Conference back40::soapbox

    -1 i don't find see it that way. what is the answer to protect these
       current and future children Nancy?
    
       Chip

    who's this norplant?

    A ball player or something.

    Put her in jail until menopause.

    Re .0:
    
    > . . . the abortion laws which deem the fetus a non-child.

    There is no law in the United States that deems the fetus a non-child. 
    Perhaps you are confusing laws that protect women's right to abortion
    with your own feelings about the fetus.  But the laws just state what
    _may_ and _may not_ be done in regard to abortion; they do not state
    that abortions _may_ be performed _because_ the fetus is not a child.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I think the judge's ruling makes it quite clear there would probably
    NOT be an abortion, otherwise why order her NOT to get pregnant?
    
    I'm glad someone can see that quality of life has some meaning.
    
    

    
    So, who pays for the care that her two children will need for the rest
    of their lives because momma has a problem?  
    
    I agree, give her Norplant or something.  She can't be responsible for
    herself, how is she going to be responsible for her kids?
    
    And after seeing what a baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome or drug
    addicted should make anyone this twice about giving birth to another.
    Or get themselves cleaned up.
    
    Mary
    

    
    RE.  4
    
    Norplant are these tiny rod looking things that are inserted into your
    arm.  Instead of taking a pill every day or using an alternative
    form of birth control, women can have these inserted.
    
    I think they last awhile. No hassle, no thinking about birth control.

    I wonder .....
    
    What are the legal/moral implications of requiring Norplant inserts for
    all female welfare recipients?....
    
    Any comments ....?
    
    Dan

    >No hassle, no thinking about birth control.
    
     They have side effects. I know two women who've had to get them
    removed.
    
     And you should still wear a condom to prevent disease transmission.

    .0 give reason to support the AMA's claim for public sterolization. As
    so not to pass idiots like this to future generations.
    
    The kids are probably wards of the state. And its funny, how someone
    like this, normally would fall thru the cracks of the system. And now
    one is cought. And its interesting how this will follow thru. I am
    certain that there will be an appeal and the ACLU will probably sue the
    pants off the judge for infrindging upon her civil rights to produce
    and mame more children.
    
    

    
    sterilization
    it's
    caught
    infringing
    maim
    

 your cup runneth over, no, mz deb?

    <----- Wow !
    
    Mz_Debra, I don't EVER want to get on your bad side !
    
    :-)
    
    Dan 

    
    Hey, those were only the misspellings.  I left the errors in punctuation
    and fragments and such alone 8^).
    

    She's just upset at being placed on a lower pedantical level than
    Sacks and Binder.  Neglected I think the term was.  Hell hath no fury
    like a boxbabe neglected.  
    
    Regarding .0, what is the judge going to do if she does get pregnant
    again?  
    
    Brian 

    
    I would speculate that the judge doesn't have the authority under
    California law to order the woman sterilized. Barring that, what he's
    done, which isn't a lot, may be about all he can do.
                            
    

    Re: .18
    
    >what is the judge going to do if she does get pregnant again?
    
    He could put her in jail for violating a court order.  That would make
    it a little harder for her to get alcohol, at least.

    .7
    
    Good point.  I think perhaps I'm confusing it with the abortion topic
    in here. :-)

    .8
    
    That's just the point.  What happens *if* she becomes pregnant?
    
    As much as I loathe the idea of broken humans bringing children into
    this world, my civil rights are in jeopardy when our court system
    orders someone not to get pregnant!
    
    Does anyone in here have an idea of how delicate this matter truly is. 
    Wasn't it just this past year that the UN was deliberating population
    control?  Take a look at China?
    
    

    Funny, there are people in the country, that you would never give the
    opp to have them sit for a dead ant. Yet, we will set these same people
    up in housing at the expence of the tax payer. And call it a good plan.

    
      Ow, c'mon, Mr. T - you make us parse yer intentionally noisy
     channel, yet a mental process even slightly off the beaten track
     stumps you.
    
      C'mon, try just the phrase "that you would never give the opp to
     have them sit for a dead ant".  Convert to clarity.
    
      bb

    >my civil rights are in jeopardy when our court system
    >orders someone not to get pregnant!
    
    What about the civil rights of those who end up paying for another sick
    welfare child???
    
    ...Tom

    well here it is... i don't want to support additional children thrown
    into this situation and i don't want to support the idiots (in jail)
    who create it... period!
    
    Chip

    .18
    
    > She's just upset at being placed on a lower pedantical level than
    > Sacks and Binder.  Neglected I think the term was.
    
    Neglect does not place her on a level lower than him who neglects her,
    it places her on a higher level, because she wouldn't ever be so gauche
    as to be neglectful in return.
    
    There, Mz_Deb, is that sufficient grovelling?

    
    Does this woman have other children besides the 2 mentioned in the
    basenote? Is her husband an alcohol and drug abuser also?
    
    Mary
    

    >452.27 I remain stymied.
     
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't stymie mean to block;thwart. Thus
    stymied would mean you blocked something or prevented something from
    happening. It does not mean a mental block as you have suggested.
    Before you rag on somebody else's thinking, you should look at your own
    first.
    
       Personally I believe as mortals, we do not have the right to make
    such decisions as some of are judges do. But then again something has
    to be done about society's many problems.

    
    
    RE: .27 at least you weren't buffaloed

	a little counting problem though

    Oooh Mr. T. You just don't wanna even listen to it so you'll nit to it.
    Such is life.:)
    
    In reguards to weaker children. During the high days of Greece. They
    would take their weak to the mountain to to die. But, then there was
    this dwarf, with a hunch back, who in the 18th early 19th century
    developed calculas(sp). And if there was a life style of then now.
    There would not be a math course required in college that would drive
    any one as nuts as it has!:)
    
    Yet, still, one day, I was home, sick, getting sick of watching tube,
    and saw these women who gave birth to crack babies. And one of them
    made a coment that who better else to smoke crack with than someone you
    know. (as in your unborn child). So, what do you do? Get people off
    drugs? What if they don't want to get off drugs? What do you do to
    those who are born of these drugged infested mindless of high
    irisponsibility(sp)? 

                      <<< Note 452.33 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>
    
    > Perhaps in 200-300 years we'll have a male with a harem - like horses
    
    Harem !  Cool !  I'd vote for that !
    
    
    
    :-)     :-)     :-)     :-)     :-)     :-)
    
    What did you expect from a neanderthal male !?!?!
    Dan  :-)
    

>    such decisions as some of are judges do. But then again something has
			       our

    
    George, have you ever thought about putting (sp?) as the title of every
    one of your notes?  'twould save you time 8^).

	i find that i have to put my head down and take a little nap
	after reading one of george's notes.  it's hard work, oh yes
	it is.

    
      (sp) isn't good enough.  Perhaps, alternately grammared (ag) ?
    
      bb

    
    	"Ag" is no good ... sounds like you're giving him a metal for
    	an outstanding performance.
    
    	[Spelling mistake intentional.]
    

    Thanks! All My fans!! :) (sp)
    

    .23
    
    These children may not be easy to place for adoption.  I have read
    of special families who are willing to adopt children with special
    needs,  but if these children are severely retarded, an adoptive
    family would need a bank account bigger than their hearts to take
    care of these kids.
    
    I don't give a darn if the woman's rights are trampled on by the
    order; I would much rather see a pregnancy *prevented* than to
    have a child born into a life that is as good as it gets the 
    day the child draws its first breath.
                                  

    .32
    
    > Correct me if I'm wrong...
    
    Okay.
    
    > but doesn't stymie mean to block;thwart.
    
    It also means to stump.  When one is stymied, one is at a loss for the
    answer to a conundrum, quandary, or similar enigma.

    
    
    
       So,....ah,....where do we "draw the line"??  Seventy percent
       of the families in The Orchard Park Housing Project in Roxbury
       are headed by women. Poverty,....illiteracy,.....drugs,..alcohol,..
       ....violence,.....teen pregnancies,.....Should we "turn off"
       these women too??
    
       You can keep this Draconian excrement in your own toilet! And
       while your at it,........spray some deodorizer!
    
    
       Ed

    
    Don't hold back, Ed.  Tell us how you *really* feel.
    

    Eddie, 
    
    
    such elagant words......eddie, did you get my phone message yet!!!!!
    
    EDDIE!!
    
    michelle
    

    ed, 
    
    
    thank you!
    
    
    mm	

    .45
    
    >It also means stump.
    I went and checked with a dictionary(1983 American Heritage) to make
    sure that I did not make a mistake. It read 'to block;thwart'. However,
    this dictionary is not current, so it is very possible that there is
    more meaning to the word. I will go check my more current Webster's
    dictionary at home. I apologize if I did not fully know the whole meaning
    of 'stymied'.
    
