nehalem256
Lifer
- Apr 13, 2012
- 15,669
- 8
- 0
plonk
So basically, you are too much of a coward to state your views and so instead resort to mocking others :\
plonk
Views?So basically, you are too much of a coward to state your views and so instead resort to mocking others :\
Views?
If I were to say this world would have been a better place if your mother were force-sterilized before you were conceived, would that earn me an infraction from the moderators? That would just brighten up my day!
Save them nehalem256 before you are accused of not caring about children!
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&q=starving+children+in+africa
(nsfw)
(p.s. mocking is also a form of stating one's views)
(p.p.s. nobody cares about "views", actions are what count, what actions have you done to prove you care about children?)
QUOTE=nehalem256;33356562]8th Amendment
---------------------
Sterilizing some who has demonstrated they are unfit to be a parent by their actions against one(in this case 7) of their children is in no way cruel and unusual punishment. It is common sense. If you loaned your car to someone and they used it to drag race and crashed it, would you loan them your car again?
LR... Well... it is UNcommon sense... But I do see you have a few hands filled with the stones of compliance... And, I feel that you are not only prepared to throw them but are compelled to that action with little regard for a higher principle...
The analogy fails in that cars are not people and the decision to loan is yours. It is your property. Whereas, in the topic we speak to you seek to decide for another person... IOW, you are trying to force another to do or not do something with what is theirs.
Skinner v Oklahoma
----------------------
It was found unconstitutional because it only sterilized for white collar, but not blue collar crime. Sterilizing for committing child abuse/neglect is a much narrower standard. And as I outlined above... common sense.
LR... Well, close... it did not include white collar... but no problem, I see the greater point you make...
It is a form of child abuse, I agree. I think it would be the opinion of the child that even though they were born with this issue they are happy to have been born... You'd deny them that opportunity... For money no less...
Buck v. Bell would if anything back up my position.
LR... Right... I don't doubt that and you have rational thinkers to point to... but Buck deals with... Mentally Retarded... and endorses Negative Eugenics... Do you feel she is retarded? and do you think the children she produces are genetically inferior? IF so, what proof do you proffer?
If she cannot be sterilized clearly she should be forced to abort.
LR... Interesting... When does this fetus attain the rights of a human? That is pretty important don't you think? We are in many minds on this issue it seems.
I believe men should have equal opportunity as women to terminate their parental rights/responsibilities. She opted not to do so, and should therefore be held responsible for those choices (7 children).
LR... You may terminate what ever right you possess but you may not terminate the responsibility... That flows under law and it is good that it is so... so that we don't have to pay for their participation in the baby making process...
I am completely opposed to the sale supplying of drugs. I would support Singapore like laws which instituted canings and executions for drug related crimes.
LR... Except for the 8th being what it is and the conclusions our robed friends on the bench have come to...
You'd must live by a quarry what with all the stones you must throw... But, of course, I should be about washing my eyes out a bit.. something bound to be in there... from the forest you drop on the world from yours...
You are consistent though... I'll give you that... Perhaps if you'd maybe look at this issue with nothing but compassion - not easy to do - you may see there is more to this than what agitates you...
You are consistent though... I'll give you that... Perhaps if you'd maybe look at this issue with nothing but compassion - not easy to do - you may see there is more to this than what agitates you...
Compassion for whom though.
Compassion for the hardworking honest people who will be forced to pay for the consequences of the woman's actions?
Compassion for the children the woman abused?
Or compassion for the piece of trash woman in the article?
I am compassionate for the first 2. Liberals are only compassionate for the woman, and she is clearly the least deserving of compassion, because she is suffering for her own actions.
Forced sterilization? Why not put it in other terms, make a different offer, like "free & voluntary"?
It seems highly unlikely that the woman in question actually *wants* children- more like being pregnant & having children is a burden she'd rather avoid.
The woman has mental issues and drug problems therefore logical thinking is not part of her forte,
even with her hands on sex education she still has a high level of recidivism that logical thinking highly educated social service people somehow can't fix.
What they need to do is go after the fathers and make public examples out of them all "four to six" of them and make them pay for the children through child support or by breaking big rocks into little rocks.
Maybe then they would think a little more logical and use some protection.