mnealtx 0 #26 June 2, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Jeeze, you're a hairs breath away from advocating selective breeding.... a very... very slipper slope. And abortion on demand isn't? Especially with the 'designer baby' stuff going on now? Not if I understand what you mean by Abortion on Demand... If that's at the request and permission of the owner of the body (the Mom) then that's her choice... Selective breeding implies (to my mind) external influence and not the ladys' choice at all. If that's the case, apples and oranges Mike. External influence? Like being forced to have sex with someone not of their choice? That's definitely apples and oranges.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 June 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteThose [should] be 2 different arguments... If you don't like paying for them? Then don't.. remove funding and let everyone know upfront that, that is the case. Shropshire for president nope, sorry, I've been stumping for Nightengale for Pres for too long - how about Shropshire for vice pres? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #28 June 2, 2009 Quote>What is "non-violent abuse"? Planning a 3-way with your 12 year old daughter. Being so neglectful that you leave your six month old child outside at night. Things like that. I don't consider sexual abuse to be any less of an offense than "violent" abuse is. I'm not even so sure about neglect, but perhaps (depends on the circumstances, I suppose). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #29 June 2, 2009 How about if instead of mandatory sterilization, it's simply offered as an alternative to prison. Voluntary. Pool it with some sort of halfway house or therapy. Of course, if you want to stop sex drive in a man, you probably need to go for castration. But I'll admit that I think that anyone who is willing to undergo castration for criminal sexual impulses that they are unable to control should be provided it. Wendy P.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
billvon 2,380 #30 June 2, 2009 >I don't consider sexual abuse to be any less of an offense than "violent" >abuse is. Agreed - but violent abuse is more likely to result in death of the child, which is more important to avoid. (IMO.) Naturally, any abuse at all should be avoided if possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #31 June 2, 2009 I'm not a fan of the idea, but sometimes I can see the attraction. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mswallin13 0 #32 June 2, 2009 One of my favorite hypothetical proposals for limiting unwanted pregnancy comes from my mother-in-law. She suggested putting birth control in the water and then offering a free daily pill to offset the effects. It requires that someone who truly wants to have a child be at least responsible enough to obtain and take a pill every day. It would theoretically have the side-benefit of drastically reducing "convenience" abortions as well, perhaps making the idea of legal abortion more palatable for some. But I'm digressing into other thread topics...Matthew Wallin C-37899 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbearfng 9 #33 June 2, 2009 Quote>What is "non-violent abuse"? Planning a 3-way with your 12 year old daughter. Being so neglectful that you leave your six month old child outside at night. Things like that. ______________________________________________ I know someone already called you on the above, but it really does wind me up that anyone can even think about sayin that bringin along a 12yr is non violent. It's rape of a 12 yr old pimped out by her mother!!!!! WHAT THE HELL ISN'T VIOLENT ABOUT THAT!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #34 June 2, 2009 QuoteI'm not a fan of the idea, but sometimes I can see the attraction. OMG! (& oh so not in a good way ...) Reason for male birth control pill, perhaps? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #35 June 2, 2009 QuoteThose [should] be 2 different arguments... If you don't like paying for them? Then don't.. remove funding and let everyone know upfront that, that is the case. and again, you're punishing the children more than you are the parents, which seemed to be against the goal of this discussion. As written, the right to reproduce is considered fundamental for humans. This is why it is a common theme in science fiction, usually depicting some pretty fucked up versions of clean, but awful societies. The role of Child Protective Services is to identify those children who are not being well served by their parents, and to remove them. That may really be as much as you can do with this problem. Mandatory, or effective mandatory sterilization (other choice is go to prison) for any class of people should be as chilling to think about as banning newspapers or gun rights, or access to an attorney when charged. Not all problems can be solved, and many solutions are worse than the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #36 June 2, 2009 Quote One of my favorite hypothetical proposals for limiting unwanted pregnancy comes from my mother-in-law. She suggested putting birth control in the water and then offering a free daily pill to offset the effects. It requires that someone who truly wants to have a child be at least responsible enough to obtain and take a pill every day. It would theoretically have the side-benefit of drastically reducing "convenience" abortions as well, perhaps making the idea of legal abortion more palatable for some. But I'm digressing into other thread topics... Yes, but that would require that most of the population actually drink water rather than soda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,380 #37 June 3, 2009 >It's rape of a 12 yr old pimped out by her mother!!!!! No. PLANNING a 3-way with your 12 year old daughter. The original post mentioned "When you see the mother bring along her 12 yr old daughter because her dirtbag boyfriend wants a threesome with her . . ." If she is raped, of course, that's very different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigbearfng 9 #38 June 3, 2009 As I stated she did in fact bring along her 12yr old daughter. If she's 12 it's a rape of a child no matter how the child is coerced (PC288a along with whatever other atrocities are commited) , that's the law as it well should be. If anyone wants to call it not rape and marginalize it because it's a "threesome".... Well then our definitions are worlds apart and that person sure as hell would never babysit for me. Anyone that wants to marginalize crimes like this sets off my alarm bells..... And if she had planned it but they wouldn't have been able to carry it out before being stopped? That would have made it more OK? BULLSHIT! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,380 #39 June 3, 2009 >And if she had planned it but they wouldn't have been able to carry it >out before being stopped? That would have made it more OK? Yes. Stopping a rape is more OK than having a 12 year old girl raped. If you think the two are equivalent - then we live in different worlds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bigbearfng 9 #40 June 3, 2009 Quote>And if she had planned it but they wouldn't have been able to carry it >out before being stopped? That would have made it more OK? Yes. Stopping a rape is more OK than having a 12 year old girl raped. If you think the two are equivalent - then we live in different worlds. Now I understand when people accuse you of twisting words....... OK I'll be more specific for you-If you think the person that attempted a rape and was stopped is a better person than the one who was able to carry it out-then we live in different worlds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #41 June 3, 2009 Bill's talking about the act. You're talking about the people who commit the act. Bill's not twisting anything.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Baksteen 84 #42 June 3, 2009 Quote A "right" is, by definition, something you are free to do that requires nothing from another person. Unfortunately, loving parents are not a right, because it requires action on the part of another (the parent). This is a nice summary of what i was referring to. I note however that there is no 'right to loving parents', but there is a 'right to protection from abuse'. As to the fundamental right of reproduction (quoted by some other poster), I think that too little emphasis is placed on the right of the child. IMO the child's rights to a [normal] life (can't think of the correct word there) are way more important than the right of people to just have children. But how to solve the dilemma of who should (not) have children is a different can of worms entirely. I certainly don't have the answer. EDIT: whoopsy...fixy clicky"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport." ~mom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 25 #43 June 3, 2009 QuoteThis is a nice summary of what i was referring to. Wow. I can't say I agree. That document has endless references to "state parties" and their provision of care for children. I'm not a fan of all the discussion of how the state should be the one looking out for children, mostly because I have yet to see state actors show competence in anything, and I damn well don't want them to decide what care my children do or do not need.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DJL 232 #44 June 3, 2009 That's a genie that we don't want out of the bottle. The American eugenics movement is practically what Hitler adopted and turned into the holocaust (source). Everyone says "it won't happen in America"; ok, what if a China, Rwanda, Angola, India started a program like that. How would that end up?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,116 #45 June 3, 2009 China and India both have population-driven eugenics movements going already. Girls are not as desirable as boys, so families are aborting girls. They're already seeing some social problems from having more young men than women. Wendy P.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 nerdgirl 0 #46 June 3, 2009 QuoteChina and India both have population-driven eugenics movements going already. Girls are not as desirable as boys, so families are aborting girls. They're already seeing some social problems from having more young men than women. And the problem there is not abortion ... or sonograms, which are used to detect the sex of fetus. The problem is preference for baby boys over baby girls. In 2008, the sex imbalance (or sex ratio at birth [SRB]) in China ranged from 108:100 to 130:100 (the higher numbers in places like Guandong province, SW China). And the imbalance is increasing at a higher rate than expected; initial expectations were that the 120:100 (or 1.20 SRB) would not be reached until 2025. India has an SRB of 1.07. Average "natural" SRB values are typically 1.03-1.04. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #47 June 3, 2009 Quote Quote This is a nice summary of what i was referring to. Wow. I can't say I agree. That document has endless references to "state parties" and their provision of care for children. It's a document of international law. The only parties that can in our current Westphalian system enter legally into such contracts are State's parties. It's an artifact of the Westphalian system. It's tautological that an international treaty is among state parties. (That's not a normative statement on the Westphalian system, it’s just a fact.) It's akin to objecting to USPA regulations because they involve member dropzones. Quote I'm not a fan of all the discussion of how the state should be the one looking out for children, mostly because I have yet to see state actors show competence in anything. Someone wrote recently, “Simply declaring something to be true does not make it so.” And I've provided you examples repeatedly that demonstrate the fallacy of such unilateral statements. If you want to see an examples of state policies that benefit children, Sweden and Norway would be good places to start. Or one could look to child mortality rates and public health policies of the US (& most developed countries) that have robust public health systems. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 25 #48 June 3, 2009 QuoteThe problem is preference for baby boys over baby girls. Your statement has a massive cultural bias. You are imposing your own cultural values (that boys and girls are equally desirable), which I happen to share, on a whole nation of people who do not share them, by stereotyping their cultural values as "the problem." Are you so certain of your own rightness that you would impose your value set on billions of people who do not share it? So certain that you would force me to support that imposition? I rather suspect you are, and further, I think that such conviction of our rightness has led to American cultural imperialism--whereby we militarily occupy foreign nations and justify ourselves by saying that bringing them in line with our value set is somehow "good" or "right." People (yes, even those heathens over there) have a right to determine their own way of life and cultural values, even should they live by a set of values we do not share. It is the grand folly of 20th (and 21st) century America that we do not respect that right.