Every once in a while you read something...

[pelov]

Every once in a while you read something that makes you utterly sick to your stomach; this is one of those times. I can't fathom anything more irresponsible, selfish and disgusting than putting a newborn through something like this just because your life is so shitty and you feel the need to abuse either prescription medication or take illegal opiates.

Absolutely fucking disgusting.

 

[WackyDan]

"As most were born to mothers who were entitled to financial help with their medical costs, the study said this was placing a serious burden on health budgets. "

That tells me all I need to know and all I assumed was correct. Too bad it is a violation of rights to sterilize ( either permanently or temporary) these people on the 2nd or 3rd time they prove they can not be productive members of society and be responsible about reproduction.

 

[Jaskalas]

People whose lives are 'so shitty' I'm willing to bet have lost some of the capacity to care about others, even their children.

Misery is a wet blanket to empathy.

 

[Moonbeam]

People whose lives are 'so shitty' I'm willing to bet have lost some of the capacity to care about others, even their children.

Misery is a wet blanket to empathy.

I was going to agree with you fully, but the more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that the knowledge of misery seems to be required for empathy. How can you empathize with the unknown. It seems to me the question is why does one person who is miserable torment others to cause them misery and why does another work to alleviate the suffering of others. We see the same thing in the ghetto. One person become a gang member and another devotes himself to finding a way out through self development and achievement.

Why the whole of science isn't dedicated to understanding these things is another question I pose. It seems to me likely that in the positive cases above we will find somebody in the person's developmental life that cared for them, that somehow some sense of self worth and self respect was transmitted.

 

[nehalem256]

"As most were born to mothers who were entitled to financial help with their medical costs, the study said this was placing a serious burden on health budgets. "

That tells me all I need to know and all I assumed was correct. Too bad it is a violation of rights to sterilize ( either permanently or temporary) these people on the 2nd or 3rd time they prove they can not be productive members of society and be responsible about reproduction.

Thank goodness we have liberals around to protect people's rights to abuse their children.

 

[WackyDan]

I was going to agree with you fully, but the more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that the knowledge of misery seems to be required for empathy. How can you empathize with the unknown. It seems to me the question is why does one person who is miserable torment others to cause them misery and why does another work to alleviate the suffering of others. We see the same thing in the ghetto. One person become a gang member and another devotes himself to finding a way out through self development and achievement.

Why the whole of science isn't dedicated to understanding these things is another question I pose. It seems to me likely that in the positive cases above we will find somebody in the person's developmental life that cared for them, that somehow some sense of self worth and self respect was transmitted.

You are correct to a degree... But the variable is always going to be the individual and freedom of choice. You can help some people, you can provide a support structure and influence 2nd to none and yet they can still end up being a gang member, homeless, a criminal, a drug abuser... There are people that you can never apply logic to...

Given the right environment and "steering" I'm sure we'd end up with less people in misery/squalor... but you will never reach 100% of them... and some people just can't be helped no matter how much you invest in them... in time, money, yourself....

 

[WackyDan]

Thank goodness we have liberals around to protect people's rights to abuse their children.

I get the sarcasm... But this had me thinking... First - just in case you didn't know.. I'm a conservative... But I am not religious. That makes me more of a moderate in some eyes, but I take a pretty hard stance on some core conservative issues so to a liberal or progressive I'm far right wing.

I continue to scratch my head... as to why the religious right is so against abortion, when time and time again it is proven that the highest consumers of abortion services are minorities and those in poverty.

Why do my fellow conservatives want to preserve a life that may not amount to much, that will be as much a ward of the state as their parent's were? You'd think we'd be pro choice as a way to limit/reduce the growing number of social program lifers in this country and grow the productive base of the population. Why do we continue to protect people who's only desire in life is to simply exist at great expense to others? The solution isn't ONLY to reduce poverty.... but should also be to reduce the breeding rate of those types and the incentives for them to be like that via an unlimited for life social safety net.

I don't care if they are white, black, hispanic, etc...

 

[nehalem256]

I get the sarcasm... But this had me thinking... First - just in case you didn't know.. I'm a conservative... But I am not religious. That makes me more of a moderate in some eyes, but I take a pretty hard stance on some core conservative issues so to a liberal or progressive I'm far right wing.

I continue to scratch my head... as to why the religious right is so against abortion, when time and time again it is proven that the highest consumers of abortion services are minorities and those in poverty.

