DescentBB

Thats a true case of let the punishment fit the crime. They should launch those two out of Bigfoot going down a gravel road at about 50mph in a burlap bag soaked in rubbing alcohol.

I think counseling would be more effective.

From the thread title, I thought this would be about the abortion issue.

Reading the article, how a couple of parents can just throw away a child they're holding in their arms, I don't know.

No i think couver just about covered it.

I see no need for counseling here. Prison is more appropriate IMHO.

Counsel them to have no more babies.

This is a classic example of why I think we should all be sterilized at birth and have to pass a parenting test before the sterilization is reversed and we are allowed to have kids.

dissent wrote:Counsel them to have no more babies.

Sterilisation comes to mind..

Edit: heh, skimmed. Agree w/ Dedman.

Dedman wrote:This is a classic example of why I think we should all be sterilized at birth and have to pass a parenting test before the sterilization is reversed and we are allowed to have kids.

Mr. Orwell, I presume? As disgusting as this crime was, and as much as I'd like to personally toss that ***** out of that car window, I think your statement is almost as scary.

How so?

You have a problem with allowing only those who are fit to raise children to actually become parents?

That link was updated about 45 minutes ago to say now that the baby was never thrown from a car. The baby's mother made up the whole thing.

That is absolutely nuts.

And Dedman, yes, I would like it if only people who were fit to be parents would have children, but what gives anyone the right to determine someone's "fitness"? What's more, your proposal is not only ethically wrong, it is also a complete violation of civil liberties.

Indeed as top gun has said, it would be a violation of both morals and civil liberties. but even further than that, the government already has its hands in your pay check, in your ability to own a home, in your ability to do the things that you want, and now youre advocating that the government has a place in your pants?

Mo governmental agency, no matter how uncorrupted or noble should ever be able to have a say in the bedroom affairs of consenting individuals. If the government did have a say in who could or could not have kids, the results would be disaterous. youd likely have to pay large fees to get the license, and then youd more than likely have to pay your own way to be desterilized. And after that youd be hit with birth taxes and all sorts of imaginative fees invented just to steal more of your own money. And on top of that, the government would be able to judes anyone who wants to have children any way they want to in order to find whatever reason they like to deny your claim. The clerk considering your birth application doesnt like something about you and he'll find whatever reason he can to deny your app. Having red tape wrapped around the reproductive process is an absolutely terrifying thought and it is one that we should not even consider because of how bad we WILL f*** the whole process up.

Unless 90% of the world population stops reproducing like rabbits I'd advocate Dedmans proposal for everyone. Would give the human race a chance to survive

lol. Why make up a story about your own baby, especially if you're thirty something- it's not like people are going to look down on you, at least not that much.

Top Gun wrote:What's more, your proposal is not only ethically wrong, it is also a complete violation of civil liberties.

What is ethically wrong about it? What civil liberties does it violate?

Dedman makes an interesting point. Just because you have the ability to make babies, should it be your right? Obviously it is now, but this story, along with countless others, is a good indication that maybe some people shoulnd't have that right.

As far as Dedman's proposal, I wonder how much the STD rate would shoot up if people knew they could have sex without getting pregnant.

Last time I checked, Dedman, the government does not have the right to impose medical procedures on American citizens against their will. Besides that, producing offspring is a fundamental human right; check almost any human rights organization's charter. If even the thought of something that invasive doesn't send chills up your spine, I seriously doubt your sanity. That's something I'd expect more from Iran than any Western nation.

And BigSlide, as I said above, what gives anyone, and I mean anyone, the right to tell someone that they can't have kids? Who would have the right to determine the "criteria" under which someone was "allowed" to have kids? No one, that's who.

Indeed. That's a terrifying amount of power Dedman is advocating giving the government.

What happens if...

The government decides it's going to use this power to better the population--not allowing people with any genetic disease, moderately low IQ, etc. to reproduce?

What if some fake-science comes out showing that on average, blacks are a few IQ points lower than everyone else? What if they're banned from reproducing, and it takes 30ish years to overturn the law?

What if someone decides that people with sufficiently strange religious/political/moral views aren't sane enough to be parents?

What if people decide to have a revolution, and in response the government destroys all (or a lot of) the anti-sterilization equipment, and bunkers down for a decade or so?

What if the test for "good parenthood" keeps letting violent people through, and a political movement to protect the children keeps pushing to make the restrictions tighter and tighter--even if it doesn't really do any good?

What if some very poor people can't afford the anti-sterilization procedure?

News Update:

The baby was her's. She was trying to hide the pregnacy. Noone tossed it anywhere. *whew*!

You're right, Drakona. That's not a public service, that's eugenics.