Who would want to have a baby with a man behind bars?
There’s a turn around — a criminal wanting to deposit into a bank.
After 52 years on the planet, 20 years on talkback and seeing things on the internet that can never be unseen, my capacity to be surprised has diminished considerably over the years.
It’s fair to say I was lost for words this week when convicted killer Karl Nuku’s petition to Parliament hit the headlines. Nuku, who is serving life with a minimum non-parole period of 18 years, wants to father a child through artificial insemination.
To be fair, he also wants prisoners to have the right to donate their organs and to be able to give blood — all very noble, I’m sure, but you’d have to work hard to find a prisoner who was eligible to be a donor of anything.
A high percentage of our jail inmates are intravenous drug users and although it’s tempting to encourage people to sign up immediately as heart and lung donors, it’s unlikely the organ donation service would be lining up outside the prison, scalpels at the ready.
The NZ Blood Service says they stopped collecting blood from prisoners more than 20 years ago because of the high risk of communicable diseases. So no, the prison population is not the answer to filling our organ and blood banks.
But let’s get back to the real reason Nuku is petitioning Parliament — the desire to have a little Nuku all of his own, running around on the outside, while he cools his heels on the inside.
It’s unclear whether Nuku has a specific woman in mind to carry his child or whether he just wants to make a deposit into the sperm bank.
There’s a turn around for the books — a criminal wanting to deposit into a bank.
But it’s the breathtaking sense of entitlement that’s the real kicker. When Nuku and his mates bashed their victim to death and dumped his body, they forfeited a whole lot of rights and privileges.
Sure, he has the right to a safe environment and to basic food and shelter, but having a child is not a right. No matter what he or his supporters say. And yes, incredibly, he does have supporters.
Two women rang talkback this week — the first, Charlie, rang Leighton Smith to say she was 30, her man was doing life inside for murder, and she had a right to have a baby to her husband.
In a heartwarming display of wifely devotion, she said she couldn’t conceive of having a baby with anybody else and she only had a narrow window in which she could bear him a child.
It was wrong she said to “discriminate her husband” and she shouldn’t be punished for her husband’s crime.
Then Nicky rang our show in the afternoon and told my co-host and me she had a daughter to a man who was doing life for murder and they had recently reconnected after 10 years and she would like to have another baby with him.
With that she hung up, leaving us unable to ask her the obvious questions.
Who would pay for the cost of the IVF — or did she expect a conjugal visit?
Who would support her, financially and emotionally, while she was pregnant, and then later with her newborn?
The father couldn’t.
He was inside.
Did she expect the taxpayer to look after her while she spawned the child? Would the child have a positive male role model while the father did his time?
After all, it’s the lack of a good man in many children’s lives that sends them off the rails. And what point would there be in having a child to the man you loved if the man could never be a father, only a sperm donor?
And last and not least, what makes Nuku and these murderers’ lovers believe they have a right to a child when their victims will never, ever have that privilege?
●
HWhat’s your view? letters@hos.co.nz