    

    .50
    
    From the American Heritage Third Edition, computer version, with the
    pronunciations excised for lack of proper character set:
    
    sty�mie also sty�my  tr.v. sty�mied, sty�mie�ing also 
    sty�my�ing, sty�mies.
    1. To thwart; stump.
     n.
    1. An obstacle or obstruction.
    2. Sports. A situation in golf in which an opponent's ball obstructs
    the line of play of one's own ball on the putting green.

    
    	Once on the green, doesn't the closest lie shoot next?
    
    	Wouldn't that nullify that definition of stymie?
    
    	[OK, I just thought of 1 instance where it would still be
    	 true ... but I'll let someone else correct me so you don't
    	 think I'm TOO smart for my own good.]
    

    .52
    
    > Once on the green, doesn't the closest lie shoot next?
    
    No.  The farthest lie shoots next.

    
    	Wow ... I've been wrong TWICE today??
    
    	A new record!!
    

    Yeah, an all time low water mark.

    <<< Note 452.22 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    That's just the point.  What happens *if* she becomes pregnant?
 
	Legally, she can be held in contempt of court and jailed. This
	MIGHT be legal if it is a condition of parole, but otherwise
	it would probably not hold up under appeal.

Jim

    Furthest lie shoots first unless that person yields to another that is
    close to the pin and is allowed to putt out.  The exception would be
    where a player is actually closer to the pin but still not on the
    green.  This person has the right to shoot first with the furthest from
    the hole rule working for all others not on the green as well.  All 
    players must mark their balls using a suitable, non-obstructive 
    marker outside of the most likely path of an opponents ball to the cup.  
    
    So back to my earlier question, what is the judge going to do if she
    gets pregnant?
    
    Brian

    
    Isn't there some special amendment to the rules if the ball is
    up a sheep's bottom?

    Re: .50
    
    Hello, and welcome to the wonderful world of participles.  The sentence
    which started all this was "I remain stymied."  In this sentence,
    "stymied" is not used as a verb.  Rather, the participle form is used
    as an adjective.  One could have easily have said "I remain thwarted." 
    From the context, it would be clear that the meaning was "I remain
    thwarted in my effort to understand this sentence."  This, of course,
    is the same thing as saying, "Well, I'm stumped."
    
    I think that adequately summarizes the situation, so I see no need for
    anyone to say anything more about it, thank you very much.

Well, that's that, then, Ollie!

    Baaa humbug !
    
    This bird should have the knot put in her. That's the only solution.
    
    Cheers

    .57 pass out cigars?
    
        :-) Chip

    You!  Go to your room right now young (sort of) man!  Any more wise
    cracks from you and you will be eating liver for the rest of your life.  
    
    

>    You!  Go to your room right now young (sort of) man!  Any more wise
>    cracks from you and you will be eating liver for the rest of your life.  

Mickey Mantle's discard?

    Thank you Gerald, I knew I could count on you in the late innings.  

    liver?    blaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! never! you can attach electrodes to
    my... never mind. i'll take a slow and painful death to a single
    morsel...
    
    Chip

    
    well Chip, we can arrange that if you'de like. :-)

    LIVER! If I may use Snapple's slogan,"The best stuff on earth!"

    -1 stuff is good word for that, that... stuff.
    
       on the death thing, hey come on, i was just kidding... :-)
    
       Chip

    Much as a deplore what this woman has done to her self and her
    children, she has a right to make her own reproductive choices.  While
    I would prefer that she not have any more pregnancies, and that if so
    she be put in treatment, I can't and wouldn't interfere with her
    fertility any more than I want someone making reproductive choices for
    me.  Involuntary sterilization is what happens in countries where
    people have only the civil right to do what the government bids them. 
    It is not what I want a country I reside in to become.
    
    meg

    Miracles never cease!!!! Meg and I actually agree on something.

    she does not, however, have the right to abuse children, increase
    the burden on an already stretched social system and take MORE
    money out of my pocket because of that "reproductive" choice of
    irresponsibility.
    
    Chip

    Chip,
    
    Congratulations on sharing the same views as the Peoples Republic of
    China.  

    .73 hardly Meg. the woman would've been jailed or forced into labor.
    
        both of which i would never condone.
    
        Chip 

    Excuse me Chip, but the PRC is forcibly sterilizing or aborting women
    who have "Undesirable" genes or behaviors.  
    
    People who recommend this for women or men in this country IMNSHO are
    passing on the same message.
    
    meg

.75 Excuse me Chip, but the PRC is forcibly sterilizing or aborting women
.75 who have "Undesirable" genes or behaviors.  
    
.75 People who recommend this for women or men in this country IMNSHO are
.75 passing on the same message.

In this particular case, according to WN 37.1755 the woman
	"has five children ... The second youngest suffers from fetal alcohol
	syndrome and a defective spine and was born without a bladder.   The
	2-year-old girl is retarded and lives in a special home.   Another
	child, age 3, also tested positive for alcohol at birth."
If you believe the child's problems were caused by the mother's usage
of alcohol, then I would ask you what would be appropriate punishment
for a parent who caused equivalent damage to a child by say whipping them
with an electrical cord ??

Some people may deny the alcohol caused the damage, and perhaps the woman
didn't understand the potential damage.   But apparently she has
seriously damaged two innocent people.   I agree that forced sterilization
is undesirable, but I'm sure some people would think it was too light
a punishment.

    Re: .76
    
    >I agree that forced sterilization is undesirable, but I'm sure some 
    >people would think it was too light a punishment.
    
    Would these perhaps be the same people who are adamantly opposed to
    prior restraint? 

So how 'bout we take this bimbo and put her in maximum-security-solitary
until she reaches menopause, so she hasn't access to either sex or booze
or drugs while she can still make bebbes?

Prolly within the law, accomplishes what the judge would like, and doesn't
offend anyone wrt constraining her reproductive choices, other than the
fact that she's incommunicado for 30 or 40 years.

Then again, she'd be a ward of the state (but prolly is already anyway.)

How the hell do we prevent her from making more critical mistakes without
being "inhumane"?

I haven't any pressing need to see people's reproductive rights stomped on.
But I also haven't any pressing need to see abusive slugs get away with
things that they should be constrained from. How bout' we add this momma
into the "violent crime" bucket I'd like to see dealt with?

If you think that the judge is being "harsh", why don't you propose an
alternative that's effective? Letting her have her way without recourse
is _NOT_ the solution, but you're free to tell me why you think it should
be.

    Quite frankly I agree with Jack on this one as well.  The kids should
    be taken away from her, to let them go back into her care is absolutely
    assinine and irresponsible.
    
    And she should not just ordered to go to a treatment center, but be
    incarcerated during the process with the counselors/psychologists
    choosing when she is ready to be merged back into society.
    
    Nancy

    come on Meg, you're reaching big time to squeeze my square opinion 
    into that communistic/oppressive round hole.
    
    the woman is an irresponsible and wreckless danger. she has caused
    severe damage (more than once). for society NOT to take action would
    be irresponsible, wreckless, and dangerous.
    
    Chip

    this whole issue reminds me of some of the welfare moms in my
    neighborhood. There is one who has had her kids taken from her, whist
    she was entitled to entitlement. Sooo.... this money making venture
    cannot be ruined by some goof in a black robe. She had two more.
    Geeeeeze!!! So now we are all supporting her again.......... I guess we
    just don't get it.... 

            > I guess we just don't get it.... 

    If I may be so crass, the question becomes "Where is she getting it..."
    
    I must admit, the welfare women I have seen I would be afraid to be
    seen with, never mind doing anything else with.... It takes two to
    tango, and it looks like there are some men out there who need their
    eyes checked, or maybe the hormone levels...

    For what its worth, which obviously isn't much
    :-)
    Dan

    .75
    But Meg! There is a preposal by N.O.W. to have men sterilized because
    they have falled behind in their child support? What the differnce?
    
    

    .73
    >Congratulations on sharing the same views as the Peoples Republic of
    China.
    
    Yes! Welcome comrads to the Wommie Wealth of Mass.:)

    
    re: .83
    
    >falled behind
    
    George...
    
     I'm glad I speak gooder English than you!!!!!
    
    

    .85 Yha mon. I speak good englosh. Don't you mon?
    
    

    Ok, so you put her away.  She doesn't produce any more babies.
    Great, that worked well.  Now, what about these couples that
    have two or three handicapped children, and the one that are
    predisposed to Tay-Sachs?  Or MS, or Cystic Fibrosis.  Don't
    these people qualify for some type of public assistance?  And
    think what they do to our education costs when they insist on
    their children's right to an education?  Perhaps we should keep
    those people from reproducing too?  Heck, let's just genetically
    test everyone in the country and sterilize all the people with
    bad genes.  Now what about people who are accused of child abuse?
    Hey sterilize them too! In fact, let's sterilize all the children
    of child abusers now, so that they can't abuse their own children
    later.
    
    And so it goes....it's so eay to take the next step once you've
    taken the first one.  So easy to justify, so easy to rationalize.
    So easy.....until they come for you.
    
