lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: South Carolina: The state that keeps giving
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 01-26-2010, 04:37 PM   #1
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
South Carolina: The state that keeps giving

(Request for Kavars move)

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better"

And who said that wonderful piece of work?

Andre Bauer, the Republican who wants to replace the South Carolina Gov who ran off to Argentina for an affair.

What context was it in?

Describing poorer children getting reduced priced lunches at schools. 58% of kids in South Carolina eat free or reduce priced lunches.

He later clarified that he meant that if parents were not more involved in school, they should have benefits like welfare, health care, etc taken from them because they are, quote, "lazy".

Guess who wont be voting for him come election season? Welcome to why the current Gov has not been kicked out of office: The lt. gov is a jack***. This isn't even taking in mind his state has the poorest quality of life of any state, the poorest health care system, and the highest infant mortality rate along with one of the highest unemployment rates.

Screw Illinois, this state's politicians are a cancer.

Moderator note [01-26-2010 07:35 PM]

Moved to Kavars -- j7


Last edited by jonathan7; 01-26-2010 at 07:35 PM.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-26-2010, 06:07 PM   #2
Litofsky
Galaxial
 
Litofsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,546
I rather liked Stewart's piece on it, too, Avery.

On a more serious note, I imagine there's a bit of misconception with what he said (which was hilarious if only a little disturbing [we should be immune to it by now, don't you think?]) and what the Lieutenant Governor intended to say. Or, or the other hand, he could just be a moron. Wouldn't be a big surprise.

I wonder if this is a result of voting with little to no information on the candidates (other than the big 'R' or 'D' behind their names), or just a general dearth of decent candidates?
Litofsky is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-26-2010, 07:24 PM   #3
jrrtoken
Senior Member
 
jrrtoken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Ah, the joys of neo-Social Darwinism.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-26-2010, 07:38 PM   #4
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Weren't some people here talking about requiring a license to reproduce about a year ago? I can think of no better criterion for such a license than the actual ability to support children instead of leeching off of the rest of the population like Octomom by depending on the state to do it.

Since the whole license thing won't happen in our lifetime, a fair way to handle this would be to allow each prospective Octomom one unsupportable child. Any more, and all government aid gets cut off, including what she was receiving before. If you can't support children, then you shouldn't be having them. It's called "responsible living".


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 01-26-2010 at 08:19 PM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-26-2010, 08:41 PM   #5
Qui-Gon Glenn
Necessary Roughneck
 
Qui-Gon Glenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Thessia
Posts: 1,464
Current Game: ME3MP, Arkham Origins
Folder extraordinaire Helpful! Forum Veteran Veteran Modder 
^^^ I can only dream of this day!

As disgusting as his point-blank remarks appear, the underlying concept is correct.

Where is the line drawn between compassion and stupidity?

The scariest thing to me about children is WHO'S HAVING THEM. There are less and less educated people breeding today, yet nothing slows down morons. Idiocracy, the movie, is actually going to happen, if we get another century or so.

The remarks themselves were stated poorly and reflect an inadequate mind for the job, but I do agree with the premise.

I await the storm.......
Qui-Gon Glenn is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-26-2010, 09:46 PM   #6
Ping
Elementary.
 
Ping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 771
Roleplayer 
South Carolina....Why is it always South Carolina?


"There is no such thing as coincidence, only inevitability" - xxxHoLiC

"Justice? But I don't serve justice, Watson, I serve the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
Ping is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-26-2010, 10:10 PM   #7
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,229
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
This has 2 issues about it: Children of poor families, and drawing a line somewhere for those being assisted by gov't.

I agree about people who can't support them shouldn't be having kids. I agree with the underlying concept of curtailing unreasonably stupid people from diluting the gene pool. Obviously if it's a gross state of what Evil Q said, something ought ot be done to discourage it. Something ought to be done to discourage future occurrences.

Having said that: before cutting funds, maybe a look into why a family is poor, first? Couldn't hurt. Begin the transition NOW. As to those already existing on gov't. aide, assist those for the time being at least.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-27-2010, 03:37 AM   #8
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
If reducing the number of children born to poor families is the goal, then I'd argue supporting their education rather than hindering it would be the best way of doing it. Those with little education will tend to have more children than educated ones, and cutting of benefits is unlikely to reduce the birthrates by a lot, especially since benefits in the US are so tiny.

Quote:
Idiocracy, the movie, is actually going to happen, if we get another century or so.
Hardly, I know an easy way to fix it, it's called imigration reform.


