The girl that never ages.

[sharke]

Some of us are wearing down our third country by now...

 

...And some of us worry that there aren't too many more that can politely ask us to leave, never to return!

 

I just wanted to step in here and introduce myself (although this may not be the right place to do it).

I am a Professor of Law and a Doctor Of Psychiatry. I served in the United States Army in the field of Militray Intelligence for almost 15 years, I meant the military to be my life career. One day, I realized that my job was not to protect the people of the United States, as I had sworn an oathe to do, but to protect the policymakers and politicians of the United States. In view of that realization and in complete disgust, I chose not to re-enlist when the next time came to do so (I had previously "re-upped" three times). I opted out with the rank of Captain (Honorary Discharge with Multiple Distinguished Service Awards) so that I might possibly be of use to the people who needed me the most.

I am also the very fortunate husband of the lovely "River". She is a Doctor of Psychology and a Doctor of Sociology.

I admire my wife's talent, tireless hard work and dedication to save others from the some of the most horrible and unimaginable fates she has suffered herself. She could have crawled into a corner and died, many a better man would have, I count myself among them. Instead, she chooses to work through her pain. She chooses to save the victims, one at a time and to try to change the world, one small corner at a time. It's not an easy job.

My wife is a rich woman, she was the only heir to a vast fortune of a self-made multi-billionaire at the age of twenty-three. She could have a life of ease, wealth beyond the dreams of most. Instead, she allows her money to help others, insists upon it. Her generosity of both money and spirit are overwhelming. Yes, I am quite prejudiced, but she is most deserving... She is also a woman that is wise far beyond her young years. Many would do good to at least hear her out, but few pay attention because it requires too much thought about things that they would rather not think about. It's not as sexy and exciting as what celebrities are wearing or eating or who's currently sleeping in their bed, for instance. People would rather escape their mundane, boring, insignificant and dreary little lives by reading this trivial gossip than face the realities of what their elected politicians are doing to them and their children!

Well, there's my little plug, even though she never asked for it!

Edited September 16, 2009 by sharke

[sharke]

No, that's not how it works. See, it's more like, "this and that are my rights, even though I did nothing to earn them or prove I am sensible enough to exercise them wel, or even understand what they mean. And it doesn't matter anyway as, if I screw up, Nanny State will be there to clean up my mess. As it should be."

 

Dissolution of responsibility.

 

It is so sad that there are so many people who actually believe what you have stated here. "If I want to have kids, then by God, that is my right and nobody or nothing can stop me. Doesn't matter that I don't hold a steady job (because I will not work for minimum wage even though I dropped out of school), cannot take care of myself (and wouldn't begin to know how to) and have lived in six dumps in the last year (I've been kicked out of all of them because I would rather drink on Friday and Saturday nights than pay rent). That's what welfare is for, the governement can hand me those nice, fat checks every month. Everybody else does it, why shouldn't I get my fair share? After all, I am just a victim here, it isn't my fault,. You owe me, I deserve it, I got rights!"

Edited September 16, 2009 by sharke

[l'Incendiario]

Maybe if it were more difficult to become a parent, there might be some more thought about it.

 

It seems to me that a lot of parents are accidental, and have put little -- or no -- thought into providing for another human being.

 

The parlous state of adoption and foster care seems discredit your assumption that it is desirable or even possible to clean up the mess ex post facto.

 

If your concern is that a system cannot be created that is fair and just, I would caution you against emotion. To cite a trivial example, consider the automobile drivers license. Eveyone can get one. There is no wealth requirement; you don't need to own a Mercedes Benz before you sit the exam. The only pre-requisite is that drivers must have a basic ability to drive by meeting minimum standards of vision, hearing, coordination responses and cogent thought processes, etc, that allow them to navigate local traffic conditions. (Driving in Samoa is different to Finland is different to London is different to New York City is different to Chicago, etc.) To continue the illustration, if you have bad vision, you are perfectly able to get a license as long as you wear corrective lenses.

 

You know, I made that comparison once too.. Then I realized how utterly fallible the argument is..

 

When you think about it, does the driver licence really prevent accidents? It's still the most unsafe mode of transportation, even with this system in place.

