Judge orders couple not to have children
ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.banned.ap/index.html..and in related news, a judge in Connecticut ordered the sun to stop shining.
Good for the judge, although the decision will likely be overturned on appeal. I'm all for everyone on public assistance OR having children in DHS/CYS custody having to be on either the Norplant or the Depot Provera shots.
"Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.
The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.
A case worker testified that the parents ignored an order to get mental health treatment and attend parenting classes after the 1-year-old was born."
GO, JUDGE! Go, Judge! Go, Judge!
A friend of mine knows a girl who's had TEN children. She did drugs with all of them, KNOWING she was pregnant, and five are now in foster care. The rest are dead because of her drug use. She says she's going to keep having kids until she gets a girl (her last one was a girl--it died inside her because of the drug use). She's constantly in jail.
People like that should be sterilized. Sometimes forced sterilization isn't a bad thing. They aren't "sick," they're addicted. Addiction isn't a sickness--I don't care what people think. Calling it a sickness is just an excuse.
These people are happily destroying their children's lives. Think of the problems these children will have in the future due to the drugs in their systems. Not only health problems, but emotional problems and learning disabilities.
Yeah, I think they should hold them both down and just rip out their reproductive organs, then give them all the cocaine they want. That would solve the problem real quick.
Sidhe
I'd rather live in a country where the government can't choose which citizens are allowed to reproduce.
Oh, I don't know about that. I think that certain people shouldn't be able to reproduce.
People who can't take care of themselves, much less a child, should not be able to reproduce. Child molesters shouldn't; abusers shouldn't; drug abusers shouldn't (until they've proven drug-free for a year--how's that?); people who neglect the children they already have shouldn't be able to have kids.
I'm more concerned for the children, or possible children, than I am with these people. They are a threat to any potential children, so why should we give them a ready-made victim?
If you show that you're irresponsible in a car, we take away your license (your right to drive, in other words), sometimes permanently. Why should it be any different when a child's well-being, and perhaps life, is at stake?
Sidhe
Yeah.....lets sterilise the poor that'll larn em......fuckin wasters whadda they want with kids anyway? It'd allow us to dispense with all forms of social provision once and for all yah! Good plan. Fuck it lets sterilise the insane too. Disabled? sure why not, lets sterilse them too. How bout communists? well they could be a bad influence to their kids so we should bang them on the list too.
Drug addicts?....Fuck em....It's their own damn fault and they shouldnt be allowed to procreate.
Am I right wing enough to join your club yet?
Originally posted by DanaC
Am I right wing enough to join your club yet?
Only if you promise to go to church each week, claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, and be a horrible asshole to those who don't. :D
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
If you show that you're irresponsible in a car, we take away your license (your right to drive, in other words), sometimes permanently. Why should it be any different when a child's well-being, and perhaps life, is at stake?
Sidhe
I love how you use the phrase "we." Like you assume it won't be YOUR rights taken away. Once you let the government start taking away rights from some groups but not others, they aren't rights anymore. They are priviledges. Once they are priviledges, they don't have to let anyone have them. They will be coming for YOU next.
Honestly, I'm with Sidhe. I don't buy into her reasoning, but I agree at the end:
Lots of people are stupid.
Lots of people breed.
Lots of stupid people breed.
These are problems. Somewhere along the line, something should be done.
Having listened to you and Sidhe I am inclined to agree. Some people are too stupid to be allowed progeny
How do you stop the cycle of people abusing their children, who in turn abuse their children, who in turn.......:confused:
Put people through a birth control boot camp.
Originally posted by sycamore
Put people through a birth control boot camp.
You have
got to be shitting me...
Originally posted by Skunks
Honestly, I'm with Sidhe. I don't buy into her reasoning, but I agree at the end:
Lots of people are stupid.
Lots of people breed.
Lots of stupid people breed.
These are problems. Somewhere along the line, something should be done.
Research shows an inverse correlation between education and reproduction.
I've said it before ... the stupid people are outbreeding the smart people. We are in major trouble ...
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Research shows an inverse correlation between education and reproduction.
This has been tried...information is out there in so many forms nowadays. For anyone to say that "they didn't know" about birth control and how a person gets pregnant...sorry, I don't buy it.
I don't see anything wrong with sterlizing child molesters/rapists/pervy relatives into incest or any type of sex offender. I figure if they want to use their genitals as weapons, they don't deserve to freely use them anymore..period. This would cut down the amount of babies conceived from rape. I mean, my god, I once read about a 10 yr old
GIRL who was inpregnanted by her
FATHER!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck sterlization for this creep and people like him...castrate his punk ass! :angry:
This has been tried...information is out there in so many forms nowadays. For anyone to say that "they didn't know" about birth control and how a person gets pregnant...sorry, I don't buy it.
I believe he means in the more general sense, the more educated an individual is the less likely they are to have kids. Same goes for entire countries, the more educated/civilized countries aren't the ones with population problems...
Originally posted by wolf
I've said it before ... the stupid people are outbreeding the smart people. We are in major trouble ...