Checking out seems not to do much.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-27-2010, 05:40 AM   #9
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,778
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Education is a lot like the horse to water analogy. You can give a person (the horse) an education (take him to the water), but you can't make him drink it (learn anything). The terminally stupid, like the poor (sometimes, but not always the same), will always be around. Perhaps one solution is to take the people on the dole that can't afford to actually raise children and have them put on some kind of birth control that suppresses ovulation or sperm production as a precondition for welfare. Like anything else with the govt, you take any money, you have to agree to certain stipulations and interference or just forswear the assistance.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-27-2010, 07:23 AM   #10
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,758
Current Game: KotOR II
Wow. It's like your country is desperate to win the barbarism competition.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-27-2010, 11:01 AM   #11
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,025
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Doesn’t birth control violate some people’s religious beliefs? So it is acceptable to you for the Government to violate the Constitution in order to suppress the birthrate of the poor?

Speaking from the child born into poverty, I will state that not all children born into poverty stay there, many contribute profoundly to society and the tax rolls later in life. Even people that are below the poverty line at one time in their lives have pulled themselves out of it and contributed to society.

I also find it extremely funny that when you place “stipulations and interferences” on industries requiring government assistances, you are called a socialist, but it perfectly alright to do it to the little man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
He later clarified that he meant that if parents were not more involved in school, they should have benefits like welfare, health care, etc taken from them because they are, quote, "lazy".
Couldn’t there also be another explanation for them not being involved in the child’s school? I don’t know something like they are working. My mother worked 2 jobs until I was 5th grade to support me and my grandmother. Yes, she missed many school functions, but she did this so that I did not have to miss a meal.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-27-2010, 12:10 PM   #12
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
You can give a person (the horse) an education (take him to the water), but you can't make him drink it (learn anything).
Except you can when it commes to using education as birth controll. How much they learn is a diferent matter, but it would at least make them more employable as a side effect.

Quote:
The terminally stupid, like the poor (sometimes, but not always the same), will always be around.
Leaving aside the fact that I find it impossible to define a proportion of the population as terminally stupid. It depends on how you define poor, but using the common way in the western world (anything less than half of the median wage), it's theoretically possible to remove it completely, not that I see it as likely to happen. However, what certainly is possible is to lessen the fraction of the population being poor, or, probably more relevant to the question at hand (and easier), reduce the number girls with little education.

Oh, and like mim, I don't like the idea of the government making it impossible for a section of the population to have children without a very good reason. Provide incentives, sure, but not to the point where the alternative is basically "feed from the trash"


Checking out seems not to do much.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-27-2010, 03:51 PM   #13
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,778
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
Doesn’t birth control violate some people’s religious beliefs? So it is acceptable to you for the Government to violate the Constitution in order to suppress the birthrate of the poor?
Speaking from the child born into poverty, I will state that not all children born into poverty stay there, many contribute profoundly to society and the tax rolls later in life. Even people that are below the poverty line at one time in their lives have pulled themselves out of it and contributed to society.
I also find it extremely funny that when you place “stipulations and interferences” on industries requiring government assistances, you are called a socialist, but it perfectly alright to do it to the little man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murph
Quote:
You can give a person (the horse) an education (take him to the water), but you can't make him drink it (learn anything).


Except you can when it commes to using education as birth controll. How much they learn is a diferent matter, but it would at least make them more employable as a side effect.


Quote:
The terminally stupid, like the poor (sometimes, but not always the same), will always be around.


Leaving aside the fact that I find it impossible to define a proportion of the population as terminally stupid. It depends on how you define poor, but using the common way in the western world (anything less than half of the median wage), it's theoretically possible to remove it completely, not that I see it as likely to happen. However, what certainly is possible is to lessen the fraction of the population being poor, or, probably more relevant to the question at hand (and easier), reduce the number girls with little education.

Oh, and like mim, I don't like the idea of the government making it impossible for a section of the population to have children without a very good reason. Provide incentives, sure, but not to the point where the alternative is basically "feed from the trash"
I agree that people born in poverty don't always stay in poverty. The problem, though, ultimately becomes one of the govt having to pick up the slack for people who can't or won't work and/or support their own children. Is the govt (really meaning the rest of us by extension) supposed to stand by with an open checkbook and no stipulations? I think there's been a move either at the fed or some lower level recently to curtail the money people get that have children they can't afford. As to the the question of religion, no one is forcing anyone to take state (ie fed) aid in the first place, thus no violation. Nothing in the Constitution requires the govt give aid of that nature in the first place.

