I think that clarifying the abstract first, having as much rational discourse as possible is what should come first.

Follow that with the application of it to real life situations so that you can modifiy the idea to fit the situation better.

Anyone who has ever had to work with an engineer as a technician knows what I'm talking about.

first off thanks for "moot". i couldn't figure out how to spell it.

second.....i say it's moot because in my mind even though this is a torturous subject, i can't see how any of it matters because i don;t want the government having control over anyone's body unless they have committed a capitol crime......in which case i say kill them quickly and be done with it.

I know plenty about hereditary "disorders" (kidney failure, diabetes). Maybe not considered to some as "serious" but they are not living with it as I am and it *is* serious enough to consider getting a whole new organ in order for me to live.

At any rate, I say if it was discovered early enough, I don't think I'd "enforce" anything, but point out to the potential parents the tough situation they would be entering into by taking on a child with health difficulties: possible out-of-pocket expenses if their insurance doesn't cover certain procedures, medications, etc., possible special schooling, alterations to the home if the child is not able to be mobile, multiple hospital stays...it can get quite stressful. And will they be able to be emotionally strong enough in order to face these challenges and a possible premature death of that child. Granted, science is working on a lot of things everyday, but trust me when I say I've been doing enough research about my own situation to know that advances in medicine takes time and a LOT of money, so the breakthrough may not come in time to prolong the child's life.

So I'm thinking if the parents decided to take the chance in dealing with these issues regarding their child's health, then they should perhaps forfeit getting any special treatment and/or help (in the way of funding) in order to assist the child. This way, the ball is in their court and no one can cry that the government made them do anything against their will and so forth.

Women get pregnant in prison, from conjugal visits as well as prison rape.

Chemical castration was only of limited success and as it stands they won't castrate the penitant one who asked for it, I can't remember his name.

It's not just one person. This is a group who has decided that they don't want to follow rules for living in a, ostensibly, civilized society and now we have to decide how we are going to deal with them.

AT your service sir.

I agree whole heartedly.

Now let's figure it out.

Wouldn't that be fun to try and implement...

That punishes the disabled child, not the parent.

To drag in another issue, how about people's religious convictions? Some people believe in the fundamental immorality of contraception. Should they have those views overridden by the state?

- Pie

There are two camps here.
First camps says the government has no business telling you when you can have kids.

Second camp says they do.

There is no room for discussion in the first camp. It's absolute.

Second camp can talk until the wee hours about all the different scenarios. "Should the government get involved here?" "No." "how about here?" "yeah OK." "And over here?" "um, I don't know about that."

I'm in the first camp. The correct camp, by the way. :) All I can do is restate the the position using different wording. Oh yeah, and make personal attacks. Sorry.

I could talk about how I'm actually sympathetic to some arguments. That would tap into the sentiments that some have expressed, and we could reach some common ground. Lumberjim did this, and I agree with everything he said. Maybe I should have tried hs approach.

But the bottom line is either you think the government should be able to have control over its citizens' reproductive systems, or you don't. The rest is not relevant.

CRACK (Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity) Pays addicts to use temporary or permanent birth control.


Salon.com article

I think it's a great idea. Free choice. They (in theory anyway) don't have to do it if they don't want to. I know the reality is that they will choose it just about every time.

linked by jinx:


so how much crack can you et for $200? a weeks worth?

this is great if there are takers for it. some of those people might actually WANT to be snipped/tied, too. who pays for those procedures? it says no cost in most cases......

i bet lots of crack whores would like to not worry about getting knocked up.



i

Wouldnt it be cool if you could get birth control pills, whatever over the counter? RU4 86? At least there is Planned Parenthood. (have you thanked them today?)

Glatt's right. The government should never be involved in sterilizing people 'specially when it cant even execute them correctly.
:)

Is birthcontrol difficult to acquire in the States?

Unsurprisingly my position on this remains unchanged :P I really dont think we need to be letting this particular genie out of the bottle.

Originally posted by Clodfobble Given where in the process the sterilisation would have to sit in order to be of use, there would be no guarantee that that scenario would play out in that way. Sterilising happens before the child is born to prevent the child being born. Until that child is born nobody can say for sure that the parent will be abusive. There is often a trend which can be followed.....But human beings rarely stay the same throughout the entirety of their lives. There is no way to be sure the person being sterilised would absue future children.

Is birthcontrol difficult to acquire in the States?

Not difficult, but you do have to go to a doctor and get a prescription and then continue to go back once a year for a checkup, all of which costs money--much more if you're uninsured.

Ahh *nods at Clodfobble* I can see how that might be problematic for some

That's what Planned Parenthood is for, though I don't know how well they cover rural areas.

dana, do they have the "morning after" pill over there?

last i heard you could not get that in the US...anyone know if that has changed?

