You agree in principle to the deprivation of the “right” to procreation by locking this person up in prison. You don’t agree to deprivation of the same right that does not include the other deprivations involved in imrisonment.
Allowing this person out on parole and requiring that he not procreate is a decrease in power, not an increase. He would be deprived of all of his ancillary rights if he were in prison. On parole, he is deprived only of his “right” to procreate.
And there has been no misuse of the power on the part of Child Support Enforcement. That’s a strawman. The judge ordered it.
I ask again - if it is such a fundamental abuse to deprive this person of his “right” to procreate, why do you support it if he goes to prison? Why do you only object if he suffers this abuse while on parole?
Shodan, you’re attacking this thread completely the wrong way.
Have you read any of my posts besides the one you’ve quoted? If not, please go back and do so. You will see that I am specifically suggesting that Local DAs and DCCS offices in California are enjoying increased power at their disposal and that, in turn is becoming misused. I give fuck-all about the man in the story quoted in the OP. No straw-man.
What I do care about is my local situation which is becoming more and more abusive.
As for denying a man the right to procreate or not and whether it is an increase or decrease in power of the state, it looks as if I’m just going to agree to disagree with you. If the state wishes to fucking immobilize a man and ensure that there is no hope in him paying his support by taking his means away, then they can just go ahead and imprison him.
In fact, this is at least a step above the power to jail a man to take away his right to have children. Even the 9th circuit has agreed that incarcerated men have the right to continue procreating(off and on). The decision was overturned En Banc, but it was dissented strongly against and barely passed in a 6-5 vote. http://www.metnews.com/articles/gerb052402.htm
It barely passed decision in a 4-3 vote with dissent hinging on the right to procreate as a fundamental right. I know why people applaud this decision, but this decision and ones similar to it have even further-reaching consequences.