[Xenalyte]

I assume we accept that choices have consequences - in this case, he chose to involve himself in meth, with the consequence that he cannot be with his dying daughter.

That being the case, the consequence should have a deterrent effect.

Yes, I realize I’m saying, “Too bad, so sad, shoulda thought about that before you started handling meth.”

Bottom line is, the consequence has to happen for it to be effective. We can’t just say, “Hey guy, we feel bad for your daughter, so your choice has no consequence.”

Make it hurt. Make it hurt bad. Parents who love their kids don’t want the kids to suffer, and knowing that it’s possible you will not see your child live or die should be a powerful motivator.

[dforest]

Once again, you have made my point. Living in Indiana, we are all aware of the crime of meth.

This is not about the criminal, it is about a child who has no knowledge about the sins of her father. I do not care if the father is denied. I care about an innocent child who is unaware of her fathers sin that wants to be with him in the hours of her death.

For Gawdsake, have a little heart.

After this child dies, the Dad can rot in prison.

[gracie1]

It's funny, I remember a time when people would do or not do certain things because it would bring suffering or shame to their family. As a society, we've pretty much eliminated shame. Now we're working on eliminating the pain we get from our bad choices. Then we wonder how in the world did we get such a culture that behaves little better then animals.