I personally don't understand why people want to have children at all. There's all kinds of terrible things that can happen to you in life. Why would you want to bring someone into the world to suffer? I know that sounds emo and that there is joy in life as well, but I can't help but wonder how many people feel like they'd rather have never been born.
That doesn't sound emo.
Yeah, okay, so it is emo. I just don't dwell on it. I certainly don't act emo, and I'm sure people would be shocked if I told them I felt this way.
This... wow. Something big will happen someday? Really?
All that's missing here is "CALL ME NOW!" in a terrible faux-creole accent.
There are always "looming" disasters. People have been freaking out about "dwindling" natural resources for hundreds of years. The "good times" have come to an end many times (bubonic plague, the Crusades, the Great Depression, WW1, WW2...) and yet people keep on.
Your post is some kind of generalization singularity, sucking other generalizations into it.
My post admittedly lacked perspective. I don't mean that the world's gonna end or anything, just that our current way of doing things is unsustainable. Maybe things will turn out better than I expect.
It's just that our way of life has changed quite a bit in the past century, and if anything happens to throw a monkey wrench into the works there will be more people to suffer for it than ever. Whether suffering amounts to famine or simply the end of absurdly decadent consumerist society I'm not sure.
Wait, someone here actually thinks this woman is justified in having 14 kids that she can't pay for?
No one thinks its justified, but some of us think that a lot of you are being really tremendous dicks about it.
Seriously. A lot of you seem pretty emotional about this, and some of you are playing into the hates children/childbearing liberal stereotype to the point of hypocrisy.
Be rational.
I consider myself to be a very liberal person. That said I'm married, have 2 kids, and a pretty decent job as a chemist. As a parent I consider what this woman is doing to be monstrously irresponsible. If she has some independent means of wealth and money is not a factor in raising these kids then that's great. But I would still consider her irresponsible as a parent because I don't see how it's possible for this woman to care for all those children emotionally.
Wait, someone here actually thinks this woman is justified in having 14 kids that she can't pay for?
No one thinks its justified, but some of us think that a lot of you are being really tremendous dicks about it.
Seriously. A lot of you seem pretty emotional about this, and some of you are playing into the hates children/childbearing liberal stereotype to the point of hypocrisy.
Be rational.
I consider myself to be a very liberal person. That said I'm married, have 2 kids, and a pretty decent job as a chemist. As a parent I consider what this woman is doing to be monstrously irresponsible. If she has some independent means of wealth and money is not a factor in raising these kids then that's great. But I would still consider her irresponsible as a parent because I don't see how it's possible for this woman to care for all those children emotionally.
I think most or all of us consider it irresponsible, but there's a very broad, very fortified line between thinking it is irresponsible and thinking stuff like:
I am of the opinion that with the world population levels the way they are having more children than two (keeping the status quo) is downright irresponsible and animalistic.
So what do you propose doing about it?
Explain the idea so that hopefully others will realise that reproduction is just a biological desire and not something mystical like its treated as. I say the same thing to everybody I know when this type of conversation comes up, and intend to keep to the principle myself. What else is there I can do in this situation?
It's entirely possible to be logical about it. I don't know if I do or do not want a child, but if I do I only want one. (Of course if something happens like twins or something I don't have a choice, so I mean only what is within my control)
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I'm starting to get a Daddy Bender vibe from this woman.
I personally don't understand why people want to have children at all. There's all kinds of terrible things that can happen to you in life. Why would you want to bring someone into the world to suffer? I know that sounds emo and that there is joy in life as well, but I can't help but wonder how many people feel like they'd rather have never been born.
As for overpopulation and aging populations, I really don't see any viable solution other than instituting draconian policies. People love freedom, but it's just not rational for people to do whatever they want and expect that everything will be alright.
Ideally we could have a government that set reasonable limits on personal freedoms that could cause harm to others ("The freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.") and citizens could agree to self-sacrifices for the good of all. If history is any indication, though, you can't trust government with that level of power and you can't get everyone to agree to play nice.
