Oct 06, 2005 03:04 pm Kind'a makes me all teary-eyed knowing someone cares enough about the future of the human race... even if it is just a few republicans in Indiana . Bravo Indiana mo-mos !
Whoa, having an illegal baby...
Posted on Oct 06, 2005 02:12 pm
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
www.nuvo.net/archive/2005...production.html
I fully agree that some people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but I never see a law like that actually working...
[ Back to Top ]
Oct 06, 2005 03:04 pm Kind'a makes me all teary-eyed knowing someone cares enough about the future of the human race... even if it is just a few republicans in Indiana . Bravo Indiana mo-mos !
Oct 06, 2005 03:06 pm No offense to any respectable Repubs on the board - but seriously, only some of the barely conscious republicans we have in government (for whom standing upright in the morning must be an untold ordeal) could think it the responsibility of the government to issue permits for procreation.
Offer birth control or something if it's that bloody important... Sheesh.
What's next? Eugenics?
Oct 06, 2005 03:13 pm I believe all they're pointing out is the obvious... you should be able to be a parrent if you're going to breed .
Appearently there are lots of people that don't know this .
Oct 06, 2005 03:16 pm Ya know, thats just it, it's actually the right thing to do, given how many people have more kids than they can support, or are just to stupid and/or lazy to not get pregnant...it's all the right thing to do, it'll just NEVER NEVER happen.
That's what China is doing, and, well, I dunno if you have seen what the human rights situation is like over there, but it's BAAAAAAD, babies put in "killing rooms" waiting for the illegal or unwanted babies to just die of starvation...it's horrible...
I think they are going about it the wrong way...people on public assistence being forced to have some birth control device implanted or something...that could work...maybe...
I dunno...
Oct 06, 2005 03:17 pm Quote:
you should be able to be a parrent if you're going to breed
Ya need a license for every other damn thing...why not THE MOST important thing.
Oct 06, 2005 03:18 pm Yeah, this is one hot potatoe .
Oct 06, 2005 03:54 pm What an assine law, especially since it doesn't even cover the case that would most need to be.
Quote:
Ya need a license for every other damn thing...why not THE MOST important thing.
Careful what you wish for, that's only one step away from the government telling you how many you can have, when you can have them. Give a government an inch, it will take the mile in the end.
Dan
Oct 06, 2005 03:57 pm Quote:
Careful what you wish for, that's only one step away from the government telling you how many you can have, when you can have them.
Yep, exactly what they did in China...and ya know, that is ALMOST something I actually wouldn't be entirely against...depending of course, how the prevention is done...stopping it from happening as opposed to after the fact like they are over in China...that's just sick.
Oct 06, 2005 04:14 pm makes sense for some situations but how would you account for people who are responsible and use birth control but end up pregnant??!? only abstinence is 100% its happened to me twice :) and im glad!!!
Oct 06, 2005 04:16 pm Thats part of the reason it will never truly work...well, that and the liberals crying and whining about human right, then ask for more taxes to give more money to the crackhead ho's on welfare that keep having more babies in the mean time...
Oct 06, 2005 04:29 pm im liberal and im all for sterilization!!!! im always amazed that we reward these people for having more kids! WTF?
Oct 06, 2005 05:50 pm i kinda agree with that law.....cause it all starts at home with the family, it take a whole family to raise a child....this is one of the main causes of the rising crime rate in my country....altho its not artifical reproduction that takes place down here...but irresponsible teens and thing u know.........and if its on the people that are not married even tho they are in love and thing and have a child but don't take part in marriage in the system cause of their spiritual beliefs then i condemn the law if it is so.....but i guess it mostly focused at artifical reproduction and if its that then i think it will be a good move, cause i doubt a surenge or tube could teach a child values that a father does.........but then again law can't be made in a democracy, which is just the opinion of a few, but what is best for the people and what they want, that what democracy was invented for..........but no matter what religion or belief system u are or what political party u rally behind, the Natural Trinity remains the same, Mother, Father and Child
Oct 06, 2005 05:50 pm I made a mistake and click 2 so the same post came up 2wice....and when i tried to delete it, it said i am not authorized to delete this post so i just editing it instead of having 2 same post...blessed
Oct 06, 2005 06:12 pm I gotta fix that bug one of these days...
Oct 06, 2005 06:25 pm I completely disagree with limiting reproduction...I'm also against abortion. One of the problems with the law above is what if I was married and died and my wife wanted to have a child based off of my tissue... she would have to remarry someone else to do so...which is awkward.
I believe that intensive competition and humanitarian disasters can spurr significant evolutionary improvements to mankind. One example was mentioned on a PBS doc not too long ago in that it is now believed that because of the Plague up to 14% of European and 7% of US population are immune to AIDS and cannot get it no matter the risk level. If a disaster such as The Plague was mitigated the global population would be even more suceptable to serious infectious disease.
Oct 06, 2005 06:49 pm what Plague is this u talk of? enlighten me, i don't know about it.
