• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

"Mom delivers 16th child" - Is there something wrong with this?

Motokid said:
Damn RK....these are the exact same thoughts I have about stuff like this. What is it that these people think they are doing for the overall good of the world, that they could not accomplish by having two or three kids instead of 16 or more?

If all 16 kids have 4 of their own, that's 64 more people on the planet all thanks to two people. The geometric progression is mind blowing. It's just not healthy for the overall planet.

Yes, having 16 loving, caring, compasionate, intelligent kids is better for the planet than having 1 or 2 spoiled rotten brats.

But why not have 2 loving, caring, compasionate, intelligent kids?
Click to expand...
...and finally. I don't push my ideas; I'm glad someone does.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but so far the discussion has been on a micro level (individual rights, parent-child relationships, etc.), but my idea (and your idea) is that maybe this is irresponsible on a different level (not a better level, a different level). I hate the idea that the government would ban having children. Maybe they could make incentives instead, but regardless, I view overpopulation as a major problem.

Look around you! What does every person require? Food, a place to live, an education, a place to get that education, a government, a place and people for that government. You have to resources for buildings and machinery to build things. You have to have knowledge bases for everything. You have to have all those things just to grow food! To get to the point, we are the most massive consumers on the planet. To live together with one another and the other species around us, we owe it to ourselves and the world that we live in to limit our reproduction.

To limit population, some island societies developed ritualistic suicide and infantice, and as disgusting as that sounds, those civilizations survived for 10,000 years due to those rituals. That's right. Because of things we abhor, infanticide and suicide, civilizations were able to continue. Well, I'd like us (people) to exercise some restraint to prevent the world community from having to go to such extremes or worse (think World War II x 100) to reign in our population.
 
RitalinKid said:
Well, I'd like us (people) to exercise some restraint to prevent the world community from having to go to such extremes or worse (think World War II x 100) to reign in our population.
Click to expand...
Mmm... I think it's more likely that some more natural population control will occur. Biologically there are usually controls on a population that reaches critical mass - mind you we are becoming further and further removed from the natural course of things. Giving aid to developing countries is an example of our compassion overcoming our biological nature. We would see it as heartless to less nature take its course in these nations. *sigh* I don't know what the answer is.
 
If we had let nature take its course in those contries to begin with they wouldn't be so badly off as they are.

I dunno how statistics look in the US, but in most of Europe the population growth is disappearing. As I said, every couple needs to have 2.3 kids to keep the population stagnant - only stagnant. And by far most people in most European countries have only one or two kids - and many live their lives childless. I must admit I'm not overly concerned with one single family having a buttload of kids. If you could produce surveys that tell a story of one in ten families having more then 8 kids, then I might start worrying, but so far such a multitude of kids is a rarity and thus should not be treated as a general tendency.

Me = not worried
 
Changing the subject a bit!

Today a mother is off to the high court to argue a parents right to be told her daughter is having an abortion!

As it stands at the moment if a child tells her teacher she pregnant the teacher can help this kid get an abortion without the parents consent!

Is this right or wrong??
 
Unfortunately Ruby, I think this type of discussion will be quickly dealt with by the mods, as it can really only lead to a discussion about religion, or have at least one person get offended and/or angry.
 
Motokid said:
Unfortunately Ruby, I think this type of discussion will be quickly dealt with by the mods, as it can really only lead to a discussion about religion, or have at least one person get offended and/or angry.
Click to expand...

Your probably right moto but i wasnt intending to bring religion in to it at all!
As the case in question does not touch on religion!

And i dont mean to offend or make anyone angry! :)
 
How old is the daughter?
If 13, yes the parent should be told, by the teacher when first the girl came to her.
If 17, no, not in my opinion, but then again, I'm used to an age of consent at 15.

I'd like to know what the mother would do with information though. I can understand why she'd be angry, hurt, offended, whatever by not being told something so important about her daughter's health by a teacher. But going to court about it? Heh.

I think what that question boils down to is this: Shall a minor be able to get an abortion without their parents' consent? I'm pretty sure there are some parents out there who would force their 14 year old daughter through a pregnancy rather than let her get an abortion, and I must say, it's far fear of these parents especially that I'm inclined to say that no, the parents need not be told until after the abortion.

Why is my stance thusly? Because I believe that while it must be horridly embarrasing to come and tell one's parents that one has gotten pregnant, only those girls who have actual problems with their parents will outright refuse to tell them. These problems could be many things, but regarding this subject I do believe that only the girls whose parents will actually forbid them to abort a child or cast them out of the family if they do will hesitate to tell their folks. And for these girls I'd say, no, don't make a law that forces teachers or doctors to ruin a girl's life with her family when her life is already plenty messed up what with the abortion.
 
I'm not sure there can be a discussion about abortion without religion/politics quickly becoming a part of the conversation. I guess we'll see....if anyone cares to jump in that is.....

My position is simple. I think every case is unique and individual. The definition of "child" and what that means regarding age and maturity is a grey area. The child's homelife and the stability of the parent/child relationship is another factor.