Given the looming disasters on the horizon (aging population, climate change, economic instability, water shortages, dwindling natural resources), I don't think its unlikely that something big is going to happen someday and change civilization forever. The good times will come to a screeching halt and people will be forced to face the consequences of their actions. I'm sure that humanity will bounce back and hopefully learn from past mistakes, but it will be a while before we can recover.
I know I went off on a bit of a tangent, but those are all reasons why I personally will never have a child. As a 20 year old whose lived a fairly privileged life, I'm terrified at the thought of my wealthy society's decline. I certainly don't want to bring a new life into the world when major problems are about to hit.
The thing is, the crappiest places tend to have the highest birth rates. First world nations don't reproduce at ridiculous rates because the society demands significant work loads on all citizens and raising children is costly. Having five kids went from being fairly commonplace to being odd enough to comment on. Children aren't cost effective and let's face it, a lot of us like our child-free lifestyles. More disposable income, less responsibility, etc. It's a pretty sweet deal. Employers aren't going to object to a worker with no attachments. No missing the meeting for little Suzie's soccer match or Johnny's cub scout meeting.
I suspect that the birth rate of first world nations would go up if society actually made it possible to have both children and a job without relegating yourself to five hours of sleep a night.
I suspect that the birth rate of first world nations would go up if society actually made it possible to have both children and a job without relegating yourself to five hours of sleep a night.
Doubtful. Nations with extensive welfare-state programs, or ones where average person works 35 hours a week, and takes off about 6 weeks of the year for vacations, these are the places with the lowest birth rates. Europe (and the individual countries, to varying degree) have birth rates below the replacement rate. Their population is sustained through immigration.
Religiosness is actually more of an indicator. The United States has a relatively high birth rate since Americans tend to be more religious than other first world nations.
Wait, someone here actually thinks this woman is justified in having 14 kids that she can't pay for?
No one thinks its justified, but some of us think that a lot of you are being really tremendous dicks about it.
Seriously. A lot of you seem pretty emotional about this, and some of you are playing into the hates children/childbearing liberal stereotype to the point of hypocrisy.
Be rational.
I consider myself to be a very liberal person. That said I'm married, have 2 kids, and a pretty decent job as a chemist. As a parent I consider what this woman is doing to be monstrously irresponsible. If she has some independent means of wealth and money is not a factor in raising these kids then that's great. But I would still consider her irresponsible as a parent because I don't see how it's possible for this woman to care for all those children emotionally.
I think most or all of us consider it irresponsible, but there's a very broad, very fortified line between thinking it is irresponsible and thinking stuff like:
This crazy bitch should have been sterilized when she was trying to get knocked up as a teenager.
Why? This woman is going to ruin the lives of a dozen people and cost society a large amount of money. If she were a heroin addict or had an unhealthy sexual addiction to having limbs surgically removed we wouldn't just go ahead and let her do it at the cost of everyone around her.
I know folks will have a problem with it, but I believe having children should require a license, this license should be issued anonymously based entirely on social security number and tax information, the only requirement being that the parent can afford to have children.
Edit:
And boohooing about how expensive IVF is is ridiculous. If you can afford IVF you can afford adoption. If you're declined as a suitable adopted parent you shouldn't be able to fall back on just making some kids to fuck up since the state wont let you have any that are under it's protection.
dispatch.o on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
Justified? I'll justify this bitch right now.
This is how nature works. The more unstable the environment, the more offspring you spit out.
This strategy is embodied by the turtle. If you cant look out for any of your kids, the best strategy from the genetic perspective is to spit out as many shits as you can, and hope that some make it on their own.
This is why the lower classes have more kids than the upper classes. This is why even a slight difference in the environment (like someone coming from a single parent home) leads to more sexual promiscuity.
If you are well off (the environment is stable), the best strategy becomes to have fewer offspring and invest heavily in them.
Wait, someone here actually thinks this woman is justified in having 14 kids that she can't pay for?
No one thinks its justified, but some of us think that a lot of you are being really tremendous dicks about it.
Seriously. A lot of you seem pretty emotional about this, and some of you are playing into the hates children/childbearing liberal stereotype to the point of hypocrisy.