Only in the long term. And I'm making sure my descendants won't have to worry about it (by not having any).
I figure if they want to use their genitals as weapons, they don't deserve to freely use them anymore..period.
But guns are fine
Originally posted by DanaC
But guns are fine
Ah, but it's already illegal for most felons and violent criminals to have guns.
Originally posted by DanaC
But guns are fine
Huh? Where did i say that??? :confused:
My apologies Lady S, I thought you were against greater gun control.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
I believe he means in the more general sense, the more educated an individual is the less likely they are to have kids. Same goes for entire countries, the more educated/civilized countries aren't the ones with population problems...
Oh, I don't know about that....after all, look at China.
Of course, China's got the right idea. They offer incentives to have only one child, such as free schooling and the guarantee of a job after graduation....there are a few other things they offer, as well.
I only planned to have one child. I only wanted one, and that's what I have. If my government gave me free schooling for her, and guaranteed her a job after graduation, that would rock.
I think that the more educated a person is, the more they PLAN whether or not to, and when, to have children. Like it or not, when the government gives people money for every child they spit out, that there are those who are going to keep spitting out kids cause they're too lazy to get off their asses and work (NO, I am not saying EVERYONE does this, so chill out). Anybody who doesn't see the evidence right in front of their eyes every day has their eyes closed.
And for those who made/agreed with the "Right-Wing" comment, I ask this:
Do you REALLY think that someone who is so profoundly retarded or mentally ill that they can't take care of themselves should be allowed to have a child they can't take care of, and that they may pass on their illness/defect to? Especially those with profound retardation. These are people who can easily be taken advantage of by someone who wants sex. It's happened. They don't know any better.
Do you REALLY think that child molesters, and rapists, and abusers and people who habitually neglect their children, thus endangering their lives, should be allowed to have MORE little ready-made victims? Pedophiles and rapists tend to abuse their own children, stepchildren, and younger members of their families.
Do you REALLY think that people who abuse drugs should be able to procreate, passing the addiction, and the resultant brain damage, along to innocent children? These people don't care about themselves, and they certainly don't care enough about the fetus to quit while pregnant, so what makes you think that they will care about it once it's born? Especially if they have a history of this (like the girl I cited). Don't you think that they should prove that they can stay drug-free for at least a year before being allowed to consider procreation?
It seems that the rights of the deviant are more important to you guys than the rights of the potential person or the innocent child. Some people should NOT be allowed to procreate, and I see no problem with making sure they don't.
They've claimed enough victims as it is. No sense in giving them the go-ahead to grow their own supply.
AND...
I did NOT advocate sterilization for the poor. That was an assumption you guys made.
Sidhe
It's a cunundrum. On one hand, I agree with shee. Why would we allow the aforementioned types of people to have MORE kids? yet, on the other hand, who are we to ALLOW it in the first place. Free means free, right? then, again, if we stand back and watch these welfare abusers and foster care kid generators make more and more babies, don;t they then impinge on OUR rights? I mean, we are the ones supporting them through the state and federally funded foster care programs.
I honestly don;t know how I feel about this. My gut says sterilize them permanently after the second offense..... my brain says, Shut up, gut! once they start that shit, we won't be able to stop them.
I agree that if you cannot take care of your child, you should not have more. I also agree that the state should not have ANY control over our bodies.
I guess in the end it comes right down to personal freedom. When you have to guess, err on the side of caution. In my mind, the loss of control over our bodies is worse than the scenario described in the beginning of this thread.
i'm glad I'm not King.
"Lady" Sidhe,
are you deliberately trolling here, or do you actually believe the vile filth that spews from your maw?
I did NOT advocate sterilization for the poor. That was an assumption you guys made.
No Lady Sidhe you did not, however Wolf posted "I'm all for everyone on public assistance OR having children in DHS/CYS custody having to be on either the Norplant or the Depot Provera shots." I was poking fun at more than just your posts LS.
Oh and
Like it or not, when the government gives people money for every child they spit out, that there are those who are going to keep spitting out kids cause they're too lazy to get off their asses and work (NO, I am not saying EVERYONE does this, so chill out). Anybody who doesn't see the evidence right in front of their eyes every day has their eyes closed.
Perhaps ( if indeed the number of people having children in order to claim welfare is anything other than negligible when compared with what I would imagine are the majority of claimants who simply need a little assistance ) it might be useful if your government made social provision a) easier to get and b) not dependant upon having young dependants.
Do you REALLY think that someone who is so profoundly retarded or mentally ill that they can't take care of themselves should be allowed to have a child they can't take care of, and that they may pass on their illness/defect to? Especially those with profound retardation. These are people who can easily be taken advantage of by someone who wants sex. It's happened. They don't know any better.
Well....yes actually I do think they should be allowed to have children . If when the child is born they are unable to look after it then the state may step in and insist on a level of care for that child up to and including fostering/adoption. Not eveyone who is mentally retarded is unable to look after a child. Who do we choose to make the decision of just how retarded someone has to be to be unable to parent? Can you not see how profoundly dangerous that precedent might be?