Yes we have the morning after pill. I am not wholly sure but I think they are now available ( or about to become available) over the counter at the pharmacy. Standard contraceptive pill is available on the NHS which means if you are out of work or under the age of 16 you dont even have to pay a prescription charge, though you do have to get it via your doctor ( I htink that's still the case) Visits to the doctor dont cost anything though so it's only ever prescription charges which need be taken into account. The prescription charge is a standard charge which is applied to each item on the prescription regardless of that item's value. This means some things are cheaper to buy over the counter *smiles* and the doc usually advises that. Other stuff is much more expensive over the counter than the standard charge of ( I think) £5.80...again though thats not applicable if you are out of work or on low ( assisted) income or too young to earn.

(edited to say, I just checked and standard contraceptives dont incur any prescription charges. Morning after pills also))

You can get the morning after pill here, but currently only with a prescription (the FDA rejected OTC sales last week).

I might add, with a little bitterness, that the FDA's own scientists and doctors recommended that the pill be made available over the counter, but the conservative political appointees running the agency bowed to outside pressure from conservative religious groups and banned over the counter sales of the drug.

Anyone But Bush 2004

How so? The parents are told of the issues that they will be facing, and if they choose to go ahead and have the child, then they need to get their house in order.

I totally thank them. If it weren't for them, I wouldn't have been able to get my Depo years ago.

DanaC:
Is birthcontrol difficult to acquire in the States?

IMO, it can be frustrating:
PAYING FOR BIRTH CONTROL

I'm looking into getting an IUD. My gyn just told me the other day that some insurances won't cover that, and that they are expensive. I'll be S.O.L. if I can't get one (I can't take hormonal BC methods because of my other health issues). However, if in the event that I can't get the IUD, then I'll have to look into a tubal ligation.

(re: glatt's mention of the FDA banning over the counter access to the pill)
FDA rejects over-the-counter morning-after pill

eugenics didn’t work for the nazis and it won’t work for america

"Oh dear, I never though Little Jimmy would need constant care for the Attention Deficit/Retardation/CF/Autism/Downs/What-have-you. I guess I'll just leave him in a pile of his own excrement while I go out to work..."

Almost by definition, the people who make these bad decisions will be the most ill-equipped to deal with the consequences. Again, the hypothetical children will be the ones who suffer the most.

- Pie

Wait: you *did* read that I suggested that the parents-to-be are well informed of the child's potential problems, so how did you get that the parents would be ignorant of those facts out of my scenario? :confused: This way, no one is being forced to do anything against their will, and the parents certainly won't be able to lie and say that they didn't know.

Hmm....I think you may have missed the point. regardless of how well you inform the parents, you cannot actually forcibly insert awareness of consequences into someone's head. If you make that potential parent aware of how much the child will need.....that doesnt necessarily mean they will be able to /choose to/ understand how to provide for the child....In which case no matterhow much you tried to tell the parent the child would suffer. If those parents dont follow through and the child is sitting in a pool of its own excrement surely we cant just stand aside and say oh well we warned your parents about this.

No one was being forced. A choice needed to be made, and awareness was offered. Now, if they choose to have the child knowing the issues, and they still are dumb enough to be negligent, then they *really* have no business being parents, now do they? (noticed I didn't say they didn't have the "right", but Christ almighty, can't people THINK before they decide to bring a life into the world anymore???)

Quote:

If you make that potential parent aware of how much the child will need.....that doesnt necessarily mean they will be able to /choose to/ understand how to provide for the child....In which case no matter how much you tried to tell the parent the child would suffer. If those parents dont follow through and the child is sitting in a pool of its own excrement surely we cant just stand aside and say oh well we warned your parents about this.

Who takes care of that child then?

I guess my scenario was too simplistic: either you have the kid and accept the risks, or you don't and move on. *shrugs* I can't see why it should be any harder than that, especially when society keeps yapping about "personal responsibility" and "accountability". Oh well, I guess I was wrong about that. *thows up hands*

Gyah, what was *I* thinking? People take parenting classes and probably *still* fuck it all up. Ha, and I thought that I had come up with a viable solution...shucks! I suppose mandatory classes is out of the question too since it would be seen as some type of "force" upon the potential parents.

Yup, the children will suffer and they continue to do so. Back to our regularly scheduled breeding.

I suppose mandatory classes is out of the question too since it would be seen as some type of "force" upon the potential parents.

Judges often order one or both parents in a custody dispute to attend parenting classes. Usually they don't go, and it's never mentioned again.

More than 50% of children born in this country are unplanned. 'Nuff said.

- Pie

I think DanaC also doesn't understand that children are not property of the state in the US. Nor do we want them to be.

</cloaking device>

Gad, don't people read anymore? The Supreme Court decided this one waaaay back in 1927. As far as I know, <i>Buck v. Bell <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=200">(274 US 200)</a></i> has never been <i>explicitly</i> overturned.

Even today, after almost 80 years the simple, eloquent words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ring true:
<blockquote>"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."</blockquote>

<i>*sniffle*</i> They just don't write 'em like that anymore, eh? Brings a tear to my eye...

