we weep for humanity
 

a) 2 years old is too young to be potty trained.

b) He will get what is coming to him in prison. Oh yes. Prepare for the broomstick, Mr Padilla, from all the rapists, robbers, car thiefs, etc who can't see their kids. You mother****ing son of a bitch. :mad:

I'm so sorry I read that ...

It is a commonly posed question, but I will pose it again: why, why are human beings allowed to have children with no training or counseling beforehand? Why is having a child considered a right, when it should be a privilege? There were more barriers, questions, and qualifications to my adopting a cat than there were to having a baby. I find that terribly alarming and wrong.
Being a parent is a privilege, a tremendous responsibility, and a gift. It should be treated as such.

Well said.

"Don't do this TO ME." Note the complete and utter inability to feel for anyone but himself even in that situation.

He'll get the needle. It's Texas. If they don't kill him in prison first.

It is comments like these that absolutly astound me. I constantly hear cries and whines about freedom of choice and how horrible it will be once the right-winged government takes all of our freedoms away and everyone blames everything on the "religious" people because there are points you don't agree with...but all of a sudden, once something offends you, you think it would be a good idea to take away the very basic right to procreate.

Joking or not, I am completely puzzled.

With freedom and rights comes people that use these rights to make poor decisions. You choose to live in a country that allows these decisions to be made all around you. People make horrible choices everyday and sometimes there are governmental consequences, and sometimes you just have to live with these poor choices and make do. You can't scream and cry that people should be able to do what they chose, then pick and choose your rights.

So let me get this straight, you can marry who you want, **** who you want, get pregnant by whomever married or not, abort your poor choice at anytime, but their should be regulations on who can actually have and raise the kids? If Bush said, right now, only people with GEDs, a household income (from a legitimate job) of over $30,000, and governmental parenting classes, you would all shit your pants.

Which reminds me of that one movie where only kids with certian genomes could live or something...what was that one, started with a "G" I think. Anyway, I think that has nothing to do with my point.

^^^eh, sorry, I just bombed this thread.

BTW, I'm all for procreation bans.

I think you have made an excellent point Spicy.

What about adding a parenting class to our education system? We have home-economics, and such, so why not add a class that teaches social skills, parenting techniques, theories of potty training, consequences of action, family responsibility, consistency, and more. I just made a random list, but why not have an actual parenting class that goes beyond handing out a doll to show the demands of parenting an infant?

I would rather have my children learn to be better parents than take the two courses required called Careers and Business which overlap.

That was my point, Aphro.

Great. I thought you wanted adults to fill out applications and get licenses to parent, but you meant teach it from childhood to hopefully provide some skills and resources.

Because feminists would find some evil religious right-winged agenda in it somehow.


eta: Weren't there classes like that in the 40's and 50's in high school?

Do you think we could keep gender roles neutral?

I think home-ec of the 40's and 50's taught women exclusively. They taught cooking and sewing, with a minor touch of how to budget the grocery money given by the husband.

I'm not in favor of procreation bans...I'm in favor of non-procreation incentives.

I'd like to see:
-Huge tax breaks (like...no income taxes and reduced sales taxes) for childless folks (...and I would allow folks to "sell" their "first child allotment" if they wanted to, to the highest bidder...but then they would have to pay the increased taxes as if they "had" the child if they do sell their "first child"...and the "purchaser" would be able to have a child without increasing their tax burden).
-Normal tax rates and reduced education and (child) health expenses for couples with only 1 child .
-Normal tax rates and normal education rates for singles with 1 child, or couples with 2 children.
-Increased (and increasingly high as child count increases) tax rates for people with more than 1 child per person.

I don't think that's what she meant.

To drive in this country, you need to be at least a certain age and you must pass a written and driving test to earn the priviledge of driving a car. We do this to ensure the safety (and rights) of others. If you fail to meet those standards, your license is taken away. That seems perfectly reasonable.

When a monster decides to give birth to a child and keep it, not only are the child's rights abused, but society also pays for the hideous crime, short-term and long-term. And yet, a parent doesn't have to take a single test or meet any official standard to have children.