    Mary-Michael

    <-----
    Gee whiz, this is starting to sound like a gun control topic !

    :-)
    Dan

>                              Now, what about these couples that
>    have two or three handicapped children, and the one that are
>    predisposed to Tay-Sachs?

A couple that's lost a child to Tay-Sachs will most likely do whatever's
necessary to avoid having another Tay-Sachs child.

    re: .89
    
    My point is I would much prefer that they continue to have
    the right (and not the obligation) to do so.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

re:   <<< Note 452.87 by SMURF::MSCANLON "alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether" >>>

First of all, we're talking about a woman who willfully abuses both drugs and
her offspring, not someone who has a genetic abnormality which they can't help.

As far as the child abusers, give me a good reason why they _shouldn't_
be sterilized. Have you a better way of keeping them from continuing
in their dysfunctional lifestyle? Or would you just as soon they do so?

Talking about "Slippery slopes" is all well and good, Mary-Michael, but you
need to offer some alternatives. "Leaving things be" isn't acceptable to
society and it isn't fair to those who end up being the victims of the
abusers.

So what's the solution?

    Mary Michael,
    
    I agree with your passion for our rights completely.  But this woman
    has been found guilty of abuse, not bad genes.
    
    Nancy

    re: .91 and .92
    
    Yes, she is guilty of abuse, child abuse and substance abuse.
    What about a woman who smokes?  A woman who ignore her doctor's
    advice during pregnancy?  A women who does not seek pre-natal
    care?  Who drinks 6 or 7 cups of coffee a day?  Where is the line
    drawn?  Should women like myself, who must take prescription 
    medication daily in order to stay alive, be ordered not
    to have children, since these medications will increase the chances
    of birth defects?  
    
    Who defines what constitues child abuse?  I am not in any way
    condoning child abuse or ignoring the problem, I am pointing
    out the difficulty in corraling the problem.  To regulate an
    issue you need standards.  Who sets the standards?  In an age
    where parents can be found guilty of child abuse for swatting
    their child on the seat in a parking lot or mall, do YOU really
    want this kind of legislation?  
    
    I agree, there are sad situations in life.  There are people
    who cannot overcome the strength of their own addictions.  But
    (and I'm going to get flamed for this I am sure) in a free society
    you cannot fix all the problems without curtailing the freedoms
    of people who do no harm.  It's a fact of life.  There will be 
    people like this woman.  If you give people choices some people
    will make rotten ones.  If you take away choices so no one makes
    bad decisions, you have no freedom.
    
    Mary-Michael

re. 87
Let us consider
Case A:
	Healthy child is born to parents who proceed to beat the infant
with a stick until it's bladder is missing and serious mental impairments
result.

Case B:
	Parents who have an unknown predisposition to say Tay-Sachs give
birth to a child with the disease.

	I feel differently about the two cases, even if as a taxpayer
I have to pay equal amounts to support them.

Case C:
	Hopeless alcoholic woman becomes pregnant and continues to drink
to such a level that when she gives birth the baby reeks of alcohol,
and has physical and mental deformities.

	Now that booze has labels warning pregnant women about possible
birth defects, I feel case C is closer to case A than case B.   I would
hope the courts would do whatever was in their power to prevent a repetition
of either case A or C.   This isn't punishment, it's prevention of
horrible damage to babies.

	I feel case B is a completely different topic.   I think prenatal
counseling should be mandatory for the parents in case B.   Maybe the parents
parents in case B should be required to post a bond, or acquire insurance
before being allowed to have another child ??  But that's a different
topic.   This topic is about prevention of abuse to helpless infants.

    People who are having handicapped children are not sticking the kids
    hands into pots of boiling water. Nor are they locking them in closets
    or throwing them into the streets as prostutes. Major differnces!(sp)
    

    re: .95
    
    And not all people who have substance abuse problems 
    are either (and I include smokers in this catagory).
    
    Mary-Michael

    re: .94
    
    Yes, this is about child abuse.  It is also about restricting
    the reproductive capabilities of people "to prevent horrible
    damage to babies" (in your own words).   This equates to 
    protecting people from themselves "for their own good".
    
    You started down the slope yourself, by mentioning mandating
    prenatal counseling and posting bonds.  
    
    I agree willful child abuse is horrible.  I agree as a society
    we should do everything in our power to ensure it does not
    occur.  I do not agree that reproductive functions should be 
    mandated, legislated or court ordered.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    

    								----->

<------

    
    
    
    			<------       ------>

    
    Stop, I'm getting dizzy.

    
    	There's a stretch.  8^)
    

    
    Spoken by a man with 1.5 chest hairs 8^).
     

    
    	Hey, they tell me it's the quality and not the quantity.
    
    	Of course, I think THEY are a bunch of morons, but maybe they're
    	right.
    

    They are the Trilateral Commission. I wouldn't believe a thing they
    said if I were you.

    <---- No, no.  THEY are the Council on Foreign Relations, the TLC is
    THEM.  

re: .97

	You agree this is about child abuse, and you "agree as a society
    we should do everything in our power to ensure it does not
    occur."   And you do not feel "reproductive functions should be 
    mandated, legislated or court ordered."

	So when these two are in conflict what should society do ?
    Is the welfare of the child more important, or does a woman have
    the right to subject a fetus she intends to carry to term to
    levels of substances which have been shown to cause MAJOR defects ??

	You said "This equates to protecting people from themselves".
    I disagree.   I think people probably should have the right to
    $%^@ their own lives anyway they chose.   But this is about
    people hurting OTHER people.   I think that when a drunk driver
    kills someone, they should lose their right to drive.

	Suggesting mandatory genetic counseling for parents of handicapped
    children, would require education.    It still leaves decisions
    up to the parents.    Are you against teaching people about their
    bodies when there is a track record of problems ?   Wouldn't it be
    good if people knew what the odds were of having another handicapped
    child ??
    
	There are always problems drawing lines in the law.  It's not
    legal to kill someone, but self defense is OK.  It's up to a court
    to decide if it was OK.   And they do this kind of thing.  Not
    always as well as we might wish, but they do it.   IMO, this
    judge saw this particular woman as having a high probability of
    injuring any future children, and acted accordingly.   Do you
    think a future baby wouldn't be seriously damaged, or do you
    think she has a right to damage the child (or maybe something else) ??

	What should society do about women who are delivering crack
    or heroin babies ???

re: .93
	You asked should women "who must take prescription  medication
    daily in order to stay alive, be ordered not to have children, since
    these medications will increase the chances of birth defects?"
    IMO the Dr should have discussed the risks with such women.
    If the drug is thalidomide, not having children should be strongly
    advised.    Other drugs have different risks.

re: .95
    The physical damage done to a fetus in extreme cases of alcohol abuse
    by the mother IS comparable to that done by "sticking the kids
    hands into pots of boiling water."    Perhaps the intentions were
    different, but the results are equally devastating.

    .108 Your extreem. You are assuming that the child of the handicapped
    parent is going to have one of the same. 
    
    Remember that there was also a dwarf, hunch back child, who grew up to
    add to the misery called Calculus.(sp). To which is the latin of math.
    So, not always are such children brought into the world lives of
    missery and despair. 

   .109  nap time

    
    	RE: Diane
    
    	8^)
    
    	Actually, it's only missing a couple words ... although I haven't
    	a clue as to what they should be.
    

    re: .108
    
    When they are in conflict, society should provide education.
    Period.  Society should have been providing adequate reproduction
    information all along, but it has chosen to hide it's head in
    the sand and deal with sexual reproduction as a "dirty deed"
    which is not discussed.  As a result, sexual health and reproductive
    health have suffered.
    
    The only way you can compare drunk drivers to alcoholics having
    handicapped children is a.) if you are willing to give complete
    human rights to the fetus and b.) you consider driving a right -
    which it is not.  As a matter of fact reproduction isn't a right
    either, it's a choice you make.  It's a matter of personal
    responsibility.  The best we can do is apply societal pressure
    to extract the desired behavior.  Reproduction is not a function 
    which belongs in a court of law.  
    
    You cannot have a free country and save them all.  You can 
    provide education and you can works towards a greater good,
    but if you give people charge of their own destiny (which I
    believe strongly in) you cannot save them all.
    
    Mary-Michael

    	Mary-Michael --
    
    	So much said.  So much misunderstanding...  
    
.87>    Now, what about these couples that
>    have two or three handicapped children, and the one that are
>    predisposed to Tay-Sachs?  Or MS, or Cystic Fibrosis.  
    
    	Most couples in this situation do what they can to avoid
    	another pregnancy.  It's obvious that the opposite is true
    	of the woman in question.
    
    	As for the rest of .87, the hysterics don't become you.
    
.90>    My point is I would much prefer that they continue to have
>    the right (and not the obligation) to do so.
    
	With rights come responsibility.  Couples who are predisposed
    	to having diseased or deformed children most often are responsible
    	about creating offspring.
    