As to the stipulations, the main difference is that unlike GM or the banks, the govt isn't coming into your home and running your business. They aren't stopping you from having sex or even telling you when and/or where. Had BO and company gone to GM and not tried to actually make the govt an active partner in ownership of the company, but had put some conditions on the money only, there wouldn't be the charges of socialism that you currently get. Most people seem to understand that govt aid should come with some stipulations short of the govt actually becoming your "business partner". Once the loans are paid off/people go off welfare, the govt conditions end. If the govt tries to insinuate itself into the boardroom.....socialism.

Other problem is, not everyone that is "poor" has six or seven kids that they can't afford. Those that behave like that are parasites that do it to get extra free $$ from the govt and often then spend it on themselves and leave the kids to fend for themselves or on family to pick up their slack. Will poor people with strong religious views often have a lot of kids and then turn to Uncle Sam to fund their family? Possibly, but I wonder how many of those types actually comprise the offending party, as many of them are just as likely to look to their churches and families for help rather than go to the govt.

As to education, better educated and more affluent people do tend to have fewer children (unless they have strong religious convictions about birth control, but these people can usually afford their children...at least financially). Also part of the reason that many of the "first world" countries also tend to have dismal (<2.0) population growth rates. Combined with high prices (as in Japan) and better birthrate viability, these factors tend to drive down the urge to procreate, but not necessarily to "merge". Hopefully, many of those that think that more kids=more free money can be reduced via education. Ain't holding my breath, though...education is meaningless if people don't actually take advantage of it.

I agree that the govt should not be forcing people to have no kids. However, I wasn't advocating that either. I did say (since many people don't like to take personal responsibility for managing their own sex lives) that they accept a certain degree of limitations while on the dole re their reproductive abilities.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-27-2010, 05:08 PM   #14
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,911
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Reproduction is a basic human right. Advocating mandatory birth control is draconian. There are a lot of strict Catholics in the town I live in, and this would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

Most people don't _want_ to be in poverty. The idea that poverty is caused by laziness is appalling. Sometimes people just have horrendously bad things happen to them that kills their ability to make a living for awhile or forever. We certainly didn't want to be on welfare and food stamps after my dad had a heart attack at age 38 and had to have open heart surgery. There were 3 of us kids in the family. Are you telling me that because there were more than 2 of us kids, one of us should have gone hungry while we were on welfare? However, it was the only way we could afford to eat. Most of the people I've met on disability would give their eyeteeth to have their health restored so they could work again. Many people in poverty would love to have jobs of any kind, or jobs that paid more than minimum wage so they could escape poverty. With the economy the way it is now and unemployment in the 10% range and underemployment even higher, how are people supposed to find jobs with decent wages so they can get out of the welfare hole? Politicians calling people lazy when the lawmakers are sitting on their butts doing nothing constructive to fix the economic problems that lead to this recession/depression are horrendously hypocritical.

Now, I'll have to double check, but WI has a "Workfare" program where if you get welfare, you're required to be out looking for a job, unless you're on disability. I believe there is also a reduction of benefits for each child past the 2nd or 3rd one if you're already on welfare and decide to have more kids, but I don't know if that's current policy.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-27-2010, 11:02 PM   #15
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Well it kinda makes sense. It's more like the old "Give a man a fish..." thing. I don't like just giving money to people. I think that in order to get cash, you should be required to do something. There are a number of services that could use some volunteers. If the person is unemployed they could help them out. Obviously some times people need assistance even when they are working, but if they are working they could be exempted from teh requirement of helping with the volunteer services.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2010, 07:43 AM   #16
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Reproduction is a basic human right.
As long as a couple or person is capable of supporting the children, I agree that they should be allowed to have as many as they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Advocating mandatory birth control is draconian.
I'm not advocating mandatory birth control. People would still have a choice: having more kids or continuing to receive their free lunch. This will prevent certain types (including illegal aliens) from popping out more kids just to receive more aid. This would also have the additional benefit of discouraging the proliferation of a demographic that makes its living by leeching off of society. People who already have more than one kid and happen to fall on hard times would be exempted, of course, but in the same way they would also be discouraged from having any more kids until they got back on their feet, lest they lose government support. The only thing that would be forced on people would be the choice between living responsibly and receiving benefits or living irresponsibly and receiving none. It sure beats Ginsburg's solution, mass abortion, and it would be far cheaper to boot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
There are a lot of strict Catholics in the town I live in, and this would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
Like I said: no it wouldn't, because there would be nothing mandatory about it.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 01-29-2010 at 07:53 AM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2010, 02:42 PM   #17
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Reproduction is a basic human right.
Arguing that something is a "basic human right" seems to be a common tactic to get people to stop questioning a certain position on it. Why is reproduction a human right? I'm not being facetious here when I'm asking because I really want to know. Reproduction is a basic human capability, it is no more special than cat reproduction, whale reproduction, or fish reproduction. Every living being, human or otherwise, is capable of reproduction. We deny this ability to many creatures, why is it a "human right"?