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 25 #49 June 3, 2009 QuoteSimply declaring something to be true does not make it so That's why I said (in more than one place), things like "I can't say I agree." I'm not saying that the document doesn't exist, or that other people don't agree with it. I'm saying that _I_ disagree. And in that case, yes, saying that it is so does make it true, because I am stating my personal disagreement. QuoteIf you want to see an examples of state policies that benefit children, Sweden and Norway would be good places to start. Or one could look to child mortality rates and public health policies of the US (& most developed countries) that have robust public health systems. Surely. And then we could initiate an endless debate one what exactly is "good" for children, and who, exactly, gets to decide. I'd prefer to avoid that whole mess by simply letting each family decide for themselves what is good for their own children.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,116 #50 June 3, 2009 Quoteletting each family decide for themselves what is good for their own childrenAre there basic standards that you think should apply, or only those that fall within the criminal realm (e.g. violence). I'm not trying to set up a strawman, I'm curious. Wendy P.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 Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
nerdgirl 0 #34 June 2, 2009 QuoteI'm not a fan of the idea, but sometimes I can see the attraction. OMG! (& oh so not in a good way ...) Reason for male birth control pill, perhaps? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 June 2, 2009 QuoteThose [should] be 2 different arguments... If you don't like paying for them? Then don't.. remove funding and let everyone know upfront that, that is the case. and again, you're punishing the children more than you are the parents, which seemed to be against the goal of this discussion. As written, the right to reproduce is considered fundamental for humans. This is why it is a common theme in science fiction, usually depicting some pretty fucked up versions of clean, but awful societies. The role of Child Protective Services is to identify those children who are not being well served by their parents, and to remove them. That may really be as much as you can do with this problem. Mandatory, or effective mandatory sterilization (other choice is go to prison) for any class of people should be as chilling to think about as banning newspapers or gun rights, or access to an attorney when charged. Not all problems can be solved, and many solutions are worse than the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #36 June 2, 2009 Quote One of my favorite hypothetical proposals for limiting unwanted pregnancy comes from my mother-in-law. She suggested putting birth control in the water and then offering a free daily pill to offset the effects. It requires that someone who truly wants to have a child be at least responsible enough to obtain and take a pill every day. It would theoretically have the side-benefit of drastically reducing "convenience" abortions as well, perhaps making the idea of legal abortion more palatable for some. But I'm digressing into other thread topics... Yes, but that would require that most of the population actually drink water rather than soda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #37 June 3, 2009 >It's rape of a 12 yr old pimped out by her mother!!!!! No. PLANNING a 3-way with your 12 year old daughter. The original post mentioned "When you see the mother bring along her 12 yr old daughter because her dirtbag boyfriend wants a threesome with her . . ." If she is raped, of course, that's very different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbearfng 9 #38 June 3, 2009 As I stated she did in fact bring along her 12yr old daughter. If she's 12 it's a rape of a child no matter how the child is coerced (PC288a along with whatever other atrocities are commited) , that's the law as it well should be. If anyone wants to call it not rape and marginalize it because it's a "threesome".... Well then our definitions are worlds apart and that person sure as hell would never babysit for me. Anyone that wants to marginalize crimes like this sets off my alarm bells..... And if she had planned it but they wouldn't have been able to carry it out before being stopped? That would have made it more OK? BULLSHIT! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #39 June 3, 2009 >And if she had planned it but they wouldn't have been able to carry it >out before being stopped? That would have made it more OK? Yes. Stopping a rape is more OK than having a 12 year old girl raped. If you think the two are equivalent - then we live in different worlds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbearfng 9 #40 June 3, 2009 Quote>And if she had planned it but they wouldn't have been able to carry it >out before being stopped? That would have made it more OK? Yes. Stopping a rape is more OK than having a 12 year old girl raped. If you think the two are equivalent - then we live in different worlds. Now I understand when people accuse you of twisting words....... OK I'll be more specific for you-If you think the person that attempted a rape and was stopped is a better person than the one who was able to carry it out-then we live in different worlds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #41 June 3, 2009 Bill's talking about the act. You're talking about the people who commit the act. Bill's not twisting anything.