This is an up-date to a long thread (about 50 responses) from September of last year. The entire thread went up in smoke when the previous bulletin board software crashed and burned.

The thread was centered on the legal case of William Gerber who was/is serving life without parole in a California prison. He had petitioned to have his sperm sent to his 47 year-old wife in Illinois so that she might become pregnant.

On September 8, 2001, a three-member panel the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling in this case, decided that male (but ONLY male) prisoners who are serving life sentences without possibility of parole have a constitutional right to procreation. This was the basis for the original thread.

Yesterday, May 23, 2002, the entire the entire U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling by a narrow majority. Gerber's attorney must now decide whether or not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This would give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule as to whether or not there is any absolute right to reproduction. It could get interesting.

The article in this morning's Los Angeles Times with details of the court decision can be found at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-00 ... %2Dcalifor nia%2Dmanual

I will quote below from my original post of last year. We may want to readdress some of the issues that we discussed then. Some of the newer members of the Archive may want to join in.

"The case raises some interesting issues for this forum, and extends some of the discussion on the threads titled "Projection on Some Present Trends" here in Eunuch Central and "One tiny step closer to mandatory castrations" which is on the Story Idea Board.

"1) There is the eugenic argument. Does the state have the right to remove an individual from the gene pool through long term imprisonment?

a) In Skinner v. Oklahoma, a 1942 case, the Supreme Court determined that an inmate convicted of repeated sex crimes could not be forcibly sterilized before release. He maintained the right to attempt to procreate once he had served his sentence.

b) Turner v. Safley, a 1978 case, determined the right of prisoners to marry while incarcerated, but Hernandez v. Coughlin (in 1994) determined that married prisoners have no right to conjugal visits for the purpose of procreation. For prisoners who are likely to be released, there is no right of procreation UNTIL they are released.

"2) Do men and women have identical rights to procreation, or do men have more rights than women. The court majority specifically stated that men and women are biologically different and women DO NOT have the right to procreate while in prison. Personally, I doubt that this part of the decision will survive a challenge to the Supreme Court, whichever way it decides on the basic right of prisoners (of both sexes) to procreate. Their thoughts on this issue may determine the Supreme Court decision. Either every woman in prison has the right to have a baby - in prison at state expense - or no man has a right to reproduce while incarcerated.

"3) If prisoners serving life sentences have the right to procreation, does society as a whole have the responsibility to provide full economic and social support for their children? Certainly the prisoner cannot provide any economic support and can provide little, if any, emotional and social support. Does the prisoner have the RIGHT to draw on our taxes and our tax-supported social services?

"4) If the court finds FOR a right to reproduce, will it then find, at a later date, that the government has a responsibility to aid individuals in procreation. Should taxpayer money be spent for fertility clinics? Should taxpayers help the infertile to have any children they desire? Should the government take extraordinary measures to ensure that an infertile prisoner serving a life sentence can contribute to the gene pool?

"5) Should the government simply castrate, or otherwise permanently sterilize, any prisoner sentenced to a term of more than X number of years? It would probably cut down on the amount of prison violence and the incidence of rape in prison. If the court decides that prisoners, while they are prisoners, have no right to procreation, this would be a possible extension. Such a policy would certainly not meet current interpretations of the Constitution, but would GW Bush appointed Supreme Court justices find a way around previous precedent? Stranger things than that have happened in the Supreme Court in the past.

"This last statement is added to make sure that the spears begin flying in this discussion. Have at it!"

Intersting request however, when you go to prison you loose your rights. Even if you get out of prison some rights you never get back, like the right to vote, own a gun.

This is interesting, however his wife is 47 yrs old, I am not sure if I were one of the judges I would have approved this either.

I guess my vote would be Hell No.

I like the Number 5 best, if you get life- cut them off.

This ignorant son of a bitch should be executed post haste.

We're already - you and I, here - paying for his dumb ass with our tax dollars. Now he wants US to pay for his child. And moreover, the child will be the one who pays again for him being the fool that he is.

In my opinion, the fuckwit has NO rights whatsoever. He should have thought about that BEFORE he did whatever he did to get locked up in prison.

And keep in mind, every time he goes whining to his lawyer, who pays for it? You and me. Go ahead, take him to the Supreme Court. I'll be happy to pay for it. I didn't want to eat every day this week anyway.

For Christs's sake, when is someone going to overthrow this sick joke of a government we have in the USA and institute Socialism? Or Communism? Both are absolutely FINE forms of government when you dont' spend 99% of the budget on arms and vodka.

Apologies to any former USSR readers.

>

Paolo wrote: Sat May 25, 2002 5:51 pm For Christs's sake, when is someone going to overthrow

> this sick joke of a government we have in the USA and

> institute Socialism? Or Communism? Both are absolutely

> FINE forms of government when you dont' spend 99%

> of the budget on arms and vodka.

I like Libertarianism myself. They believe that taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for things like paying for things other people want.