Why do my fellow conservatives want to preserve a life that may not amount to much, that will be as much a ward of the state as their parent's were? You'd think we'd be pro choice as a way to limit/reduce the growing number of social program lifers in this country and grow the productive base of the population. Why do we continue to protect people who's only desire in life is to simply exist at great expense to others? The solution isn't ONLY to reduce poverty.... but should also be to reduce the breeding rate of those types and the incentives for them to be like that via an unlimited for life social safety net.

I don't care if they are white, black, hispanic, etc...

^ Sound similar to my line of thinking.

Unfortunately nothing will ever be done because Conservatives wont allow abortion, and liberals wont allow anyone to tell women what to do.

 

[alzan]

Thank goodness we have liberals around to protect people's rights to abuse their children.

Yes, because conservatives never abuse their children.

/sarcasm

 

[pelov]

^ Sound similar to my line of thinking.

Unfortunately nothing will ever be done because Conservatives wont allow abortion, and liberals wont allow anyone to tell women what to do.

Somehow the Conservative line of thought in this country has been intertwined with the religiously devout. Nowadays if you consider yourself an atheist or even agnostic you're almost certainly branded an anything-but Conservative. Faith has replaced pragmatism and American ideals have been forcefully molded into Christian values. To run for office today you must ignore the jagged edges.

But I don't think this is a political issue. After reading the article my only notion was that of basic human principles and instincts that precede political ideals and thought (you can argue that they're the foundation of politics itself). Just basic morals and ethics. really. The question I asked myself was just how somebody could lose sight of something that primitive as caring for your offspring. The argument that it's a result of the sheer addictive nature of opiates isn't true as you can essentially replace that with any other drug and still find numerous cases of this type of willful ignorance. People are a lot more fucked up than I've given them credit for.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, because conservatives never abuse their children.

/sarcasm

I never said anything about the abuser being liberal or conservative.

I said liberals are the ones who insist on not anyway infringing on the right, of women who abuse their kids, to keep having more. FACT

 

[dank69]

Thank goodness we have liberals around to protect people's rights to abuse their children.

Thank goodness we have 'conservatives' around that want government to restrict people's rights, like the right to reproduce, one of the most basic and fundamental rights. Just think, once 'conservatives' fight to give government the power to dictate who can and cannot reproduce, we libruls can use that power to make sure conservatives are placed on the 'do not procreate' list.

 

[Moonbeam]

WackyDan: You are correct to a degree...

M: Maybe you noticed that when I posted I used terms like 'it seems to me'. I think what you meant to say was that I am correct to a degree in your opinion. I personally believe I was a lot more correct than you think, as I will show:

WD: But the variable is always going to be the individual and freedom of choice.

M: I suggested that I do not know what makes one person who experiences misery empathetic and another cruel, but I suggested it might be environmental factors like somebody in a child's life who shows them self respect. What you seem to be saying is that it is deterministic somehow, genetics, the will of God, karma for bad behavior in a previous life, or God knows what. In other words you aren't saying anything but that A is one way and B another, end of story. And I also do not believe in choice. As long as people are motivated by unconscious forces, and I see nothing but evidence for this, they are motivated by unconscious forces. You do not act out of choice when what moves you are things you cannot see. I would assert, for example, that your belief in choice is motivated by a need you do not know you have to think that way.


WD: You can help some people, you can provide a support structure and influence 2nd to none and yet they can still end up being a gang member, homeless, a criminal, a drug abuser...

M: There may be people who are born with brain abnormalities that make it impossible for them to experience empathy. They are not actually born human. These cases I think are rare. Otherwise, we can have no idea whether what you say is true or not because we do not live in a world where children are never put down. Everybody gets fucked over as I see it.

CW: There are people that you can never apply logic to...

M: There is no one you can't apply love to.

WD: Given the right environment and "steering" I'm sure we'd end up with less people in misery/squalor... but you will never reach 100% of them... and some people just can't be helped no matter how much you invest in them... in time, money, yourself....

M: So lets get busy doing what we can now because if there are some that can't be reached it may be because it's now too late.

I believe we tell ourselves stories to protect ourselves from seeing that we are our brothers keepers and we have failed. It is much easier to say that some can't be helped than never to give up on anyone.

 

[WackyDan]

Thank goodness we have 'conservatives' around that want government to restrict people's rights, like the right to reproduce, one of the most basic and fundamental rights. Just think, once 'conservatives' fight to give government the power to dictate who can and cannot reproduce, we libruls can use that power to make sure conservatives are placed on the 'do not procreate' list.

