That is always an impotent question. Ultimately, like all moral question, the answer is reached threw a social consensus, by evaluating affect of behaviors on society, which hopefully is reflected threw democratic means in state law.

parenting is a behavior, bad parenting is a behavior which has anti social consequences.



I think the key is not to use arbitrary metrics. Molestation is not for instance necessarily more harmful to society than neglect. In any case these are empirical question. They are not outside of our ability to measure.

In case one, six kids might be too many. We all would be better off if she had had only two say. In the second case, one may be too many and we would all be better off if she had not had any..... of course in both cases, two people brought about those children.... the father of the six and the father of the two should also not be aloud to have more children as long as these conditions persist and he is unable, incapable, or actively involved in the parental abuse, neglect.



I think that is an empirical question. We shouldn't discount that some ideologies are socially harmful and that brainwashing people to believe them is harmful to society.

Germany has outlawed Nazism. It is unlawfully to sell Mein Kampf. That is social decision which they made and which makes a lot more sense in Germany than the US, clearly write and wrong are not always absolute and are conditional on a lot of circumstances.

By the way I was helped a lot in my thinking on morality by a book called, The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer.



I oppose jail, though in your hypothetical molestation case I support removal form society. Some people are too mentally ill to handle social interactions without harming other people. that is a sad reality of the human condition.

I think external over sight, probations, education, with the threat of removing the children being harmed is enough to get most parents to not have children. Remove the extra children at birth if the parent won't use birth control. And use fines as a last resort.

The fact is this. Laws both reflect and project moral value. Therefor just having laws on the books will improve parenting.

in the simplist terms possible:

In the US House*, there's a bill that's waiting to be passed that will prohibit men from pissing on the floor around the urinals. those who cannot control their stream will be forced to be catheterized, a relatively uncomfortable, invasive act that involves shoving a tube up your penis so that it may pee into a bag. the potential for complications are there (infections, local trauma), but minimal.

this law meets all your argued criteria:
-peeing on the floor is, as decided by socital consensus, not a good thing, as it affects society as a whole in terms of sanitation(2)
-shitting on the floor is not addressed in this bill, even though the sanitation concerns trump that of peeing(1)
-the duration of this imposed sanction is arbitrary (case-by-case review), but repeat offenders will not be allowed to continue peeing in public bathrooms, or will be subject to fines (for which they may/may not be able to afford)(3)

now, with the imminent threat of a tube being shoved up your junk for that one infractionary droplet that escaped the urinal, are you more or less likely to pee on the floor?

*completely theoretical
(1)
(2)

(3)

Nohope, do you really think having more laws on the books will improve parenting? Honestly, did you just say that? Who exactly is going to enforce this? does part of your plan also include having big brother watch every parents move?

I work front line with people who would be accused of being "bad" parents. Everyone has their own style of parenting. I personally think people who teach absitence only are morons, however, if their children are being treated kindly, not being abused, not being neglected, etc. This one issue of sex education doesn't make them a bad parent, nor does it make everything else about their parenting moronic.

I find it very ironic, nohope, that you pass yourself off as this extremely liberal, open minded person, when you really aren't. your ideologies about law fall into the same category as those who are very right wing. We need better laws for parenting, ergo will need people to police parents, and who's a big fan of things like that? More laws to dictate morality? ahh yes, that's something which falls in with righ wing dogma's. Your ignorance also falls in with a religious dogma.

Why shouldn't people who pee on the flour not be fined at the very least. My Partner cleaned toilets at a university in order to get an education. What people think is exceptionable behavior is simply amazing. Some form of consequence for their action to me would be welcome.

I am not a big fan of legalizing morality, but the evidence seems to indicate that laws change social norms and so there for I have to admit that laws would.



I go were the evidence leads. Not were I wish it lead.



How are smoking bans enforced?



I think we all know that we are talking about abuse and neglect. And yes that could mean that parents need to stop beating their children. How is it that we believe that the law should protect the rights of the biggest, strongest and most independent members of society doing what ever they want to the smallest and weakest and most dependent in society.