Be rational.
I consider myself to be a very liberal person. That said I'm married, have 2 kids, and a pretty decent job as a chemist. As a parent I consider what this woman is doing to be monstrously irresponsible. If she has some independent means of wealth and money is not a factor in raising these kids then that's great. But I would still consider her irresponsible as a parent because I don't see how it's possible for this woman to care for all those children emotionally.
I think most or all of us consider it irresponsible, but there's a very broad, very fortified line between thinking it is irresponsible and thinking stuff like:
This is how nature works. The more unstable the environment, the more offspring you spit out.
This strategy is embodied by the turtle. If you cant look out for any of your kids, the best strategy from the genetic perspective is to spit out as many shits as you can, and hope that some make it on their own.
This is why the lower classes have more kids than the upper classes. This is why even a slight difference in the environment (like someone coming from a single parent home) leads to more sexual promiscuity.
If you are well off (the environment is stable), the best strategy becomes to have fewer offspring and invest heavily in them.
You explained why it happens in nature, the thinking processes that result in it and perhaps even the environments it happens in. This is not a justification, unless you like to rely on the argument of popularity, or "everyone does it".
Justifying something is a human idea based heavily on "morality". Think about it, "justice". What is justice?
"Because its natural" is the same line you can use to justify a lot of things that are not accepted.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I dont know anything about this morality you're talking about. The morality I know is a function of genetics and kin selection.
Let's all stop trying to read more into the statements of people than what they actually write. I know we all recognize certain opinions being associated with one another but let's try to resist making the assumptions of pattern consistancy.
Wait, someone here actually thinks this woman is justified in having 14 kids that she can't pay for?
No one thinks its justified, but some of us think that a lot of you are being really tremendous dicks about it.
Seriously. A lot of you seem pretty emotional about this, and some of you are playing into the hates children/childbearing liberal stereotype to the point of hypocrisy.
Be rational.
I consider myself to be a very liberal person. That said I'm married, have 2 kids, and a pretty decent job as a chemist. As a parent I consider what this woman is doing to be monstrously irresponsible. If she has some independent means of wealth and money is not a factor in raising these kids then that's great. But I would still consider her irresponsible as a parent because I don't see how it's possible for this woman to care for all those children emotionally.
I think most or all of us consider it irresponsible, but there's a very broad, very fortified line between thinking it is irresponsible and thinking stuff like:
This crazy bitch should have been sterilized when she was trying to get knocked up as a teenager.
Why? This woman is going to ruin the lives of a dozen people and cost society a large amount of money.
Citation please.
She is unemployed.
Her offspring will be in a hospital for the next 4-6 months.
She will not be paying those bills.
Guess who will?
She has 14 children. There are 24 hours in each day. With 4 hours of sleep each day she will be able to spend 2 hours with each child (not counting the four who will be in the hospital for the next half-year). There is also no father-figure and the grandmother is in therapy because of this entire endeavor and unhealthy obsession with children. If her children end out in state custody you could on some level or another argue that their lives have been deeply harmed if not ruined by her actions and selfishness.
This is how nature works. The more unstable the environment, the more offspring you spit out.
This strategy is embodied by the turtle. If you cant look out for any of your kids, the best strategy from the genetic perspective is to spit out as many shits as you can, and hope that some make it on their own.
This is why the lower classes have more kids than the upper classes. This is why even a slight difference in the environment (like someone coming from a single parent home) leads to more sexual promiscuity.
If you are well off (the environment is stable), the best strategy becomes to have fewer offspring and invest heavily in them.
You explained why it happens in nature, the thinking processes that result in it and perhaps even the environments it happens in. This is not a justification, unless you like to rely on the argument of popularity, or "everyone does it".
Justifying something is a human idea based heavily on "morality". Think about it, "justice". What is justice?
"Because its natural" is the same line you can use to justify a lot of things that are not accepted.
Besides that, the sources I've been given is that you want fewer to provide more care to fewer kids in limited environments so that you can get one surviving kid rather than twelve dead ones, and you want to pump them out like rabbits when resources are plentiful so you can, well, pump them out like rabbits.
