2000-07-13 14:50:55+00 by Dan Lyke 2 comments
Judge imposes no-pregnancy sentence. What scares me is some of the groups coming out against the sentence. If we can agree that the state has an interest in the welfare of children (you wanna pipe in, Ziffle?) then doesn't this just make sense?
[ related topics: Ziffle Children and growing up Interactive Drama Web development ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment made: 2002-02-21 05:30:10+00 by: Larry Burton
Hmm, the article starts off with:
Forbidding a woman convicted of child endangerment from getting pregnant for 10 years is tantamount to putting her "womb in state custody," say critics of a district court judge's decision this week.
It seems to me that if the state has the right to place one's whole body in state custody then I don't see a problem with the state taking custody of individual body parts.
#Comment made: 2002-02-21 05:30:11+00 by: Vicki
Two thoughts. First, I suspect that the law doesn't allow a ten-year sentence for child endangerment. Second, as the article notes, there's the equal protection question: would a man convicted of child endangerment be ordered not to father a child for ten years?
Of course, this leads to my rant about how, most of the time, women who are convicted of abandoning children have actually committed the odd crime of abandoning them last: the father can walk away for good, leaving the mother alone, and then she can be arrested for walking away for an afternoon.
Not to argue that children don't need someone to watch them, but there's more to fatherhood than genetics, and both sexes need to accept responsibility for their children.