What a lot of people forget about when talking about denial of conjugal rights, mandatory castration and (I'll introduce this one) capital punishment is that the legal systems in all countries do make mistakes, & possibly quite a lot.

How would your conscience be if someone, denied his right to procreate or to be able to do so, the latter either because he's been castrated or executed, turns out to be innocent?

Personally, I believe that incarceration should be the worst anyone suffers.

As for Happousai's comment that "

Happousai (imported) wrote: Sat May 25, 2002 6:10 pm I like Libertarianism myself. They believe that taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for things like paying for things other people want

", the type of people he seems to support obviously and selfishly have no social conscience for, or interest in, people worse off, in whatever way, than themselves. I've come across a few of these in my time and I found that when their own circumstances take a turn for the worse, their views often change.

PUEROS

The real point is, if prisoners continually proclaim their innocence against ineffectual evidence, what do you do? Do you still execute their physical punishments, whatever they may be? Or do you introduce a, probably unworkable, 2 tier penal system??

However, what really worries me is that certain countries even propose to kill those who were only 17 year-old at the time of their crime.

Surely that only occurs in barbaric nations?

Countries actually lose friends rapidly when they're seen to be morally hypocritical!

PUEROS

(excerpts)....

Paolo wrote: Sat May 25, 2002 5:51 pm We're already - you and I, here - paying for his dumb ass with our tax dollars. Now he wants US to pay for his child. And moreover, the child will be the one who pays again for him being the fool that he is.

......

And keep in mind, every time he goes whining to his lawyer, who pays for it? You and me. Go ahead, take him to the Supreme Court. I'll be happy to pay for it. I didn't want to eat every day this week anyway.

For Christs's sake, when is someone going to overthrow this sick joke of a government we have in the USA and institute Socialism? Or Communism? Both are absolutely FINE forms of government when you dont' spend 99% of the budget on arms and vodka.

With all due respect, Paolo, your little diatribe above makes no sense at all. It's utterly contradictory. You complain (quite justifiably, IMO) about those social parasites who leech off your tax money, but then suggest socialism or communism as a preferable system! Do you really believe that the way to end the welfare state is to institute a government that has as its philosophical foundation the coerced transfer of wealth from what its leaders and apparatchiks perceive as the able, to those they, in their sole judgment, perceive as needy?

I know I don't.

Now, as for the main topic of this thread, a solution seems pretty simple to me. Yes, everyone has the right to reproduce, regardless of whatever crimes they may have committed. But the state (i.e., the taxpayer) has no obligation to support the product of that process.

So, if a male prisoner wants sperm sent to his wife and she has a child as a result, we have no obligation to support it, and she should not be eligible for welfare benefits as a result of that event. If a female prisoner wishes to become pregnant, she should first have to demonstrate that she has set aside sufficient funds to cover the cost of prenatal care and delivery. Once born, she must have made arrangements for the child to be cared for until her release, at no cost to the taxpayer.

In either case, if the wife at home or the designated guardian can not fulfill their obligation to the child, then the child immediately gets put up for adoption into a loving, and financially secure, home.

Having rights is one thing, and a good thing. But rights are only one side of the coin. The flip side is the responsibilities that go along with those rights. What's wrong in the US and most Western countries today is that we've allowed the two to separate, to our great detriment.

Pueros, you mean just like the United States.

Talula:- !

Radar:-

Socialism, which is actually a philosophy that suggests that those who have, in comparative terms, a lot should share a bit of it with those who do not, has served western Europe quite well.

I also wish that those who are so viciously anti-communist would read Marx's 'Das Capital' to discover what the true philosophy (as opposed to the former Soviet version) actually espouses.

I also sometimes wonder why those who are so protective of their earnings from the taxman often profess to patriotism, being seemingly very nationalistic.

What's the point of a country or organised society if not for mutual benefit & protection, the latter extending to help through personal bad times as well as national peril?

In my opinion, capitalism without restraints & social responsibility is awful and, given this thread, it's practical interpretation even seems to extend to a man's right to procreate because many of the objectors to the prisoner's request seem to complain mainly on grounds of cost, forgetting the moral element.

Is this what capitalist society has come to?

PUEROS

pueros wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:53 pm Socialism, which is actually a philosophy that suggests that those who have, in comparative terms, a lot should share a bit of it with those who do not, has served western Europe quite well.

Actually, it hasn't worked all that well. Yes, it works for a while, but as the British found out in the 70's, and the Germans a decade and a half later, it ultimately results in stagnation and resentment. Birth rates in Scandinavia have fallen so precipitously that there are serious concerns about their economies being able to sustain themselves over the long term. In France, truckers pracically shut down the country because the powers that be refused to allow them a decent wage.

And of course, we must also confront the excesses to which socialism has led. It wasn't only Russia. Hitler was a socialist - a National Socialist, to be exact , and Mussolini was certainly not a free marketer. There was also Franco, Tito and Cosciescu (sp?) -- all working variations on the same flawed theme.

