Jump to content

Some people really need to be sterilized


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why do people get so involved with these things? :rolleyes: There are many other girls who are her age or younger having a child, & no one makes a big deal out of it.

OWZ I disagree!

Billions of dollars are spent every year on teenage pregnancy prevention programs, and the reason is that research shows that children of teen parents do worse educationally, occupationally, emotionally, and socially than children who aren't born to teen parents.

That is NOT to say that a child born to a teen parent can't do well in life. They can and do. But the ones who can and do are the exceptions, NOT the rules.

Raising a child is enough of a challenge for those with good parenting skills, much less some clueless teen. On a related note, I did read the report from Child Welfare Services on Britney Spears. She has no parenting skills and sees her children as objects. It's terrible. Even Federline as ridiculous as he is seems to "get" parenting a lot more than Britney gets it. She is not a parent in any sense of the word. She's just someone who reproduced. I know YOU know there's a big difference there.

So, I am pro-choice for everyone, and pro-adoption for teens who are ideologically opposed to abortion.

Edited by tangerinedream
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Old Scratch, Devil-face, Devil-head, but it's useless to argue with someone who thinks they know what god does or does not do, what god is or is not, etc. You're basically saying you know the mind of god, which is not surprising as after all that's what religious people believe.

It's just that there is no counterargument for that, because that is not an argument.

And could you PLEASE use my board name! I'm on here as invisible. I'm trying to maintain at least some semblance of anonymity. B)

Love ya!

T.A.N.G.E.R.I.N.E.

Cop out.

This was a philosophical discussion more than a theological one.

But ... I have my doubts that you would be capable of arguing on those terms, either ... even if stated explicitly.

Right back atcha, Tang.

;)

~Andrew Douglas Brown, aka Old Scratch, aka Scratch, aka Uncle Finger Fun ... sometimes Andy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're basically saying you know the mind of god, which is not surprising as after all that's what religious people believe.

But you are doing the exact same thing in stating that since there are so many starving children in the world then therefore we can conclude that there must not be some omnipotent Something who could possibly ordain such a thing to be. Surely if there were an omnipotent Something they would surely only do "good" things or what we deem to be "good".

Get it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
But you are doing the exact same thing in stating that since there are so many starving children in the world then therefore we can conclude that there must not be some omnipotent Something who could possibly ordain such a thing to be. Surely if there were an omnipotent Something they would surely only do "good" things or what we deem to be "good".

Get it?

I'm not arguing for or against the existence of god here. Nor am I commenting on the nature of god. That's what you guys do.

And, yes, I get it. It's the idea that god cannot be simultaneously all-knowing and all-good that you take exception to. It's a bedrock argument between nonbelievers and believers, and has been for centuries. And will be for centuries to come, unfortunately.

People apparently assume that because I made one post critical of what I consider to be a most unfortunate, overly simplistic way of conceiving of a certain subject I somehow wish to spend my time rehashing old arguments from three boards back. I don't, and I won't.

Although I take slight issue with the taunting insult that I am not capable of arguing on philosophical terms, I'm not engaged enough to bother with refuting that idea. Unacceptable return on investment.

"Argue not concerning god," Walt Whitman said. I'm getting better at doing that, although I still "backslide" sometimes, which reminds me of a quote from Katherine Hepburn - "Human nature is what we were put on this earth to rise above."

I think Kate was a believer.

Edited by tangerinedream
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll bet Britney Spears wishes people would mind their own business when it comes to her children.

I'm sure she does. Fortunately for her children, Child Welfare Services won't let that happen. The fact that people can reproduce doesn't give them a right to treat children "however they see fit." Thank goodness.

Edited by tangerinedream
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not arguing for or against the existence of god here. Nor am I commenting on the nature of god. That's what you guys do.

You must be one of "you guys" then because this sure seems like a commentary on the subject to me:

Right. Just as a reminder, "eternal light," 40,000 children die each day from malnutrition and disease. That's 40,000. Each day. 280,000 each week. 1,204,000 each month. 12 million a year. If my calculations are correct.

12 MILLION CHILDREN A YEAR, most of them infants, die from malnutrition and disease.

Explain that using the "meant to be" argument.

You can't.

Next subject.

Um, that was my point.

So god creates infants, who have no understanding of the world, and preordains that these infants are to live short, horrible lives only to die a few months after birth.

Oh, and god preordains this to happen disproportionately in third-world countries.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with unprotected sex, the gross national product of third-world countries, the education level of people in third-world countries, the medical infrastructure of third-world countries, etc. God did that too.