It should also be noted that her being an American means that she has pumped out the equivalent of 154 North Koreans and Africans in terms of resource consumption.
Let's all stop trying to read more into the statements of people than what they actually write. I know we all recognize certain opinions being associated with one another but let's try to resist making the assumptions of pattern consistancy.
So, you're saying nothing means anything?
What strikes me about the progress of this thread is that some seem to be abstracting from the particular situation to a more general situation of abstract people at abstract times. So, while some desire to converse about the particular mother with her particular 14 children and her particular lack of a job others want to abstract away and talk about "reproductive rights" of human beings.
Which is silly.
Let's try talking about this particular situation of this particular woman who has no particular plan by which she can feed her 14 particular children. We do not need to talk about abstracts. We have 14 particular children who, soon, shall be starving due to a lack of resources.
Can't we all agree that, maybe, this particular situation in-and-of-itself is problematic and that any abstract from this needs to be, ironically enough, founded upon the particular dipshittery of this situation with this woman and her 14 children which she cannot support?
No I'm saying that I've seen a lot of people assuming that If Person A has Opinion B they simply must also have Opinion C and then they'll start arguing against Opinion C when no actually Person A has Special Secret Hidden Opinion D.
Perhaps some kind of mark could be stitched upon her clothing?
It's not an issue of "no husband" in order to fulfill the requirements of an invisible man in the sky. It's an issue of "no husband" with regard to: Who the fuck is going to pay for these little shits?
If she wants to have a lesbian mistress? Great. Fine. That's awesome. But right now she doesn't even have that. She has no financial resources.
What 'little shits'? So you hate the kids too now?
Honestly, you are all coming off as the most judgemental small-minded busybodies I have ever seen.
And you are coming off as someone that just wants to argue. What this woman is doing is extremely irresponsible. To intentionally have this many children with no way to support them is a disservice to the children and to the society that will undoubtedly be forced to take care of them.
I don't think that this woman seems like a wonderful human being. I'm just of the opinion that (a) many of the people attacking her seem to have been overcome with a sudden wash of conservatism (b) that many many other parents are equally bad, but in more 'normal' ways, escaping censure, but mostly I think (c) what's the fucking point of frothing at the mouth over someone you'll never see, and taking the 'high ground' of indignation? There's a lot of fake concern for the kids covering some very odd-seeming hate. Many of the early posts in this thread are worthy of one of those 'anti-breeder' netcommunities who are frankly insane.
I don't think that this woman seems like a wonderful human being. I'm just of the opinion that (a) many of the people attacking her seem to have been overcome with a sudden wash of conservatism (b) that many many other parents are equally bad, but in more 'normal' ways, escaping censure, but mostly I think (c) what's the fucking point of frothing at the mouth over someone you'll never see, and taking the 'high ground' of indignation? There's a lot of fake concern for the kids covering some very odd-seeming hate. Many of the early posts in this thread are worthy of one of those 'anti-breeder' netcommunities who are frankly insane.
D&D is a forum in which people bitch about things they will not actively change.
Your criticisms seem to lack a full appreciation of this fact.
Also, it is not necessarily "conservativism" to think that 14 kids is too many damn kids for a single mother, WITH NO JOB, to raise.
Debating is also a good way to obtain new knowledge from people who have more, better, or different sources, and is great training for when you HAVE to enter into a debate.
Kind of like how my amazing skills at work are mostly thanks to Dungeons and Dragons.
Developed countries actually need to start shitting out more babies, to be honest. Or allowing everyone to move in with us. The U.S is lucky because it ha a huge and youthful Hispanic population which is going make a lot of babies. The rest of the West is aging terribly.
Japan in about 30 years? Fucked.
If the decline is gradual, I don't see there being a huge problem.
Japan though, you're right. FUBAR FUBAR FUBAR.
But, they are leaders in robotics, so there's that.
This is how nature works. The more unstable the environment, the more offspring you spit out.
This strategy is embodied by the turtle. If you cant look out for any of your kids, the best strategy from the genetic perspective is to spit out as many shits as you can, and hope that some make it on their own.
