nerdgirl 0 #51 June 3, 2009 QuoteQuote Quote 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. 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. Your statement has a massive cultural bias. No, it’s a statement of fact. Particularly in the context of the conversation. If it was stated that the problem boys are better or girls are better because of [X], [Y], or [Z] religious, cultural, social, or other normative reasons (that were cited in the posts to which I replied/you excised) that would be cultural bias. The consequences of the cultural biases that led to the sex-to-birth ratio distribution are real. How they are address or if they are ignored is up to the people of those states. My telling them what to do would based up cultural assumptions (bias) would be something you might (*might) be able to build an argument against. But I’m not, so you’re argument is a straw man. /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 #52 June 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteletting 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. Only those actions that fall within the criminal realm. Child rearing is so fundamental to the human condition that I believe it is worthy of more respect for privacy than almost any other decision(s)--not less.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #53 June 3, 2009 You stated that a preference for boys over girls was "the problem." Now you're saying that's a simple statement of fact? I disagree. I think that describing a cultural value as a "problem" is a judgement, on your part, as to the "rightness" of that cultural value.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #54 June 3, 2009 QuoteThat'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. That's fine. The reasons you gave for diagreeing were either tautological (in the Westphalian system states are parties to international treaties) or ones that have been shown to be not true, i.e., "state actors show competence in anything." There may be other reasons to object to the cited document (I dunno - international laws on children is not my area of expertise). /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 #55 June 3, 2009 Sex-ratios at birth are facts. The discussion, which you keep excising, was from abortion to eugenics to social problems arising sex-ratios in two nation states. The origin of that problem is the preference for baby boys over baby girls. There may be cultural reasons for that preference -- that's where your cultural argument becomes valid. That's not the discussion to which you replied, however. There may be culturally or socially biased-responses to the problem (ignoring it may be one example of such a response). That's not the discussion to which you replied, either. Perhaps, an illustrative comparison: Gun crimes. Guns (like abortion) are not the problem, (at least for those of us who oppose most restrictive gun control). The problem is criminal activity. Now one can find lots of social, cultural, and individual factors that impact criminal activity. Criminal activity is the problem there. Not guns. Like in this discussion, preference for boys over girls in the origin of the problem not abortion or sonograms. /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
Andrewwhyte 1 #56 June 3, 2009 Quote I note however that there is no 'right to loving parents', but there is a 'right to protection from abuse'. No, there isn't a right to protection from any type of crime. If there was every victim of crime could sue the government. Police services are a social program and are rationed according to financial considerations. There is however a right to protection from abuse at the hands of, or abated by, the the state. In Canada if you were abused at a church run, state sanctioned, residential school (for natives) you can sue the government. If you were abused by your father you cannot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #57 June 3, 2009 QuoteThe discussion, which you keep excising... I am responding to the bolded portion of your post. If you had not meant that as your central point, for people to respond to, then why did you bold it?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #58 June 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'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 I've been advocating additional R&D on male birth control options for decades. When women have multiple pills, shots, patches, IUDs, diaphragms, nuvo-rings, and more, men should have more options than just condoms (abstinence and sterilization not included due to being an option for both). Both parties are responsible for the consequences of their actions, so similar attention ought to be given to providing both parties with options for avoiding negative consequences. And in the bigger picture, I think getting more male BC options out on the market will significantly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and thus abortions. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #59 June 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe discussion, which you keep excising... I am responding to the bolded portion of your post. If you had not meant that as your central point, for people to respond to, then why did you bold it? For emphasis. /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 #60 June 3, 2009 Quote When women have multiple pills, shots, patches, IUDs, diaphragms, nuvo-rings, and more, men should have more options than just condoms (abstinence and sterilization not included due to being an option for both). Both parties are responsible for the consequences of their actions, so similar attention ought to be given to providing both parties with options for avoiding negative consequences. Certainly some effort should be made. But...it's a lot easier to deal with one egg a month than 50 million sperm per sex act. I recall hearing some trials are underway for a male pill. Guess we'll see the results. But we still have an unequal burden - if guys screw up and miss a dose, they don't get pregnant. And they can always run away from the result. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #61 June 3, 2009 QuoteQuote When women have multiple pills, shots, patches, IUDs, diaphragms, nuvo-rings, and more, men should have more options than just condoms (abstinence and sterilization not included due to being an option for both). Both parties are responsible for the consequences of their actions, so similar attention ought to be given to providing both parties with options for avoiding negative consequences. Certainly some effort should be made. But...it's a lot easier to deal with one egg a month than 50 million sperm per sex act. Agreed. I just also think that a scenario in which both parties have to err to produce a negative result is a better scenario than one in which only one party has to err. If you give men an option that is 90% effective and women an option that is 99% effective, and both do what they're supposed to, the accidental pregnancy rate goes from one per hundred to one per thousand. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 June 3, 2009 Quote Agreed. I just also think that a scenario in which both parties have to err to produce a negative result is a better scenario than one in which only one party has to err. If you give men an option that is 90% effective and women an option that is 99% effective, and both do what they're supposed to, the accidental pregnancy rate goes from one per hundred to one per thousand. Mathematically that would be true, but I suspect the end result isn't nearly so. The factors that might cause one to miss a pill (travel, late night partying?) could impact the other, so the probabilities might be coupled. There's also the chance that individuals will be more sloppy based on the belief that they have a second protection (aad anyone?) Any true gain would have to be measured against the consequences - all methods of contraception has some side effects. Two methods means two sets of these. For the singles out there, the STD risk may still drive people towards condoms. The classic male fear of a woman sabotaging her BC may drive some to a male pill, providing it's fairly effective. Or just to stick with the condoms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #63 June 3, 2009 QuoteNo, it’s a statement of fact. ..... The consequences of the cultural biases that led to the sex-to-birth ratio distribution are real. How they are address or if they are ignored is up to the people of those states. My telling them what to do would based up cultural assumptions (bias) would be something you might (*might) be able to build an argument against. But I’m not, so you’re argument is a straw man. /Marg So, if you could legislate it, would you restrict abortion on demand if the sole purpose was to actively select the gender of the offspring? since it's a 'social' problem to allow it seriously, I wonder where each individual draws their personal line (they are all different - it's why it's funny when they band together and use the same quotes) ... 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