Men and women are capable of reproduction, but in vastly different ways. A woman can reproduce on her own(with modern technology), but a man cannot. Does this mean that women have a greater reproductive right than men? Men cannot reproduce without a woman(or artificial womb, which is yet to be developed), does this mean that men are denied a basic human right? If that's the case, half the population is being denied a basic human right! Should we institute laws that mandate that all men must be given a woman to reproduce with? Should we make laws that say all women should have access to artificial insemination to ensure they have the ability to use their right to reproduce?

That would just be silly. Reproduction is not a right, it's a capability, at best it's a privilege granted to those who have proven themselves capable of either earning a mate(in the case of men), or finding a way around mating(artificial insemination). And what of people who were born or made infertile(by birth, purpose, or accident), should we ensure that they too can reproduce? What of people with serious genetic conditions, I hate to get eugenic here, but is it healthy to say that people who we know will produce unhealthy children should be allowed to reproduce?

Again, reproduction is not necessary to an individual's life, they won't die if they never do it, and half the population can't even have a child without someone from the other half. Unlike breathing, drinking, or eating, you don't NEED to reproduce, and therefore, it is NOT a right.

Reproduction should be considered a privilege at best and beyond that generally regarded as only a basic aspect of being an organic, dual-sexed species.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."

Last edited by Web Rider; 01-29-2010 at 02:48 PM.
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2010, 04:59 PM   #18
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,778
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Again, reproduction is not necessary to an individual's life, they won't die if they never do it, and half the population can't even have a child without someone from the other half. Unlike breathing, drinking, or eating, you don't NEED to reproduce, and therefore, it is NOT a right.
Soooo....outside of breathing and feeding, people have no basic rights (or even rights in general)? Many things are not essential to basic survival. Perhaps you can start a thread and enumerate which rights people have and how expansive and limited those rights are.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 01-29-2010, 08:20 PM   #19
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,911
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
Arguing that something is a "basic human right" seems to be a common tactic to get people to stop questioning a certain position on it.
So, are the other 29 articles in UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights all wrong, too? Is slavery then OK? Torture? Supression of freedom of religion? Supression of freedom of speech?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
Why is reproduction a human right? I'm not being facetious here when I'm asking because I really want to know. Reproduction is a basic human capability, it is no more special than cat reproduction, whale reproduction, or fish reproduction. Every living being, human or otherwise, is capable of reproduction. We deny this ability to many creatures, why is it a "human right"?
They are not the same as humans, and you know that. Equating animal with human reproduction is not equivalent.

Some people think 'be fruitful and multiply' is a command, and for them it's a sin to use contraception. Some people think it's important simply to have a family, to have children to love, to have the close social interactions of the family bond, to pass on their genes to the next generation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
Men and women are capable of reproduction, but in vastly different ways. A woman can reproduce on her own(with modern technology), but a man cannot. Does this mean that women have a greater reproductive right than men? Men cannot reproduce without a woman(or artificial womb, which is yet to be developed), does this mean that men are denied a basic human right? If that's the case, half the population is being denied a basic human right! Should we institute laws that mandate that all men must be given a woman to reproduce with? Should we make laws that say all women should have access to artificial insemination to ensure they have the ability to use their right to reproduce?
This is taking the basic human right to reproduce into the absurd. It's a right, not a requirement. If it's not a human right, what's to prevent us from turning into China with the 1 child rule, or (re)starting eugenics programs? It's rife for abuse if it's anything less than a basic human right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
Again, reproduction is not necessary to an individual's life, they won't die if they never do it, and half the population can't even have a child without someone from the other half. Unlike breathing, drinking, or eating, you don't NEED to reproduce, and therefore, it is NOT a right.
You can also live without freedom of speech and freedom of religion, too. Heck, you can even survive as a slave, you don't NEED to have freedom to live, so with your logic, even freedom is NOT a right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
Reproduction should be considered a privilege at best and beyond that generally regarded as only a basic aspect of being an organic, dual-sexed species.
I think the gene pool needs to be as big as possible to prevent increased genetic disease and loss of genetic advantages. What right do any of us have to say to one person "You can have 10 kids" and to someone else, "You can't have any"? Are you God, that you can make such decisions in a just, fair, manner that's not subject to misuse and abuse or even outright fraud?


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > South Carolina: The state that keeps giving

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:22 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.