This is why the lower classes have more kids than the upper classes. This is why even a slight difference in the environment (like someone coming from a single parent home) leads to more sexual promiscuity.
If you are well off (the environment is stable), the best strategy becomes to have fewer offspring and invest heavily in them.
holy crap, did you just try to apply the theory of r and k selection to one species?
This is a day, people. PA has reached a new level of idiocy.
I dont know anything about this morality you're talking about. The morality I know is a function of genetics and kin selection.
You clearly don't know shit about genetics and kin selection, or ecology, or you wouldn't be spouting this stupid, stupid, theory. Go sit in a corner and think about what you've done.
The Cat on
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
This is how nature works. The more unstable the environment, the more offspring you spit out.
This strategy is embodied by the turtle. If you cant look out for any of your kids, the best strategy from the genetic perspective is to spit out as many shits as you can, and hope that some make it on their own.
This is why the lower classes have more kids than the upper classes. This is why even a slight difference in the environment (like someone coming from a single parent home) leads to more sexual promiscuity.
If you are well off (the environment is stable), the best strategy becomes to have fewer offspring and invest heavily in them.
holy crap, did you just try to apply the theory of r and k selection to one species?
This is a day, people. PA has reached a new level of idiocy.
No I'm saying that I've seen a lot of people assuming that If Person A has Opinion B they simply must also have Opinion C and then they'll start arguing against Opinion C when no actually Person A has Special Secret Hidden Opinion D.
Is this a meta post about dnd?
I mean you are right, but that can just be sorted out through the course of the argument.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Her offspring will be in a hospital for the next 4-6 months.
She will not be paying those bills.
Guess who will?
She has 14 children. There are 24 hours in each day. With 4 hours of sleep each day she will be able to spend 2 hours with each child (not counting the four who will be in the hospital for the next half-year). There is also no father-figure and the grandmother is in therapy because of this entire endeavor and unhealthy obsession with children. If her children end out in state custody you could on some level or another argue that their lives have been deeply harmed if not ruined by her actions and selfishness.
Yes, I think we can all agree that it was immensely stupid for her to bring all those children into the world. That doesn't mean you get to forcibly sterilize her or even restrict her reproduction.
Saying they should close up the welfare spigot, okay. Saying the government shouldn't pay for her in vitro, okay. Saying she shouldn't be legally allowed to have as many kids as she wants, not okay.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I dated a guy in high school who was the oldest of 13 kids. His parents were still together, and they lived in a 4 bedroom house. The parents got one room, the boys got another(which was actually a converted tool shed), the girls got the 3rd, and the babies lived in the 4th. They never had enough money, the oldest kids absolutely despised the parents because they were stuck taking care of the younger kids. Both parents worked full time and still needed government assistance to get by (mostly because the mom was constantly on maternity leave.)
Having seen the conditions they lived in, I cannot see why that woman decided doubling her current amount of children would be a move in the right direction.
Her doctor should lose his license- the current ethical guidelines clearly state someone her age should never have more than 2 embryos placed at a time.
I really don't understand how/why she sought this treatment. Does anyone know if the previous 6 kids were IVF? I got mad when I saw this story on the news and immediately thought about my ex... But at the end of the day, the lady was well within her rights to make this stupid, stupid choice. And the only thing the public can do is avoid the media whore so she doesn't profit off of it.
HenriettaCollins on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Saying they should close up the welfare spigot, okay. Saying the government shouldn't pay for her in vitro, okay. Saying she shouldn't be legally allowed to have as many kids as she wants, not okay.
It sucks that it's virtually impossible to do anything to make this woman feel the full consequences of her irresponsibility without harming the children that had no part in making that choice.
Posts
Yeah, okay, so it is emo. I just don't dwell on it. I certainly don't act emo, and I'm sure people would be shocked if I told them I felt this way.
My post admittedly lacked perspective. I don't mean that the world's gonna end or anything, just that our current way of doing things is unsustainable. Maybe things will turn out better than I expect.
