EA Forums

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 10:51 am 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 11:10 am 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 10:51 am 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 3:53 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 3:53 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 3:53 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 3:53 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 3:53 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?

Talula says...

talula wrote: Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:14 am Pueros, you mean just like the United States.

No, he means more like TEXAS!

All mistakes aside, everyone doing time should be allowed conjugal visits but be temporarily sterilized. Just imagine what a mess for a child to have parents in the joint trying to raise them.

This old world is screwed up enough. Why perpetuate problems from one generation to the next?

A-1

Denying or attempting to deny men in prison sex is a "pipe dream" with some pretty potent smoking herb.

Men will have sex. Unless they desire not to have sex. Even then they will have to fight their hormone-driven urges to procreate. Most people wind up in prison because the have a terrible moment of loss of control that causes them to do something that they shouldn't. Happens to women, too.

Worse, men will rape weaker men in prison if denied sex completely.

No, I must think that conjugal visits is a great way to reward inmates for good behavior.

I find that correctional systems are all just like the one portrayed in "Shankshaw Redemption" to varying degrees. Rent the video. It is well worth the time that it takes to watch it. It is not logical to think that all criminals are in prison OR that everyone in prison belongs there. We just believe the former and suppose the latter.

It is true. Art DOES imitate life.

A-1

Well, if libido is a problem in prisons, why not just bring back saltpeter? Just add it, or some equivalent, to the food, and sex won't be a problem. (At least for the men)

Just a thought.

IEunuch.

I reply to Radar's retort in line with his own subdivisions:-

1) As someone who actually lives in one of the countries to which Radar refers and has visited most of the other nations which he mentions, I have to suggest, from personal experience, that he's incorrect. Additionally, he really backs up his contention with no real evidence. Birth rate in Scandinavia and truckers in France, what have they to do with socialism? Doesn't the USA have birth rate problems amongst certain ethnic groups & industrial disputes? The development of modern Scandinavian society, in particular, has been a particular success for socialism, as they're rich successful countries where society has proper regard for the wider good.

2) To equate fascism with socialism really is beyond the pale. Just because a party had the word 'socialist' in its title does not mean that that philosophy formed any part of its real creed. Ask those few true German socialists who are still alive, having somehow survived the concentration camps! I also recall many parties in the old so-called communist block having the effrontery to use the word 'democratic', not only in party titles but also in the official names of states, e.g. the former German Democratic Republic (DDR - East Germany). However, as for eastern Europe, I've already disparaged the Soviet model in my earlier post because it did not display true socialism/communism but corrupt (evil?) authoritarianism.

3) Why is the system 'fundamentally' flawed? Also, all political philosophies are tinkered with, even capitalism. Additionally, where is, or where has there been, a person less free in western European for having had a socialist government?

4) 'Flames'? I'm afraid that they are induced occasionally, particularly when people propound (often, to me, 'viciously', although I wasn't referring to you) on a subject that they do not really seem to have studied sufficiently in order to do so. I suppose that's the professional historian in me. I take it from your comments that you have not read 'Das Capital' (I have), as otherwise I'm sure that your remarks would be changed. What I think you're espousing is not your dislike for true communist philosophy, because I suggest, with all due respect, that you don't really know what that is, but for how it was supposedly implemented in the former Soviet block. However, as I've tried to explain earlier, such regimes were not communist, at least not in any sense that Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels would have welcomed. As to your view of true socialism, it's also incorrect, again based on assumptions relating to how it might have been badly implemented in certain nations. Yes, mistakes were made but times have moved on and the philosophy has moved with them in many places. I also believe that capitalism sometimes went wrong, with the Wall Street Crash coming to mind. Many of Roosevelt's subsequent Keynsian solutions to the problem were ironically basically socialist.

5) I agree that a government's powers should be kept to a minimum but only after they extend what they possess to ensuring that all elements of society are properly cared for, not just those interest groups who put them into power.

6) Did I say that I was referring to you? I was making a general point from personal experience. I find that many so-called ardent patriots actually care little for their less well-off, in all senses, not just economic, fellow citizens. To me such attitudes are hypocritically selfish not patriotic.

7) By 'personal hard times', I meant issues like illness, unemployment and, perhaps more controversially, bad decisions. We all make the latter but some are so bad that you could end up in gaol. This is the pertinence of this debate to this thread. Why is incarceration insufficient punishment? Why must people also be subjected to additional penance? How much vengeance does society want to extract from miscreants? Should they be denied the right to procreate if they're serving life? Perhaps, from the socialist tinge to most western European societies, I think that you'd find that the European Court of Human Rights (approximately equivalent in the European Union to the US Supreme Court) would judge that such a prisoner should have the right. Accordingly, many penal systems here permit conjugal visits.

7) Did I mention the USA? Additionally, I suggest that the problem you highlight would certainly not be resolved by reducing regulatory restraints.

8) A truly compassionate society also tries to help those whose troubles are entirely of their own making. You quoted the Bible earlier. Doesn't that great tome propound something similar, quoting examples?