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baksteen 84 #42 June 3, 2009 Quote A "right" is, by definition, something you are free to do that requires nothing from another person. Unfortunately, loving parents are not a right, because it requires action on the part of another (the parent). This is a nice summary of what i was referring to. I note however that there is no 'right to loving parents', but there is a 'right to protection from abuse'. As to the fundamental right of reproduction (quoted by some other poster), I think that too little emphasis is placed on the right of the child. IMO the child's rights to a [normal] life (can't think of the correct word there) are way more important than the right of people to just have children. But how to solve the dilemma of who should (not) have children is a different can of worms entirely. I certainly don't have the answer. EDIT: whoopsy...fixy clicky"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport." ~mom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #43 June 3, 2009 QuoteThis is a nice summary of what i was referring to. Wow. I can't say I agree. That document has endless references to "state parties" and their provision of care for children. I'm not a fan of all the discussion of how the state should be the one looking out for children, mostly because I have yet to see state actors show competence in anything, and I damn well don't want them to decide what care my children do or do not need.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #44 June 3, 2009 That's a genie that we don't want out of the bottle. The American eugenics movement is practically what Hitler adopted and turned into the holocaust (source). Everyone says "it won't happen in America"; ok, what if a China, Rwanda, Angola, India started a program like that. How would that end up?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #45 June 3, 2009 China and India both have population-driven eugenics movements going already. Girls are not as desirable as boys, so families are aborting girls. They're already seeing some social problems from having more young men than women. Wendy P.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
nerdgirl 0 #46 June 3, 2009 QuoteChina and India both have population-driven eugenics movements going already. Girls are not as desirable as boys, so families are aborting girls. They're already seeing some social problems from having more young men than women. And the problem there is not abortion ... or sonograms, which are used to detect the sex of fetus. The problem is preference for baby boys over baby girls. In 2008, the sex imbalance (or sex ratio at birth [SRB]) in China ranged from 108:100 to 130:100 (the higher numbers in places like Guandong province, SW China). And the imbalance is increasing at a higher rate than expected; initial expectations were that the 120:100 (or 1.20 SRB) would not be reached until 2025. India has an SRB of 1.07. Average "natural" SRB values are typically 1.03-1.04. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #47 June 3, 2009 Quote Quote This is a nice summary of what i was referring to. Wow. I can't say I agree. That document has endless references to "state parties" and their provision of care for children. It's a document of international law. The only parties that can in our current Westphalian system enter legally into such contracts are State's parties. It's an artifact of the Westphalian system. It's tautological that an international treaty is among state parties. (That's not a normative statement on the Westphalian system, it’s just a fact.) It's akin to objecting to USPA regulations because they involve member dropzones. Quote I'm not a fan of all the discussion of how the state should be the one looking out for children, mostly because I have yet to see state actors show competence in anything. Someone wrote recently, “Simply declaring something to be true does not make it so.” And I've provided you examples repeatedly that demonstrate the fallacy of such unilateral statements. If you want to see an examples of state policies that benefit children, Sweden and Norway would be good places to start. Or one could look to child mortality rates and public health policies of the US (& most developed countries) that have robust public health systems. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #48 June 3, 2009 QuoteThe problem is preference for baby boys over baby girls. Your statement has a massive cultural bias. You are imposing your own cultural values (that boys and girls are equally desirable), which I happen to share, on a whole nation of people who do not share them, by stereotyping their cultural values as "the problem." Are you so certain of your own rightness that you would impose your value set on billions of people who do not share it? So certain that you would force me to support that imposition? I rather suspect you are, and further, I think that such conviction of our rightness has led to American cultural imperialism--whereby we militarily occupy foreign nations and justify ourselves by saying that bringing them in line with our value set is somehow "good" or "right." People (yes, even those heathens over there) have a right to determine their own way of life and cultural values, even should they live by a set of values we do not share. It is the grand folly of 20th (and 21st) century America that we do not respect that right.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #49 June 3, 2009 QuoteSimply declaring something to be true does not make it so That's why I said (in more than one place), things like "I can't say I agree." I'm not saying that the document doesn't exist, or that other people don't agree with it. I'm saying that _I_ disagree. And in that case, yes, saying that it is so does make it true, because I am stating my personal disagreement. QuoteIf you want to see an examples of state policies that benefit children, Sweden and Norway would be good places to start. Or one could look to child mortality rates and public health policies of the US (& most developed countries) that have robust public health systems. Surely. And then we could initiate an endless debate one what exactly is "good" for children, and who, exactly, gets to decide. I'd prefer to avoid that whole mess by simply letting each family decide for themselves what is good for their own children.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #50 June 3, 2009 Quoteletting each family decide for themselves what is good for their own childrenAre there basic standards that you think should apply, or only those that fall within the criminal realm (e.g. violence). I'm not trying to set up a strawman, I'm curious. Wendy P.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