That is a morally bankrupt position.




ad hominem

I don't think I understand. There are laws in the books about parenting, especially with regrads to neglect, abuse and molestion. I don't know that it has improved the parenting of people who have bad intentions towards their children so much as it has increased punishments towards those people.

I don't think there is much debate that our society has moved dramatically away from punishments and towards rewards.

Just a generation or two ago, teachers beating school children was considered completely acceptable. Today there are discussions about whether "time out," is a form of child abuse.

And whether we are talking about children, womens rights, or those of various minority groups, Laws giving people rights have almost always preceded shifts in social norms.

Without affirmative action, Obama would almost certainlt not be president today. It was laws which outlawed discrimination based on race in the work place which have shifted the social norms.

the point is, every guy i've ever known has at one time or another, misdirected his stream, or gotten a dribble outside the confines of the urinal.

it's a metaphor. parenting (like a stream), can be misdirected by the mere fact that everyone is human, and missed the mark (urinal) of society's acceptable parenting standards (no matter how benign or egregious).

i don't know how much more of this i can argue. it's an inalieable right to stake claim to YOUR OWN BODY, make decisions for YOUR OWN BODY.

if society takes your body away from YOU, then we're all doomed. and THAT, ultimately, is not going to be good for society.

All I know is that peeing on the flour is a waste of good flour.

(stifling a snicker )

Society has already taken your body away form you. That is why we have the highest per capita prison population in the world. There are lots of things you can not control about your body. The only question is should we be able to ask bad parents to not have anymore children.

Just for the recored there is this thing called abstinence by which people can not have any more children. Forcing people to take birth control is not the only means. Just like bank robbery, we don't tell people how to keep themselves from robbing banks, we just set up a systems of social consequences for doing so and let each individual find their own way to comply.

I do not see how restricting the number of children is any more of an invasion of personal privacy.

Okay, so I'm switching topics because Nohope is a douche & I wish he'd take his ball & go home.

This is pretty damned cool. And the doc is kinda hawt in that weird, German way.

Nohope DUDE, I can't even believe you are asking a question about how restricting the number of children is an invasion of personal provacy! Holy crap man, democracy now democracy now, but then you say shit like that. Oh fuck, it's the fucking morality police! I can't think about this, my brain hurts.

AP, that is super interesting! And I agree, the doc is sessi!

I'm going to ignore nohope too, because if someone can't see the problem with restricting children to parents, etc, then I can't see anyone to rationally carry on a discussion with him.

Moving on, AP, that's such a cool story. I can't wait to hear more on that.

For reals, isn't it!

I have a weird AIDs story. Since I was wee bitch, my best friend was a friend of my folks. He lived in SF & we exchanged a furious amount of letters/cards. Then he got sick. I wasn't realy smart enough to understand HIV when I was ten, but I knew he was sick & nobody would tell me why. They didn't want to say, "Well he's got the queer disease" when that's what they thought it was. Thankfully. But I knew something was wrong. We had lunch. Our LAST lunch because after that he got hella ill & died.

He was SOOOOO special to me. He was sooooo much a part of who I am as a person. The first time I ever spoke at a eulogy was him when I was eleven. He inspired me so much. He made me confident in my weird, fucked up self. He made me feel OKAY.

I just hope that this can help other people. Could I have given it to Vaguhn, I would have. My heart still goes out to him.

Things You miss To recognize around Cialis

There are commlone two types of psychedelics to determine from. The sooner is branded psychedelics which are sold at prominent pharmacies for heinous prices.
Your double selection is Cialis which are offered for low prices. There are some individuals who opt for the latter when their account is not reasonably for branded medicaments.
fifty-fifty if generic numbs fathom altogether other from the supreme brands, the formulation of the last is comparqualified with the latter.
While you can buy generic medicaments at pharmacies located within your quarter, you can also buy generic medicament online.
There are certain websites which deal in remedys and one of these is.