9) 'Peace?' I personally was never at war, just opposing certain views!

PUEROS

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2002 4:04 pm Well, if libido is a problem in prisons, why not just bring back saltpeter? Just add it, or some equivalent, to the food, and sex won't be a problem. (At least for the men)

Just a thought.

IEunuch.

Unfortunately, saltpeter is a diuretic. The way it prevents erections is by voiding the bladder, thus keeping the penis flacid. A better idea would be the voluntary use of anti-androgens in exchange for time off.

Pueros,

I don't agree with you on socialist governments, like Germany.

I have a good friend that lived in Germany for years, married a gal there had a child.

Because of the type of government that takes care of everybody and everything two things happen. Personal taxes are high, my friends was about 50%. The second is waste.

My friend's wife after moving here needed new glasses. She was very upset because in Germany she could get as many different pairs of glasses as she had outfits. Here in the USA she could get one with his insurance. She did not understand and I don't think you do either, In Germany she did pay for all those glasses that were FREE via taxes and with the more free stuff the more tax you pay.

Now this system is great for the real poor it's not so good for the rich and the middle class is well - do the math. This is only one example of a mindset, that the government owes you a living and will take care of you from cradle to grave vs. a capitalist country where we want less government involvement, not more.

Riverwind

PS. In Germany my friend could only afford an apartment, here he makes about the same money but he has a house with pool, 2 cars & houseboat. They would rather be in Germany they just can't afford it.

Thanks for your views Riverwind. However, I don't think that you can really equate the current situation in Germany with socialism. The present economic & taxation system there is really a culmination of the policies of the post-war governments, most of which have been CDU under the likes of Adenauer & Kohl, in other words right-wing conservatives.

PUEROS

With the rapid growth rate of the world population, something will have to be done in the future to reverse the growth rate or at least freeze it. This could result in needing a license to have a child, with a limit of 2 children per person or couple. Then, once any person (female or male) was resopnsible for creating 2 children that person would be sterilized.

That would require a large bureaucracy to control.

But that means more civil servant jobs to be held by eunuchs.



OK, I couldn't resist the urge to post :p

Perhaps a birth control licensing system would indeed create a bureauracy. But yesterday America's President, George Bush, announced plans to create an anti-terrorism federal agency consisting of something like 170,000 people. Hmmmm. Apparently bureaucracies are OK in some societies.

Why not take, oh, 100,000 or so of these proposed federal employees and set up that birth control licensing board? With fewer people in the world there would be fewer terrorist (statistically at least), and terrorism-cum-birth-control it would probabaly be more effective thatn the FBI and CIA have been to date anayway. (I'm kidding, in case anyone can't tell. Or am I?)

Or we could not set up ANY federal agencies at all, and use that money to fund free castrations for all that volunteer. Perhaps the BEST use of our American tax dollars ever!

cost of burdizzo: $100

salary of trained burdizzo operator: $50,000

legalized castration: PRICELESS

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2002 4:04 pm Well, if libido is a problem in prisons, why not just bring back saltpeter? Just add it, or some equivalent, to the food, and sex won't be a problem. (At least for the men)

Just a thought.

IEunuch.

The belief that saltpeter acts to reduce libido is an Urban Legend.

I did mention 'or some equivalent'....

Geez..... some people are so literal...

IEunuch.

(Who firmly believes that NOBODY has an automatic right to procreate.)

YES IEunuch, You said

"

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2002 4:04 pm Well, if libido is a problem in prisons, why not just bring back saltpeter? Just add it, or some equivalent, to the food, and sex won't be a problem. (At least for the men)

Just a thought. IEunuch.

"

or some equivalent. you could crush up Androcur and add it to there meals and in a week they would all be limp, in a couple of months they would not

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 08, 2002 12:20 pm care if they ever had sex again.

also to quote IEunuch (Who firmly

believes that NOBODY has an automatic right to procreate.) I agree and if your in prison you have no rights.

"

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2002 4:04 pm Well, if libido is a problem in prisons, why not just bring back saltpeter? ...

or some equivalent

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 08, 2002 12:54 pm ...

BossTamsin (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2002 4:04 pm and sex won't be a problem. (At least for the men).

... you could crus

h up Androcur and add it to there me

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 08, 2002 12:54 pm als and in a week they would all be limp, in a co

uple of months they would not care if they ever had sex again. ... I agree and if your in prison you have no rights.This is a great idea for male prisoners. It would also end sexual assults in the prisons. Is sexual assult also a problem in women's prisons? If so, what could be done for them?

I asked earlier:-

"

pueros wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:10 am Why is incarceration insufficient punishment? Why must people also be subjected to additional penance? How much vengeance does society want to extract from miscreants?

"

I haven't received a proper response.

I doubt that you're actually perfect beings yourselves as, like me, you'll be flawed in some way.

Please, friends, don't make me disillusioned with some of the members of this board by making yourselves seem so vengefully vindictive.

Or is this a fundamental difference between present-day USA & Europe?

PUEROS