pirana 0 #101 February 4, 2009 QuoteQuote>but then you stated that we should let nature takes it course which would be >starvation . I think that's pretty rare, actually. My parents wanted two kids; they ended up with three. Oddly, none of us starved to death. 99% of the time, parents can support the kids they have, even if you think they should have had fewer kids. It's that 1% we're talking about here. Yes, it is that 1% we're talking about here ... what should we do with them? I think in the name of human compassion we have to take care of that 1%. Continue efforts to educate in order to keep the percentage as low as possible; impose consequences of some sort, maybe look for incentives. I'm pretty hard core on owning the consequences for the behaviors; but make allowances for the infirm, the very old and the very young. For the record, I think she is nuts; probably mentally ill to some degree or another. And the Dr ought to be brought up for scrutiny of some sort. But the babies need to be cared for." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #102 February 4, 2009 Quote Quote How on earth do you think mandatory birth control should be policed? It would be much easier to euthanize the whole familly. What the hell, throw in the short bus kids while you are at it. Now THERE is the SC response we've all been waiting for!Do what they do in Darfur. Use them for kindling. (I am of course being morbidly unserious)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #103 February 4, 2009 QuoteHow about a reduction in benifits for additional kids? welfare, unemployment, and tax deductions are cut if you go over say 2 kids? Instead of getting $2200 deduction per kid you get $1800 per kid for 3 kids, $1600 per kid for 4 kids ect. make people think about the loss per kid if they have more than 2. Horrific thought, but that might incent someone to off one of their kids. We are talking really whacked out people ya know." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #104 February 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote How on earth do you think mandatory birth control should be policed? It would be much easier to euthanize the whole familly. What the hell, throw in the short bus kids while you are at it. Now THERE is the SC response we've all been waiting for!Do what they do in Darfur. Use them for kindling. (I am of course being morbidly unserious). People people.... PLEASE Spay and neuter your humans Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #105 February 4, 2009 Quoteso i'm selfish because i'm not concerned with something that will happen after i'm long gone and i can't stop? i don't get that logic. there will come a time when humans no longer exist in this universe and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. why am i a bad guy for not worrying about how many generations come between my death and that event? jeez, some people need to get a better grip on just how insignificant humans are in the big picture. Ah, the Bertrand Russell approach to Life, the Universe, and Everything. It is all meaningless because the Universe is almost certainly going to either collapse to a singularity and leave no trace or expand forever to a heat death and leave no trace. As an aside, most futurists agree that as long as we do not destroy ourselves via man-made means, we will eventually develop the technology to move off of Earth well ahead of the time the Sun's death throes will destroy it. That buys us a few billions of years. What with the pace of change, and the pretty much constantly accelerating pace of change, a few million years is a very long time, much less a couple billion. Look what we've done in just the last century; and the acceleration of change in just the past few decades. But back on track; true, total heat death from an ever-expanding Universe does have a finite timeline; but it is so far out there that to be so apathetic for the very next generation is very bizarre." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #106 February 4, 2009 Quote>but i don't foresee the earth's population leveling off. It will one way or the other. Reminds me of one of the most assholish VP's I've ever worked for. One of his favorite sayings when things got tight and it looked like we might not deliver "There will be execution by the deadline, one way or another." He thought it was cute and cool because it always seemed to get some smattering of nervous laughter." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #107 February 4, 2009 I just realized we went from browbeating the single mother of 36 kids looking for her 15 seconds of fame to the future of Earth. Oh, that was me. Sorry." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #108 February 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteso i'm selfish because i'm not concerned with something that will happen after i'm long gone and i can't stop? i don't get that logic. there will come a time when humans no longer exist in this universe and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. why am i a bad guy for not worrying about how many generations come between my death and that event? jeez, some people need to get a better grip on just how insignificant humans are in the big picture. um, yes? Basically you said "fuck my kids or their kids, who the hell cares if they can breathe or have food to eat! it doesn't matter, as long as *I'm" good!" By the standard definition of the term, that's, um, pretty selfish. And we CAN stop it...but people with attitudes like yours are the reason we never even try. that is not at all what i said. of course i don't want anythng bad to happen to my kids. my point is that the number of generations after me that there ceases to be human beings is inconsequencial. that doesn't make me selfish at all, it just makes my realistic. what exactly do you want to stop? the eventual end of our solar system? good luck. overpopulation of the earth? just how the hell do you think we should go about that? people with me "attitude" are not