Marriage

@Kakapo Well I'd never tried pegging before and I didn't fancy it. Plus you have a smelly arse.

ekek

  On 9/26/2014 at 5:10 PM, MadameChaos said:

@Kakapo Well I'd never tried pegging before and I didn't fancy it. Plus you have a smelly arse.

How dare you. It gets shampoo'd at least once a day. And regular clagnut removal sessions with the nail clippers. You are this close to getting banned. I'm like a son to Joyrex.

one of my co-workers is married to a 6'2" tranny with huge implants.

  On 9/26/2014 at 5:36 PM, kakapo said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 5:10 PM, MadameChaos said:

@Kakapo Well I'd never tried pegging before and I didn't fancy it. Plus you have a smelly arse.

How dare you. It gets shampoo'd at least once a day. And regular clagnut removal sessions with the nail clippers. You are this close to getting banned. I'm like a son to Joyrex.

  On 9/26/2014 at 4:32 PM, MadameChaos said:

Ah that's sweet. Tbh to me marriage is a lot like bungee jumping. It's fine for other people to do it if that's how they want to live their lives, but I can't think if any reason why I should do it.

Ain't no problem with that at all.

Fuck, I'd never go bungee jumping, though. Not with my luck.

  On 9/26/2014 at 3:18 PM, apriorion said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 7:28 AM, Gocab said:

I wrote a long ass reply to that but nobody needs to waste their time reading it, so instead: You're wrong, the world is amazing, life is a gift.

 

Fair enough. To be honest, I very violently shift between your view and the one I'm defending in this thread. But to make things very clear before anyone tries to attack me personally again on the basis of words I write on the Internet (because I used a word "adopt", whatever): I actually have a son, whom I adopted. He's older now (basically, he's an adult), and I'm relatively old. My time for kids is pretty much done. But it was a very conscious decision on my part to not introduce a person to this world, especially when there are kids who could use a supportive home but who don't have that. But here are reasons to not have kids:

--the world is going to hell: the environment is only going to get worse

--if overpopulation is not a problem now, it will be soon enough

--governments are gaining more an more power over their people: NSA, data-mining, etc.

--nuclear weapons are still a real issue; I'm surprised that people think this was only a fear in the 70s and 80s

--corporations hoard all the money, and they will continue to do so (self-interest, etc.)

--related: the gap between the rich and the poor is disturbingly increasing, with no hope of this changing in the future

--the story of complex life is a story of strife and intense suffering: sure, some organisms propagate their genetic material successfully, but to get to this point, it's war, plain and simple; this will never change

--social pressures tend to favor ignorant, oppressive masses: so either your kid will be virtuous-but-shit-upon by everyone else or just another one of the people-from-walmart; but who doesn't hope that their child grows up to embody virtue?

 

What are the reasons to introduce a new person into this world?

--sometimes we have fun

--occassionally there are moments of brilliance that we can share

--there is a slim probability that you and your offspring can "fight the good fight" and actually (ahem) make the world a better place; seriously, good luck

 

Is that about it? I'm not trying to commit a straw man here, so if you've got some others, please help me out. So far, the reasons against seem to heavily outweigh the reasons for having children, and not just because of the numbers, but because each item on the "against" side are much heavier. That is why, actually, I completely agree with sheatheman: you should try to make the best of the situation we have here and adopt a kid who has already been brought into the world. That's already happened, but you have a choice here between needlessly populating the world with half-copies of yourself, or helping someone who already needs all the help they can get in this fucked-up place. A Sisyphean task, to be sure, but that's life.

 

awesome post

Marriage is an appealing idea to me because I'm tired of people leaving, or of me leaving people. The idea of having one person who will be in my life for a huge amount of time, most likely until I die since my predicted lifespan is shorter, sounds great to me. I've lived in a few countries and I'm tired of my friends leaving, or me leaving them, but half the time it's not even because of moving. Life is just kind of like that.

Then again, I guarantee that as an active member of a Protestant church I probably have one of the most traditional views on marriage of this forum.

Marriage should not be a wing clipping exercise or a way to increase status. It should be more about the idea that you've decided to make a commitment to them rather than a "now you can never leave me!" type thing. Amarite?

right

  On 9/26/2014 at 11:08 PM, Kavinsky said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 3:18 PM, apriorion said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 7:28 AM, Gocab said:

I wrote a long ass reply to that but nobody needs to waste their time reading it, so instead: You're wrong, the world is amazing, life is a gift.