Do you REALLY think that people who abuse drugs should be able to procreate, passing the addiction, and the resultant brain damage, along to innocent children? These people don't care about themselves, and they certainly don't care enough about the fetus to quit while pregnant, so what makes you think that they will care about it once it's born? Especially if they have a history of this (like the girl I cited). Don't you think that they should prove that they can stay drug-free for at least a year before being allowed to consider procreation?
Especially if they have a history of this?.......
ESPECIALLY? So......you still think they should be disallowed even if they do
NOT have a history of this? Is being a drug addict enough reason alone to warrant enforced sterilisation? Again, do you not see how dangerous it could be to set such a precedent? What if the prospective mother can't stop smoking? is a hopeless nicotine addict? Do "we" step in and sterilise her? Who decides to do this? How enforcable would such a measure be? How about marijuana? There was a time when the medical fraternity in the USA swore blind that marijuana made you mad. Which drugs do we consider dangerous enough as to require the protection of the unborn foetus from them? Alcohol? Heroine? Cannabis? Crack cocaine? Tobacco?
I understand ( I really do) your concern for the unborn child. But it strikes me that we really must protect the rights of the currently extant human being rather than the idea of future progeny
For all you capital punishment, no excuses, sterilise the unfit and keep us clean mob
Google Search Results.....Follow the View as HTML link if you are unable to view page.
{The link which heads directly to the HTML page for that site doesnt work, hence this edit :P Its the first result on that page}
What I found most interesting was this part....-:
The Nazis enforced eugenics-based euthanasia of the mentally retarded and the physically disabled. Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Catholics and homosexuals were also believed to contaminate the German people with unfit genes..........As well as sending many of those with unfit genes to death camps, the ‘inferior’ were often sterilized making it impossible for them to have children. By the end of World War II the Nazis had exterminated nearly 12million people. This is behavioural genetics pushed to the extreme.
I think basically Lady Sidhe you are verging onto the territory of Social Darwinism of the very worst kind. I fight shy of calling you a fascist, that would be rude
quote:Do you REALLY think that someone who is so profoundly retarded or mentally ill that they can't take care of themselves should be allowed to have a child they can't take care of, and that they may pass on their illness/defect to? Especially those with profound retardation. These are people who can easily be taken advantage of by someone who wants sex. It's happened. They don't know any better.
Well....yes actually I do think they should be allowed to have children . If when the child is born they are unable to look after it then the state may step in and insist on a level of care for that child up to and including fostering/adoption. Not eveyone who is mentally retarded is unable to look after a child. Who do we choose to make the decision of just how retarded someone has to be to be unable to parent? Can you not see how profoundly dangerous that precedent might be?
I don't know if I would advocate putting mentally retarded children in the system the way it is handled currently. The chances of that child being adopted, I'm guessing, would be very slim (along with minority children, etc.).
Then perhaps a close examination and possible overhaul of the caresystem is in order.
Originally posted by DanaC
Then perhaps a close examination and possible overhaul of the caresystem is in order.
But it's not all about the system: people who want to adopt want "perfect" children and in most cases, white healthy children.
Try to change *that* "system".
No I dont mean change the system by which people adopt. I mean change the system which takes car of those children who arent going to be adopted and whose parents arent able/allowed to raise them. In such cases the care afforded those children by the state should be the best your society can offer in terms of trained careworkers, foster families and specialised units which give the basics of a homelife to these kids. In such a system it is less critical that each child be adopted out. As long as the care they recieve is intimate enough ( small scale carehomes with permanent staff who can provide a reasonable rolemodel as defacto parent figure or heavily governed fostering )they can be given much of what they would have/should have been getting from their flesh and blood in terms of foundation and character building. With enough attention given to the care system it is possible to give these kids warm and affectionate environments in which to grow up.
Scripps Howard News Service
May 07, 2004
- CAMPBELL COUNTY, Ky. - A judge has been giving some men who are tens of thousands of dollars behind on child support the option of going to jail or having a vasectomy.
Family Judge D. Michael "Mickey" Foellger also suggested to at least one woman - who was having her eighth child taken away from her because of neglect - that she have a tubal ligation.
As the only family-court judge in the county, Foellger said he adopted the policy because he feels it's an effective way to get his message across - that having children is a responsibility that is not for everyone.
"If these children are in poverty because these guys are not paying their child support, I have no qualms about it," he said. "I don't think these men deserve to have any more children."
- Cincinnati Post
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=NUGGETS-05-07-04&cat=Originally posted by glatt
"Lady" Sidhe,
are you deliberately trolling here, or do you actually believe the vile filth that spews from your maw?
Watch it...
Originally posted by DanaC
No I dont mean change the system by which people adopt. I mean change the system which takes car of those children who arent going to be adopted and whose parents arent able/allowed to raise them. In such cases the care afforded those children by the state should be the best your society can offer in terms of trained careworkers, foster families and specialised units which give the basics of a homelife to these kids. In such a system it is less critical that each child be adopted out. As long as the care they recieve is intimate enough ( small scale carehomes with permanent staff who can provide a reasonable rolemodel as defacto parent figure or heavily governed fostering )they can be given much of what they would have/should have been getting from their flesh and blood in terms of foundation and character building. With enough attention given to the care system it is possible to give these kids warm and affectionate environments in which to grow up.