    	The woman in question did not practice the responsibilities that
    	come with her reproductive rights.
    
    
.93>    Should women like myself, who must take prescription 
>    medication daily in order to stay alive, be ordered not
>    to have children, since these medications will increase the chances
>    of birth defects?  
    
    	Do you deliberately create children that will be exposed to
    	your medication?  If you conceived, would you investigate the
    	possibility of stopping the meds for 9 months so as to not
    	harm the child?   Don't you see the difference in the sense
    	of responsibility here?
    
    
.93>    in a free society
>    you cannot fix all the problems without curtailing the freedoms
>    of people who do no harm.  
    
    	*ALL* the problems.  True.  But you can fix some of them.
    
    
.97>    This equates to 
>    protecting people from themselves "for their own good".
    
    	This is not about protecting people from themselves, it
    	is about protecting OTHERS from these peoples' irreponsibilities.
    
.97>    I agree as a society
>    we should do everything in our power to ensure it does not
>    occur.  I do not agree that reproductive functions should be 
>    mandated, legislated or court ordered.
    
    	These two sentences are contradictory, for the latter sentence
    	is among the set of "everything in our power" from the first
    	sentence.
    
    	However I disagree that preventing one irresponsible woman
    	from having more children equates to "legislating reproductive
    	functions" as you have been portraying it in this string.

    re: .113
    
    One irresponsible woman in a court of law = a precedent.
    A precedent can be used to curtail future reproductive
    functions.  It may not be about legislation now - it can
    become about legislation in the blink of an eye.  
    
    It all hinges on what rights you are willing to give a
    fetus.  Why didn't the court remand custody of the children
    to their fathers?  You seem to feel that it is correct
    to punish a women in accordance with how she cares for
    her body.  Should the father have some responsibility as well
    for ensuring her prenatal needs are being met?
    
    Mary-Michael

    .110 wake up an smell the coffee!!:) 

    .115  had to make at least _one_ typo, eh?  ;>

So first I read .93, and I was going to respond, but I decided to read on.
Then I read .97 and I was going to respond, but I decided to read on.
And then I read .112 and was going to respond.

I'm really confused, Mary-Michael. You decry the abuse and the violence
and the deformities of the children born to these abusive women, you
claim that society should do whatever it can to prevent it, and then
you say that society should limit itself to education. Here's your first
clue - the education apparently ain't working.

So now we, as a society should sit back and let this crap continue to happen
at the hands of parents and others who'd be better off dead? We should
forget about trying to curtail their reproductive freedoms while they,
with a blatent "in your face" attitude continue to rub our noses in their
"rights" to abuse their kids? And we as a society should continue to foot
the bill for the damage they do?

How misguided can you get?

And, how could you, as a human being, stand silent on the side watching
this abuse take place to innocent children, doing nothing and telling
society to "leave them alone" for the sake of "their rights"? What about
the rights of the kids they're destroying?

You may be as sick as they are if this is what you believe should happen.

If you've a better solution, for the fourth time I implore you, please
tell us what it is.

    So, you believe in prior restraint, is that it?

"Prior" my butt. The woman has already been found guilty of this abuse
 several times. No one's arguing "prior restraint" to be applied to the
 innocents who "might" do this in the future. The idea is to prevent the
 guilty from doing it again.

    	.119
    
    	If you consider it "prior restraint" in the case of the woman
    	in question here, then so be it.
    
    	Why do most laws prohibit a convicted murderer from buying a gun?  
    	Is that prior restraint?

    Re: .120
    
    >The woman has already been found guilty of this abuse several times.
    
    Certainly.  But that has nothing to do with prior restraint.  If she
    abuses a child, then you punish her for that abuse.  If she then gives
    birth to another child and you remove that child from her custody, you
    are punishing her for something she has not (yet) done.  That is prior
    restraint.  If you try someone from a crime, you are not allowed to
    enter as evidence other crimes they have been convicted of; the court
    recognizes that those crimes do not _prove_ that someone has committed
    another crime.  (There are a few exceptions.)

    RE: .118
    
    What I've claimed is that society should limit itself to
    education and societal pressure.  I think you underestimate
    the clout of societal pressure.  Look at drunk driving.  Look
    at the reduction in family size.  Education isn't working
    because there isn't enough of it, and there is no societal
    pressure applied to convince people of it's importance.
    
    >So now we, as a society should sit back and let this crap continue to
    >happen at the hands of parents and others who'd be better off dead? 
    
    Fifty years ago this policy was called "minding your own business."
    What's an abuser?  To you, it might be someone who sticks their
    kids hands in boiling water.  To someone else, it might be someone
    who employs corporal punishment on their children.  The variance is 
    too wide for law to be truely effective. We have developed this 
    insatiable desire to meddle in other people's affairs, ostensibly 
    for their own benefit.  We have cast doubts on the ability of the 
    mature individual to make their own life decisions, and have 
    instead provided a wealth of "victim titles" to allow them to
     abdicate responsibility for their actions.  The court ordering 
    this woman not to have sex does nothing to convince her of the 
    consequences of her actions.  The fact that no father appears 
    anywhere in this judgement suggests that he, too, is even less 
    responsible than she - and it appears - beyond reproach, since 
    he can continue having sex.  
    
    How would I solve the problem?  Not by requiring her not to have
    sex.  If I had to use the courts, I would do the following:
    
    1.) remand her to a live-in alcohol treatment program;
    2.) remove living children to foster care;
    3.) find fathers of said children and make them pay reasonable
        (not killer, life-sapping) support to the state;
    4.) sentence mother to X hours of community service in
        a fetal alcohol ward;
    5.) once mother has completed her sentence, relocate her and
        enroll her in a job training program;
    6.) once mother has job, dock % of salary for child support
        and repayment for as long as it takes, and require X
        hours of community service helping other women in similar
        situations as hers.  
    7.) Allow visitation with children from both parents until such 
        time as society feels they can be safely remanded to one
        parents care. 
    
    Not using the courts would require that children be raised with
    the idea that society considers this extremely irresponsible
    behavior and will not bail you out.  Society will help you out,
    but you repay, one way or another.  
    
    Mary-Michael

           <<< Note 452.122 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Certainly.  But that has nothing to do with prior restraint.  
    
    	Does preventing ex-cons from getting firearms-permits have
    	anything to do with prior restraint?
    
    	What's the difference?

    Re: .124
    
    >Does preventing ex-cons from getting firearms-permits have anything to
    >do with prior restraint?
    
    No doubt.
    
    I was once treated to a great long lecture about how prior restraint
    was a great evil.  The starting point at that time was drunk driving
    laws.  It was also connected to some business about carry permits, no
    doubt, given the crowd at the time.
    
    I really don't know where anyone here stands on prior restraint,
    although it seems likely that those of a conservative bent are dead
    against it.  So it seemed a good test:  If prior restraint is evil,
    then how can you support such a thing?  If you support such a thing,
    then is prior restraint always evil?

  <<< Note 452.123 by SMURF::MSCANLON "alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether" >>>

>    What's an abuser?  To you, it might be someone who sticks their
>    kids hands in boiling water.  To someone else, it might be someone
>    who employs corporal punishment on their children.  The variance is 
>    too wide for law to be truely effective. 
    
    	No, the variance is NOT too wide, for we can all generally agree 
    	that sticking a kid's hand in boiling water is abuse.  To ignore
    	what we can all see as evil because we cannot agree on peripheral
    	issues is totally irresponsible.
    
>    We have cast doubts on the ability of the 
>    mature individual to make their own life decisions
    
    	Not for all cases (as you would like to portray).  But clearly
    	this woman has demonstrated her (in)ability to make mature
    	individual decisions.  So what do we do now?
    
>     The court ordering 
>    this woman not to have sex does nothing to convince her of the 
>    consequences of her actions.  
    
    	Did the court order this?  I didn't see such an order.
    
>    The fact that no father appears ...
    
    	A good point, though it shouldn't change the responsibility
    	that is expected of the woman.
    
>    If I had to use the courts, I would do the following (list deleted)
    
	And what do you do when she turns up pregnant yet again, and
    	gives birth to a fetal-alcohol-syndrome baby?  (Not unlikely
    	given her past track record...)  How many times do you push
    	her through programs and therapy?  How many failures should
    	society tolerate?  The judge in this case was trying to say that
    	the limit of failure-toleration has already been hit.  You seem
    	willing to go at least one more.

           <<< Note 452.125 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    I really don't know where anyone here stands on prior restraint,
>    although it seems likely that those of a conservative bent are dead
>    against it.  So it seemed a good test:  If prior restraint is evil,
>    then how can you support such a thing?  If you support such a thing,
>    then is prior restraint always evil?
    
    	Your assumption (or your "seems likely") that conservatives are 
    	dead set against it is not accurate at all.  Too broad a brush,
    	just as "prior restraint" is too broad a term. 
    