Yes, they're making it work, after a fashion. But the system is fundamentally flawed, and can be made to work only so well, and only with constant tinkering, not to mention at the cost of a great deal of personal freedom.

pueros wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:53 pm I also wish that those who are so viciously anti-communist would read Marx's 'Das Capital' to discover what the true philosophy (as opposed to the former Soviet version) actually espouses.

Do I detect a few flames here?

I know what it espouses, Pueros, and I don't like it, an opinion to which I believe I"m entitled in a free society. The problem with it is that on the surface, it all sounds oh so utopian, but the reality is quite different, and quite contrary to the principles upon which my own government was originally formed -- principles I happen to value highly. And by the way, I object to your characterization of me as a "vicious" anti-communist. How does merely objecting to an economic system with reasoned argument make one "vicious"?

The problem with socialism is that it makes a fatal assumption: that humans are perfectible if only steered in the right direction. The problem is that it is the state that must do the steering, and it is those who hold power within the state who determine what is the right direction. You, as an individual, do not make that determination; it is forced upon you by a bureaucracy that, once entrenched, is no longer effectively controlled.

And make no mistake -- it IS forced. Any time the state requires an action, it has the ability and obligation to enforce that requirement, and will do so ultimately at the point of a gun. This is permissible in the case of criminal behavior only because some actions can harm others, and the state is in the position of sustaining order, indeed is created to maintain order. But once it steps over the line into requiring "good" actions instead of prohibiting bad ones, a whole new moral equation comes into play.

The great wisdom of John Locke and Adam Smith lay in their acceptance of the fact that we are all fundamentally flawed creatures, and will always be so. (That's what the first few chapters of Genesis are all about, and they're there to convey a basic fact of life.) The only way to counteract that nature is through coercion, and that ultimately leads one down the slope into tyranny. Since human nature cannot be changed, and since government is by its nature coercive, the only moral choice, the only one that truly allows liberty to prevail, is a government that is severely limited in its powers.

That's the government I prefer, and I mourn the fact that the US no longer has one like that.

pueros wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:53 pm I also sometimes wonder why those who are so protective of their earnings from the taxman often profess to patriotism, being seemingly very nationalistic.

The straw man tactic doesn't cut it here, Pueros. I have in fact said nothing in this venue to indicate my degree or depth of "patriotism", and that is a relative term in any case. It's convenient in a discussion such as this one to confuse a love of liberty with "patriotism" or nationalism, as that insinuates a sort of nationalistic jingoism. But in this case, you have no basis in anything I've said to make any comment at all about my "patriotism", since my comments are limited to an economic system, not a country.

pueros wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:53 pm What's the point of a country or organised society if not for mutual benefit & protection, the latter extending to help through personal bad times as well as national peril?

Actually, I was right with you up to the word "protection", because that IS what governments are for. But when we speak of helping some through "personal bad times", a serious moral issue arises: Who decides where to draw the line between hardship inflicted from without, and that which is inflicted by one's own indolence or lack of motivation or ability? If it's the leadership or the bureaucracy, as it must be for any practical system to be implemented, there is an immediate conflict of interest. The ever-increasing transfer of wealth is in the interest of those administering it, since it generates both job security and, via the growth of the bureaucracy, increased opportunity for promotion. I believe a sound government avoids those conflicts, and the only way to do that is never to subject itself to them.

pueros wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:53 pm In my opinion, capitalism without restraints & social responsibility is awful and, given this thread, it's practical interpretation even seems to extend to a man's right to procreate because many of the objectors to the prisoner's request seem to complain mainly on grounds of cost, forgetting the moral element.

Is this what capitalist society has come to?

PUEROS

Here's where I get to admonish you about not understanding the principles like you did to me at the beginning of your message.

Let me start by declaring that what we have in the US is most decidedly NOT unrestrained capitalism. It is in fact a most heavily controlled and regulated form of it, and it is that regulation and control that leads to the mutual corruption of both business and government, and allows corporations to grow into the behemoths, coercive in their own right, which they've become.

That said, I cannot fathom how you draw a correlation between the issue of procreation and one of unrestrained capitalism. One does not generally procreate for financial gain, unless one is seeking to take advantage of socialistic welfare programs, and in their absence, it is a purpose only unto itself. In a free society, I have no more right to tell you whether or not you may have children than you do to shoot me.

But where I CAN draw the line is in refusing to be held responsible for your decision to do so. It's no different than if you ignored your education and then insisted that I compensate you for your inability to earn your way out of poverty. I am not responsible for your bad decisions, nor you for mine -- but in my humble opinion, we both have a natural right to make those decisions ourselves, and only ourselves.

While a compassionate society certainly takes care of those who are in trouble through no fault of their own, the only moral way to accomplish that is by the voluntary actions of individuals. That's the only way each of us can decide, without coercion, whether and how much we wish to accept responsibility for another. It isn't always "fair", but life isn't fair either, and there are some things we do better not trying to change, lest we make them worse.

Peace?