Should i allow my son to visit his father who is in Prison for life?

Drugs as in the 1920/30s people bringing in alcohol should had lost their rights to parenthood?

Now that marijuana is becoming legal in more and more states what is your moral right to compare growing or important it to murder or taking parent rights away for that matter.

In the early 1970s as a 20 something I can remember telling a federal judge in open court that I could not be on a marijuana smuggling case as I did not believe in those laws and would not convict anyone under them.

That must of felt good

It was interesting as the judge got so red I could just see the headlines the next day, for a moment, college student cause federal judge to have a heart attack on the bench.

Now you are stretching your meaning. We are not talking about political prisoners, we are talking about regular criminals, compared to someone who is serving their country. Those who are away from their families serving our country deserve our respect. Those who are in prison for committing crimes do not deserve our respect.

It just doesn't play Bill. Someone in the military has freedom of movement and the ability to see their kids when they are home, you don't have to bring a child to a military base and let the parent see them through a glass separator.

Sorry breaking the law and facing many years in prison does not always reflect badly on the moral of the person doing so at least to the point they should have their rights as parents question.

If the rumors are true as it seems they are likely to be President Kennedy father and the former ambassador to the UK was deeply involved in breaking federal laws in the whole scale importing of alcohol so by your logic he should not had been allowed to be a father to the former president and his other children.

Even it all his male children went on to be movers and shakers of society.

I'm not debating the crooks and kids aspect, I'm objecting to the comparison of the military to crooks and the ability to be a good parent.

There is a world of difference and you should really just retract the comparison.

Sorry not at all as the point is valid that there are a lot of reasons why a father can not be there to raised children and none of them by themselves should take away the right of fatherhood and none of those reasons turn a father into a sperm donor.

Take note also under color or law men had been drafted into the military and force away from their families in the same manner of law breakers and if they would refused to do so they was locked up as law breakers.

So in your logic a war resister have less rights to be a parent then someone who went along with his government and became a soldier????????

This is an odd thread for me in that I 'tend to agree' with one person, then go on to the next person saying the near opposite, and I can tend to agree with that too.
So, I'm arguing with myself on all this, as I figure Cindy20 must be doing too.

In no particular order, I tend to agree that we don't know enough. Many people in California, if that is the state, have been put away via the three strikes law, for relatively minor offenses on the third one. California may be rethinking, since prison crowding is a major problem there, at the least. Many people have been convicted wrongly across the country, but I've no idea of numbers. I also get it that the prison world is often (or maybe always, depending on the prison) a dehumanizing tough one, even the times the sentence was just. Not that the visitors in this situation should be worrying, but that father will be going through stuff.

I'm mixed on the father's moral right to see the child, and not inclined for the child to see him now, though I'm still listening on that. Maybe Max is right. (back and forth, back and forth).

Some worries - if the child bonds with father, will he grow up to relate so well that it affects his own decisions, in good or adverse ways? Father as hero, sort of. Or, I'm just as bad as my father...

- if the child is kept from knowing the truth (as much as would be known) about his father, would he forever wonder what is wrong with himself that he has no daddy?

Still invalid Bill. We don't have and haven't had a draft in this country for almost 40 years so the point is pointless.

There is no way you can link a soldier and the ability to be a good parent with someone who is in prison and their ability to be a good parent.

You will notice that I haven't said anything about the kid seeing his father. In reality the mother is going to do what she thinks is right. Would I take my children to see their mother if she were in prison? The answer would depend on why she was in jail. The more serious the crime the less likely it would be that I would take them. Age also plays a factor, my kids are now 16 and 13 and I really don't think I would have a problem with taking them at that age. In relation to the subject at hand, I would say wait till the kid is older and has a better understanding of what is taking place. He can then decide if he wants to see his dad or not.

Nonsense as far as I am aware all 18 years old still need to sign up for the draft and it could be back in place within weeks.

Next just because we are not currently employing a draft does not change in any way or in any manner my example of a war resister compared to a soldier and who happen to be more moral.

- edit, a third way, the child could over the years, possibly many, get to understand his father.

You are correct Bill, people still have to register for the draft but it isn't coming back anytime soon and you know it. If we couldn't get a draft going during the Iraq/Afghanistan war, which Charles Rangel tried during the 2004 election then promptly voted against once the election was over, then we aren't going to get one anytime soon. The draft doesn't play here and isn't even a consideration. You know why people still register for the draft? If you don't you can't get federal student aide for college and you are ineligible for any type of g0vt work. Other then that registering for the draft is pointless as there will not be one in this country for many decades to come.

In fact there hasn't been a prosecution for avoiding the Selective Service since about 1986. Do you really think that every 18 year old male since 1986 has registered? In fact if you want to discuss the Selective Service, don't you think it is about time women had to register as well? Women have been fighting for equal rights and equal treatment for decades, this would give them equal treatment compared to their male counterparts.

http://hasbrouck.org/draft/prosecutions.html

More propagandist lies from Baldimo. Those were both illegal invasions of sovereign nations, Baldimo. That's the ultimate war crime.

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement (August 12, 1945).

Blah blah blah. What propagandist lies did I tell. I said there was no draft. That is a fact. What the hell are you talking about?

Any conflict that need a must larger force then a million or so would likely trigger the draft in short order such as a large land conflict with China so unless you have a crystal ball with a USB that you can plug into your computer you hardly can claim that the draft will not need to be used in the future.

Next once more having the draft now or not does not change the question is a man who join the military under a draft in any way more moral off hand then a draft resister who go to prison instead?

Indicative of just how pathologically delusional so many of you are.

I guess I'm missing the point you are trying to make. I just don't see how you are mixing the 2 subjects. You were trying to make a pointless point and you are still trying to do it. You are asking me to answer a hypothetical question that has no basis in reality. There is no draft, there hasn't been a draft and the chances of a draft happening again are rare.

I stated clearly the propagandist lies you advanced and you know full well what I meant. More silly diversions, ignorance at an abysmal level or a zero level reading comprehension ability - what afflicts you?

"Those were both illegal invasions of sovereign nations, Baldimo. That's the ultimate war crime."

You didn't state **** JTT. You said I told a lie and I backed that up with the same statement. There is no draft and there wasn't a draft. What the hell are you on about.

You got to be kidding me we have a stand by draft at this very moment and if there is any need for a large manpower pool the switch surely will be pull at once as it had been any numbers of times in our past including times that was in my life time and did impact me directly.

There is no reason to think for a moment that the draft sometime in the future will not be call on and that is reality.

Next neither the chance of having a draft or not in the future have anything to do with the question of when we did have a draft was the man who allowed himself to be a soldier any more moral off hand then a man who became a convicted felon by refusing to be drafted????????