    	You last sentence hints at what I believe (speaking for myself.)
    	It is not always evil.  I agree that certain criminals should not
    	be allowed guns.  I believe that this woman should be prevented
    	(one way or another, for all chooices here are not palatable to
    	me) from having more kids.  There is a place for preemptive 
    	discipline in raising kids, and there is a place for preemptive
    	action on the part of authority to prevent harm to society.  I'm
    	not saying that all prior restraint is acceptible, but given 
    	sufficient cause I think it can be fair and necessary.

    

    Re: .127
    
    >conservatives are dead set against it is not accurate at all
    
    Obviously, we haven't met the same folks of conservative bent.

re:            <<< Note 452.122 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>


Please stop trying to fabricate arguments, Chelsea. .120 clearly states
that the reason for requiring this woman to not become pregnant again
is to prevent her from following her own bad example of abuse yet again.
No one's said anything about removing later children from her. The idea is
to prevent those children from existing. That is not prior restraint.

>    I think you underestimate the clout of societal pressure.

I think you overestimate the reasoning capacity of the woman referred to
in the base note. It seems pretty clear to me that she's so wigged out that
she probably hasn't a clue that society is even out there. Let's get real.
We aren't talking Rhodes scholars here.

>   Education isn't working because there isn't enough of it, and there is
>   no societal pressure applied to convince people of it's importance.

First phrase - wrong. This bimbo in the basenote wouldn't change her ways if
she was sentenced to life at Hahvaaad. Second phrase is ... well, see first
comment above re: "wigged out".
    
>    What's an abuser?

C'mon, Mary-Michael! This woman was found _GUILTY_ of abuse in a court of law.
Do you really think it's a "judgement call" regarding her behavior?

>   The court ordering this woman not to have sex does nothing to convince
>   her of the consequences of her actions.

Perhaps not, but let's hope that the judge has sufficient intestinal fortitude
to convince her that there was method to his madness if he needs to haul her
butt back there again. She got off easy this time. How do we teach her that she
can't get away with it forever?

>   The fact that no father appears anywhere in this judgement suggests that
>   he, too, is even less responsible than she - and it appears - beyond
>   reproach, since he can continue having sex.

While I share your concern regarding his apparent lack of responsibility
in this matter, he wasn't the one that provided the booze/drug-laden
circulatory system which nurtured and deformed the infants, was he?
    
>    How would I solve the problem?

I think it's been mentioned already, but your list is a fine treatment
plan which might very well be effective. However, when the next kid pops
out from this momma with fetal addiction, disfigurement, or whatever,
can we sign you up to take the little bambino in? If not, how do you
propose it be handled, since you were the one that wanted to defend 
this fine momma's rights to bring it into the world? Oh - "Society",
whose hands you want to tie, should handle it, eh? Thank you for your
liberal viewpoint.

    here we go again with this education/rehab garbage. the woman was
    found guilty. 
    
    let's see, the course could contain a questionnaire like, "did you know
    you screwed up?" "did you know it was wrong?" "will you ever do it
    again?" answer: "i'll never do it again." interviewer: "okay, you
    can go, and please don't forget to have another dozen children."
    
    education is not the answer for this situation. immediate remedies 
    are what's needed for these situations.
    
    Chip 

        <<< Note 452.121 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

    
>    	Why do most laws prohibit a convicted murderer from buying a gun?  
>    	Is that prior restraint?

	Yes, it is.

	A question concerning the order. Is this a parole condition imposed
	by the judge? Or an permanent injunction?

	As a condition of parole it is both legally and ethically acceptable,
	convicted criminals on parole are subject to having a variety of
	rights abrogated for the term of their parole.

Jim

    re: .130
    
    I don't think I underestimate her, but I will agree societal pressure 
    takes time to build to the point it can be effective.
    
    I find a "holier than thou" attitude expressed here and in some other
    notes in this string which I find disturbing.  Just because a person
    makes one mistake (or a series of bad mistakes) or spends many
    productive years actively engaged in the business of ruining their
    life, does not mean it is a permanent condition.  Since you do not
    know her, and in fact only know as much as was printed in the article,
    you have no real idea how "wigged out" she is.  Saying people in her
    situation are not "Rhodes scholars" is uncalled for.  Many very
    intelligent people cannot master their addiction.  While I do not
    profess to a great faith in Christianity, I do know that a number of
    very destitute people have significantly changed their lives with 
    it's help.  Similar stories exist for AA and other 12 step programs.
    While the crux of the issue is that the person needs to be willing
    to change themselves, I do not believe that any human being is 
    hopeless.  I do believe that if you give a significant number 
    a chance, they can and will change.  
    
    I also people that education is an excellent weapon.  Many people
    fall into lives of despair simply because they feel trapped by
    their circumstances.  By making education available and affordable
    to all Americans at any stage of their lives, we can help people
    avoid these feelings and give them the courage and confidence they
    need to strike out in new directions.  
    
    I know she was found guilty.  What about the couple that got 
    investigated by DSS when someone saw them slap their child in
    the mall?  To YOU, it is clear cut.  To someone else,  the parent
    who stick their child's hands in boiling water and the parent
    who disciplines their child by spanking are equally incapable of
    caring for children.  
    
    Now, does the father of this unborn child have a responsibility 
    to stay with the this woman during her pregnancy and try to ensure
    she maintains an apropriate environment for their child until birth?
    Granted this could be extremely difficult, but the question remains,
    should they try?  How responsible should we make men for the use 
    of their genetic material?  Should they really get to impregnate 
    and walk away?  How responsible are they for the care of the women 
    they impregnate?  After all, the child is theirs as well.  Is
    the judge really doing the woman a favor by pressing the issue
    with her, or is he doing women a disservice by not making the
    father equally responsible?
    
    Why are you so sure she would do this again?  If you think it is
    a fine program, why wouldn't it work?  If having faith in humanity
    is considered a "liberal viewpoint" I guess I'll be liberal until
    I die.  As a final note, how does society handle ANY person, be they
    addicted, homesless or out of work, who continues to have more
    children than they can afford?
    
    Mary-Michael
    
      

    Gee. There are all kinds of rehab programs for drug and substance
    abuse! At all levels of the working and non working. There are hourly
    messages on tv, radio, walk-a-thons, news print.... Geeze. Sounds like
    the base noter has had her head stuck in the ground someplace... There
    are phone numbers where you can dial and get free parental stree help.
    I really, really gotta say it. That anyone in todays 'help me' society
    has got to be clearly well informed about substace abuse, and clearly
    has all the options. And clearly, sounds like this is a case of 'poor
    mommy' she has problems. And that lousy judge has picked on her again,
    and has stepped over her civil rights. O.K. anyone know what gender is
    this judge? Male or female? I have seen female judges hand out some
    real heavy sentences...
    
    

    ....cont
    Funny. There are lots of people in the world with heavy life problems.
    And dont do the kinda poo that .0 has done. 

    re: .134 and .135
    
    You're right. Perhaps it's time we made men own up to the
    disposal of their genetic material in more ways than simply
    child support (which often doesn't work since the formulas
    don't take into consideration that people like to have a place
    to live).  If you make everyone involved equally responsible
    for creating, delivering and raising the children they create,
    then who's going to want to have sex with her to begin with?
    You've eliminated sex without consequences.  There's nothing 
    you can get away with.
    
    Mary-Michael

      <<< TURRIS::DISK$NOTES_PACK2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V5.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 37.1755        "In the News" (clips only, no discussion)       1755 of 1820
IJSAPL::VISSERS "Web Watcher"                       108 lines   9-JUN-1995 06:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pregnancy Tests Ordered for Alcoholic Mom 


    Harriet Chiang, Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer 

    PROSECUTOR 

    A San Jose judge, fed up with an alcoholic mother who kept having
    babies with booze-related birth defects, has taken the extraordinary
    step of ordering the woman to submit to monthly pregnancy tests. If she
    becomes pregnant, she must live in a drug and alcohol treatment program
    to ensure that the next child is healthy. 

    The decision by Superior Court Judge William F. Martin raises
    disturbing ethical and legal questions: Do courts have the right to
    limit the reproductive rights of a woman who may be endangering the
    health of her children? 

    ``It's an extremely complex issue,'' said Margaret Crosby of the
    American Civil Liberties Union in Northern California. ``On the one
    hand, society has a compelling interest in promoting the birth of
    healthy infants.'' On the other hand, ``women have a procreative right
    without government interference.'' 

    The judge admitted that he anguished over the facts and the law before
    coming up with his unique sentence. 

    ``I struggled with this case, and I almost sent you to prison,'' Martin
    told the mother, Willette Dillard, as he rendered his decision Tuesday.
    ``Nothing troubles me more than when children are victims.'' 

    Dillard, 31, and her partner, 48- year-old Richard Dean Wilkins, had
    been convicted of child endangerment after their youngest child was
    found suffering from severe malnutrition. 