 

Fair enough. To be honest, I very violently shift between your view and the one I'm defending in this thread. But to make things very clear before anyone tries to attack me personally again on the basis of words I write on the Internet (because I used a word "adopt", whatever): I actually have a son, whom I adopted. He's older now (basically, he's an adult), and I'm relatively old. My time for kids is pretty much done. But it was a very conscious decision on my part to not introduce a person to this world, especially when there are kids who could use a supportive home but who don't have that. But here are reasons to not have kids:

--the world is going to hell: the environment is only going to get worse

--if overpopulation is not a problem now, it will be soon enough

--governments are gaining more an more power over their people: NSA, data-mining, etc.

--nuclear weapons are still a real issue; I'm surprised that people think this was only a fear in the 70s and 80s

--corporations hoard all the money, and they will continue to do so (self-interest, etc.)

--related: the gap between the rich and the poor is disturbingly increasing, with no hope of this changing in the future

--the story of complex life is a story of strife and intense suffering: sure, some organisms propagate their genetic material successfully, but to get to this point, it's war, plain and simple; this will never change

--social pressures tend to favor ignorant, oppressive masses: so either your kid will be virtuous-but-shit-upon by everyone else or just another one of the people-from-walmart; but who doesn't hope that their child grows up to embody virtue?

 

What are the reasons to introduce a new person into this world?

--sometimes we have fun

--occassionally there are moments of brilliance that we can share

--there is a slim probability that you and your offspring can "fight the good fight" and actually (ahem) make the world a better place; seriously, good luck

 

Is that about it? I'm not trying to commit a straw man here, so if you've got some others, please help me out. So far, the reasons against seem to heavily outweigh the reasons for having children, and not just because of the numbers, but because each item on the "against" side are much heavier. That is why, actually, I completely agree with sheatheman: you should try to make the best of the situation we have here and adopt a kid who has already been brought into the world. That's already happened, but you have a choice here between needlessly populating the world with half-copies of yourself, or helping someone who already needs all the help they can get in this fucked-up place. A Sisyphean task, to be sure, but that's life.

 

awesome post

 

  On 9/27/2014 at 12:54 PM, chartnok said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 11:08 PM, Kavinsky said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 3:18 PM, apriorion said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 7:28 AM, Gocab said:

I wrote a long ass reply to that but nobody needs to waste their time reading it, so instead: You're wrong, the world is amazing, life is a gift.

 

Fair enough. To be honest, I very violently shift between your view and the one I'm defending in this thread. But to make things very clear before anyone tries to attack me personally again on the basis of words I write on the Internet (because I used a word "adopt", whatever): I actually have a son, whom I adopted. He's older now (basically, he's an adult), and I'm relatively old. My time for kids is pretty much done. But it was a very conscious decision on my part to not introduce a person to this world, especially when there are kids who could use a supportive home but who don't have that. But here are reasons to not have kids:

--the world is going to hell: the environment is only going to get worse

--if overpopulation is not a problem now, it will be soon enough

--governments are gaining more an more power over their people: NSA, data-mining, etc.

--nuclear weapons are still a real issue; I'm surprised that people think this was only a fear in the 70s and 80s

--corporations hoard all the money, and they will continue to do so (self-interest, etc.)

--related: the gap between the rich and the poor is disturbingly increasing, with no hope of this changing in the future

--the story of complex life is a story of strife and intense suffering: sure, some organisms propagate their genetic material successfully, but to get to this point, it's war, plain and simple; this will never change

--social pressures tend to favor ignorant, oppressive masses: so either your kid will be virtuous-but-shit-upon by everyone else or just another one of the people-from-walmart; but who doesn't hope that their child grows up to embody virtue?

 

What are the reasons to introduce a new person into this world?