Oct 06, 2005 10:28 pm The Plague is often used to referr generally to The Black Death in Europe from th 14h to 17th century which is estimated to have killed over 200million people world wide(Europe, Asia, North Africa, Middle East)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/
Oct 07, 2005 03:43 am thesis statement and conclusion: i do not agree with this law.
this legislation is prolly not being drafted due to population concerns. but even if it were, well, there seem to be natural limiting factors to population that show up in 1st world countries. look at europe. population is generally self-stabilizing--people dont have so many kids when having kids holds you back or cramps your style or costs too much, etc. birth numbers have gone way down in this country. third world countries--people have more kids. there will be a ceiling, ultimately. there are social feedback mechanisms that guarantee it.
so i dont think any reason is a good reason for this law.
Oct 07, 2005 03:46 am (the usually given reason for the prevalence of large families in third world countries is that families hope someone will survive to take care of them in old age. and the more the better, when there's not much money around.)
think about it. it just feels unamerican. it should make you quake.
Oct 07, 2005 08:41 am well, the concept, in it's truest form, doesn't make me quake at all, but, the reality of how it could/would actually be accomplished does...
Remember all those clips in the poorest areas of the areas that got hit by Katrina...everybody saying how poor the area was, yet everybody being interviewed on TV said things about "I don't know where half of my 8 kids are" and stuff like that.
If you are that poor, it is stupid and irresponsible to have kids you can not support, it is unfair to the kids, and, in the likely event you are on public assistance, it's unfair to the tax payers. We are paying to raise kids that statistically have a very good chance of continuing the chain of dependency.
That said, I personally think all the fertility treatments and such things, as mentioned in the proposed law, shouldn't be allowed anyway...thats probably the most logical way to manage such an effort. Then, if people can't have kids, people can't have kids...period. Sad for them, but, well, everybody has their weaknesses...
Oct 07, 2005 10:31 am I think this is an issue, but it's part of a much bigger issue we have in america. Honestly, can anybody tell me that money doesn't run everything and that those with the most have no interest in bettering their communities, cities, etc?
Seems to me that, without a wealth and variety of jobs offering decent pay and with educational systems becoming more and more focussed on test scores and sports, you aren't really going to get a well-educated mass of people prepared to join the workforce. Hell, I'm 22 and I couldn't hope to retire after spending 40 years with the same company. That's some sad **** right there if you ask me.
I mean, I look at folks like my grandfather, who was in the Pacific in WWII and I really wonder what he sees when he looks at the world now. The way he lived his life is not possible anymore - largely due to the lack of any sort of corporate conscience, money in government, and the outsourcing epidemic as I see it.
I don't think it's a question of physical or legal barriers to reproduction. You won't find many cultures more insipid and sex-based than ours.We essentially raised these people to be stupid and sex-obsessed. What did you THINK was going to happen to them?
Doesn't help that our government is morally superior to the point that they think removing access to birth control and abortion (which I am in favor of allowing, just not a big supporter of in practice) will just make "those people" stop having babies.
Logic 101 would be a nice starting point for official office.
Oct 07, 2005 10:48 am damn I only took Intro To Logic in college... :)
Oct 07, 2005 10:52 am Did anyone stop to think about the implications to the gay community on this? I know there are many of you out there that have your own personal opinions of same sex relationships, and their raising of children (hope this isn't a can of worms I'm opening), but I think this proposed law is a thinly veiled attack against same sex parents.
Think about it, you can't have a child unless you're married, and same sex marriage is not recognized. Also, to have IV fertilization, you have to be married, and the sperm needs to come from "your husband." That just about kills the whole idea of a child for a gay/lesbian couple.
It would absolutely prevent same sex couples from having children.
People that abuse their children, or have too many children to properly feed (also a form of abuse), should be prevented from having further children. However, a loving, safe home should not be prevented from having children just because a few lawmakers have strong opinions. How can they say that a non-married couple, with a safe, loving home, is unfit for children? Straight or gay, a good home is a good home. A certificate of marriage does not give you any better qualifications to raise children. Are they saying that a quicky, drive-by wedding in Vegas suddenly prepares you better for parenthood?
I don't know what these lawmakers are thinking, but they're wrong to even try this one.
Oct 07, 2005 10:54 am ever heard of adoption?
That said, I see your point tho...
Oct 07, 2005 11:38 am I think it's a double-edged knife really. I think it's a very dangerous precedent for control into a couple's privacy and it's also definitely angled to prevent homosexuals from having children.
We can get into any number of arguments about separation of church and state in the constitution (I think the strongest argument is that it's not guaranteed...unfortunately), but I think it just simplifies things. When god isn't on your side, you need to have real REASONS to justify your views... hard to imagine political debate with those involved. =P
Granted, no offense to the religious/spiritual - I have no problem with those things, just the blind faith folks who think everyone else should be as unfailingly blind in theirs. Just seems that this issue wouldn't exist without religious polarization.
Oct 07, 2005 11:42 am I have no issue with what you said so long as you don't lump all people of faith into the "blind faith" category. There are many that just follow what rev. says just cuz he said it...but there are those that actually, study, know, understand and believe as well...
The legal system and social "norms" in any civilized country in the world is built around basic judeo-christian values, it's hard/impossible to totally separate the two.