    Dillard has five children, including three fathered by Wilkins. The
    second youngest suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome and a defective
    spine and was born without a bladder. The 2-year-old girl is retarded
    and lives in a special home. Another child, age 3, also tested positive
    for alcohol at birth. 

    In October, the parents took their youngest, Brandi, to the hospital
    after she began suffering seizures. The girl, who was 4 months old at
    the time, was only a half pound more than her birth weight of seven
    pounds, prosecutors said. A doctor testified at trial that the seizures
    were due to chronic, acute malnutrition. 

    ``She should have weighed 14 pounds,'' said Deputy District Attorney
    Christine Hudson. 

    Brandi now lives with Dillard's sister. 

    The couple were arrested two months later and charged with one count of
    child endangerment, a felony that carries a maximum six- year prison
    sentence. 

    After finding them guilty, the judge ordered the parents to serve one
    year in county jail and attend a six-month live-in drug and alcohol
    treatment program. But he tacked on five years of probation with an
    unusual condition -- that the mother submit to monthly pregnancy tests
    and if she becomes pregnant she must return to a live-in drug and
    alcohol program. 

    Allen Schwartz, the lawyer for the mother, says the judge made the
    right decision. The woman, who has no criminal record, ``gets a chance
    for rehabilitation,'' he said, ``and society is also insured that the
    other children will be protected.'' 

    Prosecutor Hudson also agreed with the judge's ruling. ``I don't really
    think that he's limiting her reproductive rights,'' she said. ``She can
    get pregnant. All he's saying is she can't use drugs while she's
    pregnant.'' 

    But legal and ethics experts shook their heads in disbelief over
    Martin's decision. 

    ``He's certainly prying into an area where many people say the
    government shouldn't ask any questions about,'' said Albert Caplan,
    director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.
    ``It absolutely raises some hard ethical questions.'' 

    There have been only a scattering of decisions on this murky area of
    the law. 

    Superior Court Judge Howard Broadman of Tulare County made national
    headlines in 1991 when he gave a mother of five convicted of child
    abuse the option of using Norplant instead of a prison sentence. The
    ACLU took up the mother's case, but eventually dropped an appeal after
    the woman violated her probation when she tested positive for cocaine. 

    Some states have flirted with the idea of requiring Norplant for
    welfare recipients, but eventually abandoned the idea. In California,
    state appeal courts have refused to uphold decisions banning a woman
    from getting pregnant as a condition of probation. 

    But so far, there appear to be no decisions quite like the one made
    Tuesday by the San Jose judge. ``It's a troubling precedent,'' said
    Crosby of the ACLU. 



    DAY: THURSDAY 

    DATE: 6/8/95 

    PAGE: A19 

    � 6/8/95 , San Francisco Chronicle

    But that already happens.:) Its called child support, and alimony.

    re: .138
    
    Oh no, not the way I'd want it is doesn't :-)
    
    Abdicating responsibility with mere check writing is out the
    window.  I want TIME, not money.  I want complete SHARED custody.
    I want him to have a smiling six month old cherub that needs its'
    diaper changed for 15 days a month.  I want that little baby
    to cramp his style, curtail his dating and make him cancel 
    those week-ends away, just like mom has to.  I want that child
    to interfere with his work, and make him take time off when it
    get the measles, just like mom has to.  Eventually he'll see the
    rewards of parenting, just like mom does.  Congratulations! You've
    created it!  Now raise it.
    
    Mary-Michael

    Mary-Michael, i do not and will not become responsible for taking
    care and nurturing criminals. i do not wish to be forced to take my
    time and money to do that. rehab is her responsibility, it shouldn't
    be society's, but yet, it's there anyway and poor judgement on these
    people's part prevents them from taking advantage of the programs 
    and my tax dollars. 
    
    holier than thou? re-read your notes...
    
    men becoming responsible? absolutely! they're criminals as well.
    however, your entry on this topic is simply a smoke screen.
    
    

    Yep. Us neaderhtal knuckle draggin men are all criminals. Even before
    proven guilty. Its those beady close set eyes, and slopping forhead.:)
    
    

   .141  we hold these truths to be self-evident.

    -1 hey!

    .144   keep up with me, Chip.  that was a little joke.


	

    
    
    Lady Di,
    
    Isn't that self elephant?
    
    
    MM,
    
    A lot of us men (I know, hard to believe) welcome the kids having our
    style cramped.  As a matter of fact, their existence has created some
    of our current style and is a major part of our existence.  And the
    vast MAJORITY of men do uphold their responsibility.  Yup, there is
    some scum (like my b-i-l), but they are not the rule, not by any means.
    
    Mike

    
    So Mary-Michael....
    
     Should all that "equality" you suggest also include the father in the
    decision-making process when the mother wants to get an abortion??
    

    re: .140
    
    You didn't read my notes very well.  You will notice both
    parents have payments to the state as well as community service
    hours.  You will also notice once mom is employed her salary is
    docked to pay for treatment she received.  
    
    I don't go in for free anything.  People are capable of giving
    two things - time and money.  Giving time cuts down on the costs
    of staffing the programs.  Giving money cuts down on the cost
    of the programs.  I think if we are creative we can provide better
    services with less money than were using now with a big difference -
    it's not a handout.  People are put to work.  Everybody can 
    contribute and feel useful.  
    
    You can't save everyone.  You can save quite a few if you try.
    
    Mary-Michael 

    Is the title of this topic even true?  Lots of people are arguing over
    whether courts should have rights to interfere with reproduction -- but
    that's not even at issue in this case.
    
    The base note mentions "btw, she's been ordered not to become
    pregnant", but there's no such indication in the news story in .137. 
    The comment in the base note may be a misinterpretation of the court's
    condition that if the mother becomes pregnant she must return to a drug
    and alcohol program.  That's not the same as ordering a person not to
    become pregnant.  The court could have sent her to jail or ordered her
    into the treatment program without any conditions, but instead the
    court gave a more lenient sentence.  Is there any evidence the court
    actually ordered the woman not to become pregnant?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    i know Di' mine was too...

 .152  i knew you'd say that.

    re: .148
    
    I've been through this in the abortion topic.  Yes, it should.
    Some things would have to change.  Contrary to popular belief,
    I am not a hard-line feminist. :-)  I have a number of views
    which make me equally unpopular on both sides of the fence. :-)
    
    The father contributes half of the genetic material, he should
    certainly have a say in what happens to the fetus.  I also believe
    
    	* if he does not want the child and she does, he should not
          be responsible for raising it (hint: he doesn't get to
          sue for custody later.  If he doesn't want it, he abdicates
          all rights on the spot).
    
    	* if the couple agrees to put the baby up for adoption,
          both should be equally responsible for the prenatal
          and postnatal care of the fetus until it is adopted.
    
    	* if they are going to have and raise the child, they
          both should participate fully in raising it.  I would
          rather see shared custody and shared support than support
          and alimony payments to one parent.  From what I've seen, 
    	  that only seems to wind up as one parent and one walking 
    	  checkbook.
    
        * However, if she wants an abortion and he does not, he
          should be able to have an opportunity to do his best to 
          convince her otherwise, but she has the final say.  It 
          is her body which is being used as an incubator.  Her life 
          which is physically altered for 9 months.  No matter how 
          supportive a man can be, he cannot remove this burden from 
          her.  Therefore, a final decision on abortion should rest with her.  
    
    

    did you now Di'... i guess that would make my response (or even
    me) redundant. :-)
    
    

    I don't really want to make a judgement on the base noter..or the 
    offending parent, but the judicial (sp) system...wasn't  the max
    sentence like 6 years.....
    
    why don't criminals serve the MAXIMUM sentence...why does the system
    have these timeframes then don't use them..sure way to stop the chain
    of events that keep happening is to have the criminal serve ALL of the
    sentence..gee what a novel idea..serving the sentence for breaking the
    law...(not just this case...didn't mean to rathole)
    
    me
    

    When I entered this into the conference, I'd only heard the debates on
    a local radio program.  Guess the debates didn't reflect the actual
    court decision very well based on the news article.
    
    Actually, after having read it, I agree with the court's decision.
    
    :-) :-) :-)

    re .137

    > Dillard, 31, and her partner, 48- year-old Richard Dean Wilkins, had
    > been convicted of child endangerment after their youngest child was
    > found suffering from severe malnutrition. 
    > 
    > Dillard has five children, including three fathered by Wilkins. The
    > second youngest suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome and a defective
    > spine and was born without a bladder. The 2-year-old girl is retarded
    > and lives in a special home. Another child, age 3, also tested positive
    > for alcohol at birth. 
    > 
    >  etc., etc.,

    The court was WAY TOO LENIENT on these two low-lifes !  The children
    should have been taken away and put into orphanages.  I believe that
    the kids would be better off not knowing what scums their parents were.
    The two alleged adults should have been given AT LEAST the 6-year maximum 
    sentence, and all at hard labor !