Cialis trust in which caters predominantly to clients who required to obtain affordproficient recipes. Whether you are looking for a medicament for your
steep blood bring to bear on or for your viral infection, you devise be proficient to avail of a numb which does not amount to more than $2.
Buy lousy generic Cialis online, and you devise greatly promote from the low prices of its numbs. The costs of the medications at this psychedelic shop sphere from 0.49 cents to 1.99 cents.
This implies that you devise not drink to fritter away much in correct for you to discover a medication for your sickness. If you allocate Alzheimer's infirmity,
steep cholesterol on, feven, or a upright difficulty, you can get your numb from .You can quits buy generic Cialis medicaments for sadness and erectile dysfunction
here at this online dispensary. You can buy Cialis, Viagra, Levitra, online to helple the signs of erectile dysfunction.

When you buy Cialis and it has been shipped to you, you are not allocatequalified to interest it as soon as you learn it. putting, there is an lockout
to this proffer policy. You resolution lone be qualified to deliver the remaining psychedelic when the shipped medication is not the one you sooner a be wearing corrected.
If this is the if it happens, you resolution be accordd with a utmost refund. Shipping charges are also included with this refund. On the other help,
you are allocateed to rub out your procedure without blot outlation fees. This is workable as yearn as you apprise the rub outlation on account of e-send twelve hours after you procure corrected.
When you blot out within this aeon, desire try to approve this. regardless how, there is no confidence that your correct resolution be rub outled.

When you craving to buy ly Cialis, you required a remedy. The medication that you confer on to this online numbstore should be valid and accordd by a licensed doctor.
The medication also be in want ofs to sooner a be wearing a signed impersonate which you are flourishing to back away from to the physicians of , in pecking for you to get your correct.
You can send your doctor's remedy including the prop e-send take in of this psychedelic trust in. If you are water eighteen years old, your medication desire not be accepted.
They desire lone forearm you with the psychedelics when the remedy has been co-signed by your right guardian. If continuously you do not sooner a be wearing a remedy for the medications
that you lack, you obligation see to it that you get one from your doctor.

Author : Abel Davis http://www.onlinepharmacy.vg/catalog/-c-32_469.html

this just in, some health insurance plans cover cialis and not birth control

First Female Four Star General!!!!!



http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/14/woman.4.s...eral/index.html

What the hell. I thought fire season was over, but starting on Thursday, there was a fire in Montecito (near my hometown of Santa Barbara), and then things started burning in Sylmar, which is the northeast portion of LA, right at the base of the San Gabriel mountains, and now there's a big fire burning in OC. They've lost over 100 homes. I'm feeling so bad for the people in Sylmar and OC.

The other issue is that lots of ash has been blowing up into my neighborhood from the OC fire since about 11 a.m. this morning. It turned the sky this hazy, post-apocalyptic shade of gray and made it look like it was permanently 4 o'clock in the afternoon at 11 a.m. this morning. I went out to get my mail and could barely breathe without coughing. I've spent the day inside with my windows closed, the A/C on, watching news coverage of the awful fires. I haven't been able to go outside at all. I'm a little worried about the fire heading my way from OC, since I'm not that far away, but I think I'm just being a little over-anxious and fatalistic about it...although it's hard not to get that way when you've got this post-apocalyptic atmosphere outside. I'm sure the firefighters will have it contained soon.

Here's more info from the LA Times.

((((thirties)))) stay safe!

There have been some kind of terrorist attacks across the city in Mumbai, India. At least 80 people are dead and there have been some hostages taken. So far, no one has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

WARNING for animal lovers, especially if you are a cat person: this story is not pretty.

This story broke my heart today.

This shit is bananas! I've heard of this kind of thing but have never seen it like this!

I could make a bad joke about something running through his mind, but I won't....oops.

WTF? (Safe for work and everything, just weird and stupid.)

(Cross-posted in the Feminist Outrage thread)

Sickening.

Polly, I read the scroll about this on CBC this morning. I am disgusted and heartbroken.