[COLOR=indigo]You don't live in the US do you? You don't understand what it is like to be in foster care in the US, do you? "the best your society has to offer"? Please. Such an idealist. That is not the country I live in.[/COLOR]
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
You have got to be shitting me...
Eh, no. I was actually thinking along the lines of the post you made directly after the above one.
Originally posted by glatt
"Lady" Sidhe,
are you deliberately trolling here, or do you actually believe the vile filth that spews from your maw?
[COLOR=indigo]Why do you think she's trolling? Because she doesn't back down? And why do you have to get personally insultive? Have you no intelligent or relevant comment to make?
I understand Sidhe's viewpoint, I agree with the meaning and intent behind what she is saying, but I can't fathom a way this could be implemented fairly and without possiblity of corruption.
And the difference between Hitler's theory of superiorty and Sidhe's idea about severe retardation/ongoing drug abuse and childbearing are, in my view, vastly different. Just one example (of many), Hitler killed those millions of people, Sidhe would prevent those people from procreating. HUGE difference.
Dana has a habit of taking a good idea and extreming it to one side, in the worst possible light, and implying that's what was meant, and making assumtions that were never stated and posting in an argumentative manner. It's not the first time. But they bullshit tactics. I think Dana is much more capable of intelligent argument than that and wonder why he/she stoops to that level.
[/COLOR]
*Coughs* aheh.
Hitler killed those millions of people, Sidhe would prevent those people from procreating. HUGE difference.
May I refer my honourable friend to the reply I gave earlier.
As well as sending many of those with unfit genes to death camps, the ‘inferior’ were often sterilized making it impossible for them to have children
Whilst we're on sweeping generalisations about other people's arguing techniques I would point out Lady Sidhe's tendency to print ranting diatribes which focus on individual non typical cases and then spin off into right wing stereotypes
I dont imply what is meant by those rants, I take them to their logical conclusion or I interpret what is said according to the words that are printed. If someone doesnt want to be interpreted as a right wing extremist maybe they shouldnt use their terminology and arguments.
Do I believe she is a fascist? No I dont. I am sure she is as horrified by the idea of fascism as most of us are. Do I think some of her ideas verge into their territory? Well frankly yes. Eugenics can sound a little fascistic when proposed as solutions to social problems. Not of course that this is something just Lady Sidhe argues. I notice quite a few people on this board are comfortable with such matters
There used to be a saying in my country. "Say what you like about Hitler at least he made the trains run on time" Perhaps then not all his ideas were so way off base? That's the trouble with fascism. As a political ideology it has certain elements within it which ordinary decent folks can relate to and see the value of.
You think I can argue better than this? I am flattered really. No really Onyx. Coming from you that means a lot.
Just to reign this away from personal insults and back to the issue at hand. What about people who are not mentally disabled/retarded whose future progeny are substantially at risk from certain serious hereditary disorders ? Would you advocate enfored sterilsation so as to prevent that furture child having to suffer ?
What if tests have shown that a feotus is likely to be born with downsyndrome? What if the child is likely to be profoundly disabled? Would you advocate enforced termination? ( assuming this is discovered early enough )
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Watch it...
My Apologies. After looking back at my post, I realize how harsh it sounds. I didn't mean for it to be that harsh.
.......Likewise it was not really warranted or fair that I respond to a shot across my bow from OnyxCougar by swinging at Lady Sidhe:P
Onyx.
Dana has a habit of taking a good idea and extreming it to one side, in the worst possible light, and implying that's what was meant, and making assumtions that were never stated and posting in an argumentative manner. It's not the first time. But they bullshit tactics.
I disagree. I merely point out what I see as the implication inherent in what I have read. When you make a statement your words carry a literal meaning but they also (often) carry with them implications. Your words do not exist in a vacuum, if someone suggests that the mentally retarded shouldnt be allowed to breed the implication is clear, without that person having to say we should sterilise them. If someone's words carry with them an implication of something else/ further, then I will use that in my argument. It's a fairly standard debating technique. I would point out also that I am often misunderstood ( by you) to have implied someone's words to have been other than they were when in fact I was taking what they had said to absurdity to illustrate a point.
Originally posted by DanaC
What if tests have shown that a feotus is likely to be born with downsyndrome? What if the child is likely to be profoundly disabled? Would you advocate enforced termination? ( assuming this is discovered early enough )
Enforced Termination? No. If the child was shown to actually be Down's or profoundly retarded then sterilization can be considered I think.
So, if a person had a strong probablity of passing along genes which may result in severe disablement of their future child, is it their choice or the governent's as to whether or not they take that risk?
Originally posted by DanaC
So, if a person had a strong probablity of passing along genes which may result in severe disablement of their future child, is it their choice or the governent's as to whether or not they take that risk?