Except that it was the dominate democrats in the south back in the 1920's and 1930's who made forced sterilization legal. Go figure.

 

[WackyDan]

WackyDan: You are correct to a degree...

M: Maybe you noticed that when I posted I used terms like 'it seems to me'. I think what you meant to say was that I am correct to a degree in your opinion. I personally believe I was a lot more correct than you think, as I will show:

WD: But the variable is always going to be the individual and freedom of choice.

M: I suggested that I do not know what makes one person who experiences misery empathetic and another cruel, but I suggested it might be environmental factors like somebody in a child's life who shows them self respect. What you seem to be saying is that it is deterministic somehow, genetics, the will of God, karma for bad behavior in a previous life, or God knows what. In other words you aren't saying anything but that A is one way and B another, end of story. And I also do not believe in choice. As long as people are motivated by unconscious forces, and I see nothing but evidence for this, they are motivated by unconscious forces. You do not act out of choice when what moves you are things you cannot see. I would assert, for example, that your belief in choice is motivated by a need you do not know you have to think that way.


WD: You can help some people, you can provide a support structure and influence 2nd to none and yet they can still end up being a gang member, homeless, a criminal, a drug abuser...

M: There may be people who are born with brain abnormalities that make it impossible for them to experience empathy. They are not actually born human. These cases I think are rare. Otherwise, we can have no idea whether what you say is true or not because we do not live in a world where children are never put down. Everybody gets fucked over as I see it.

CW: There are people that you can never apply logic to...

M: There is no one you can't apply love to.

WD: Given the right environment and "steering" I'm sure we'd end up with less people in misery/squalor... but you will never reach 100% of them... and some people just can't be helped no matter how much you invest in them... in time, money, yourself....

M: So lets get busy doing what we can now because if there are some that can't be reached it may be because it's now too late.

I believe we tell ourselves stories to protect ourselves from seeing that we are our brothers keepers and we have failed. It is much easier to say that some can't be helped than never to give up on anyone.

I think we are on a similar thought but the end to the means is different for both of us because of our political leanings... etc.

I get what you originally said. I'll digress for a bit.

In 2009 I was laid off. Wife Pregnant. We developed serious complications in the womb and were monitored closely as well told we would deliver as early as 30-32 weeks. They were wrong... She went into the hospital with HELLP Syndrome at 26 weeks and delivered our 1 pound 4.2 ounce daughter at 27 weeks 2 days gestation.

Our daughter spent 79 days in the NICU and continues to amaze us at 19 months... she is turning out quite normal when odds were high that we'd notice something wrong by now...

Anyway... during that, people prayed for her...We are not religious, but that complete strangers were including her in their prayers meant a lot that they cared so much to apply their faith on our behalf... It was moving. The kindness and thoughtfulness of people as well the commitment of the nursing staff changed us. It was the most traumatic event I've had to suffer through in my life and it turned into something beautiful.

Now, I donate heavily to the March of Dimes... I speak at support groups for those newly in the NICU with their newborns and I'm much more prone to have empathy for others going through struggles...

We made it through all that even though I was unemployed... I carried our own insurance and provided for my new family... That was the result of much hard work and planning.

So I get that... you have to live through something in order to identify with it. I've never been homeless, have never fought mental demons, and never been addicted to a substance, so my empathy towards those in those situations is and probably will remain lacking. My stance is based on my upbringing, personal experiences and the fact that even though my life hasn't been hard, it hasn't been easy and I've managed to not fall down into the gutter or become a net drain to the rest of society.

 

[nehalem256]

Thank goodness we have 'conservatives' around that want government to restrict people's rights, like the right to reproduce, one of the most basic and fundamental rights. Just think, once 'conservatives' fight to give government the power to dictate who can and cannot reproduce, we libruls can use that power to make sure conservatives are placed on the 'do not procreate' list.

So in other words you find a woman's "right" to reproduce to be more important than the welfare of a child.

 

[Sunburn74]

Every once in a while you read something that makes you utterly sick to your stomach; this is one of those times. I can't fathom anything more irresponsible, selfish and disgusting than putting a newborn through something like this just because your life is so shitty and you feel the need to abuse either prescription medication or take illegal opiates.

Absolutely fucking disgusting.

Yeah dude this has been going on for years. In fact, little heroin babies is nothing.