Update

Okay, so this woman already had 6 children and underwent fertility treatment..why? So she could have 8 more of course. It's not like she couldn't have children at all, but isn't this just a shade greedy? the news said she lives with her parents...

look it's the family of 14 who lives in their parents house.

thank you for posting this CH. i read an article online that said she lives with her folks and i was just outraged. i didn't see anything mentioned about a father or partner. hhmmm. it does smack of greediness to me.

I read that she had the treatment but wasn't expecting to have eight. Then when she found out she didn't want to reduce the number of embryos because she couldn't ''kill them''. She does have a husband, he's a contractor about to leave for Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7860041.stm


As a side note, I feel really sorry for her uterus.

The BBC stated that the father is present but is leaving shortly for Iraq (he's a contractor). From his job location, they'll have money (the risk factor involved; contractors in the Middle East earn fortunes), and I assume that she is staying with her parents for childcare and support.

Calling her greedy makes me uncomfortable. It's her choice how many children she has; obviously she wanted one or more in addition to the additional six but I doubt she sat down and thought, "hey, I'll raise fourteen children under the age of seven". I think she deserves our sympathy, not condemnation. Yes, it's pretty stupid going for fertility treatment -which increases your chances of a multiple pregnancy- when you already have six and I don't envy her but it was her choice.

...actually, I have to agree with bunnyb. As much as I'm personally against the whole fertility treatment thing and stuff like this, if I'm truly going to be pro-choice, then I can't really pass judgement on her - especially if she and her husband do have the means to have these children. It is her choice.

bunnyb, i call it greedy. seriously dude. she had alot of kids beforehand. it was not like she had no children. i'm witnessing this level of greediness with conceiving children in my own life. my aunt has a daughter and has unsuccessfully tried for a child...but it is not that she just wants a child...she wants a boy. a childhood friend with 2 daughters...wanted to have another child...cause she wanted a boy. i'm sorry, but i think this woman should've put some thought into things before just getting fertility treatment. i'm not condemning the woman, but i think this story brings up an interesting conversation about fertility treatments.

what i don't understand is, if she had 6 kids already why the heck was she on fertility treatment? its not like she had any problems getting pregnant. she has 6 kids to prove that. Its beyond messed up that now she has 14 kids while who are on fertility have none, still have none.

I don't get what's wrong with that, star. Your aunt wants a son, your friend wants a son, so they try for another child... if they had another daughter would they love her any less? would they still try for a son? Is that where your issue is? if they were designer baby making and manipulating a son then I would have an issue. If they were dumping their daughters in orphanages or killing rooms then that would definitely be an issue. I don't get it. If a woman chooses to conceive and raise, however many children, then who are we to judge? Okay, if she has 14 kids and is receiving benefits then that isn't on but her husband has a good job and they have every right to increase their family.

QUOTE(StarLightBright @ Jan 30 2009, 06:44 PM)

Its beyond messed up that now she has 14 kids while who are on fertility have none, still have none.

Life, unfortunately, isn't fair. It's not the fault of the woman, or the babies, that other women cannot conceive. I doubt that legally any fertility doctor can say to a woman that they won't implant embryos because she already has six children (although they would probably advise the patient of the chances of a multiple pregnancy) or that other patients have none.

Also, who is to say that the other pregnancies weren't a result of fertility treatment? Apparently two of the existing six children are twins.

This reminds me of recent comments I read regarding speculation that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were adopting again; I cannot get my head around the vitriol that a non-news story alone can inspire. I simply don't understand it; if they want to adopt/biologically conceive fifty kids, who cares? What harm is that doing anybody in the big, wide world? All I can see is a wonderfully happy looking family who I think have a lot of love for one another. If people choose to have big families then power to them; it's not for me, but if they can love and provide for their children, then they have every right. A woman's right to choose should cover every choice a woman makes regarding children.

/random, disjointed thoughts.

You know, the way I see it, EVERY incident of rape is a hate crime.