 

And with a birth licence you pretty much assume that it's going to be a good system and that it will filter out the bad seeds. Problem is a lot of potential great parents are gonna get hit by it.. What should the critirias be? Who should determine them? How do we enforce them?

It's gonna be legislate nightmare as well and any law that impedes so seriously on such a fundamental human thing as having a child is, in my honest opinion, going to fail so hard that you'll hear the cries of injustice three lightyears away.

...

Because you do realize that it's impossible to do something on that scale case by case, there are gonna be some inflexible laws which the social workers has to follow and if you don't live up to enough of them then the hammer falls.. Regardless of how great you are in the other areas..

So, because people still commit murder illegally, we should abandon all attempts to stop them? It's too hard?

 

What do you think is the reason that every government requires a driver to be licenced? Do you really think it doesn't prevent accidents? Really? I suppose it's just Big Brother invading privacy and raising revenue ...

I think it is a right..

Why? How many offspring do individuals have a "right" to have? What about the rights of those who cannot reproduce (by normal means), either by disease (low motility or barrenness) or by gender (homosexuality)? How do these "rights" equate universally? How can it be a right if it isn't available to everyone, equally? If you think about it, you are already (passively) setting arbitrary restrictions on people whose only crime was to be less fortunate in their birth, situationally speaking. (Now THERE'S some irony.) Wouldn't it be fairer to consider these restrictions logically, and implement a fair system based on ethical standards, rather than just accept the lottery of babies born to the significant proportion of parents that do not want them, don't have the first idea how to care for them, and are not motivated to find out?

 

Don't these potential people have equal rights to acceptable parents? Wouldn't it make sense to vet the parents instead of penalizing the children of them, considering they are completely innocent victims (as innocent as anyone can be, ethically speaking, in any situation: they did not ask to be born!) and society can, if it chooses, interdict before the abuse takes place. Abuse that will lead ineluctably to further societal evils. In other words, we cannot (as a group) fix the mess afterwards, but we can intervene beforehand to reduce the likelihood of harm.

 

I just thought your remark deserved some comment.

So by your logic we shouldn't bother with free speech then, because there are some amongst us that can't communicate?

What? Non sequitur. Free speech has limits: you cannot incite a riot, for example, or mendaciously slander / libel another person. I never said that everyone should be restricted from having children: I said it would be a good idea to prevent those that don't want children, or who cannot look after them, from having them BEFORE they either accidentally, or for reasons other than the summum bonum (of the children and society), have them.

 

For example, to reduce unwanted children, I wonder how many people would opt for a temporary sterilization for a cash reward ..?

I think Benjamin Franklin said it pretty well "You have the right to pursue happiness, but you have to catch it for yourself." .. Having a right to do something doesn't imply in itself that everyone must be capable of doing it. You have the right to own property, but maybe you are too poor to do so, should the government then confiscate all lands because of you?

 

You see where this is going?

Nope. I asked you how procreating was a "right" when it cannot be universally granted. Property ownership is NOT an congenital trait of humans, established at birth, and it can be changed in many ways.

And in regards to you wanting to help children as they are innocent victims of bad parents.. Again I'm sorry, but that's just not possible without some really serious government invasion into your privacy from you hit puberty till you die (I mean people can get kids when they are 50 today so we need to keep check on you until you hit meta-pause!). I consider myself a pretty big socialist Democrat, but even I think this would be waaay out of line.

Okay, let me understand your ethical position. Privacy is paramount, over all other considerations. Right?

 

You want your privacy, I assume, because you don't trust others to govern you (despite your admiration of democracy).

 

Here's the problem with your argument: paradoxically, you are stating that society should trust ANYONE who can copulate to govern the consequential innocents (new babies). Their privacy (as well as every other part of their lives, such as their safety & education, and their ability to earn money as brick-makers, tiny tot pageant entrants or street walkers) is governed by their parents (until sui iuris).

 

The consequences are not insignificant. You advocate the deliberate (through inaction) promulgation of preventable misery on countless innocent victims all because you value privacy more?

 

Current estimates are that 20% (one in every five) children has been abused physically or sexually. Victims are extremely likely to victimize others in a continuing cycle of violence. You could marry someone who (personally, or have a relative) who will abuse your children. Does this abuser keep their absolute "right" to procreate?

 

Does your "right" to procreate end when the being is born, or do the children have the right to a healthy upbringing (until they can procreate themselves)?