    If they do it again in seven or eight years give them the same
    treatment !  As stupid as they are they will eventually figure it out,
    or they will die in prison, their choice !
    
    We can train mules, we can train dogs, God help us if we can't train
    stupid humans how to act !
    
    :-| 
    Dan

    ...158 and they take the animals, dogs, cats, and etc, away from the
    abusive owners....
    

    <----
    I must admit, most of the animals I have trained have been a GOOD BIT
    smarter than those two &^%*$%* !
    
    I was going to call them asses, but an ass is very much smarter then
    they appear to be.
    
    Dan
    

    Re: .129
    
    >The idea is to prevent those children from existing. That is not prior 
    >restraint.
    
    Sure it is -- just a little farther back in the reproductive process.

    > And the vast MAJORITY of men do uphold their responsibility.  Yup,
    > there is some scum (like my b-i-l), but they are not the rule, not by
    > any means.
    
    Mike, that doesn't sound like you disagree then.  She's not suggesting
    anything be required that responsible men don't already do.  These new
    ideas are to enforce responsibility upon the ones who don't.  I think
    that's a great idea.  
    
    I'm not crazy about the judge's sentence.  Seems to me that if the
    monthly pregnancy test revealed pregnancy he should have given her the
    option of termination instead of mandatory delivery.
    
    DougO

    
    Doug, I just get fed up each year around this time (father's day) when
    we focus on the deadbeats and not on all of the fathers out there who
    love their kids, provide for their kids and partake in their kids
    lives.  It takes away from the day dedicated to fathers by accentuating
    the negative instead of the positive with regards to the role of father.  
    
    
    
    Mike

    Public policy debates are seldom respectful of hallmark (TM) days,
    Mike.  But I guess its nice to know that your pique is temporary.

    DougO

    
    
    So you're saying that this type of thing is coinckydink and not on
    poipose?
    
    
    Gee, wonder why there wasn't a big thing at mothers day regarding the
    deadbeat mothers.
    

    
    Because it's a coinkydink and not on poipose.

    > So you're saying that this type of thing is coinckydink and not on
    > poipose?
    
    Yep.
    
    And you were saying that you weren't going to complain the next time
    someone legitimately complains about deadbeat dads because it won't be
    around father's day, right?
    
    DougO

    <<< Note 452.132 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>>    	Why do most laws prohibit a convicted murderer from buying a gun?  
>>    	Is that prior restraint?
>
>	Yes, it is.
    
    	Do you think it is a bad use of prior restraint?

        <<< Note 452.168 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Do you think it is a bad use of prior restraint?

	I believe that a person that has served his complete sentence
	should be afforded the same rights as any other citizen. Those
	on probation or parole can have certain rights abrogated for the
	term of their probation or parole.

	Note that a convicted felon CAN apply to have their right to
	purchase a firearm restored if they make an application to
	the proper authorities.

Jim

    
    <-------
    Tough call jim...
    
    What about a child molester who was caught twice, convicted twice and
    served both sentences....
    
      Clean slate?? I rather doubt it...
    

    
    
    	re: .170
    
    	Andy,Jim,
    
    	Once you're a convicted felon, you never really get "set free".
    You're serving a sentence for the rest of your life (you permanently
    lose some of your rights), therefore denying a convicted felon access
    to a firearm is not prior restraint. He's still somewhat incarcerated,
    he's just not behind bars (he gets to serve out the rest of his
    sentence outside of jail).
    
    	IMHO, etc, etc...:)
    
    
    jim

  <<< Note 452.170 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>

    
>    What about a child molester who was caught twice, convicted twice and
>    served both sentences....
    
>      Clean slate?? I rather doubt it...
 

	Then your beef would be with the sentencing laws, not with the concept
	in general. If the sentence is 10 years and the person serves the full
	ten, then what justification is there for not allowing their rights to
	be fully restored?

Jim

             <<< Note 452.171 by SUBPAC::SADIN "We the people?" >>>

>    	Once you're a convicted felon, you never really get "set free".
>    You're serving a sentence for the rest of your life (you permanently
>    lose some of your rights), therefore denying a convicted felon access
>    to a firearm is not prior restraint. He's still somewhat incarcerated,
>    he's just not behind bars (he gets to serve out the rest of his
>    sentence outside of jail).
 
	So then all sentences are really "life". I don't think so.

	As I said, I agree with your assessment for those that are on
	parole or recieve probation. However, for those that have completed
	their entire sentence, the debt is paid and there is no justification
	for the government to take any further interest in their lives.

Jim

    >or those that have completed their entire sentence, the debt is 
    >paid and there is no justificatio for the government to take any 
    >further interest in their lives.
    
     So I take it you oppose the imposition of registration of convicted sex
    offenders with the local constabulatory, then?

              <<< Note 452.174 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Mr Blister" >>>

>     So I take it you oppose the imposition of registration of convicted sex
>    offenders with the local constabulatory, then?

	GIven the conditions I've specified, yes. Now if you want to call
	for mandatory life sentences for sex offenders, and make such
	registration a condition of parole, you won't get an argument
	from me.

Jim

    	Fully serving a sentence does not imply rehabilitation.  It just
    	says that they suffered the society-imposed punishment for the
    	last offence.
    
    	Proof (or even reasonable reassurance) of rehabilitation is
    	what I would need to accept removal of "prior restraint" in
    	cases such as those discussed here.

    And Joe,
    
    If you ghet a judge who believes that certain discipline methods are
    child abuse that you use, would you feel that being prevented from
    having children or having to go into treatment until this judge and
    others are convinced that you will no longer use those methods would
    also be a good thing?
    
    just curious,
    
    meg

        <<< Note 452.176 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Fully serving a sentence does not imply rehabilitation.  It just
>    	says that they suffered the society-imposed punishment for the
>    	last offence.
 
	Then your issue is with the sentenceing laws, not with how
	those who have completed the sentence should be treated.

Jim

    
      There is no evidence that "rehabilitation" even exists.  It is
     true that some criminals do not repeat, although most do.  If you
     compare harsh punishments, lax punishments, educational regimens,
     and so forth, you get a surprising result : the null hypothesis.
     This has been reported many times.  The best predictor of rescidivism
     (repeat crime) turns out to be age, which, along with gender, is also
     the best predictor of any crime.  People get older and mellow out,
     on average.
    
      While we give lip-service to it, I doubt that the punishments given
     criminals are based on any belief that rehabilitation can be induced
     by our "correctional" institutions.  By the way, the other rationale
     often used, "deterrence", is even more problematic.  It is also
     completely undemonstrated that crime rates in an area are affected by
     modest changes in the harshness or frequency of punishments.
    
      My own view, paradoxical as it seems, is that punishment is not
     administered with the behavior of criminals in mind at all.  It is
     for the mental health and continued behavior of the NON-CRIMINAL.
     We send people to jail because it reinforces the sense of rightness
     of the victims and of justice in the main body of society.  What
     happens to the criminal doesn't matter nearly as much.
    
      bb

    	re .178
    
    	I don't have an issue with the sentencing laws at all, for
    	I am not arguing that the continued post-incarceration stigma 
    	of a criminal is a bad thing.

    	re .177
    
    	Huh?

    Re: .179
    
    >It is true that some criminals do not repeat, although most do.
    
    No, even crime adheres to the 80/20 rule.  In this case, 80% of the
    crimes are committed by 20% of the criminals.

        <<< Note 452.180 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	I don't have an issue with the sentencing laws at all, for
>    	I am not arguing that the continued post-incarceration stigma 
>    	of a criminal is a bad thing.

	You've stated an opinion. How about stating a reason?

Jim

    	re .183
    
    	Hurt me once.  Shame on you.
    
    	Hurt me twice, shame on me.
    
    	You often approach discussions with me prepared for battle.  Why?

        <<< Note 452.184 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	You often approach discussions with me prepared for battle.  Why?

	Gee Joe, if you don't have a reason you could just say so.

Jim

    	I expected you to be a little brighter that that.
    
    	Alas.

        <<< Note 452.186 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	I expected you to be a little brighter that that.
 
	Gee Joe, one of the primary purposes of this file is debate.
	One can not debate an opinion. One can debate the logic behind
	an opinion. You made a blanket statement without supporting
	it with any reasoning. I merely asked for your reasons for
	holding that opinion. If you view an attempt at dialogue in
	order to examine or critique the reasoning behind your opinions
	as "ready to do battle" I fear that you are in the wrong file.

	I suggest that to save yourself further mental anguish you type
	"Delete Entry Soapbox" and move on.

Jim

    	Like I said, Jim, I expected you to be a little more clever
    	than you appear to be.
    
    	.184 WAS my reasoning.
    
    	I was not accusing you of doing battle here.  I was making 
    	an observation, and your response in return only proved
    	my point.
    
    	You expected a difficult time from me, (thus I said "you often
    	approach discussions with me prepared for battle") for in the 
    	past I *have* given you a difficult time (the answer to the 
    	follow-up question, "Why?")
    