--sometimes we have fun

--occassionally there are moments of brilliance that we can share

--there is a slim probability that you and your offspring can "fight the good fight" and actually (ahem) make the world a better place; seriously, good luck

 

Is that about it? I'm not trying to commit a straw man here, so if you've got some others, please help me out. So far, the reasons against seem to heavily outweigh the reasons for having children, and not just because of the numbers, but because each item on the "against" side are much heavier. That is why, actually, I completely agree with sheatheman: you should try to make the best of the situation we have here and adopt a kid who has already been brought into the world. That's already happened, but you have a choice here between needlessly populating the world with half-copies of yourself, or helping someone who already needs all the help they can get in this fucked-up place. A Sisyphean task, to be sure, but that's life.

 

awesome post

 

 

 

But yeah.

  On 9/28/2014 at 5:53 AM, melancholera said:

 

  On 9/27/2014 at 12:54 PM, chartnok said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 11:08 PM, Kavinsky said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 3:18 PM, apriorion said:

 

  On 9/26/2014 at 7:28 AM, Gocab said:

I wrote a long ass reply to that but nobody needs to waste their time reading it, so instead: You're wrong, the world is amazing, life is a gift.

 

Fair enough. To be honest, I very violently shift between your view and the one I'm defending in this thread. But to make things very clear before anyone tries to attack me personally again on the basis of words I write on the Internet (because I used a word "adopt", whatever): I actually have a son, whom I adopted. He's older now (basically, he's an adult), and I'm relatively old. My time for kids is pretty much done. But it was a very conscious decision on my part to not introduce a person to this world, especially when there are kids who could use a supportive home but who don't have that. But here are reasons to not have kids:

--the world is going to hell: the environment is only going to get worse

--if overpopulation is not a problem now, it will be soon enough

--governments are gaining more an more power over their people: NSA, data-mining, etc.

--nuclear weapons are still a real issue; I'm surprised that people think this was only a fear in the 70s and 80s

--corporations hoard all the money, and they will continue to do so (self-interest, etc.)

--related: the gap between the rich and the poor is disturbingly increasing, with no hope of this changing in the future

--the story of complex life is a story of strife and intense suffering: sure, some organisms propagate their genetic material successfully, but to get to this point, it's war, plain and simple; this will never change

--social pressures tend to favor ignorant, oppressive masses: so either your kid will be virtuous-but-shit-upon by everyone else or just another one of the people-from-walmart; but who doesn't hope that their child grows up to embody virtue?

 

What are the reasons to introduce a new person into this world?

--sometimes we have fun

--occassionally there are moments of brilliance that we can share

--there is a slim probability that you and your offspring can "fight the good fight" and actually (ahem) make the world a better place; seriously, good luck

 

Is that about it? I'm not trying to commit a straw man here, so if you've got some others, please help me out. So far, the reasons against seem to heavily outweigh the reasons for having children, and not just because of the numbers, but because each item on the "against" side are much heavier. That is why, actually, I completely agree with sheatheman: you should try to make the best of the situation we have here and adopt a kid who has already been brought into the world. That's already happened, but you have a choice here between needlessly populating the world with half-copies of yourself, or helping someone who already needs all the help they can get in this fucked-up place. A Sisyphean task, to be sure, but that's life.

 

awesome post

 

 

agreed it's a good defense of that point of view, and congratulations on taking the plunge into adoption.

the only ones who will fix the problems we've gotten ourselves into are...people

replacement rate for current population is 2.something, so if you have two kids or less you aren't contributing to population growth

we have evolved to find parenthood satisfying, and moreover, imo it does mature you and give you a perspective you wouldn't have otherwise (doesn't have to be biological tho, could be adopted as per the above post)

i decided I wanted the experience, and I think my genes are pretty good, plenty of clever people in my family, no real hereditary diseases (mental or physical) I'm aware of - so I'd like my gene pool to persist. But I've had my two, and I don't plan to have more than that, as much as I would like to. I consider more than 2 kids unethical.

If I don't pass on these genes, call the cops cuz that's a crime, b.

2 kids lumpy! Didn't realize. Congrats again.

Thanks for adopting apriorion. It's not done enough and it seems incredibly hard. It's a noble thing.

But the list you made sounds like a depressed person's reasons for not doing anything. I'm not saying you're depressed, or even that you're wrong (I agree with many items). But just because we're in a weird spot in time doesn't mean you shouldn't live the best life you can. On the contrary, I believe that carving out your own world of love and sanity is the thing that will change the world for the better. I think that most people want the best for everyone (debatable, I know, but on the average) and that living a life you love, for most people, would include doing the best they can for those around them.

