Should People Need a Permit to Raise a Child? - Page 4

David Wain, Thomas Lennon, Kerri Kenney and friends couldn't be any worse, anyway. I'd watch the hell out of that show.

Compared to my mother she's a saint. My mother would be dropping F'bombs with a belt in one hand dealing with that group. I love my mom and all and she did a good job raising 4 kids but if she ever wrote a book about parenting it'd be entitled "Foot in the Ass: Don't Give 'Em An Inch"

It's not just teenagers. Trust me. No, I have no children.

That was just an example. Sort of the worst-case, but sadly common, scenario in that adults tend to have more autonomy and resources at hand in dealing with unplanned pregnancy than teenagers.

Permit to Raise a Child, most of the problems with it have been brought up, but in the end no one would qualify, or should be qualified. Also the ideal of original sin, and I do not mean in it in any religious since either. There is an old Jewish saying about the sins of the parent or father being passed on to the 7th generation. What this mean is that the mistakes of one generation are passed on to the next and so on down the line forever.

Also I am in the camp that the world is doomed. If the world last another 100 years that 100% proof there is a God. Humanity technological knowledge simple is out stripping our emotional maturity level. At some point in the next fifty to one hundred we will destroy ourselves. It is in our nature to do so.

For you that believe that unrestricted Child birth will lead to IDIOCRACY! You are an idiot, because IDIOCRACY! has been the norm for the whole of human history. If you don't believe me read, Plato's Apology.

You're harshin' my buzz, eenin.

sorry

I actually disagree with this. Despite advances in technology, people are the same as they've always been. Invention is of human nature, not the destruction of everything - but discrimination, the destruction of certain humans, can be realized. I know of no movement to kill everybody, usually there is some elite race or class involved, though power can be be attempted to destroy them as well.

People have been lamenting progress for as long as people have existed. This is a conservative, uncreative mindset. And it will kill us all!

Well, the argument can be made that despite having such amazing communication tech at our fingertips, we've actually managed to push our fellow man further away, isolating ourselves behind the tech. See the true-life anti-social phenomena in Japan that inspired KAIRO for what I'm referring to.

Sure, but for the most (99.99%) part we have the same genes and want the same things as humans always have. You don't have to worry about man no longer being a social creature or no longer desiring children any time soon.

I am not so worry about governments destroying the world, but the lone 'gun man'. Technology is going to make it so a small group or lone person will have the same power as the US has now. Nuclear is just to costly, but some newer technology like Bio tech, or some technology of the future will not have said cost factors.

It's great that you're friend has taken up the cause but you have to remember two things:

1) It's strictly anecdotal. It's kind of like asking why all people with ALS haven't published works on Black Hole theory just because Stephen Hawking has. People like Dr Hawking and your friend are the exceptions not the rule.

2) The fact that such a foundation exists should tell you that not all adoptions are happy, easy affairs. People believe that adoption is a simple choice of yes/no but there's psychological and sociological implication that are staggering. Particularly if there's behavioural or physical issues with the child.

I'm not sure the stats on the US adoptions but I would bet any money that Latino and African American children are the most available for adoption and the least likely to actually be adopted.

I'd like to see a proper citation on this because it goes against all medical studies I have seen.

If they are saying that women over 35 who use fertility treatments then I can see it but other then that there is absolutely no medical reason for that to be accurate. (Unless the difference between 35 and 30 is very small and they stat is overstated)

ETA: I looked up the stats of multiple births. The rate of multiple births hasn't actually quadrupled recently, it steadied around 2004 after rising (3% a year) steadily since 1990. That's hardly a rate of quadrupling. Some one seems to have misinterpreted a stat somewhere. Or they were quoting the stats that were from the 1980s without looking at the new stats (triplets and higher multiples are actually on their way down). The stat from the eighties is misleading because that was the start of fertility treatments becoming more common so people who normally would have given up now had a chance to have biological children of their own so of course you see a spike.

Also, the stat that was quoted above was in relation to the fact that women over 35 are more likely to use fertility treatments not due to a natural occurrence.

Source

I should also add that because IVF and ICSI aren't covered by heath care (in Canada or the States) the government risks more multiple births. Because the patient gets charged by the procedure not by the amount of eggs/embryos implanted it makes more financial sense to do multiple embryos.

Ryan S,

I'll gladly concede to your expertise. My "but" in that quote of mine...
... was basically admission of not seeing the forest for the trees. And not really a rebuttal at all.

My company's health insurance does offer aid in the fertility area, but I'll admit to not looking further into it. And I'll also readily admit that the stats I quoted were not deeply researched.

eenin, your perspective to technology scares me a little. Yes, we have found more efficient ways of killing each other - but at the same time, invention is an aspect of humanity that separates us from apes, and I'd rather we try out nuclear power or some such things than deny our nature because there are lone nutcases.

We are in a catch 22 when technology is concerned. If we stop our technological advancement we are doomed, but if technology goes forward we are also most likely doomed. My bigger fear is that technology is the antifascist of freedom. You can already see that happening.

This thread is quite the potpourri of doom isn't it?

Video of woman dragging her kid on a leash through a store. I hope Child Services sees this and takes the kid away. What the fuck?!