 

Do you support the privacy of other criminals, too, like murderers? Should they have the right to privacy and should, therefore, The Man NOT have the right to investigate their alleged criminal activities and further NOT infringe on their privacy (or their right to freedom) by locking them up in jail? Or do you just not see crimes against children -- innocent victims -- as of equal worth as murder of an adult?

 

I have no problem proving my bona fides in order to keep them. In my experience, people who want unimpeachable rights, regardless of how they behave or what they say, seem to me to be the ones most likely to abuse those rights.

[l'Incendiario]

Edit*

 

*Edit:

I think Benjamin Franklin said it pretty well "You have the right to pursue happiness, but you have to catch it for yourself." .. Having a right to do something doesn't imply in itself that everyone must be capable of doing it. You have the right to own property, but maybe you are too poor to do so, should the government then confiscate all lands because of you?

 

You see where this is going?

Nope. I asked you how procreating was a "right" when it cannot be universally granted. (Property ownership is NOT an congenital trait of humans, established at birth, and it can be changed in many ways.)

 

To continue your analogy: people have a "right" to own a car and drive it, too, yet you seem to think that "right" is somehow different to the "right" to have children ...

[Rosbjerg]

l'Incendiario let me answer most of your question with another question.. do you trust your government, in all manners of life, to make better decisions about you, than you?

 

I'm don't think privacy and rights are the paramount-holier-than-thou grail of everything, I'm a social democrat and willing to accept a lot more intrusion into my privacy than most. Hell I'm a staunch supporter of UHC, which the question I posed just above could be used against. But I draw the line with kids, that's just one thing I don't want the government ever to be involved with. And I seriously doubt that government involvement would be anything near what you think.

 

You may think that's illogical and all I can really base it on is personal experience...

 

But please tell me how you think it should work, how it could work and why it's a lot better than what he have now and I'll swap anecdotes with you..

[Walsingham]

River, taking one fethwit as an example doesn't help. My mother raised me on child support for my first six years and I'd have starved if we hadn't had it. I may well be biased but I'd say the State has had a return on its investment.

[River]

River, taking one fethwit as an example doesn't help. My mother raised me on child support for my first six years and I'd have starved if we hadn't had it. I may well be biased but I'd say the State has had a return on its investment.

 

 

I only used the one character as an example becuase this was tht most recent case that one of my charitable foundations has dealt with, there are many, many more where that came from. Contrary to your belief, he is but one of many. I also didn't mention that along with these other women receiving state aid for the children he has fathered, three of the women also have one or more additional children by other fathers. None of them are married to any of the various fathers. He has only chosen to marry his wife (and mother of two of his offspring) because she is from a family that will bail them out (IE will provide for their grandchildren rather than see them go with out even though that means that they go without themselves) and he thought he saw a free ride in his future. If any one of these women needed public aid to help them provide for their children and attempt to better themselves, that would be one thing. But, when they continue having children (after it is obvious that they cannot provide for the first one) and continue drawing on the welfare system, I have a huge problem with that.

 

I do not have a problem with parents (single or couples) drawing on the welfare system to support themselves and their children while they are attempting to change their situations. I provide shelter, pay utility bills, provide job training and education grants, travel expenses, food, daycare expenses & clothing for families (conventional, alternative or single-parent-- there are many, many definitions for "family") who are in dire straits due to all types of emergencies and other unforseen situations from several foundations that I have established. But I expect my sponsered families to grow and learn and to be able to support themselves eventually, not to depend upon the welfare system (or my generosity and the generosity of others) to support them for the rest of their lives. I do not mind my taxes paying for programs like this, either. I do mind supporting generation after generation of abuse and neglect victimes just because everyone thinks they have the "right" to reproduce-- and the "right" to live off the system just because they think they deserve better in life (at the expense of those who educate themselves then actually work for a living)!