It's just that our way of life has changed quite a bit in the past century, and if anything happens to throw a monkey wrench into the works there will be more people to suffer for it than ever. Whether suffering amounts to famine or simply the end of absurdly decadent consumerist society I'm not sure.
I consider myself to be a very liberal person. That said I'm married, have 2 kids, and a pretty decent job as a chemist. As a parent I consider what this woman is doing to be monstrously irresponsible. If she has some independent means of wealth and money is not a factor in raising these kids then that's great. But I would still consider her irresponsible as a parent because I don't see how it's possible for this woman to care for all those children emotionally.
I think most or all of us consider it irresponsible, but there's a very broad, very fortified line between thinking it is irresponsible and thinking stuff like:
Explain the idea so that hopefully others will realise that reproduction is just a biological desire and not something mystical like its treated as. I say the same thing to everybody I know when this type of conversation comes up, and intend to keep to the principle myself. What else is there I can do in this situation?
It's entirely possible to be logical about it. I don't know if I do or do not want a child, but if I do I only want one. (Of course if something happens like twins or something I don't have a choice, so I mean only what is within my control)
The thing is, the crappiest places tend to have the highest birth rates. First world nations don't reproduce at ridiculous rates because the society demands significant work loads on all citizens and raising children is costly. Having five kids went from being fairly commonplace to being odd enough to comment on. Children aren't cost effective and let's face it, a lot of us like our child-free lifestyles. More disposable income, less responsibility, etc. It's a pretty sweet deal. Employers aren't going to object to a worker with no attachments. No missing the meeting for little Suzie's soccer match or Johnny's cub scout meeting.
I suspect that the birth rate of first world nations would go up if society actually made it possible to have both children and a job without relegating yourself to five hours of sleep a night.
Doubtful. Nations with extensive welfare-state programs, or ones where average person works 35 hours a week, and takes off about 6 weeks of the year for vacations, these are the places with the lowest birth rates. Europe (and the individual countries, to varying degree) have birth rates below the replacement rate. Their population is sustained through immigration.
Religiosness is actually more of an indicator. The United States has a relatively high birth rate since Americans tend to be more religious than other first world nations.
Why? This woman is going to ruin the lives of a dozen people and cost society a large amount of money. If she were a heroin addict or had an unhealthy sexual addiction to having limbs surgically removed we wouldn't just go ahead and let her do it at the cost of everyone around her.
I know folks will have a problem with it, but I believe having children should require a license, this license should be issued anonymously based entirely on social security number and tax information, the only requirement being that the parent can afford to have children.
Edit:
And boohooing about how expensive IVF is is ridiculous. If you can afford IVF you can afford adoption. If you're declined as a suitable adopted parent you shouldn't be able to fall back on just making some kids to fuck up since the state wont let you have any that are under it's protection.
This is how nature works. The more unstable the environment, the more offspring you spit out.
This strategy is embodied by the turtle. If you cant look out for any of your kids, the best strategy from the genetic perspective is to spit out as many shits as you can, and hope that some make it on their own.
This is why the lower classes have more kids than the upper classes. This is why even a slight difference in the environment (like someone coming from a single parent home) leads to more sexual promiscuity.
If you are well off (the environment is stable), the best strategy becomes to have fewer offspring and invest heavily in them.
You explained why it happens in nature, the thinking processes that result in it and perhaps even the environments it happens in. This is not a justification, unless you like to rely on the argument of popularity, or "everyone does it".
Justifying something is a human idea based heavily on "morality". Think about it, "justice". What is justice?
"Because its natural" is the same line you can use to justify a lot of things that are not accepted.
She is unemployed.
Her offspring will be in a hospital for the next 4-6 months.
She will not be paying those bills.
Guess who will?
She has 14 children. There are 24 hours in each day. With 4 hours of sleep each day she will be able to spend 2 hours with each child (not counting the four who will be in the hospital for the next half-year). There is also no father-figure and the grandmother is in therapy because of this entire endeavor and unhealthy obsession with children. If her children end out in state custody you could on some level or another argue that their lives have been deeply harmed if not ruined by her actions and selfishness.