So I think that having a life you love is the most revolutionary thing you can do, and if that means raising your bio-kids, so be it. Maybe I'm a bad person but I'm fairly sure I wouldn't love anybody as much as my daughter. I would rather give her a good life than someone else a bad one, thus perpetuating the cycle of sadness.

Much respect though and thanks again for taking that on. I have wished that I was built with that strength, but I also have accepted that I don't think I am.

  On 9/26/2014 at 3:59 PM, BCM said:

lol thanks! i proposed in june and she said yes :)

fuckin a! i can imagine you down on bended knee making that shit-eating grin face you get whilst drunk off appletinis on a business account!!

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I didn't mean to make this about me personally, but I just wanted to show that I'm not just talking here. I try to direct my life according to some rational plans, since there are enough chaotic influences beyond my control, so I try to make the stuff that's within my control as reasonable and ethical as possible. And again, I'm just about done with the parenting thing, actually. I adopted my son when he was very young, and now he's just about an adult. I hope that I've added more happiness to his life than he would have had otherwise, but counterfactuals like that are hard to evaluate, and it is possible to worry too much about that sort of thing.

Specific responses:

A/D: you might be right about my psychological state of mind. I actually think that my emotional situation is a bit more complicated, given my family history, but it's all good. The important thing is that sometimes depressed people are right, and that's all I'm concerned with--what is the moral truth of the matter? Is it morally right to produce your own new children or not? If not, why not?

Also, I want to stress that I'm not judging people for having kids, at least not in this sense: I'm not saying that you're a "bad person" or anything along those lines. Actually, I don't believe that there are "bad people" exactly. I believe that we are cogs in a very large machine, and notions of "responsibility" or "moral standing" rely on outdated notions of human freedom (or "free will", BAH) that recent theories of hard incompatibilism have convincingly shown to be silly. Instead, I think we can view some actions as "bad" or "good", in a sense, and this means that the "bad" actions should be prevented and their effects should be minimized in much the same way that diseases should be contained and minimized. People should really abandon the urge to "blame" and instead look forward to methods for improving the world as much as we can. That's about. I'm not judging anyone, since that doesn't really help. If you've had kids already, no worries--that doesn't change the fact that more people don't need to be introduced into the world, though, for various reasons.

lumpenprol: I agree that it's bad to produce more than three kids, but we have to be careful about the evolutionary arguments. Just because something is evolutionary hard-wired doesn't make it best. Perhaps appreciating the evolutionary story can help us appreciate the drive behind it, but I subscribe to the view that humans are quite plastic, so perhaps that can be genetically, neurophysiologically, or sociologically altered over time (perhaps generations) so that people only reproduce to the optimum amount. I don't know. But I do know this: there other other reasons to not produce kids, as sheatheman pointed out earlier in the thread in response to me: there are tons of miserable human proto-people (children) in this world who would be better off raised by loving parents. Seriously, the adoption system in the US is pretty fucked up. I can't speak for other places around the world, but I've seen lots of potentially great parents end up unable to adopt because of red tape, and kids end up in shitty circumstances as a result, with doubtless shitty lives ahead of them. Anyway, there are more reasons to adopt than the overpopulation thing. I actually have some very radical views about some of this stuff, which is all part of a view that I thought most people would find offensive. I'm actually surprised that I wasn't getting yelled out of this thread because of the things I've said already. But here's some more (let's see how much it takes until you guys hate my guts): I've been arguing for years and years that there should be a mandatory sterilization program for young men using reversible vasectomies (at whatever early age would be most appropriate for this: I'd guess around five or something). Then, when a young man is able and willing, he and his partner can apply for a "parenting license" and have the sterilization reversed. Why? Here are some reasons:

--again, the overpopulation thing, but that's not all:

--there are so many bad parents who have children already accidentally; let's prevent this if we can

--young adult families should seriously consider adopting the kids who are left without a family before producing their own; a system like this might help encourage that thought first (for the kids who end up orphans or whatever)

Some objections and my replies:

--objection: wouldn't this be basically a form of "new eugenics"? reply: not with a system of proper oversight to ensure that everyone who is capable (regardless of race, socioeconomic status, etc.) is able to reproduce if the population can sustain it

--objection: wouldn't a system of forced sterilization make your point about adoption moot, since there will be no leftover kids to adopt? reply: for the most part, probably, but not entirely, since some parents will die and some kids will be left without a home.