jcd11235 0 #64 June 3, 2009 QuoteOnly those actions that fall within the criminal realm. You previously said that you disagreed with international law that sets minimum standards for legal actions. It appears you might be trying to have it both ways.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #65 June 3, 2009 QuoteBoth parties are responsible for the consequences of their actions, not true - women are responsible only men are just culpable and that's the unfair disconnect now, isn't it? ... 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
TomAiello 25 #66 June 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteOnly those actions that fall within the criminal realm. You previously said that you disagreed with international law that sets minimum standards for legal actions. It appears you might be trying to have it both ways. How so? There are plenty of national and state laws that don't rely on international law.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #67 June 3, 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. Unfortunately simply removing the funding is not practical as you have multiple generations that have been depending on them. Sadly, the only real solution is to stop the breeding cycle. Rights and government assistance should not mix. I have 0 problem with a woman having 18 kids or taking fertility treatments to have 8 at once. I have 0 issue with a CEO of a private or public company making $4 billion a year and paying someone $120,000 a year just to wash his balls. You want to spend $2000 on 22" rims for your Toyota Corolla or throw yourself out of an airplane for fun? Have at it. That is, until you take a dime of government assistance. At that point, you're not spending your money anymore, your spending other peoples. You're now a burden on society, not a contributor. So additional rules can now be levied against you: * No or no more kids * No fancy corporate perks or extravagent salaries * No extravagent purchases * Basic food staples only * Intense oversight and scrutiny Sounds unfair? Good. Because it's not supposed to be. Don't like it? Stop taking government funds. Once you are a contributor again and not a burden, feel free to do whatever you want. Note: The above only addresses government funded programs. Assistance from private programs and charities would not be subjected to these rules as those are voluntary contributions.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #68 June 3, 2009 QuoteYes, let's do it, that, and cutting off the hands of people who shoplift. and cutting off the legs of those who go over speed limit.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #69 June 3, 2009 QuoteSo, if you could legislate it, would you restrict abortion on demand if the sole purpose was to actively select the gender of the offspring? It’s an interesting intellectual question that speaks more to technologically and the comparative difficulty of laws and ethics to keep up (how do you do ethics on something that doesn't exist?) than abortion per se, imo. A woman’s autonomy still takes precedence, imo. And because it is not the sole purpose. By comparison, guns can be used for criminal and non-criminal purposes, I don’t advocate restricting guns just because they can be used for criminal acts or other things that I may not like. It's also illegal in both China and India to select for gender (as well as in the US & most of the world, I suspect), so it’s already been legislated … clearly not completely effective legislation. Also further evidence that abortion is not the origin of the problem of high sex birth ratios. Making sex selective abortions illegal hasn’t worked very well in China because the cultural, economic, historical, and social issues underlying the factual preference are much more difficult to address. /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
jcd11235 0 #70 June 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOnly those actions that fall within the criminal realm. You previously said that you disagreed with international law that sets minimum standards for legal actions. It appears you might be trying to have it both ways. How so? There are plenty of national and state laws that don't rely on international law. Right. But, well established federal law, i.e. the Constitution, allows the federal government to enter into international treaties and recognize international laws. Failure to obey such laws also falls within the "criminal realm."Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 June 4, 2009 Quote That is, until you take a dime of government assistance. At that point, you're not spending your money anymore, your spending other peoples. You're now a burden on society, not a contributor. How exactly do you measure this? kids are a burden on society. It costs thousands of dollars per year to educate them. Nevermind all that driving them to soccer practice (GREENHOUSE GASES!). We educate them so they contribute to society as adults. Public colleges are similar - short term investment with the hope of societal reward later. People who get unemployed or hurt collect money for a period of time. In this case, the money is typically paid up front in unemployment and disability taxes. Then when they recover, they go back to paying in. It's very difficult to define the transition point between contributer and leech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #72 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuote That is, until you take a dime of government assistance. At that point, you're not spending your money anymore, your spending other peoples. You're now a burden on society, not a contributor. How exactly do you measure this? kids are a burden on society. It costs thousands of dollars per year to educate them. Nevermind all that driving them to soccer practice (GREENHOUSE GASES!). We educate them so they contribute to society as adults. Public colleges are similar - short term investment with the hope of societal reward later. People who get unemployed or hurt collect money for a period of time. In this case, the money is typically paid up front in unemployment and disability taxes. Then when they recover, they go back to paying in. It's very difficult to define the transition point between contributer and leech. First of all, this is about government handouts, not charities or people supporting their family members (kids, parents, etc.) or firends voluntarily. Non monetary programs that all use, like education, would not be effected. Think of it like this: * If you pay in (taxes), you can take out if needed what you put in. You just pay it back later, with interest. * Beyond what you have already contributed, it would be like a loan. The amount you'd get would be a combination of what it is for and the likelihood of payback in the future. Granted, there would still be some financial scrutiny for both above, but not the level of someone that shows no hope of ever being a contributor or ever again.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