 

I am not a cold and cruel person, you always read about stories of people who started out in abject poverty and made good of themselves (and I am honoured to be acquainted with several such people). The problem is that those are the stories that are few and far between, not the stories like the one I have discussed here. You seem to think that this sort of thing happens rarely, I can assure you that it does not. To think otherwise is to ignore the reality of the situation. And to think that everyone should be allowed their "right" to reproduce, then have the government clean up the messes of failed and unfit parents is just downright ridiculous! What does the government do with these poor, abused and unwanted children? Who takes care of them? Few foster parents (and even fewer adoptive parents) want "problem" or "emotionally damaged" children-- not many people are equipped to deal with "special needs" children that arise out of these situations. Very few people actually decide to do better, or to become better people-- it's much easier to just keep taking and to pay the world back for all the evils done to yourself because you were a child of poverty and had uncaring and abusive parents besides. There is too much of the "you owe me", "I got rights", "it's not my fault, I was abused/ignored/neglected when I was a kid" and "me, me, me" attitude. I'm just saying that there need to be limits set and one way of doing that would be by making sure that people are prepared and eqipped to become parents BEFORE the fact, not AFTER.

[GreasyDogMeat]

"I'm just saying that there need to be limits set and one way of doing that would be by making sure that people are prepared and eqipped to become parents BEFORE the fact, not AFTER."

 

I'm inclined to agree, but how though? Better education in school? Some sort of mandatory course? How long would it be? What happens if the parents 'flunk'? The government can't even handle a 'cash for clunkers' program let alone policing would-be parents.

[sharke]

River, you give an interesting example of an obvious phenomenon. I was quite surprised that you didn't choose one of the many examples we have in the UK, where state provision is stronger. But anyway...

 

There are three reasons why i'm not bothered by your example:

 

1 - I don't support childcare for the parents. I support it for the kids. Or, more accurately still, I support it for me. I believe that bloody awful childhoods lead to poor social skills and poor mental powers. Given that I get tooth-spittingly furious when anyone talks in a film theatre, I need to combat this tendency whenever possible.

 

2 - Despite that chap's actions being possible, how many people do it? Very few.

 

Not only was her statement possible, it was a true statement. And, more than "very few" people "do it". I am a prosecutor (I prosecute murderers, rapists, kidnappers, paedophiles-- mostly, the "dregs" of society) and my books are backed up with the most henious cases imaginable. I could work 80 hour days for the next several years (that's court hours, I already put in 80+ total working hours every week) and not make a dent. The judicial system does not have adequate judges or courtrooms for the cases already on the books and their calenders are over-crowded. There are not nearly enough social workers, foster homes or emergency shelters to go around. Even one person with billions of dollars poured into foundations cannot fix this problem alone. We have a very difficult time finding foster parents or adoptive parents willing to take on these "damaged children", they are not equipped to deal! As a result, many of these children will never get out of the foster system and they certainly won't get the help they need to break the cycle of voilence. So, they will reproduce and keep people like me busy into infinity. And, everyone knows: Prosecutors are not in the practice of law to get rich! It is no wonder that so many good ones burn out and so many more switch sides when they realize that they can't even begin to make a dent-- or "save the world" by doing the "right thing".

 

The criminals? Most are from broken homes where parents didn't really want them. They were either ignored or abused as children. Their parents, foster parents or the relatives that raised them were on welfare and continued to either neglect or abuse them. They were in and out of juvenile detention centers and multiple foster homes all their lives. Their "educations" were refined in the penal systems. They either are employed at low-level, non-skilled jobs or they are also on welfare. 87% have children on welfare (and some of these children already have exercised their "right" to reproduce and have more babies also collecting welfare); 73% of those have more than one child by more than one mother, who also has more than one child by more than one father (all on welfare) and 56% of those have more than 3 children by at least 2 different mothers; 94% are at least $5000.00 in arrears on court-ordered child support and the lists go on and on.

 

3 - At least the oversexed fethwit didn't murder anyone.

 

What a rude thing to say! The fact that he hasn't murdered ayone (yet) is of no comfort to the children growing up without a responsible role model, the taxpayers raising them or the wife and children that he either physically or mentally abuses whenever the notion strikes (not to mention the future victims of these victims as the "cycle of violence" continues and they each exercise their "right" to reproduce)! The fact that he is not a murderer is of relative little importance (or consequence) in this case; in fact if he were a murderer, we could probably at least lock him up so he would stop having unwanted children-- (but, no-one wants to see anyone die just to get the guy, do they?). What is important is the numerous burdens he has placed on those innocent children (they have to grow up feeling unwanted and unloved, as well as depending on welfare just for the basics) and the society that is now responsible for raising them-- all because he has the "right" to reproduce, but no-one can actually make him take responsibility (not that he wants to-- having children is just his way of proving to everyone what a big, strong, virile man he is-- what a fine speciman of humanity)!