That's what we're discussing.
The point is for everyone to put forth ideas until everyone agrees with me.
:D
*Raises en eyebrow and lights another joint*
So.....which do you think Trouble ( do you mind if I call you Trouble?) Whose decision do you think it should be? your last post left me unsure as to what you meant *smiles* thats why I sought clarification. I am talking about a non disabled prospective parent, with a high probability that their future child would be born severely disabled ( such as downsyndrome) In such a case does society have the right to enforce sterilisation?
I've always thought if people do that that risk the state should NOT be picking up the tab for special education, massive medical expenses......
Problem is that hurts the kid, not the irrisponsable parents.
Originally posted by DanaC
In such a case does society have the right to enforce sterilisation?
Just so we are all on the same page here, we're talking about strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming so you can administer the anesthesia and then cut out some of her reproductive organs.
Or maybe it would be a different technique:
Strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming, and implanting something under her skin. She will probably try to remove said implant with a kitchen knife later.
Edited to say that it also might be a man you are strapping down, against his will, while he's kicking and screaming, so you can do a little of the old snip snip.
Wow, I’m speechless and for damn sure I am seldom speechless.
[COLOR=indigo]My husband brought this point up last night:
The generalisation here is that we're doing this to druggies/people who have been convicted of neglect, etc. So ostensibly, to protect the children. This includes children in the womb, yes? Can't be having those women knowingly and willingly doing hard drugs, not caring about their fetus, right?
Then you must concede that what is in the womb is a child (the one you're saying you want to protect), therefore, if taken to it's logical conclusion, you are pro-life.
IOW, if you're advocating forced sterilization to prevent harm to children/unborn babies, you're also advocating preventing them from being killed in healthy mothers.
My husband says you can't have it both ways. Either it's a child at conception, and we protect it from druggie mothers and abusive husbands (charging him for murder if he kills it in the womb), and should enact provisions to prevent it from neglect/abuse, or it's merely an embryo until the moment it is released from the mother (via vaginal or ceserean delivery), and it is afforded no protection until that time.
In addition, glatt is right in that we are talking about PERMANENT solutions here, because even if we put norplant in, the woman can carve it out of herself. This means that the idea of "until she is off drugs for a year" won't work.
Also, something else I thought of....the question was brought up as to what would constitute "retarded" enough to employ the sterilisation, and I think that would be if a person was unable to care for themselves at all, needed 24/7 care, then they most certainly should not be having children.
Again, I agree with the intent of the process, but don't agree with the implementation. You can either live in a free society or not. I choose to live in a free society. If I wanted to be denied the choice of having children or not, I'd go live in the Middle East and get my clitoris cut out and be denied an education and a whole bunch of other things I take for granted as a British/American citizen.
[/COLOR]
Originally posted by glatt
Just so we are all on the same page here, we're talking about strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming so you can administer the anesthesia and then cut out some of her reproductive organs.
Or maybe it would be a different technique:
Strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming, and implanting something under her skin. She will probably try to remove said implant with a kitchen knife later.
Edited to say that it also might be a man you are strapping down, against his will, while he's kicking and screaming, so you can do a little of the old snip snip.
exactly. i said in my earlier comments that this is a confusing issue, but at the end of it all there is the operating table.
no way. no how. the rest of the argument is mute.
what happens when the inevitable death as a result of surgical error occurs?
perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively. maybe....MAYBE penalizing people financially for abusing the foster care system through increased taxes could work.
I have no problems with incentives.
The government can give tax breaks (carrot), add taxes (stick) etc. etc. They do it all the time.
However, to give them ultimate control is abhorrent to me.
Originally posted by lumberjim
perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively. maybe....MAYBE penalizing people financially for abusing the foster care system through increased taxes could work.
[COLOR=indigo]Well, I don't think penalisation works, because mainly, you can't get blood from a turnip, and the only option besides financial is jailtime. Since our jails are already overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, this would not be a good thing.
Which brings us to the other point my husband brought up, which is that if the woman was in jail for doing drugs, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. He thinks that we should be enforcing the laws we already have rather than making up new ones.
This ties into the death penalty thing. If the person that did the (capital) crime confesses to it, or there is irrefutable proof, then kill him. This is cheaper and opens up more space for people who should be jailed but aren't, thus helping the punishment system do it's job for lesser crimes.
And while we're on the discussion of forced sterilisation, lets talk about rapists and child molesters. Should the males be eunich'd? Would that really help? What about females? How does eunich'ing the males prevent them from violating in other ways (bottles, etc)?
Where does it end? Where is the line drawn? Isn't the greater good of the society worth the rights of one who willfully and consistantly breaks that society's rules?[/COLOR]
Originally posted by DanaC
*Raises en eyebrow and lights another joint*
So.....which do you think Trouble ( do you mind if I call you Trouble?) Whose decision do you think it should be? your last post left me unsure as to what you meant *smiles* thats why I sought clarification. I am talking about a non disabled prospective parent, with a high probability that their future child would be born severely disabled ( such as downsyndrome) In such a case does society have the right to enforce sterilisation?