--objection: isn't it everyone's right to reproduce? reply: short answer, no; abusive parents don't have a right to children--if we're interested in preventing serious harm to people, a very important place to examine is where people are raised, since many people are irreversibly harmed by very bad parenting (and I'm not talking about mild damage from relatively comfortable suburban parents; I'm talking about preventing the very bad cases).

--objection: isn't this tantamount to requiring a test for something that shouldn't have a test? reply: there already is a test, whether you like it or not. The test we currently have for parenting is: are you capable of fucking? If so, here you go, you get a kid whether you want it or not, according to a biological lottery. That's a stupid test. We should do better.

  On 9/28/2014 at 6:40 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

 

replacement rate for current population is 2.something, so if you have two kids or less you aren't contributing to population growth

The math isn't that simple. You also have to factor in how young you are when you have kids. Young parents are going to overlap more with their children and grandchildren (in terms of when they are alive), and this contributes to population growth as well.

Long story short, if you want a lot of kids, and you don't want to contribute to population growth, start having kids when you're older.

  On 9/28/2014 at 6:36 PM, apriorion said:

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I didn't mean to make this about me personally, but I just wanted to show that I'm not just talking here. I try to direct my life according to some rational plans, since there are enough chaotic influences beyond my control, so I try to make the stuff that's within my control as reasonable and ethical as possible. And again, I'm just about done with the parenting thing, actually. I adopted my son when he was very young, and now he's just about an adult. I hope that I've added more happiness to his life than he would have had otherwise, but counterfactuals like that are hard to evaluate, and it is possible to worry too much about that sort of thing.

Specific responses:

A/D: you might be right about my psychological state of mind. I actually think that my emotional situation is a bit more complicated, given my family history, but it's all good. The important thing is that sometimes depressed people are right, and that's all I'm concerned with--what is the moral truth of the matter? Is it morally right to produce your own new children or not? If not, why not?

Also, I want to stress that I'm not judging people for having kids, at least not in this sense: I'm not saying that you're a "bad person" or anything along those lines. Actually, I don't believe that there are "bad people" exactly. I believe that we are cogs in a very large machine, and notions of "responsibility" or "moral standing" rely on outdated notions of human freedom (or "free will", BAH) that recent theories of hard incompatibilism have convincingly shown to be silly. Instead, I think we can view some actions as "bad" or "good", in a sense, and this means that the "bad" actions should be prevented and their effects should be minimized in much the same way that diseases should be contained and minimized. People should really abandon the urge to "blame" and instead look forward to methods for improving the world as much as we can. That's about. I'm not judging anyone, since that doesn't really help. If you've had kids already, no worries--that doesn't change the fact that more people don't need to be introduced into the world, though, for various reasons.

lumpenprol: I agree that it's bad to produce more than three kids, but we have to be careful about the evolutionary arguments. Just because something is evolutionary hard-wired doesn't make it best. Perhaps appreciating the evolutionary story can help us appreciate the drive behind it, but I subscribe to the view that humans are quite plastic, so perhaps that can be genetically, neurophysiologically, or sociologically altered over time (perhaps generations) so that people only reproduce to the optimum amount. I don't know. But I do know this: there other other reasons to not produce kids, as sheatheman pointed out earlier in the thread in response to me: there are tons of miserable human proto-people (children) in this world who would be better off raised by loving parents. Seriously, the adoption system in the US is pretty fucked up. I can't speak for other places around the world, but I've seen lots of potentially great parents end up unable to adopt because of red tape, and kids end up in shitty circumstances as a result, with doubtless shitty lives ahead of them. Anyway, there are more reasons to adopt than the overpopulation thing. I actually have some very radical views about some of this stuff, which is all part of a view that I thought most people would find offensive. I'm actually surprised that I wasn't getting yelled out of this thread because of the things I've said already. But here's some more (let's see how much it takes until you guys hate my guts): I've been arguing for years and years that there should be a mandatory sterilization program for young men using reversible vasectomies (at whatever early age would be most appropriate for this: I'd guess around five or something). Then, when a young man is able and willing, he and his partner can apply for a "parenting license" and have the sterilization reversed. Why? Here are some reasons:

--again, the overpopulation thing, but that's not all:

--there are so many bad parents who have children already accidentally; let's prevent this if we can

--young adult families should seriously consider adopting the kids who are left without a family before producing their own; a system like this might help encourage that thought first (for the kids who end up orphans or whatever)

Some objections and my replies:

--objection: wouldn't this be basically a form of "new eugenics"? reply: not with a system of proper oversight to ensure that everyone who is capable (regardless of race, socioeconomic status, etc.) is able to reproduce if the population can sustain it

--objection: wouldn't a system of forced sterilization make your point about adoption moot, since there will be no leftover kids to adopt? reply: for the most part, probably, but not entirely, since some parents will die and some kids will be left without a home.

--objection: isn't it everyone's right to reproduce? reply: short answer, no; abusive parents don't have a right to children--if we're interested in preventing serious harm to people, a very important place to examine is where people are raised, since many people are irreversibly harmed by very bad parenting (and I'm not talking about mild damage from relatively comfortable suburban parents; I'm talking about preventing the very bad cases).

--objection: isn't this tantamount to requiring a test for something that shouldn't have a test? reply: there already is a test, whether you like it or not. The test we currently have for parenting is: are you capable of fucking? If so, here you go, you get a kid whether you want it or not, according to a biological lottery. That's a stupid test. We should do better.

there's no such thing as a "system of proper oversight" for systematically sterilizing your population. giving a government control of their citizens' bodies can only lead to negative consequences. what you're basically suggesting is prohibition of reproduction, and we can all see how well prohibition worked for drugs. imagine an illegal black market for children, because that's what totalitarian rubbish like your proposal would lead to.

also, vasectomies often cannot be reversed so that's even more fucked. and for my final point, abusive parents are sometimes difficult to spot. where would your test even draw the line for abusive versus self-indulgent narcissist, for example? it seems pointless to test people for access to reproductive rights when the government could be spending time and manpower on providing people with a higher quality of living (less stress -> less frustrated parents -> more likely to put up with junior's shit) and educating people on proper parenting methods, like the efficacy positive reinforcement compared to punishment.

  On 9/29/2014 at 4:44 AM, Hoodie said:

 

 

 

there's no such thing as a "system of proper oversight" for systematically sterilizing your population. giving a government control of their citizens' bodies can only lead to negative consequences. what you're basically suggesting is prohibition of reproduction, and we can all see how well prohibition worked for drugs. imagine an illegal black market for children, because that's what totalitarian rubbish like your proposal would lead to.

 

also, vasectomies often cannot be reversed so that's even more fucked. and for my final point, abusive parents are sometimes difficult to spot. where would your test even draw the line for abusive versus self-indulgent narcissist, for example? it seems pointless to test people for access to reproductive rights when the government could be spending time and manpower on providing people with a higher quality of living (less stress -> less frustrated parents -> more likely to put up with junior's shit) and educating people on proper parenting methods, like the efficacy positive reinforcement compared to punishment.

 

Calling a point of view with which you disagree "rubbish" is a good way to have a civlized, rational debate.

Your analogy is very good, too: because drugs and children are so similar. Good job. Let's see, drugs give you an escape from your current miserable situation, and kids ... don't do that. They're a huge responsibility, and granted, some people want that and can appreciate the joys that come from a healthy relationship that results from a parent that can live up to those responsibilities, but from what I see, many people don't have such great relationships with their parents or children. So, actually, when I think about it, your is not that good.

Yeah but your idea sounds like China only more sinister.

  On 9/29/2014 at 5:24 AM, apriorion said:

 

  On 9/29/2014 at 4:44 AM, Hoodie said:

 

 

 

there's no such thing as a "system of proper oversight" for systematically sterilizing your population. giving a government control of their citizens' bodies can only lead to negative consequences. what you're basically suggesting is prohibition of reproduction, and we can all see how well prohibition worked for drugs. imagine an illegal black market for children, because that's what totalitarian rubbish like your proposal would lead to.

