dissturbing

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.wwltv.com/topstories/stories ... 1c79f.html

You know, this sounds slightly familiar (minus the whole baby eating part).

What's so disturbing about it?

The author of that article should be fired.


'Sterilized' and 'have her tubes tied' is not the same thing. The 1st is irreversible, the 2nd is 100% reversible and is very safe.


In fact, all it is, is a very effective method of birth control. The result of this would be that all the women that VOLUNTARILY do this, will not be popping out unwanted kids they cannot support.


On the other hand, $1000 does not cover the cost of the surgery to un-do the procedure. So most likely these women of low income may not be able to pay for the reversal. But then again, that's where laywers come in handy.

Good idea IMO. I wish these 'civil rights' people would feck off as well, they don't say anything about the rights of the unwanted/unloved kids that are brought into this disgusting overpopulated dump of a planet, no, all they care about is that people have the right to bear children. I guess they did'nt see the VOLUNTARY part. This is what is so wrong with the world in general, far too many thoughtless, selfish people who only care about themselves and their rights with no concern about the impact of their actions on the planet and those around them - no sense of collective responsibility - and plenty PC, violin playing liberals to defend their precious rights. Where are these idiots when people's basic human rights are really infringed?

Another thing that pisses me off is IVF treatment, what a pointless waste of money and science when there are millions of kids who are unwanted/parentless in the world. Who cares as long as these selfish vain people get to burden their own little bundle of misery upon the world.

Well Jenk, that's great that they are good parents but would they not have been the same with an adopted child? I just don't get this 'need' to have a child only if it is created from your own dna, like that matters. The key considerations should be - am I committed, able and fit to love and care for a child for the rest of my life? If the answer is yes then what importance does the source of the kid's genes really hold? Why go through a costly treatment for a mini-me when you could put that money and effort towards easing the suffering of a child that already exists? Maybe I was harsh calling it vanity but that is the way I see it, this obsession to have perfect little babies in our own image above all else. It has gone way over the top IMO. You just have to look at what this quest for perfection has done to the kids growing up in modern society. A similar example of a total lack of common sense these days are the increasing amount of couples who believe that having a baby will 'save' their relationship - if your relationship needs saving then ffs don't bring a child into it! This is why humainty is going down the pan, nobody thinks about the consequences of their selfish desires. This is why I HATE city living and modern societal trends. At least society used to be about community and commitment to each other, now it's just all about self fulfilment (the american dream?), the bottom line is if the individual is getting all they want, then screw the consequences. That is one of the key reasons the world is in such a mess and we are going to end up living on a giant wasteland in the near future.

There are some comments on the article about Eugenics, well what is described in the article would be a form of Eugenics (offering women without means to support a child an incentive to have their 'tubes tied') well is'nt IVF also a form of Eugenics? The insistance of an infertile person/couple (to pay) to have a child with their genes through a laboratory when there is the option of adoption is just another form of selection via human intervention. Next people will want to pick and choose the best of themselves to pass onto their kids and so on. A desire to cut down on children being born into sh***y lives lived out in poverty to parents who probably don't give a damn about them or can't provide for them is just simple common sense imo. One is considered a human right the other is considered an infringement of human rights.

FWIW the only viable alternatives to eugenics I can see are 1) abstinence 2) turn catholic

My parents are greatly opposed to me being snipped. I try to explain to them that I couldn't raise a kid, and I wouldn't want to bring a kid into this world, but all they can think of is that they'd never have grandchildren to love. Well, tough sh*t. My mom wanted a baby because "babies are so cute", well she sure got more than she bargained for, and she forgot that cute babies grow up. Now she wants me to have a grandchild. Sorry, but no.

Hell, I'd PAY to get my uterus taken out, that thing has given me nothing but pain and will continue to do so until menopause. Seems doctors don't like to do elective surgery to remove useless organs though...

Hypothetically I could just get my tubes tied instead, I wouldn't mind, but that wouldn't do anything to cure cramps or menstrual migraines.

That article is poor-bashing, pure and simple. A country as wealthy as the US shouldn't have any poverty. The poverty it does have is created by bad legislation (e.g. low minimum wage, policies that encourage layoffs and discourage full employment) and bad attitudes towards the less powerful, not by there not being enough to go around. There is enough to go around.

Of course all women should have access to safe, effective birth control, regardless of whether they can afford it or not. Duh. But that's not the same as what this article is about. It's about denying people economic opportunity and then punishing them and their genes for it.

Personally I don't have a problem with IVF. Those women are caught in a Catch-22. They're encouraged to wait to have children (which is a good thing) but if they wait too long, they can't have them. And genes do matter. I wouldn't adopt a baby. If I were going to adopt, I'd probably take in a teenager I knew rather than adopt someone else's genes to raise. Then I'd know what I was getting. (But being in foster care or an orphanage can be really bad for development, so adoptions have to go through asap once a kid is up for adoption - I'm not advocating leaving babies in the lurch.) It's a personal choice.

Eugenics on the poor, well they are homeless why not. This is just another slap in the face to the people of Louisiana, it won't end till New Orleans is turned into a Disney themed city, filled with white faces and bulging wallets.

Sign me up! I've been begging to get fixed since my mid teens, and all I get is, "oh, you'll change your mind." Damn doctors.

That is very disturbing.

ok, as soon as those parts start working, make everyone get their varius tubes tied, and then if you want a child you have to pass a test

Snip/Tuck topic

This is a disturbing reminder of the eugenics practiced on developmentally challenged asylum inmates in the early years of the 20th century US. It also brings to mind the case of the "notorious Jukes family", a family tree publicized to ostensibly warn people about breeding degenerate humans. In his book Bad Seed or Bad Science Professor Elof Axel Carlson argues about whether the Jukes were bad to the bone and should not be allowed to "breed", or whether the "science' behind this argument for sterilization was flawed.

See article.