I've been called trouble for quite a while now. Adding your name to the list is no biggie.
Now, parents who knowingly jeopardize their progeny by willingly taking the risk should not be able to suck off of the gov't teat for an infintie amount of time or money. They knew the possible outcome and should not be able to flout that fact.
The sterilization in the context of this question, your quoted post, is that if the child is profoundly retard, Down's, etc, that person would be sterilized, not necessarily the parents.
Originally posted by lumberjim
perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively.
Whoohoo! I wish I could get incentives for not adding to the population.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]My husband brought this point up last night:
The generalisation here is that we're doing this to druggies/people who have been convicted of neglect, etc. So ostensibly, to protect the children. This includes children in the womb, yes? Can't be having those women knowingly and willingly doing hard drugs, not caring about their fetus, right?
Then you must concede that what is in the womb is a child (the one you're saying you want to protect), therefore, if taken to it's logical conclusion, you are pro-life.
IOW, if you're advocating forced sterilization to [b]prevent harm to children/unborn babies, you're also advocating preventing them from being killed in healthy mothers.
My husband says you can't have it both ways. Either it's a child at conception, and we protect it from druggie mothers and abusive husbands (charging him for murder if he kills it in the womb), and should enact provisions to prevent it from neglect/abuse, or it's merely an embryo until the moment it is released from the mother (via vaginal or ceserean delivery), and it is afforded no protection until that time.
[/COLOR] [/B]
That's the problem with logic, if not used properly it's nothing more than a systematic way to make the wrong decisions.
Strictly speaking, I'm not interested in doing this "for the children." I'm interested in doing this for humanity. Now. before I get accused of megalomania, I'm speaking in the abstract, not because I'm some postern pounding preacher speaking about The Peepul.
I'm not pro-life(tm), I lean more towards choice, but I also believe that choice comes with responsibility.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
In addition, glatt is right in that we are talking about PERMANENT solutions here, because even if we put norplant in, the woman can carve it out of herself. This means that the idea of "until she is off drugs for a year" won't work.
[/COLOR]
The long-term chemical solution could be part of a program where the contraceptive is an option for reduced sentencing or also part of a pro-active aprt of the welfare program. Or, reduce benefits of people who don't subscribe to the free contraception programs available to them.
And I agree, some women just aren't cut out for the chemical solution.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
Also, something else I thought of....the question was brought up as to what would constitute "retarded" enough to employ the sterilisation, and I think that would be if a person was unable to care for themselves at all, needed 24/7 care, then they most certainly should not be having children.
[/COLOR]
I agree.
There are plenty of accepted (and acceptable) standards as to what constitutes profoundly retarded or incapable.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
Again, I agree with the intent of the process, but don't agree with the implementation. You can either live in a free society or not. I choose to live in a free society. If I wanted to be denied the choice of having children or not, I'd go live in the Middle East and get my clitoris cut out and be denied an education and a whole bunch of other things I take for granted as a British/American citizen.
[/COLOR]
I think that part of the idea that scares people most about this idea is that is to be broadly implemented and easily enforced. I don't think that it should be broadly administered but should be a
penalty for a provable trend of profoundly poor decision making or as a result of something that affects you so profoundly that you are incapable of adhering to your responsibilities.
Originally posted by lumberjim
exactly. i said in my earlier comments that this is a confusing issue, but at the end of it all there is the operating table.
no way. no how. the rest of the argument is mute.
How is it moot? This issue is going to be important in the future and like genetic research shouldn't there be some dialog about it before it becomes a pressing issue instead of an imminent one?
Originally posted by lumberjim
what happens when the inevitable death as a result of surgical error occurs?
Good question. Who gets sued? The doctor, the gov't, both?
Originally posted by lumberjim
perhaps incentivizing non reproduction could work if someone smarter than us figured out how to do it effectively. maybe....MAYBE penalizing people financially for abusing the foster care system through increased taxes could work.
Incentivizing won't do anything because that would require some effort on the part of the parent to be.
I can only really see penalizing people having any affect.
IOW, if you're advocating forced sterilization to prevent harm to children/unborn babies, you're also advocating preventing them from being killed in healthy mothers.
Playing devil's advocate here, I don't think this ought to turn into an abortion debate... But here's a counter-example (and I apologize if it seems crass): The various animal rescue organizations around the country come and remove abused animals from their owners. A large percentage of these injured/diseased animals are immediately euthanized--the idea being that it is more humane to put them to sleep than to let them keep on living in such pain. In the same way, there could be a correlation between having an abortion versus carrying a crack baby to term, given that the baby will invariably suffer for many years. A painless abortion is in theory more humane. That is one way in which you could be in favor of stopping crack addicts from reproducing and yet still in favor of abortion.
Strapping a woman down against her will, while she's kicking and screaming, and implanting something under her skin. She will probably try to remove said implant with a kitchen knife later.