Whats worse is women with HIV and are pregnant who are told that if they take X drug, they can reduce the chance of transmission of the virus to their child to <2%. But without it, transmission will be around 25%. We will provide the drug for free if you want. The woman often says "nah screw it. I'm good. I just want to do more crack". And doctors, the government, and society in general is powerless to do anything but watch.

So in other words you find a woman's "right" to reproduce to be more important than the welfare of a child.

I think her right to not reproduce is as important as the welfare of her child.

Personally, I'd have the state issue reproduction licenses (just like a drivers license) and any unmandated reproductions get terminated and/or are subject to heavy heavy fines.

 

[dank69]

So in other words you find a woman's "right" to reproduce to be more important than the welfare of a child.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Go ahead, keep arguing to give the government the power to decide who can and cannot procreate. I'm sure they'll always use that power for good and not evil. They'll never turn their eye on you to decide if you should be able to fuck the prom queen.

 

[nehalem256]

Won't someone please think of the children?

Go ahead, keep arguing to give the government the power to decide who can and cannot procreate. I'm sure they'll always use that power for good and not evil. They'll never turn their eye on you to decide if you should be able to fuck the prom queen.

So you have absolutely no reasoned argument you can make.

OMG THE GOVERNEMNTZ MIGHT COME FOR ME.

So, I assume you believe we should cut all socials spending as well, because the government cant be trusted right. RIP food stamps and Social Security and Medicare.

 

[nehalem256]

Maybe we should make slander and libel legal. After all if the government makes it illegal to spread lies maybe next the will make it illegal to spread the truth.

Maybe we should let people who have committed crimes with guns own guns. Because next they might come after people who dont abuse their gun rights.

 

[boomerang]

I get the sarcasm... But this had me thinking... First - just in case you didn't know.. I'm a conservative... But I am not religious. That makes me more of a moderate in some eyes, but I take a pretty hard stance on some core conservative issues so to a liberal or progressive I'm far right wing.

I continue to scratch my head... as to why the religious right is so against abortion, when time and time again it is proven that the highest consumers of abortion services are minorities and those in poverty.

Why do my fellow conservatives want to preserve a life that may not amount to much, that will be as much a ward of the state as their parent's were? You'd think we'd be pro choice as a way to limit/reduce the growing number of social program lifers in this country and grow the productive base of the population. Why do we continue to protect people who's only desire in life is to simply exist at great expense to others? The solution isn't ONLY to reduce poverty.... but should also be to reduce the breeding rate of those types and the incentives for them to be like that via an unlimited for life social safety net.

I don't care if they are white, black, hispanic, etc...

Like yourself, I am conservative and not religious in the slightest. Further, I take a neutral stance on abortion. I see both sides of the picture.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the right is blind to the pitfalls of reduced availability of abortions. IMO, the position of the right is more one of providing balance to a potentially one sided situation where abortion is freely available with no strings attached and someone else is paying for it. In other words a society in which birth control is not practiced because an abortion is a pill or a procedure away, with no financial repercussions for the woman.

It's too easy to judge the political leanings of a group based on the marginal extreme and I'm sure my post will bring out a lot of rhetoric proclaiming that all on the right hold an extreme view. It's not representative of reality. But it does make for good press.

 

[airdata]

They're letting rush limbaugh donate sperm?

 

[dank69]

So you have absolutely no reasoned argument you can make.

OMG THE GOVERNEMNTZ MIGHT COME FOR ME.

So, I assume you believe we should cut all socials spending as well, because the government cant be trusted right. RIP food stamps and Social Security and Medicare.

Nope, I have no desire to try to stop you from attempting to give the government power over who is allowed to make babbies. Knock yourself out.

 

[dank69]

Like yourself, I am conservative and not religious in the slightest. Further, I take a neutral stance on abortion. I see both sides of the picture.

I think it's a mistake to assume that the right is blind to the pitfalls of reduced availability of abortions. IMO, the position of the right is more one of providing balance to a potentially one sided situation where abortion is freely available with no strings attached and someone else is paying for it. In other words a society in which birth control is not practiced because an abortion is a pill or a procedure away, with no financial repercussions for the woman.

It's too easy to judge the political leanings of a group based on the marginal extreme and I'm sure my post will bring out a lot of rhetoric proclaiming that all on the right hold an extreme view. It's not representative of reality. But it does make for good press.

I notice you want 'financial repercussions' for the woman but what about the man? She didn't knock herself up.

 

[boomerang]

I notice you want 'financial repercussions' for the woman but what about the man? She didn't knock herself up.

Really? Is that what you got from my post?