Should prospective parents have to pass an examination before giving birth?
#26
Posted 13 June 2007 - 07:23 AM
it's all just a barked up ball of CRANBERRIES
#27
Posted 14 June 2007 - 06:53 PM
All the barkin retards on earth could fit in the state of texas several times over accomodating a large amount of square feet for each person to live in.
#28
Posted 14 June 2007 - 07:36 PM
Sure, the ones that are diagnosed. Hell, most of them already live here. But the undiagnosed ones, well... I expect as soon as China has a healthcare revolution, we'll see a few million pop up without a problem.
#29
Posted 19 June 2007 - 12:35 PM
#30
Posted 19 June 2007 - 12:50 PM
Yes because we all know that people aren't going to have sex until they pass this test.
#31
Posted 22 June 2007 - 09:40 PM
All 6 and a half billion people can fit in Texas. It'd be crowded and shitty like New York City, but its possible.
#32
Posted 28 August 2007 - 02:52 PM
what about blind people?
what about dixlexic people?
#33
Posted 21 July 2012 - 12:52 AM
Is it morally justified to take away their right to reproduce? If so, at what point is it justified. Who would decide whether or not they have the basic right of child-rearing taken away? Consequences?
#34
Posted 21 July 2012 - 06:01 AM
#35
Posted 22 July 2012 - 11:27 PM
#36
Posted 23 July 2012 - 12:54 AM
I don't care if it's moral or not, I support it either way.
#37
Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:07 AM
You shouldnt be having 7 abortions.
Why not?
#38
Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:09 AM
#39
Posted 23 July 2012 - 08:55 PM
Vasectomies and tube tying are perfectly standardized outpatient procedures. I see no reason why the state shouldn't offer them free of charge to anyone that wants one. Put some sperm in a sperm bank and fucking snip that shit.
It would even keep the religious nuts happy - it would cut down on abortions
#40 Guest_coltom_*
Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:05 PM
Seven is a lucky number?Why not?
#41
Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:06 PM
Criminals. The mentally retarded or unstable. Potential parents deemed 'unfit'.
Is it morally justified to take away their right to reproduce? If so, at what point is it justified. Who would decide whether or not they have the basic right of child-rearing taken away? Consequences?
Just a little nitpicky thing BUT
You are not taking away someone's RIGHT to reproduce, you are taking away their ABILITY to reproduce. Forcibly removing the ability for someone to fulfill their basic human rights (which are relative, I know, but still) is immoral regardless of the reason.
On the flip side, if you actually did take away the right to reproduce, that wouldn't stop it from happening.
#42
Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:09 PM
Hence China.On the flip side, if you actually did take away the right to reproduce, that wouldn't stop it from happening.
#43
Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:14 PM
But forcing retards or rapists to undergo such a procedure would be just as bad as telling women they shouldn't be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The only person who should have control over our your own body is yourself.
this, perfectly said.
also, mentally disabled people can generate completely normal children, as well as rapists or murderers. the question is if they can raise them or not, and that's a whole different matter.
Edited by rachelsaurus, 23 July 2012 - 09:15 PM.
#44
Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:30 PM
#45
Posted 23 July 2012 - 11:00 PM
#46
Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:30 AM
Hence China.
Fun fact: If China didn't enforce the one child policy, world population would have hit 9 billion by now. People breed like rodents. There has to be a limit somewhere.
#47
Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:57 AM
.Fun fact: If China didn't enforce the one child policy, world population would have hit 9 billion by now. People breed like rodents. There has to be a limit somewhere.
I could understand why they had to before when they didn't have modern medicine and most of their kids died before adulthood. Nowadays, people just want kids. I disagree with allowing anyone other than yourself to make decisions about your body, because only you should have that power. That power can be very easily misused and abused if placed in anyone else's hands.
On another note, it's also unfair that humans are urged to spay and neuter their pets, especially if it's immoral to force humans to lose the ability to procreate. Humans also kill unwanted animals with no consequences unless they horrendously physically abuse the poor creatures (my neighbour got a vet to euthanize all his puppies, a girl I knew drowned her newborn kittens), or they kill animals that are overpopulating an area like rabbits or hares (or just kill them for sport!), but humans have the right to not be treated the way they treat other living creatures. I saw that Family Guy episode today, where Brian ran over someone's pet, and everyone laughed and told him that life was worth nothing. Humans are allowed to choose to keep their reproductive organs intact. Humans are overpopulating the earth but you can bet there won't be anyone killing people to reduce that. Only humans have rights apparently. Utter hypocrisy.
Do the pets tell you that they want to be spayed or neutered? Of course not, you're doing it without their consent, and without their knowledge until it happens. Is it immoral to take away your dog's or your cat's ability to reproduce? Are you violating his/her rights to reproduce? Are humans more entitled to rights than any other living beings? I remember Bob Barker always reminding us to get our pets spayed and neutered after each episode of The Price is Right. This entire thing brings to mind this quote: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
#48
Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:11 AM
#49
Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:33 AM
#50
Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:13 AM
Overpopulation could be curbed by people reproducing responsibly. One child per family isn't bad, neither is two. But people are going nuts over that restriction, and not registering their kids, or they're waiting for another one to come along and then registering them as twins (found that gem on CNN the other day with respect to China). People want more and more kids, or they inevitably get more and more if they don't have access to proper birth control. Their breeding doesn't have go out of control as long as they use common sense and birth control. The common sense is what's sorely lacking, along with access to birth control in some areas, but when you start allowing other people to make decisions about your body, you're going to find that a lot of freedoms you take for granted may just start disappearing. Rather than sterilizing people, the one child per family is a great place to start, with fines/jail time if you decide to go over the limit. That will probably get more people to be more responsible about their methods of birth control as well.
That isn't good either. One child per family means an overall shrinking population. You also have to realize this is also a problem due to stage 2+3 countries with a ridiculously high birth rate and a declining death rate. There are a multitude of factors in overpopulation and it isn't a band-aid fix.
I still do think a better solution would be to only let adults who are capable parents reproduce and not just anyone.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users