Keep in mind, this is the same woman whom we will restrain, kicking and screaming, while we pry her abused baby from her arms and take it into foster care. That part already happens and no one says it shouldn't. The fact that she's kicking and screaming is inflammatory and irrelevant. In addition, while we're talking about direct methods, the Depo Provera shot involves no invasive procedure at all.
Originally posted by Clodfobble
[I]The fact that she's kicking and screaming is inflammatory and irrelevant.
I painted a picture with words.
Right now in other threads going on here in the Cellar, there are arguments about the use of war images. That in order to have an informed opinion about what war is, the images should be made available to the public. War is hell. People know this in the abstract, but images of it remind the public of that truth. Hopefully it will prevent wars from happening as easily in the future.
Talking in the abstract about sterilization while we all sit calmly at our keyboards is so clean and sanitary. So dignified. But we are talking about strapping people down and performing procedures on them against their will. It's worth at least mentioning that truth. It may be inflammatory, but it sure isn't irrelevant.
Originally posted by glatt
I painted a picture with words.
Right now in other threads going on here in the Cellar, there are arguments about the use of war images. That in order to have an informed opinion about what war is, the images should be made available to the public. War is hell. People know this in the abstract, but images of it remind the public of that truth. Hopefully it will prevent wars from happening as easily in the future.
Talking in the abstract about sterilization while we all sit calmly at our keyboards is so clean and sanitary. So dignified. But we are talking about strapping people down and performing procedures on them against their will. It's worth at least mentioning that truth. It may be inflammatory, but it sure isn't irrelevant.
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.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
How is it moot? This issue is going to be important in the future and like genetic research shouldn't there be some dialog about it before it becomes a pressing issue instead of an imminent one?
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.
Originally posted by DanaC
Just to reign this away from personal insults and back to the issue at hand. What about people who are not mentally disabled/retarded whose future progeny are substantially at risk from certain serious hereditary disorders ? Would you advocate enfored sterilsation so as to prevent that furture child having to suffer ?
What if tests have shown that a feotus is likely to be born with downsyndrome? What if the child is likely to be profoundly disabled? Would you advocate enforced termination? ( assuming this is discovered early enough )
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.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]Which brings us to the other point my husband brought up, which is that if the woman was in jail for doing drugs, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. He thinks that we should be enforcing the laws we already have rather than making up new ones.
[/COLOR]
Women get pregnant in prison, from conjugal visits as well as prison rape.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
And while we're on the discussion of forced sterilisation, lets talk about rapists and child molesters. Should the males be eunich'd? Would that really help? What about females? How does eunich'ing the males prevent them from violating in other ways (bottles, etc)?
[/COLOR]
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.
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]
Where does it end? Where is the line drawn? Isn't the greater good of the society worth the rights of one who willfully and consistantly breaks that society's rules?[/COLOR]
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.
Originally posted by lumberjim
first off thanks for "moot". i couldn't figure out how to spell it.
AT your service sir.
Originally posted by lumberjim
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 agree whole heartedly.
Now let's figure it out.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
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.
Wouldn't that be fun to try and implement...
Originally posted by ladysycamore
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.
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.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Incentivizing won't do anything because that would require some effort on the part of the parent to be.
I can only really see penalizing people having any affect.
CRACK (Children Requiring A Caring Kommunity) Pays addicts to use temporary or permanent birth control.
Salon.com article
Originally posted by jinx
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:
Project Prevention was established by Barbara Harris.
The program is completely voluntary for participants. The participants, male and female, receive $200 for choosing to use long-term or permanent birth control.
Most participants who choose permanent birth control are those who have already had far more children than most people have in a lifetime.
The process goes as follows: The participant contacts us and we send out our paperwork. Our offer is good for 60 days after receiving the paperwork. She or he then makes an appointment with a personal physician or family planning provider of choice (we are not involved in this process). In most cases, birth control services are available at no cost, and the provider offers informative counseling to assist their clients in choosing an appropriate family planning method. If a participant chooses a tubal ligation, she is required by law to wait a period of 30 days before she may undergo the procedure. After she receives her services, she returns her completed paperwork to us. Once her paperwork is verified by our staff, the client receives $200.
What does she do with the money she has earned from us? We do not monitor where our money is spent, any more than the government monitors where welfare or other related money are spent. We know of several of our clients that have used the $200 for rent payments, diapers and other child related goods.
Project Prevention offers a $200 incentive for any of these birth control methods:
* Depo-Provera -paid over the period of one year
* Essure
* IUD
* Norplant (5 year contraceptive)
* Tubal ligation
* Vasectomy
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.
:)
Wouldnt it be cool if you could get birth control pills, whatever over the counter?
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 Keep in mind, this is the same woman whom we will restrain, kicking and screaming, while we pry her abused baby from her arms and take it into foster care.
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
Originally posted by Clodfobble
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.
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).
Originally posted by sycamore
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
Originally posted by Pie
That punishes the disabled child, not the parent.
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.
Originally posted by warch
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?)
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 pilleugenics didn’t work for the nazis and it won’t work for america
Originally posted by ladysycamore
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.