I can see the arguement from both sides. If the young girl lives in fear of her parents, and has suffered from physical/mental abuse by them, I can see why they shouldn't be told.

As a parent of daughters, I would be very upset to find out later that somebody else guided my child in perhaps the most serious/dangerous decisions she'd ever have to make in her life. Especially if it's just some goof-ball teacher and not a trained professional counselor.

It's a very, very touchie subject, and I hate to see mostly male groups of politicians, lawyers, and judges making decisions and laws that effect females.
 
The girl in question is 13!

I am in the same boat as you moto with daughters!

I would hate a teacher to guide my child threw this ordeal!

I would be there for them with plenty of love and the best advice i could give them!
 
ruby said:
The girl in question is 13!

I am in the same boat as you moto with daughters!

I would hate a teacher to guide my child threw this ordeal!

I would be there for them with plenty of love and the best advice i could give them!
Click to expand...

Both you and moto are loving parents who will be talking to their daughters about sex and life in general, I'll wager. Also, I'd guess that none of your daughters lives in fear of either of you. Incest wouldn't be an issue in your homes either. The ACLU is of the opinion that even young women have civil rights.

"The way to reduce abortion is not a law that requires frightened young women to either face a judge or the wrath of their parents. It's about increasing communication -- about sex, about choices, about consequences -- that prevents an accidental pregnancy in the first place. Californians should reject Proposition 73 in the Nov. 8 special election."

"Mandatory notification laws have resulted in teens – who for whatever reason can’t go to their parents -- resorting to dangerous measures, like back-alley or self-induced abortions--instead of getting the medical help and counseling they need."

http://www.noonproposition73.com/

Anyway, Californians are voting on this one today.
 
Motokid said:
I can see the arguement from both sides. If the young girl lives in fear of her parents, and has suffered from physical/mental abuse by them, I can see why they shouldn't be told.

As a parent of daughters, I would be very upset to find out later that somebody else guided my child in perhaps the most serious/dangerous decisions she'd ever have to make in her life. Especially if it's just some goof-ball teacher and not a trained professional counselor.
Click to expand...
I think a certain right to privacy should be allowed, but it should only be given where there is a trained health professional involved. A teacher should have the right to hold confidence regarding counselling that a child may receive, but not the right to give medical advice. I don't think that blanket legislation should be used, as each case is individual. I stand by my earlier comments - ALL women should have counselling when considering an abortion, and this should be legislated. But as to the right to privacy, etc, that depends upon the individual situation. If a 12 year old is pregnant and there are circumstances where she cannot tell her parents, then perhaps she is not in the best family environment for her... maybe that's another debate.

It's a very, very touchie subject, and I hate to see mostly male groups of politicians, lawyers, and judges making decisions and laws that effect females.
Click to expand...
Interesting point. Abortion does affect men as well... not sure how that is expressed in the law, though.
 
Kookamoor said:
No one ever told you where babies come from?
Click to expand...

My guess would be that the majority of females seeking/contemplating/having an abortion are inpart doing so because the male side of the equation is in fact nothing better than a sperm donar. Especially in terms of teenage pregnancies. How many 14 or 15 year old potential fathers are really going to stick around and care for a baby both emotionally and financially for the rest of that childs life?

Yes, it takes two to make a baby, but I don't ever really see the guy as being a major factor when abortion is in question.
 
The ultimate and final decision always rests on the females shoulders doesn't it? She's the one who has to carry and deliver the baby. She's the one who has to provide for as long as she's alive in most cases.

The guy can almost always walk away, and in most cases of teen pregnancies does.

All I'm saying is the bulk of the responcibility rests on the females shoulders.
Doesn't it?
 
Motokid said:
The ultimate and final decision always rests on the females shoulders doesn't it? She's the one who has to carry and deliver the baby. She's the one who has to provide for as long as she's alive in most cases.

The guy can almost always walk away, and in most cases of teen pregnancies does.

All I'm saying is the bulk of the responcibility rests on the females shoulders.
Doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I agree with you there. But when I read your comment: Tell me exactly how abortion effects men... I thought you meant that it didn't affect men.
 
Motokid said:
Yes, it takes two to make a baby, but I don't ever really see the guy as being a major factor when abortion is in question.
Click to expand...
In cases where the kids are teens, yes, that is the norm. Where women are older, however, it can get ugly if the woman aborts a child the man wanted or expected. I'm not sure how the man is treated in the legislation, but part of the counselling process (that I keep calling for as mandatory) should include consideration of the father.
 
I would agree a bit more with you Kook if there was a surgical means to implant the fetus, and all, into the mans body, and let him be the one to nuture the fetus through until birth, and if the man was a stay-at-home father who raises the newborn and provides all the care for the child through at least the first 5 years or so.

But as things stand now that usually falls onto the mother as well.

A man stating he wants a baby should not carry anywhere near as much weight as a woman stating she does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top