the reason why we don't try to stop overpopulation. i don't know if there even is a reason why. its not like some panel of world leaders got together to solve the problem of overpopulation but then decided not to and gave a reason. if you think about it though, there are a couple of huge obstacle that make it an unrealistic thing to do. first you have enough people in this world that will breed like rabits for a number of reasons (religious, cultural, to stupid to use birth control, just want to shit out a bunch of kid like the women this thread was started about). second, there are moral issues, which this thread seams mostly to be about. neither of those things have anything to do with my "attitude". again, i'm just being realistic. something else about your stance is making me say "hmm", but i would like a little further clarification of your stance. are you of the belief that we should somehow stop the population of earth from rising to the point of us dying off of starvation* thereby allowing there to be more generations of human beings until something else causes us to be extict? i ask because in order to cause this, you have to stop humans from being born by somehow setting and enforcing a limit on the number of children born in each generation. let's say this was possible. aren't you just playing a numbers game? you are sort of budgeting human beings. lets not have so many lives now, so we can have them later. *i don't believe humans will cease to exist because of massive starvation unless this massive starvation is caused be something beyond just overpopulation like a nuclear winter, massive volcanic eruption, or some rock from space throwing a bunch of shit in the air. a few people will survive the lean times and then have plenty to eat to make further generations. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #109 February 4, 2009 Quoteit is so far out there that to be so apathetic for the very next generation is very bizarre. my point is not that i'm apathetic to the next generation, of course i want my children, and futue grandchildren to live out happy healthy lives and die at whatever time is appropriate. my point is that there is a finite number of generations to come after me and whatever that number is doesn't matter. some generation at some time will be the last one and it will likely suck to be them, but there's nothing i can do to stop it, and i'm ok with that. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #110 February 5, 2009 QuoteI was just reading this. This woman declared bankruptcy last March. She got pregnant in May? She couldn't pay her bills but could pay for fertility treatment? After six kids? It's her right to do this. And it's my right to say, "This is some bullshit." Agree! I've only skimmed the thread so this might have already been addressed... What about a test on (or at the very least being able to deny based on documented history of the contrary) mental stability before being granted the right to fertility treatment? Or should everyone have the right so long as that person somehow comes up with the money? Or what about a limit on the number of viable embryos that can be implanted at once? Shouldn't there be one? Or should implanting eight or any other number be one's personal decision, as well?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adriandavies 0 #111 February 6, 2009 QuoteShould this woman have been given fertility treatment? QuoteThe woman who gave birth to octuplets this week has six other children and never expected to have eight more when she took fertility treatment, her mother said. Apologies if this has been mentioned already. I read today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7873890.stm that this lady is single and that she had the IVF treatment using donated semen and that she wanted another child as she was brought up an only child and was therefore lonely when growing up. Having heard all this and given the fact that she already had 6 children I cannot believe that she was deemed suitable for IVF, let alone that 8 eggs would have been implanted. I can only assume that she comes from a rich family and can afford to bring up her new family without resorting to state aid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #112 February 6, 2009 Quote I can only assume that she comes from a rich family and can afford to bring up her new family without resorting to state aid. unfortunately your assumption is incorrect. she lives in a 3 bedroom house with her parents who recently filed bankruptcy. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,121 #113 February 6, 2009 While she is far and away the most responsible (well, except for all those taxpayers), the doctor who did the IVF is pretty frickin' culpable on his own. Just because you can do something doesn't always make it right. Even if you earn money for it. And I'll bet that this pregnancy is good for his (and the obstetrician's) business Wendy W. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #114 February 7, 2009 Yesterday on the news they had this from Calgary. Its interesting to note that the Canadian doctors refused because of her age and diabetes... but the doctors in India did not have the same moral compunctions. So much for doctors with ethics. She will be 78 when the kids are graduating from High School.. http://www.canada.com/Alberta+woman+gives+birth+twins/1260354/story.html Alberta woman, 60, gives birth to twins Refused in vitro in Canada, she went to India By Michelle Lang, Canwest News ServiceFebruary 6, 2009 A 60-year-old woman delivered twins this week at a Calgary hospital -- likely making her the oldest person in Canada to give birth. Family members say Ranjit Hayer and her husband have been trying to have a child for years, to no avail. Reports say Hayer, originally from India, returned there to receive in vitro fertilization after being turned down in Canada because of her age. Hayer gave birth to two boys, Manjot and Gurpreet, on Tuesday Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