While I do agree that a woman's right to choose should cover every aspect of having (or not having) children - I do personally have an issue with the extreme levels some take fertility treatments to. For as long as I can remember (and I mean like when I was in middle school and started realizing what "fertility treatment" meant) I have not been able to wrap my head around the idea that someone would spend thousands and thousands of dollars on treatments so they can carry their own babies, when that money could be spent adopting & raising one of the thousands of children who don't have a family. Having some treatment to a point, if you're finding it difficult to conceive, I understand. But I find the fact that people become so obsessed with having to have a baby that is genetically theirs that they'll mortgage their house to do it really fucking selfish. That's just my personal outlook on the subject, but I do agree that every woman should at least have that choice.

i don't know if i'd call it greedy so much as stupid and selfish, and irresponsible. yes, a woman's right to choose, but isn't there some some sort of thing where you hope the choice is reasoned, well thought out and rational? isn't there? it's not as if i am against big families....well, i sort of am. each human on this planet uses up how many resources? if you were in some country where you had no clue about these things that would be one thing, but in the 1st world, call me an ass, but that's irresponsible. and it slays me, absolutely slays me that these are probably the same sort of xtian folk that will not use contraception because that's "unnatural" but go and get something as artificial as fertility treatments. if god's will is where we should draw the line then, lady, get the fuck off of that doctor's table. grrrr! this-- and the marketing some couples do-- going on good morning america, soliciting products and money for something right thinking adults would have never done, makes my blood boil. this is exactly why i hate shows like jon&kate + 8, because it gives these people press, when they deserve none. they deserve our scorn. sorry. i know that will piss some people off, but the talk about how she could have reduced the number of viable embryos, but chose not to is the height of stupid non-thinking. the idea that she couldn't "kill them" is a complete misunderstanding of the conception of life. these people who are having 6, 8, 12+ twins are making a choice. it's very rarely nature run amok, it is playing with human bodies for egotistical reasons, in my view.

and yes, the contractor may make bank and be able to take care of the kids-- for now. but what if he gets killed? what if he loses a limb and is unable to work? from my understanding contractors aren't covered as well as people in the military, if at all for injury.

i'm sorry, but stories like this make me sick.


i got so mad i almost forgot why i came in here:

.:nazi zombies are on the loose in austin:.

I agree with you on (again) a personal level, GT, but I do think that on a practical level, if we were to try and stop these people from keeping all the viable embryos, then we would be no better than the anti-abortionists who picket outside family planning / abortion clinics. Just as someone may not agree with my right to choose to have an abortion, I may not agree with their right to choose to keep 8 embryos, thus bringing their family up to 14 kids. But I will uphold the right that we both have to choose what we do in regards to our bodies and reproducing.

We see this situation as sad and selfish, but some people see our views on abortion the same way. I may not agree with the having 14 kids thing, but if I attempt to take their choice to do so away, then I'm no better than the those trying to stop our right to choose abortion. I know that choosing to keep 8 embryos isn't natural, but to be honest, neither is a medical abortion by choice. (and I'm saying this as someone who fully believes abortion should be legal everywhere)

Heheh, I saw that on the news last night, nearly fell over laughing.
THE END IS COMING!!

Regarding the woman who had octuplets: I can't help but feel that she did this to get attention, to go for some sort of record. I, too, think it's rather irresponsible to have so many kids. From what I've heard, one is hard enough to deal with. But like others here, I wouldn't take it upon myself to try to tell a woman what she can and cannot do regarding her own body. Gawds help the person who would try to tell me what to do, after all.

I'm really sick of all the speculation surrounding the Casey Anthony case. That woman can't eat a peanut butter cracker without someone reading some psychological meaning into it. It would be nice if they would stick with the FACTS.

oh, i know zoya, i'm of two minds on this whole thing. part of my brain is sooooo in agreement with you. and your points are utterly valid. but it just makes me furious.

the octopulets couple thing is very tricky. i agree that we should not judge her decision to have children. have as many kids as you want. BUT...one's actions does affect someone else. while her decision to have 14 chlidren does not directly affect me, her decision indirectly affects me as a taxpayer and as a person on this earth. we are in an economic recession and limited resources on earth, i'm not saying people need to stop living or being caustic, but we need to be wiser with the decisions we make. we have become lazy and spoiled as a society to think we can act callously about consuming, more, more....whether it is kids, homes, the type of phone we have. we are a consumerist society. so, while this couple was thinking very small, "we just want a big family," they were not thinking how this one act will impact others on a societal level. i don't get the same cutbacks as a single, childfree woman. nor, do i think society should cater to people who wish to overpopulate the globe.

