Mandatory Contraception

Melissa Erin | May 8, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | May 9, 2004
You apologize sometimes for not knowing how to create links, Melissa, so if you're looking for help, let me assist:

This would create <A http://yahoo.com>a" target="_blank">HREF=http://yahoo.com>a link to Yahoo</A>.

Make sure you include the http:// part or it won't work. When you submit the comment, TC automatically adds a little blurb of code ("TARGET=_blank") that opens the link in a new window, so don't get confused if you edit an old comment and see it there.

The ruling is interesting. Something like that comes up every once in a while, usually brought on by deadbeat dads, who accept castration as part of a plea bargain not to go to jail. (Speaking as a man, the word "castration" brings to mind some violent imagery, but I assume it's just a chemical injection.) The judge refers to the man's "constitutional right to have children," but does the constitution even grant such a right? Steve Dunn might know the legality of it better than I do.

Anna Gregoline | May 9, 2004
It's not in the Constitution, but I suppose it could be included underneath life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not sure how I feel about this issue - but I think that if I support women's reproductive rights with such fervor, I should support men's as well.

Jackie Mason | May 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Melissa Erin | May 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Melissa Erin | May 9, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | May 9, 2004
Scott, there's generally been held to be an assumed Constitutional right to control of your own natural bodily functions like reproduction, and it's usually justrified as an extension of the right against unlawful search and siezure. Basically, the government can't "sieze" your reproductive system. (Search and siezure are also where we get modern notions of the right to privacy.)

Scott Hardie | May 10, 2004
All right, then; that makes sense. Reproducing is obviously a moral right, but I doubted the Constitution mentioned it directly, and I couldn't find it in a search. Of course, the problem with morals is that everybody has different ones, so all we can do is attempt to establish the fairest system possible. That, to me, would not include mandatory contraception for certain individuals, even if they "brought it on themselves" with their criminal behavior. It's just not something that someone has a right to take away from someone else, junkie deadbeat or not. Too bad for the kids, most of whom are doomed to repeat the shitty lives of their parents.

Melissa Erin | May 10, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | May 10, 2004
I'm not sure the drug addicted so child is born addicted exception works for me - it's horrible, sure, but I shy away from laws that would serve to control a pregnant mother's unborn child. It's a slippery slope. But proven child abusers (to already born children) should definitely have their children taken away. The problem is that the system is so flooded with children that they often get their kids back.