Determine This Mans Sentence (Baby Killer)

[quote]ab_power wrote:
I can’t help but be disturbed by the fact that if the guy instead just killed the wife, it wouldn’t of had much (if any) news coverage. [/quote]

the sad thing is, you are probably right

[quote]ab_power wrote:
I can’t help but be disturbed by the fact that if the guy instead just killed the wife, it wouldn’t of had much (if any) news coverage. [/quote]

That’s because in the media hierarchy it goes:

Adult < Teenage < Elderly < Child < Baby

And within that: Male < Female

That’s the basic gist of it.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
ab_power wrote:
I can’t help but be disturbed by the fact that if the guy instead just killed the wife, it wouldn’t of had much (if any) news coverage.

That’s because in the media hierarchy it goes:

Adult < Teenage < Elderly < Child < Baby

And within that: Male < Female

That’s the basic gist of it.[/quote]

Don’t forget the big one:

Ugly < Attractive

[quote]NateOrade wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ab_power wrote:
I can’t help but be disturbed by the fact that if the guy instead just killed the wife, it wouldn’t of had much (if any) news coverage.

That’s because in the media hierarchy it goes:

Adult < Teenage < Elderly < Child < Baby

And within that: Male < Female

That’s the basic gist of it.

Don’t forget the big one:

Ugly < Attractive
[/quote]

Infamous < Famous

[quote]NateOrade wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ab_power wrote:
I can’t help but be disturbed by the fact that if the guy instead just killed the wife, it wouldn’t of had much (if any) news coverage.

That’s because in the media hierarchy it goes:

Adult < Teenage < Elderly < Child < Baby

And within that: Male < Female

That’s the basic gist of it.

Don’t forget the big one:

Ugly < Attractive[/quote]

Sad, but true.

[quote]blazindave wrote:
It does and it doesn’t. Your survival is in the genes. Regardless of whether humanity continues or not, you would want your blood/gene line to continue onwards, because it ensures YOUR survival, in a sense.

Why else would you be willing to sacrifice more for your own offspring than for someone else’s?
[/quote]

Is that for survival of your specific genes, or survival of the species? With humans, that act can easily be classified as one of compassion. With other animals, you may see similar acts, for instance a bitch would put her own life on the line for her pups.

In this case, you must ask yourself is it survival of her genes that the bitch is interested, or is it that the bitch is looking out for survival of the pack or the species? I don’t think the act of sacrifice is as individualistic as you assume, but your question is actually a very good one that I will need to think about more in depth.

Yes.

I agree, the physical aspect would be very limited. I think restrictions to reproduction should be placed mostly on mental characteristics.

Physical characteristics should be there, too, but they are secondary and only there to make sure parents are physically fit enough to chase children around and also so that physical defects are not passed on.

[quote]NateOrade wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ab_power wrote:
I can’t help but be disturbed by the fact that if the guy instead just killed the wife, it wouldn’t of had much (if any) news coverage.

That’s because in the media hierarchy it goes:

Adult < Teenage < Elderly < Child < Baby

And within that: Male < Female

That’s the basic gist of it.

Don’t forget the big one:

Ugly < Attractive
[/quote]

minority on white crime<<crime due to religious differences<white on minority crime<straight on gay crime

I just want to ask teh interwebz a question:

is having a child, knowing it will be far inferior in intelligence, or have major physical issues cruel?

Me personally? I think it is. But my oppinion matters little.

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
I just want to ask teh interwebz a question:

is having a child, knowing it will be far inferior in intelligence, or have major physical issues cruel?

Me personally? I think it is. But my oppinion matters little.[/quote]

Cruel to who? The individual offspring? Only they themselves can answer that, as quality of life is very subjective.

Cruel to advanced, compassionate societies? Yes, as now there is one more mouth to feed, but that mouth provides little to no input to the rest of society.

[quote]tedro wrote:
Cruel to who? The individual offspring? Only they themselves can answer that, as quality of life is very subjective.

Cruel to advanced, compassionate societies? Yes, as now there is one more mouth to feed, but that mouth provides little to no input to the rest of society.[/quote]

So you’re saying that people with an inheritable genetic defect or a self-induced defect (still inheritable) shouldn’t breed?

