N.C. Woman Among 65,000 Sterilized by Gov't, Often Without Their Knowledge

[quote name='camoor']Read all of the thread! I only advocate sterilization of crackheads who have already had one child in this condtion. Nowhere would I ever suggest that sterialization of everyone who is poor should occur, I don't support fascist oligarchies.

Elprincipe called my idea to sterilize of crackheads who have already had one child in this condtion as something that could come straight out of Orwell's 1984 novel.

From now on, I will simply give you a RTFT.[/QUOTE]

I actually did read the entire thread. My point is that he posted a response to evilmax, specifically addressing the scenarios outlined in evilmax's post. You replied to this post as if it were a reply to yours, highlighting what he said and pulling it out of context.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']It's ok if you're poor, and it's ok if you're poor and have a child. If you have the resources to provide proper care for that child, then I have no problem with you at all.

It is not ok to be poor and have 11 children. Hell, it's not ok to have 11 children no matter what, as there is NO way you could give all of them the proper attention that they would need in order to mentally develop healthily.

I would use the word irresponsible for people that have more than 3 children (4 MAX, and that's pushing it), and that's me being nice. 11 is just out-and-out abuse.

Please note that this post wasn't meant to be an attack on you, which I'm sure it could easily be seen as. Just saying.[/QUOTE]

I just don't understand how you arrive at your numbers. It is true that not every parent can give children the love and attention they need, but I don't believe that there's any real way to quantify that. It's the adult's responsibility to gauge their own abilities and act accordingly. I just don't see how you can make blanket statements like that, and I'm interested in knowing the basis for your argument.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I just don't understand how you arrive at your numbers. It is true that not every parent can give children the love and attention they need, but I don't believe that there's any real way to quantify that. It's the adult's responsibility to gauge their own abilities and act accordingly. I just don't see how you can make blanket statements like that, and I'm interested in knowing the basis for your argument.[/QUOTE]

Common practice, and no they aren't exact (hence the 3-4, which is broad enough).

It is not unheard of for 2 parents to adequately raise 1 child succesfully. Same goes for 2, and you can make an arguement for 3 (and if you really try, 4). Once you start getting into 5+, you start seeing problems with the children.

If you wanted a concrete calculation, I can't give it to you. But I can offer you this:

It takes a certain amount of money to raise a physically healthy child, we'll call that X. It also takes a certain amount of love/attention to raise a mentally healthy child, we'll call that Y.

The more children you have, the more X and Y you need. And there's only so much X and Y that people are capable of giving.

My numbers are a little fuzzy, but there IS a cutoff (you can't have infinite mentally/physically healthy kids, there's not enough X and Y). I think if you look at examples and studies (oh yes, the dreaded studies), I'm sure you'd find that it's possible to raise ~3 healthy kids, but any greater and you jeopordize the well-being of the children.

That's my thinking.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Common practice, and no they aren't exact (hence the 3-4, which is broad enough).

It is not unheard of for 2 parents to adequately raise 1 child succesfully. Same goes for 2, and you can make an arguement for 3 (and if you really try, 4). Once you start getting into 5+, you start seeing problems with the children.

If you wanted a concrete calculation, I can't give it to you. But I can offer you this:

It takes a certain amount of money to raise a physically healthy child, we'll call that X. It also takes a certain amount of love/attention to raise a mentally healthy child, we'll call that Y.

The more children you have, the more X and Y you need. And there's only so much X and Y that people are capable of giving.

My numbers are a little fuzzy, but there IS a cutoff (you can't have infinite mentally/physically healthy kids, there's not enough X and Y). I think if you look at examples and studies (oh yes, the dreaded studies), I'm sure you'd find that it's possible to raise ~3 healthy kids, but any greater and you jeopordize the well-being of the children.

That's my thinking.[/QUOTE]

Kinda sounds like "ya look at studies, I'm pretty sure they agree with me. I haven't actually seen them myself, but I still know what they say."
 
[quote name='atreyue']I actually did read the entire thread. My point is that he posted a response to evilmax, specifically addressing the scenarios outlined in evilmax's post. You replied to this post as if it were a reply to yours, highlighting what he said and pulling it out of context.[/QUOTE]

OK, so it's a reading comprehension problem - your inability to follow an entire thread. I can forgive that - luckily for you we don't euthanize people with ADD ;)
 
[quote name='camoor']OK, so it's a reading comprehension problem - your inability to follow an entire thread. I can forgive that - luckily for you we don't euthanize people with ADD ;)[/QUOTE]

Then I will count myself lucky.
 
[quote name='camoor']Are you serious? You have got to be the most scientifically and medically ignorant poster on this board (well, maybe you're a close second to Chunk)

You think that if a pregnant lady smokes crack a few times a day, there is a chance that her baby may be perfectly healthy? You need to go to an inner city hospital, your complete ignorance is really starting to offend me.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about with regards to crackheads, but your extreme liberalism and anti-Americanism is really annoying. I think "ignore" is going to be an option. You're the most hateful and ignorant person on this board, and that's saying something.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't know what the fuck you are talking about with regards to crackheads, but your extreme liberalism and anti-Americanism is really annoying. I think "ignore" is going to be an option. You're the most hateful and ignorant person on this board, and that's saying something.[/QUOTE]

Anti-Americanism? Taking a page from Mr. Rove are we?

Just because I don't support the more radical aspects of the Patriot Act, or the fact that I know the phrase "under god" was jammed into the Pledge of Allegiance by the Knights of Columbus in the middle of the 20th century, it does not mean I don't believe unwaveringly in the shining vision set forth by our illustrious Founding Fathers. Since when did speaking about one's minority political position become unAmerican? Oh that's right, since the start of W's first term.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't know what the fuck you are talking about with regards to crackheads[/QUOTE]

EvilMax said:
Both parents are 15 years old, and biologically cable of having a child. They're also both Meth addicts, and they both have histories of sexual abuse. Both people are severely mentally disturbed (not their fault, but here we are). Their parents don't want them together, and in order to get revenge, the young couple decides to spitefully have a child. Common sense would say: Don't let these people have a child. (In the case of young people, I wouldn't necessarily go sterilazation, but perhaps mandatory birth control until they're older. And in this specific case, after an assigned period of therapy.)

ElPrincipe said in reply:
But I'm not for making a law that says they can't do [acts that ElPrincipe disagrees with] unless they are hurting someone else, generally. Your argument boils down to they are hurting the child. We just don't have enough information or knowledge to predict the future that well.
 
While I only agree with elprincipe in the spirit of his post, not his actual comments, you have taken a sharp turn into radical territory lately, camoor. Ranting about how they're all out to get us is making making your arguments paper thin, and easily dismissed.

Though I think it would be extremely difficult for a liberal radical to beat out a conservative radical in terms of hatred. They can match extremism, blindness, idiocy etc., but the two things where I would guess liberals radicals would have a hard time matching conservative radicals would be in the areas of lack of education and hatred/bigotry, not in all cases but generally. Liberals can pick on jews and christians, but conservatives have gays, muslims, jews, hindus, atheists (hell the whole list of heathens), french, hispanics, asians, blacks etc., hating any of which go against general liberal ideological beliefs (though the anti semitism can come in with the anti zionist opinions).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top