The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away. That's basically your argument.

OK, sure, I buy that. That's plausible from an omnipotent god perspective. I mean, how else WOULD you explain it from a religious perspective except to throw up your hands and say, "it's meant to be!"

You couldn't. That's my point.

And I'm not arguing that infants who die early are not "meant to be," so you'll have to ask someone else about that.

I prefer to explain the cycle of birth and death in rational, non-superstitious ways.

Yes, I know, it's god's preference that infants starve to death. It's beyond us to explain!

Whatever.

Next subject.

You're the one who announced your sweeping rejection of a "god" who would possibly allow starving children.

Welcome to the "you guys" Club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ALLS IM THINKIN IS HAVE THESE PEOPLE EVER HEARD OF THE PILL. BESIDES WHEN YOUR 16 AND HAVE YOUR OWN TV SHOW YOUD THINK SHE'D BE LITTLE SMARTER ESPECIALLY AFTER WHAT HAPPENED TO HER SISTER! SPEAKING OF WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHOS DUMBER BRITNEY OR MICHAEL VICK. TALK ABOUT PISSEN YOUR SUCCESS DOWN THE DRAIN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
ALLS IM THINKIN IS HAVE THESE PEOPLE EVER HEARD OF THE PILL. BESIDES WHEN YOUR 16 AND HAVE YOUR OWN TV SHOW YOUD THINK SHE'D BE LITTLE SMARTER ESPECIALLY AFTER WHAT HAPPENED TO HER SISTER! SPEAKING OF WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHOS DUMBER BRITNEY OR MICHAEL VICK. TALK ABOUT PISSEN YOUR SUCCESS DOWN THE DRAIN!

YEAH I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ZEPSTEVE YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY MAN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt Child Welfare Services employs saints. They are probably a little bit limited in their intelligence as educated as they are. If they were so smart they would do something to empower the mother so she could have a healthy relationship with her children. Her children need her, as she is their mother. But I guess people would prefer to destroy their mother instead.

Actually, Child Welfare Services overwhelmingly prefers to preserve the family by keeping children with their mothers. But the bottom line is that children need good caregivers more than they "need to be with their mothers."

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for child abuse or child neglect regardless of the circumstances.

Your argument appears to go as follows.

Let young mothers have babies because babies are "meant to be," then let young mothers do whatever the hell they want to their kids because it's nobody's business, then when they abuse or neglect their kids say, "oh well, they were young, young people make mistakes."

Every parent makes mistakes. Not every parent abuses or neglects their children. That's the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either she has no brain in her head at all or she did it on purpose or both.

She had a widely reported pregnancy scare in mid-August, whether the scare story is true or not it was STILL widely reported and she would have been hounded about it constantly until it blew over. Now you'd think that would make her give it at least a little thought right?

Of course there is the off chance she was using birth control properly and was the 1 or 2% exception to the rule :wacko:

Poor little girl.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Either she has no brain in her head at all or she did it on purpose or both.

She had a widely reported pregnancy scare in mid-August, whether the scare story is true or not it was STILL widely reported and she would have been hounded about it constantly until it blew over. Now you'd think that would make her give it at least a little thought right?

Of course there is the off chance she was using birth control properly and was the 1 or 2% exception to the rule :wacko:

Poor little girl.

She's a Spears, so go ahead and assume that's the case. And apparently in July, some tabloid broke a story that she was knocked up, and it turns out that now, she's about 3 months along. So maybe they were right and she's further along than is being reported, or she decided to make the tabloids look smart (which is rather easy).

The funny part is apparently Britney didn't know until some paparazzi asked her what she thought of it. She's like "my sister's not pregnant, whatever". Either she's in denial or the two of them aren't as close as they let on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you ladies do not talk about your mothers in this manner.

Oh spare me and cue the violins. What does the way I talk about Britney Spears have to do with the way I talk to and about my mother? I respect my mother, I love my mother. I neither respect nor love Britney Spears as a) I don't know her and b ) she's a horrible mother. She has two children she doesn't have custody of, because she's a shit parent. I can't respect that and neither should anyone else.

So quit with the sanctimony, already.

Edited by Electrophile
Link to post
Share on other sites

In what manner?! I wish her nothing but the best, I hope that she's one of the young mothers that's able to rise above the difficulties she's about to face.

My issue here is not with her being a young mother but the possibility that she did it on purpose to further her celebrity status. I'm not saying that's the case either. Did you even read my post before directing such a bitchy comment at me?

I agree completely with the other poster you're throwing unwarranted jabs at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...