    	Likewise:
    
    	We can expect further crime from an ex-con because he has
    	demonstrated his behavior in the past (on an individual
    	level).  Even more, statistically we see a large proportion
    	of all criminals committing new crimes after their release.
    
    	Thus I said way back when this all started I have no problem
    	with post-incarceration stigma of ex-cons (entry .180) until 
    	they demonstrate their rehabilitation (.176).
    
    	Likewise you and I shouldn't expect our exchanges to be any
    	different from how they usually get until one or both of us
    	demonstrates different behavior towards the other.

        <<< Note 452.188 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

    
>    	.184 WAS my reasoning.
 
	THAT was "resaoning"???

>    	You expected a difficult time from me, (thus I said "you often
>    	approach discussions with me prepared for battle") for in the 
>    	past I *have* given you a difficult time (the answer to the 
>    	follow-up question, "Why?")
 
	Joe the only "difficulty" you present is in refuting your
	illogic. Actually I find it quite enjoyable. It is far more
	difficult for me to debate someone who actually thinks.

>    	We can expect further crime from an ex-con because he has
>    	demonstrated his behavior in the past (on an individual
>    	level).  Even more, statistically we see a large proportion
>    	of all criminals committing new crimes after their release.
 
	There IS recividism. But that alone does not justify the
	treatment of ALL persons of a group differently because
	of the transgressions of SOME members of that group.

	But I understand your position. One of the basic tenets
	of your life view is to group people into neat little 
	categories so that you don't have to address individuals.

>    	Thus I said way back when this all started I have no problem
>    	with post-incarceration stigma of ex-cons (entry .180) until 
>    	they demonstrate their rehabilitation (.176).
 
	And I have stated that I don't have any problem with this
	IF, AND ONLY IF, they are on parole or probation. Once their
	sentence is complete, I can find no legal reason that the 
	government take any further interest in their lives. THe old
	saw that they have "paid their debt" to society comes into
	play. Once the debt is paid they should be fully restored
	into the community. 

	One could speculate that your concept of stigmatization could 
	very well be one of the causes of recividism, leading to a self 
	fufilling prophecy. Both causing the condition and using the 
	condition to justify the cause.



Jim

    
    FWIW, I agree with Jim P.  Once a person has served the sentence, that
    should pretty much be the end of the story.  If you don't think that's
    good enough, then lobby for longer sentences.
    
    If you want to judge them based on your perception of their likelihood
    to re-offend, then you are essentially finding them guilty of a crime
    they have not yet committed, and are creating a situation in which
    their re-offence becomes more likely.
    
    jc
    

    
    <-----
    
    When law over-rides human nature, be sure to get back to us....
    

    
    .191:
    
    Cute quip.  Got an argument to back it up?
    

    
    No argument.... just making an observation...
    
     Human nature will not let neighbors forget or ignore a child molester
    who did his time and (maybe) wants to be left alone...
    
     Human nature shies away from any physical contact with an HIV+ person
    even though rationally, there is no justification (recall the White
    House incident just recently?)
    
     Law will never supercede human nature...
    

    supersede

    
    super suede?
    

    
    culpa.  ;^)
    
    Actually, my Webster's lists "supercede" as a variant of "supersede".
    

    
    <------
    
    I looked it up too...
    
    Just didn't want to intrude on mz_deb's space...
    
    :)
    

    There are, in general, two types of criminals:  those for whom crime is
    a way of life and those whose crimes were extraordinary occurrences.
    
    It seems to me that child molesters fall into the first category.  Even
    if they have been convicted only once, it is unlikely that their
    predelictions have changed.  So at minimum, it seems to me that places
    such as schools and day care centers should know if someone has been
    convicted of child molestation.  Since no one has a right to a job, let
    alone a job at any particular place, it probably doesn't constitute
    prior restraint in the legal sense.  It certainly constitutes
    discrimination in the dictionary, if not the legal, sense.

Predilections.  NNTTM.

    Pre-derelictions?
    
    Chris

    
      Well, it's Friday, I'm bushed, and I went out in the hot sun.
     So I agree with Chelsea.  We know who has been convicted of
     crimes in the past, particularly multiple repeat offenders.
     Wouldn't it be dumb not to use the data to try to prevent crime ?
     
      bb

    <<< Note 452.189 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>
    
>	THAT was "resaoning"???
    
    	It said it all, and still does.  I didn't realize that it
    	had to be spelled out for you like I did in my last note.
    
    	"Fool me once, shame on you"  (Hurt me via crime, shame on you.)
    	"Fool me twice, shame on me"  (It's my fault if I let you do it 
    					to me again.)
    
>	Joe the only "difficulty" you present is in refuting your
>	illogic. Actually I find it quite enjoyable. It is far more
>	difficult for me to debate someone who actually thinks.
    
    	Ah, yes.  Back to personal attacks.  It's telling.  As is 
    	your assertion that you are always right and I am always 
    	wrong when we disagree.

>	There IS recividism. But that alone does not justify the
>	treatment of ALL persons of a group differently because
>	of the transgressions of SOME members of that group.
    
    	More than SOME, Jim.  And I'm not about to bank on probability
    	for my own personal safety.  Maybe others are willing to, and that
    	might be the root of their perceived need to carry guns.

>	But I understand your position. One of the basic tenets
>	of your life view is to group people into neat little 
>	categories so that you don't have to address individuals.
    
    	I guess you have me neatly categorized, huh?

>	And I have stated that I don't have any problem with this
>	IF, AND ONLY IF, they are on parole or probation. 
    
    	Gee.  I didn't see this anywhere before.  
    
    	So OK, I'll accept that position.  What makes you think
    	that my caution with post-incarcerated criminals extends
    	beyond their parole or probation?  (Maybe you attribute
    	more to my position because of the neat category into
    	which you have placed me...)
    
>	sentence is complete, I can find no legal reason that the 
>	government take any further interest in their lives. 
    
    	Where have I EVER been saying that the government should
    	be takinmg further interest in their lives?  I've been
    	only talking about people.  Nothing more.  And given that,
    	I see no problem with an individual NEVER trusting an ex-con.
    	To expect anything different is to expect people to think
    	as YOU want them to think.
    
>	One could speculate that your concept of stigmatization could 
>	very well be one of the causes of recividism, leading to a self 
>	fufilling prophecy. Both causing the condition and using the 
>	condition to justify the cause.
    
    	One could speculate many things.  Have at it.

    >>	But I understand your position. One of the basic tenets
    >>	of your life view is to group people into neat little 
    >>	categories so that you don't have to address individuals.
    >
    >	I guess you have me neatly categorized, huh?
    
    Some of us understand you with far less generosity than Jim does,
    you have little cause for complaint with his description.  Yet I
    must point out that understanding your (individual) behaviour as Jim
    does is not synonymous, as you would have it, with characterizing 
    groups - as you do.
    
    DougO

      <<< Note 452.204 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Some of us understand you with far less generosity than Jim does,
>    you have little cause for complaint with his description. 
    
    	Ah, I see.  Even after I already said his assumption was
    	wrong, you prefer to propogate it.
    
    	Appropriate reply number you got there, Doug.

    One little nit to Chelsea's note:
    
    Child Molesters come in two flavors; pedophile and non-pedophile
    
    pedophile falls into life of crime 
    
    

        <<< Note 452.203 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Gee.  I didn't see this anywhere before.  
 
	Then you have been doing some VERY selective reading. I've restated
	that position at least 5 times.

>    	So OK, I'll accept that position.  What makes you think
>    	that my caution with post-incarcerated criminals extends
>    	beyond their parole or probation?  (Maybe you attribute
>    	more to my position because of the neat category into
>    	which you have placed me...)
	
	No, not because of the categorization, but because I have very
	clearly stated my position on parole/probation and you appeared
	to disagree. 

>    	Where have I EVER been saying that the government should
>    	be takinmg further interest in their lives?  I've been
>    	only talking about people.  Nothing more.

	Really? Our discussion began with commentary concerning the
	law regarding convicted felons and firearms. That law is
	enforced by the GOVERNMENT.

	At best, it is disengenuous of you to now claim that you were not
	addressing the government intervention that such a law requires.

Jim

    <<< Note 452.207 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	No, not because of the categorization, but because I have very
>	clearly stated my position on parole/probation and you appeared
>	to disagree. 
    
    	Reading back, I see your point.  All along I've been considering
    	"sentence" to mean jail time and nothing more.  I've always (not
    	just in this discussion) considered parole and probation to be
    	separate from jail time.  

        <<< Note 452.208 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	Reading back, I see your point.  All along I've been considering
>    	"sentence" to mean jail time and nothing more.  I've always (not
>    	just in this discussion) considered parole and probation to be
>    	separate from jail time.  

	So is it possible that, be still my racing heart, we actually
	agree on something?

Jim

    	Apparently from the beginning.