&lt;cloaking device&gt;

Who said anything about property? I am talking about responsibility. In the event a parent abdicates responsibility for their child that child can either a) be left to their own devices or b) become the responsibility of the society they were born into. If it's a) well that's just fine, maybe we let em beg on the streets calcutta style if its b) then society ( the State) should take that responsibilty seriously.

Personally I think we are all responsible for the children born into our society;not to remove any of the rights of the parents, I am not in favour of heavy handed state intervention where it is at all possible for children to be raised without it.

If the state refuses to accept responsibilty for the children who are born into it then it stands to reason not all of those children will have the chances/opportunities for happiness and success that their more loved and wanted counterparts might have.

If we are talking about children whose parents refuse/ or are unable to care for them then I see the State and it's responsibilities as an empowering thing for society. I say this as someone who has never had a child. I would gladly pay higher taxes in order to ensure that each child in my community was given the best possible chance in life. There is no need in countries with our wealth for children *not* to have those chances/opportunities. None whatsoever.

Just out of curiousity.... are you suggesting that happiness and success are rights, and that The State is obliged to provide them?

Goodness. "Heavy handed state intervention" indeed.

Nope. I just think that we all have a duty of care towards our younger citizens. In fact I think we have a duty of care towards all our citizens. Takes a village and all that:P
There are plenty of nations in this world which dont consider they have a duty of care towards their children. You can usually tell which ones by the beggars in town and the streams of kids withtheir hands out as the trains pull into the station.

Personally, I think you're full of shit. You want kids? Fine, I even pay, through the nose, for their schools, recreation facilities and a host of other crap. But, I'll be damned if I'm taking responsibility for the care of the little bastards. Goddamned armchair philosophers love to tell me what I have to do, when they've never done a productive thing in their lives.

That's a pretty shitty attitude. Why do you think this country has gone so damned PC these days? Because dirty ol' men like you have started keeping to themselves!

Dirty old men like me have started keeping to ourselves because this country has become so goddamned pussified, or PC as you call it.:mad:

So...what the hell are you gonna do about it? You gonna run home with your tail between your legs, or are you gonna fight it?

Actually no, I dont want kids. I still feel it behooves us well to take responsibility for children at a societal level

Bullshit, that's just one more excuse for parents to shirk THEIR responsibility. Hopefully kids that are not cared for properly will kill their parents and Sidhe will execute them. That way I'll be rid of all of them.:p

I've been fighting it since long before you were born. It's your turn to fight it, I'm tired.:zzz:

And boy does it show.

I fight it every day...after all, one of us liberals has to be reasonable.

Hey succah, who you calling a liberal?:boxers:

Certainly not you.

Here we are, at almost opposite ends of the spectrum, but we have something in common. We're both on a non-porn website, on a Saturday night.:beer:

Not yet, anyway...I'm sure I'll stop by Ampland sometime tonight.

A distinction it shares with such landmark opinions as Korematsu v. US (approving concentration camps for US citizens of Japanse ancestry). Don't bet on that precedent holding, despite not having been explicitly overturned. More recent cites of it have not been particularly kind to it.

.....was that a deliberate pun?:doit:

The court decides what is right for the times. It's all renegotiable.:)

Sorry everyone...my modem died, and I haven't had internet for a week, so I'm playing catch-up. I'm like, five pages behind....
We'll be gone on vacation for a week, and I don't know if I'll have access to a computer.


Sidhe

no need to apologize ;)

It's not so much the unplanning but the parenting. But, family planning IS lacking...

I think I love you. :p :D

You can love him all that you want as long as you don't have any children!:doit: :eek3:

I don't think the world is ready for another 'fair and balanced' Fox commentator.

It's not that I hate children. I love children,...I just don't think I could eat a whole one.:yum:

The smaller ones are more tender. Easier to fit into the oven without having to separate them into parts.

...And if the majority of Americans are incapable of exercising enough self-control to engage in proper "family planning," then how the hell will they ever be able to engage in proper parenting of said family?

If they can't be bothered to remember to take their pill every morning, or use that condom+spermicide, how will they plan a family budget and stick to it? (Oh, that's right, the average American owes $2,900 in credit card debt.)

Will they supervise a kid's homework? Teach them right from wrong, responsibility and respect for others?

Irresponsibility leads to children. Irresponsibility leads to bad parenting.

It's a vicious cycle.

- Pie

I always wonder about these types of stats. Not too long ago, when my wife and I both worked, and we had no kids, we would put about $1000 a month on our credit cards. Just buying stuff, going on trips, etc. We would always pay it off in its entirety each month. But basically every month, we had a new bill for about $1000.

To use your terminology, did we "owe" $1000 "in credit card debt" back then? In my mind, we didn't, because it was just one form of payment instead of another. But I wonder what the organizations that track credit card debt would think?

Either way, the number sounds really low compared to other similar statistics I've had flung at me...