Besides that, the sources I've been given is that you want fewer to provide more care to fewer kids in limited environments so that you can get one surviving kid rather than twelve dead ones, and you want to pump them out like rabbits when resources are plentiful so you can, well, pump them out like rabbits.
It should also be noted that her being an American means that she has pumped out the equivalent of 154 North Koreans and Africans in terms of resource consumption.
So, you're saying nothing means anything?
What strikes me about the progress of this thread is that some seem to be abstracting from the particular situation to a more general situation of abstract people at abstract times. So, while some desire to converse about the particular mother with her particular 14 children and her particular lack of a job others want to abstract away and talk about "reproductive rights" of human beings.
Which is silly.
Let's try talking about this particular situation of this particular woman who has no particular plan by which she can feed her 14 particular children. We do not need to talk about abstracts. We have 14 particular children who, soon, shall be starving due to a lack of resources.
Can't we all agree that, maybe, this particular situation in-and-of-itself is problematic and that any abstract from this needs to be, ironically enough, founded upon the particular dipshittery of this situation with this woman and her 14 children which she cannot support?
No I'm saying that I've seen a lot of people assuming that If Person A has Opinion B they simply must also have Opinion C and then they'll start arguing against Opinion C when no actually Person A has Special Secret Hidden Opinion D.
I don't think that this woman seems like a wonderful human being. I'm just of the opinion that (a) many of the people attacking her seem to have been overcome with a sudden wash of conservatism (b) that many many other parents are equally bad, but in more 'normal' ways, escaping censure, but mostly I think (c) what's the fucking point of frothing at the mouth over someone you'll never see, and taking the 'high ground' of indignation? There's a lot of fake concern for the kids covering some very odd-seeming hate. Many of the early posts in this thread are worthy of one of those 'anti-breeder' netcommunities who are frankly insane.
D&D is a forum in which people bitch about things they will not actively change.
Your criticisms seem to lack a full appreciation of this fact.
Also, it is not necessarily "conservativism" to think that 14 kids is too many damn kids for a single mother, WITH NO JOB, to raise.
Basically we try to figure out what would be best if people with more drive regarding the issue did something about it.
I debate for the sake of debating.
I learn for the sake of learning.
I know for the sake of knowing.
Try it sometime.
Kind of like how my amazing skills at work are mostly thanks to Dungeons and Dragons.
And you just failed at reading comprehension.
I assume _J_ was assuming that Posh was using awkward grammar, as I had also assumed.
What is the point being debated here?
If the decline is gradual, I don't see there being a huge problem.
Japan though, you're right. FUBAR FUBAR FUBAR.
But, they are leaders in robotics, so there's that.
Here's a fun article about natalism and fertility panics.
holy crap, did you just try to apply the theory of r and k selection to one species?
This is a day, people. PA has reached a new level of idiocy.
Is this a meta post about dnd?
I mean you are right, but that can just be sorted out through the course of the argument.
I've just been seeing a lot of it in this thread, and as sensitive as the issue is it's especially problematic.
It's definitely well worth mentioning as an aside, I didn't mean to sound like I was critical of you saying it.
Words things badly, I tend to do.
S'all good.
Ahahaha
Yes, I think we can all agree that it was immensely stupid for her to bring all those children into the world. That doesn't mean you get to forcibly sterilize her or even restrict her reproduction.
Saying they should close up the welfare spigot, okay. Saying the government shouldn't pay for her in vitro, okay. Saying she shouldn't be legally allowed to have as many kids as she wants, not okay.
Having seen the conditions they lived in, I cannot see why that woman decided doubling her current amount of children would be a move in the right direction.
Her doctor should lose his license- the current ethical guidelines clearly state someone her age should never have more than 2 embryos placed at a time.
I really don't understand how/why she sought this treatment. Does anyone know if the previous 6 kids were IVF? I got mad when I saw this story on the news and immediately thought about my ex... But at the end of the day, the lady was well within her rights to make this stupid, stupid choice. And the only thing the public can do is avoid the media whore so she doesn't profit off of it.
It sucks that it's virtually impossible to do anything to make this woman feel the full consequences of her irresponsibility without harming the children that had no part in making that choice.