keep mighty quiet about. They haven’t made a big fuss about opposing campaign finance reform, for example, although their official position is that it’s an infringement of free speech.
In short, the ACLU is essentially a liberal or Democratic civil liberties organization. There are other civil liberties organizations that support conservatives, such as Judicial Watch and Landmark Legal.
Stoid, as you disagree with me, I’d invite you to explain your position.
Crunchy Frog-
Your screen name reminds me of the old National Lampoon cover of the frog in a wheelchair sitting in front of a restaurant advertising Frog Legs for lunch.
As far as the incarcerated person PURPOSEFULY creating a child, we know that he cannot support that child. This duty falls to the taxpayers. Being that there is no right to welfare, this offspring should be out of luck.
Are you suggesting that the U.S. should provide welfare for Bill Gates children? After all, his children can’t help being Bill Gates children.
It’s the responsibity of the parents to provide for the offspring, just in case modern day Americans have forgotten this simple truth.
Gene, Gene, Gene. Why do you assume the burden for supporting the baby falls to the father? Women work, too.
Robin
It’s from a Monty Python Sketch.
How do figure that the child would immediately be put on welfare, as asked by Mauvaise? The duty for supporting the child would fall on the mother’s shoulders if the father is in prison, not necessarily the taxpayers, and as of yet there is no evidence that the mother cannot support herself or any children. You and the OP are jumping to the conclusion that the child would be raised on welfare. Without a father, a family can still be self-supportive.
And even if it comes down to the family needing welfare, and don’t see how they can pick and choose who gets it based on the sins of the father. If welfare is still available to the general public, then a child should not be made ineligible based on what his father did.
You still seem to not realize you’re judging the child based on the crimes of the father. The child has nothing to do with it, the child did not ask to be born while his/her father is imprisoned, yet you would still deny the child privileges based on what the child’s father did. By withholding these privileges you would be punishing the child for something the child never did.
**
Not that this has anything to do with anything, since one has to qualify for welfare and I would venture to guess Gate’s children would not qualify.
**
I asgree with the sentiment, but how do you automatically know that this child would have to go on welfare? And, if they do qualify, why shouldn’t the child get it? It’s not the child’s fault to be in that situation. Just because the father is imprison doesn’t mean the mother is working her best to provide for her family and may need a little help.
First you have to help me understand yours.
My understanding is that the ACLU protects civil liberties, which in practice means they protect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights as US citizens. While I too am utterly appalled at the way innocent people have had their lives ruined in these hysterical witch hunts, I’m missing the ACLU connection. The ACLU is not claiming to be the Savior of All Wronged Persons. Every case I have ever heard of them taking on had directly to do with Constitutional issues, and I just don’t see how these problems fit that criteria.
Perhaps you can assist me?
stoid
Does this count as a Platform Hijack?
(In other words… huh? Bill Gates? Welfare? The two don’t belong in the same train of thought)
The ACLU acts on the assumption that if we allow the government to take away the rights of the weakest in our society, they’re coming for our rights next. I agree with them. If they can take away this guy’s right to procreate, then they can take somebody else’s.
But as to the OP, there are waaay too many assumptions. Firstly, that the man in question is actually guilty. It’s really not that hard for the state to convict an innocent man. Secondly, it assumes that the inmates wife is on the public dole. She may actually make a good living, enough to support her and the kids. Thirdly, it assumes that anti-social traits are genetic, and that the convict has them.
Next, it inexplicably assumes that the child will be of no value to society. This kid could be the next Albert Einstein, Ruth Ginsberg, Ernest Hemmingway, Mother Thersa… But for some reason, the OP can only forsee a drain on economy, a waste of resources. Sad.
I have donated to the ACLU in the past, and probably will in the future. Here is my take on this.
While I don’t think the state should be encouraging 46 year old women to become pregnant, or doom the poor kid to a single parent/inmate father life, I don’t think it should actively ban it, either.
I think nothing should be done, in this case. The inmate comitted a crime, he broke his moral contract with society, and he is now serving his punishment.
Some inmates (including a close friend of mine), are allowed conjugal visits, some aren’t. I guess it depends on the rules in place in their particular jurisdiction and/or the severity of the crime.
Anyway, the guy should feel free to give his wife sperm in the same manner he is allowed to give her anything else. Through the mail, having the guard give her the plastic cup on their assigned visitation days, etc.
The inmate would have plenty of opportunities to inseminate his wife if he had not done whatever it was that landed him in jail for 110 years. There are already rules in place to allow the inmate to give his wife whatever item he wishes, including sperm, I’d imagine. I don’t see any reason to make special accomodations for him.
As far as the wife is concerned, she can hope she’s ovulating during their visitation hour, or find another sperm doner. Why is this not in the pit yet?
Stoid, I thing you’re evading the question. I wrote a pretty long post with a number of examples indicating that the ACLU is partisan. You could make your case, e.g., by finding lots of cases where they supported rich whites who were wronged by poor minorities, straights who were wronged by gays, Republicans who were wronged by Democrats, etc.
In answer to your specific question, the trials of those accused by young children involved massive abrogations of normal civil liberties for having a fair trial. E.g., some psychologists were testifying as to the cridibility of the children as witnesses – normally a no-no. Young children were questioned in private in a totally unfair way. More broadly, one huge concept underlying the Bill of Rights is that innocent people shouldn’t be railroaded into prison. In this case, that was taking place on a somewhat systematic basis.
BTW another trial involving a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights was second trial of the thuggish cops who beat up Rodney King. One could certainly make a case that this was double jeopardy. I know that a State-Federal argument prevailed, but it would have been normal for a civil liberties org to try to preserve a strong version of a part of the Bill of Rights. This is yet another case where the ACLU decision appears to have been made on political grounds.
OK, Stoid, your turn.
I may be wrong bi I believe that quite a few of the 'industrialized’or ‘first world’ (I think we need some new distinctions) nations provied conjucal visits for their prisioners. This leads to a calmer prision population and less repeat offenders. Should the US start providing this for their prision population?
december
The most shocking was the young dauther of a law enforcement person (sheriff?) in Wenatchee Washington, who accused any number of people of child abuse. This case was the closest thing we’ve seen to witch trials in centuries. Some of those accused were imprisoned. Some fled the country so their children wouldn’t be taken from them. in a horrible replay of the earlier witch trial craze, people who objected to the prosecutions were themselves accused of child abuse by this young girl.
Throughout this mania, the ACLU never supported these defendants. I presume the reason is that these prosecutions were supported by women’s feminist groups. (Oddly enough, the prosecutions were also supported by some of the religious right.)
[/quote]
Did these defendants request assistance from the ACLU? What was the constitutional question?
Did any of these women request the ACLU’s assistance? What were the constitutional questions?
How much of a fuss is the organization supposed to kick up? How much opposition would satisfy you?
Yeah, the Nazis in Skokie were really flaming liberals…
But you failed to show any evidence that a word you said was true. See, even if it can be easily shown that the ACLU didn’t step in in these cases (which shouldn’t be too difficult), you still have to show that they are as ridiculous as you claim they are.
Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke.
It also might help if you showed some indication as to the extent of your knowlege of the internal workings of the ACLU. You don’t have any way of knowing which, if any, of the following are true:
[li]They didn’t ask for help[/li][li]They did, but something internal prevented the ACLU from providing assistance (lack of personnel, funding, whatever).[/li]They offered assistence, and were chased off by some nutcase with a stick ranting “the ACLU is too partisan to defend me!”