[l'Incendiario]

l'Incendiario let me answer most of your question with another question.. do you trust your government, in all manners of life, to make better decisions about you, than you?

 

I'm don't think privacy and rights are the paramount-holier-than-thou grail of everything, I'm a social democrat and willing to accept a lot more intrusion into my privacy than most. Hell I'm a staunch supporter of UHC, which the question I posed just above could be used against. But I draw the line with kids, that's just one thing I don't want the government ever to be involved with. And I seriously doubt that government involvement would be anything near what you think.

 

You may think that's illogical and all I can really base it on is personal experience...

 

But please tell me how you think it should work, how it could work and why it's a lot better than what he have now and I'll swap anecdotes with you..

So you are suggesting that because we cannot trust government, we should not let them have power over THIS ONE aspect of our personal lives? What made you decide that people who do not want nor have any notion or willingness or motivation to raise small people into our society should be allowed to? It seems pretty arbitrary, to me. And the results of NOT moderating people's ability to create their own abuse victims seems to have had a very predictable result. Children are regarded as chattel, to be used, abused and disposed of as their "guardians" (Ha! these people are guarding their own selfish wants, not the innocent lives) see fit.

 

At the very least you should turn your attention to fixing the government, rather than prohibiting government from acting. Government is not, nor never will be, perfect. But it must, at least, achieve a minimum standard for what the society expects. If the cost of electricity jumped tomorrow to more than a year's wages for a day's consumption, people would expect the government to create a "work-around", whether that is pedal-powered living room tv or burning criminals for heat in winter.

 

How could it work?

 

That's a practical question. I can't even get you to agree it is a problem that needs to be fixed! How can we create a work plan without everyone buying into the goal? Or, secondly, that it is a serious problem.

 

If everyone recognises how serious a problem is, then more radical behaviour can be acceptable.

 

"Free" society is very new, historically speaking. It will always be a compromise between privacy and security (in this case social security).

"I'm just saying that there need to be limits set and one way of doing that would be by making sure that people are prepared and eqipped to become parents BEFORE the fact, not AFTER."

 

I'm inclined to agree, but how though? Better education in school? Some sort of mandatory course? How long would it be? What happens if the parents 'flunk'? The government can't even handle a 'cash for clunkers' program let alone policing would-be parents.

For a start, I agree, we need education. That helps to reduce the unwanted total, if nothing else.

 

It needn't be a (solely) punitive exercise. Tax breaks, insurance deductions, even government aid; all sorts of incentives can be made to reward good behaviour (like attending parenting classes).

 

The first step is to make people realise that children are not a "right", they are a CHOICE. Choosing to have children for reasons that are not beneficial to them should be made difficult and expensive, if not illegal. (I'm all for giving people a permanent, but reversible, form of sterility. )

 

Once we agree that is the goal, we can contruct rules and checks and safeguards.

I am not a cold and cruel person, you always read about stories of people who started out in abject poverty and made good of themselves (and I am honoured to be acquainted with several such people). The problem is that those are the stories that are few and far between, not the stories like the one I have discussed here. You seem to think that this sort of thing happens rarely, I can assure you that it does not. To think otherwise is to ignore the reality of the situation. And to think that everyone should be allowed their "right" to reproduce, then have the government clean up the messes of failed and unfit parents is just downright ridiculous! What does the government do with these poor, abused and unwanted children? Who takes care of them? Few foster parents (and even fewer adoptive parents) want "problem" or "emotionally damaged" children-- not many people are equipped to deal with "special needs" children that arise out of these situations. Very few people actually decide to do better, or to become better people-- it's much easier to just keep taking and to pay the world back for all the evils done to yourself because you were a child of poverty and had uncaring and abusive parents besides. There is too much of the "you owe me", "I got rights", "it's not my fault, I was abused/ignored/neglected when I was a kid" and "me, me, me" attitude. I'm just saying that there need to be limits set and one way of doing that would be by making sure that people are prepared and eqipped to become parents BEFORE the fact, not AFTER.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Whatever we do, doing nothing will just make it worse.