"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
Originally posted by Pie
"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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by DanaC
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.
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???)
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.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
...can't people THINK before they decide to bring a life into the world anymore???)
More than 50% of children born in this country are unplanned. 'Nuff said.
- Pie
Originally posted by OnyxCougar
[COLOR=indigo]You don't live in the US do you? You don't understand what it is like to be in foster care in the US, do you? "the best your society has to offer"? Please. Such an idealist. That is not the country I live in.[/COLOR]
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...
<cloaking device>
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.
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 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.
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?
You want kids?
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
Originally posted by sycamore
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?
I've been fighting it since long before you were born. It's your turn to fight it, I'm tired.:zzz:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It's your turn to fight it, I'm tired.
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:
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.
Originally posted by Hubris Boy
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.
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.
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
.....Conjugal visits....
[COLOR=indigo]Another thing people in prison should not get. It's supposed to be hard, it's supposed to be a deterrent. *sigh* [/COLOR]
It's supposed to be hard
.....was that a deliberate pun?:doit:
Originally posted by russotto
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.
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
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Sorry everyone...my modem died, and I haven't had internet for a week,
Sidhe
no need to apologize ;)
Originally posted by Pie
More than 50% of children born in this country are unplanned. 'Nuff said.
- Pie
It's not so much the unplanning but the parenting. But, family planning
IS lacking...
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
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.
I think I love you. :p :D
Originally posted by ladysycamore
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Originally posted by ladysycamore
It's not so much the unplanning but the parenting. But, family planning [b]IS lacking... [/B]
...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
Originally posted by Pie
(Oh, that's right, the average American owes $2,900 in credit card debt.)
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...
i was thinking the same....and i see it first hand.....
here, let me look through the deals in my office right now and i ll give you some REAL stats:
1..bad credit customer...$194 in revolving debt
2.good credit cust : Revolving $14,628
3. fair credit : $1742
4. excellent credit: 13,369
5. good credit: $5567
6. good credit: $1677
7. super excellent credit : $0
8. good credit since a bankrupcy in '01: $2324
9. really bad credit: $7462
10. decent credit: $43,538
I have seen as much as 125,000 in credit cards
gawd.
A couple years back I read that something like 65% of Americans payoff their credit cards every month. I was astounded by that large a percentage. Like glatt, I do, but listening to conversations in the real world, I was under the impression I was the exception.:confused:
Do you have a handle on that Jim?
Originally posted by Pie
...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?
Precisely.
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.)
Yup.
Irresponsibility leads to children. Irresponsibility leads to bad parenting.
It's a vicious cycle.
- Pie
That seems to never end.
CREDIT CARDS ARE DE DEBIL!!
I refuse to have one. I had one once, and my ex husband got a hold of it and ran up my credit. My credit had been perfect til then. Fucker.
Sidhe
Originally posted by lumberjim
i was thinking the same....and i see it first hand.....
here, let me look through the deals in my office right now and i ll give you some REAL stats:
1..bad credit customer...$194 in revolving debt
2.good credit cust : Revolving $14,628
3. fair credit : $1742
4. excellent credit: 13,369
5. good credit: $5567
6. good credit: $1677
7. super excellent credit : $0
8. good credit since a bankrupcy in '01: $2324
9. really bad credit: $7462
10. decent credit: $43,538
I have seen as much as 125,000 in credit cards
gawd.
I had a guy once who had $158,000 in revolving. No cars, boats, houses, rv's, etc. included in that number. That came to nearly a full million$$$$$$. He didn't think it was any big deal. Poor SOB barely made $200k/year but thought $158k in revolving was no big deal. He wouldn't consolidate so needless to say I didn't do his loan.
For LUMBERJIM:
The story goes that a local car dealer, who was known to have taken advantage of some people in the community, wanted to purchase a cow from a farmer. So the farmer priced the cow in a way the car dealer could understand:
BASIC COW: $499.95
Shipping and Handling: $35.75
Extra Stomach: $79.25
Two-tone Exterior: $142.50
Deluxe Dual Horns: $59.25
Automatic Fly Swatter: $74.55
Four-spigot/high output drain system: $149.20
Automatic fertilizer attachment: $339.40
Farmer's suggested list price: $1,379.85
Additional Dealer Adjustments: $300.00
TOTAL LIST PRICE (including options): $1,679.85
I saw this in the reader's digest and thought of you *grins* I figured you'd appreciate it. ;)
Sidhe
Originally posted by Pie
.
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
Well, I look at it this way: if God wants you to have a kid, birth control isn't going to stop it. If these fundies have such faith in the power of God, then they shouldn't think that a birth control pill would be able to stop Him. Therefore, their refusal to take birth control demonstrates a profound lack of faith, and they're all going to hell.
:haha:
Originally posted by sycamore
You can get the morning after pill here, but currently only with a prescription (the FDA rejected OTC sales last week).
At the free health clinics, you get a year's worth of contraception, plus the morning-after pill, free, after you've had your gyn exam.