The plot thickens...

While I agree with what everyone is saying. I do have some ethical concerns here. It is difficult for two parents to raise 14 children, It's hard enough to provide emotional support to multiples, but 14...

CH, if you read the article, there is a discrepancy if the woman is indeed married. the article mentions her as being single. the ethical concern at this point, after talking with my mom (a nurse), was if the doctor violated any ethics by planting 8 embryos in the mother.

true true.

In other interesting vaginal news.....

Surgeons remove kidney through woman's vagina.

I'm sorry, but if you are under the impression that adoption is somehow less expensive than fertility treatments, I am going to have to correct you. I can factually state that my wife & I could go through 3 rounds of invitro fertilization for less than it costs to adopt a baby. Why, you might ask? Because adoption agencies are basically legal extortionists. They charge $20,000 plus just to set you up with a mother that wants to give her baby up. Tack on medical expenses, living expenses, food allowance, clothing allowance, attorney fees, etc., and you're very quickly approaching six figures. No, it does not always go to that extreme, but even if you only pay agency & attorney fees, you're easily looking at $25-$30k. Sure, some people get very lucky and through the grapevine get referred to a birth mother through her doctor or a friend and only wind up paying legal fees, but that is the exception to the rule. Oh, and all that only to have the birth mother or natural father be able to change their mind anywhere from 30 days to a year (depending on the state laws) and you're just shit out of luck. They can do it, you are just out your money.

It isn't always vain & selfish. It is often more affordable - especially to those fortunate enough to have insurance coverage.

I'll qualify this post as it being strictly annecdotal, in that it summarizes my personal experiences with my wife & our not being able to have our own children w/out the help of fertility treatments. We are in the process of adopting a yet to be born baby (2-6 weeks) rather than do the IVF we had planned for May. It is not going through an agency, but just sort of fell in our laps (friend of a friend has a friend looking to give up a baby). The expenses I listed for an agency adoption are in line with the fee & expected expense sheets provided by about 6 agencies in Indiana. One round of IVF at our doc is about $7500.

no, I wasn't implying that adoption is less expensive, only that if people are going to extremes in the costs of trying to conceive, that the money could go to adopting and raising a child that is already here and needing a family.

I think that my personal issues with the extremes of trying to get pregnant stem from when, a few years ago, a good friend of mine and her husband went into the very high tens of thousands trying to get pregnant. They mortgaged their house, etc. and my friend got so obsessed with getting pregnant that it strained their marriage to quite literally nearly the breaking point. She never did get pregnant from any of the treatments, and they ended up pulling things together again and adopting. The only concern I ever really expressed to her was the amount of debt they were going into, but at the end of the day she is my friend and I had to support her. However, I do still feel that after a few rounds of IVF and everything else they did that wasn't working, the money they spent to keep trying would have been better served going towards adopting and raising the child they eventually adopted anyway. (which as you said, probably cost them loads of money on top of what they'd spent already)

I don't know how often people go to those kind of extreme measures / costs to try and get pregnant - but I have to think that my friend is representative of at least some women out there trying to get pregnant. I'm sure the majority of people trying to conceive are like you and your wife, and I back that completely. I'm totally down with having science help things along if you're having a hard time getting pregnant, but if it's not working after a point it just seems to me that rather than going to really extreme measures/expenses, the money would be better served giving a baby who HAS been conceived and needs a home, a home and an upbringing.

again, just my opinion... not trying to convince anyone, just sharing what I feel.