deviant art

Deviant Login
Buy ArtBuy T-Shirts & Gear Buy adCast Buy Premium Membership
Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
December 8, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 370

Reproductive Rights, Penis Edition

Forums > Community > Politics
:iconscythepuppet:
~scythepuppet Dec 8, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Recently in Wisconsin, a judge forbade a man from having children as a condition of his probation. See, the guy already has nine children, and was in fact jailed because his child support payments and associated interest have exceeded a hundred grand.

I was surprised at some of the commentary here; people I was speaking to felt it was an unconscionable breach of the man's right to reproduce. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has in the past found similar rulings constitutional on the grounds that these men are still allowed to procreate provided they pay the associated costs.

Considering he has not been ordered to undergo any treatments to forcibly prevent him from having children, I'm prepared t think this is fine, but I'm curious what you guys think.

[link]
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 1 1 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconbryosgirl:
~bryosgirl Jan 1, 2013
In extreme cases, sentences that go against a community's recognized rights isn't all together uncommon. Criminals convicted of violent crimes are stripped of their right to carry/own weapons, pedophiles are forbidden from entering public places that are considered family/children-oriented, cyber criminals are forbidden from access to technology, etc.

It isn't a sentence that should be handed out to every deadbeat that ends up in family court, but in some cases I would definitely support it, as well as sterilization in extreme cases. It also should not be limited to men. There are some women who are just as bad as Curtis (if not worse).
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
~heaven-spawn Dec 23, 2012
thats fucked man, the gov cant control a man's junk
Reply
:iconthegman0:
~theGman0 Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist
over and over
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
~heaven-spawn Dec 23, 2012
maybe
Reply
:iconthegman0:
~theGman0 Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist
that's
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
~heaven-spawn Dec 23, 2012
dontcha think?
Reply
:iconthegman0:
~theGman0 Dec 23, 2012  Hobbyist
everyone
Reply
:iconheaven-spawn:
~heaven-spawn Dec 23, 2012
i really like you
Reply
:iconthegman0:
~theGman0 Dec 24, 2012  Hobbyist
k
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
*JackMolotov3 Dec 20, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
its fine, his right was taken from him after being convicted of a crime, the rights taken were in the scope of the crime. "Having kids and not paying for them."

He abused his "right", and then it was taken away from him after being found guilty in a court of law. Please note the distinction of court of law.

That said, instead of a judicial order, I would like it more if this was the finding of a jury.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
Preview   Add Comment
©2013 deviantART. All rights reserved
About Us | Contact Us | Developers | Careers | Site Tour | Help & FAQ Advertise | Premium Membership Etiquette | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Copyright Policy