Oct 07, 2005 12:22 pm Yeah, I know that's a sticky issue. If anybody's got any (reasonable) ideas for fixing the planet, I'll get behind them. =)
I should have been more clear about my views on religion/spirituality. I really don't have a problem at large with religion save that I think it fosters the more ridiculous variant on "blind faith." I really have no problem with what might be called "good" christians or what have you. I think there are good people of any given faith. Problem is, the more vocal segment, whether majority or not, is usually the livestock crowd.
Oct 07, 2005 12:25 pm Quote:
Problem is, the more vocal segment, whether majority or not, is usually the livestock crowd.
And from that crowd come most of the stereotypes and prejudice that people lay across the entire crowd that the livestock claims to represent.
Sad conundrum, eh?
Oct 07, 2005 12:43 pm Most assuredly. Wish it wasn't such a full time job avoiding gross generalization where it wasn't largely accurate.
I wish I had the money to hire PR and demographic specialists.
Oct 07, 2005 02:40 pm good point on the "If you are that poor, it is stupid and irresponsible to have kids you can not support"/public assistance statement, db.
Oct 07, 2005 02:40 pm i am not authorized to delete this (double) post.
Oct 07, 2005 02:43 pm damn, I am GOING to fix that bug this weekend.
Oct 14, 2005 04:40 pm Yeah, I just had a 2.5 hour convo/discussion with my professor how he can't stand it that these devout christian theologians so blindly mislead people (he's Catholic, I'm nondenominational Christian). I didn't really agree with the blindly/blatantly misleading comment, but I just let him go off.
Thankfully I can say that some of these theologians I've never heard of and can't say that they know what they're talking about, nor can I say that any of the catholic based writers he constantly quotes know what they're talking about either. I'm certainly not a blind faith person, I have a pretty good grasp of the bible and its implications, but I don't go shouting it out on the streets.
If that law was brought up to vote in my state, I'd probably vote for it.
Oct 14, 2005 05:24 pm When I was still in college I had a really good history prof who did a really good class on colonial catholicism and when he put souce documents into perspective it was rather funny... the Cathloic Church was all "Be nice, live a good life, tithe, etc and the world will convert on its own"... whereas it was the monarchs who were "convert or die" basically because of the basis of government... King derived their authority from God so if you didn't believe in God then there was no reason for the King to have authority... therefore forcefully converting people was basically like dealing with a rebellion.
Oct 14, 2005 05:28 pm Haha, that's pretty funny. It's funny too, because my professor sort of has the "convert or die" approach to the whole thing. Yet when I ask him specific questions, he always refers to this "wonderful book" that such and such wrote that is 700+ pages long that explains the question.
Can you say Ben Stiller "meet the parents" type of overexplanations? lol...
Oct 14, 2005 05:55 pm Thats typically the problem with people that feel obligated to judge others and spread the word...they try to sell others on the Bible, with the Bible...and if the person doesn't believe in the Bible, then why would they care? It's a catch 22...
Personally I like the adage "Preach the Word always, use words only when necessary"...lotsa truth in that...live it, don't speak it...
Oct 14, 2005 08:13 pm according to newsweek you know who kind of does that well? the mormons. i dont know if they try to convert very much, but they seem to 'live the word' by helping people and being big on charity and setting an example, etc.
i agree with hugo chavez, who this week told the christian missionaries to 'get out.' these missionaries are trying to convert indigenous indians. i hate that.
Oct 16, 2005 01:12 pm Hey if passions have run high after a drink or two there is a new solution sweeping the UK,its the morning after pill for men! You just take one and it completly changes your dna.
Oct 16, 2005 04:46 pm HAHAHAHA...... wow!
Oct 17, 2005 12:00 am I do think there is an issue in NZ, and perhaps the world... Sounds very "right wing" but, i do beleive that the wrong types of people are having more babies. The business people/hardworkers are having less children as they are placing their careers in first position till they have enough and have built a "foundation" to have children (often later in life, and these days almost too late for their body clocks), and here in NZ, the people on the "dole" or "dpb" (public assistance paid by the government) are having more children (and on top of that, they get more if they have more kids) because they have nothing better to do, and do not have to work. The dole is not time limitied here in NZ. There are generations of people on it.
The french have it right with their new law encouraging the paying of working/ business woman mothers to have kids, because otherwise they don't because it's too difficult for them to put a hold on their careers to do so... The kids that come from these families are more likely to have a harder working ethic because of their hard
working parents.
uh oh, I better stop talking politics. It alwasy gets me in trouble. Ihave these rose tinted glasses, and people always think my viewpoints are very niave. I'll stop now.
Oct 17, 2005 02:37 am it seems that the economically disadvantaged always have more kids. its just the way it is. dont know if theres anything you can do to reverse it. its a natural thing.
Oct 17, 2005 10:32 am The economically disadvantaged don't have steady jobs so they stay at home and rattle the walls.... so to speak. =)
Oct 17, 2005 11:32 am If you hear this in your studio get a live recording and do the right thing, send it to the sex police as evidence!
Oct 17, 2005 12:07 pm All my roommates are computer science, engineers or engineers in training. I don't think they qualify as economically disadvantaged... yet. =)
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.