 

also, vasectomies often cannot be reversed so that's even more fucked. and for my final point, abusive parents are sometimes difficult to spot. where would your test even draw the line for abusive versus self-indulgent narcissist, for example? it seems pointless to test people for access to reproductive rights when the government could be spending time and manpower on providing people with a higher quality of living (less stress -> less frustrated parents -> more likely to put up with junior's shit) and educating people on proper parenting methods, like the efficacy positive reinforcement compared to punishment.

 

 

Calling a point of view with which you disagree "rubbish" is a good way to have a civlized, rational debate.

 

Your analogy is very good, too: because drugs and children are so similar. Good job. Let's see, drugs give you an escape from your current miserable situation, and kids ... don't do that. They're a huge responsibility, and granted, some people want that and can appreciate the joys that come from a healthy relationship that results from a parent that can live up to those responsibilities, but from what I see, many people don't have such great relationships with their parents or children. So, actually, when I think about it, your is not that good.

 

yeah, i don't need your tone policing. my analogy is fine, because both are products that are in-demand, so restricting access to them creates illegal black market. remember, procreating is a natural drive. that's where being "baby crazy" comes from. it can be the same strength as addiction, which is why you have women who once in a blue moon will cut open pregnant women and steal her baby.

but maybe it wouldn't be a baby black market, but a vasectomy black market? i suppose there would be a lot of gaps for the free market to fill if you have to get government permission to have a baby. that'll be awesome, adding another prohibited medical procedure to the list after abortion, since we might as well ban abortions since no one is going to get pregnant without government permission, and they'll want to keep the baby if they do.

of course, a baby black market would only work if it wasn't against the law to have kids without passing the test. this is the next natural step, because how can you enforce test taking for babies if there's no penalty for going around it? it would be pretty easy to make sure all kids are registered to parents who took the test once they hit public school age, so maybe you're right and there won't be a baby black market. if anyone had an illegal baby, they would just go to jail and their kid would get taken away, because we enforce laws with penalties.

and i'm assuming rich people will always get to have children, because they're the ones that run the goddamn government. that'll lead to great things, like a true underclass.

yeah, your idea isn't holding up. the american people might be having fewer children, but there's no way in hell they'd let the government cut open their kids so they can later make them pay $200 to take a test (cause you know that shit ain't gonna be free) so they can get permission for another surgery and to have a kid. americans on average have some startlingly retarded ideas, but thankfully nothing as bad as yours.

  On 9/29/2014 at 6:26 AM, Candiru said:

Yeah but your idea sounds like China only more sinister.

  On 9/29/2014 at 8:38 AM, MadameChaos said:

 

  On 9/29/2014 at 6:26 AM, Candiru said:

Yeah but your idea sounds like China only more sinister.

Indeed. And look how their strict 1 child policy worked out.

 

how did it work out?

Well, here is a brief summary.

There is a marked gradient across birth order: in rural areas, the sex ratio for the first birth is 1.05 (within normal limits), but it rises steeply with birth order. In urban areas, the sex ratio is 1.13 for the first birth and peaks at 1.30 for the second birth but decreases for the third and fourth births (which are rare in urban areas). The picture that emerges is that some urban Chinese make the choice to perform sex selection with the first pregnancy, since they are allowed only one child. In rural areas, most couples are permitted to have a second child, especially if the first is female. So if the second (or subsequent) child is female, the pregnancy often “disappears,” allowing the couple to have another child in an attempt to have a son.

What happens to all the missing girls is a matter of speculation. Sex-selective abortion after ultrasonography undoubtedly accounts for a large proportion of the decline in female births.20,21Actual figures are impossible to obtain, because sex-selective abortion is illegal but is known to be widely carried out, helped by a burgeoning private sector. Nonregistration of female births also contributes to the sex-ratio gap.14,15 A 1995 household survey carried out in three provinces found a normal sex ratio in the under-14 age group, with the actual number of girls exceeding the number registered by 22 percent.22 Although infanticide of girls is probably very rare now, less aggressive treatment of sick female infants is known to occur.23

The Chinese government has acknowledged the potentially disastrous social consequences of this sex imbalance. The shortage of women may have increased mental health problems and socially disruptive behavior among men and has left some men unable to marry and have a family.24 The scarcity of females has resulted in kidnapping and trafficking of women for marriage and increased numbers of commercial sex workers, with a potential resultant rise in human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases.25 There are fears that these consequences could be a real threat to China's stability in the future.26

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr051833