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
I just want to ask teh interwebz a question:

is having a child, knowing it will be far inferior in intelligence, or have major physical issues cruel?

Me personally? I think it is. But my oppinion matters little.[/quote]

It is. I agree. However you are now touching on religious morals: abortion.
I never understood how some people could be 100 percent against abortion.

To me, it’s like the “parent license” we were discussing earlier. In this case, they tend to take the “but what if she always lets him come inside and she has abortion after abortion” stance. Because of a hand full of people (compared to the population as a whole), you are willing to let some people suffer tremendously painful and lonesome lives.
Take the example of dear Juliana.

http://www.bestandworst.com/v/102992.htm

Some people would stand 100 percent against abortion, even if the outcome would be like that ^

Notice that the stance taken on that site is not one concerning the child but the parents. What you as a parent be able to deal with a child like that? The question should really be: “Would you let this child live\would you have had an abortion?”

[quote]blazindave wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
I just want to ask teh interwebz a question:

is having a child, knowing it will be far inferior in intelligence, or have major physical issues cruel?

Me personally? I think it is. But my oppinion matters little.

It is. I agree. However you are now touching on religious morals: abortion.
I never understood how some people could be 100 percent against abortion.
To me, it’s like the “parent license” we were discussing earlier.
In this case, they tend to take the “but what if she always lets him come inside and she has abortion after abortion” stance. Because of a hand full of people (compared to the population as a whole), you are willing to let some people suffer tremendously painful and lonesome lives.
Take the example of dear Juliana.

http://www.bestandworst.com/v/102992.htm

Some people would stand 100 percent against abortion, even if the outcome would be like that ^

Notice that the stance taken on that site is not one concerning the child but the parents. What you as a parent be able to deal with a child like that? The question should really be: “Would you let this child live\would you have had an abortion?”
[/quote]

Well, at least we agree on this issue. I’m not going to get into details, but yes, I agree with you and Zephead.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
tedro wrote:
Cruel to who? The individual offspring? Only they themselves can answer that, as quality of life is very subjective.

Cruel to advanced, compassionate societies? Yes, as now there is one more mouth to feed, but that mouth provides little to no input to the rest of society.

So you’re saying that people with an inheritable genetic defect or a self-induced defect (still inheritable) shouldn’t breed?[/quote]

It would depend on the defect. More important than regulation based on defects is regulation based on the general intelligence of the parents.

[quote]blazindave wrote:
It is. I agree. However you are now touching on religious morals: abortion.
I never understood how some people could be 100 percent against abortion.
[/quote]

Abortion need not have anything to do with religion. Religion is simply the argument used by those that are against abortion but unable to form a logical reason as to why.

I would be one. The only question that needs to be answered in the case of Juliana’s is whether or not her future is worth living for. As noted, she has normal intelligence, and therefore full understanding of her condition. In this instance, since she is fully capable of thinking, it is not the parents duty to decide if the life is worth living, it is Julianna’s. If Julianna decides her life is not worth living, and she is deemed mentally capable of making such a desicion, euthanasia should be an option for her, but only if that is her uninfluenced will.

Good point. The decision the parents are making is one of convenience. Abortion would be the convenient choice, but also the choice that potentially denies a future worth experiencing from the child. The question could easily be rephrased to be: “Is a child’s right to life more important than convenience in your own life?”

[quote]tedro wrote:
It would depend on the defect. More important than regulation based on defects is regulation based on the general intelligence of the parents.[/quote]

RISUG + parent licenses.

Problem solved.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
tedro wrote:
It would depend on the defect. More important than regulation based on defects is regulation based on the general intelligence of the parents.

RISUG + parent licenses.

Problem solved.[/quote]

A vasectomy gives a bit more of a gaurantee. Of course, there also must be tubal ligations for the females deemed ineligible to breed. Determining an age for licensing and the surgery would require some more debate.

Perfect. I have a neat little extension of that rule.

Marry whatever ugly-ass, retarded lowlife you want to spend the rest of your life with cos, but you can only have kids if:

  1. You are deemed mentally, financially and physically adequate to support born offspring till independence/adulthood.
  2. Said offspring is deemed to have a good enough chance at surviving and procreating <= those deemed "undesirables’ are allowed to enter wedlock, mate and thrive but NOT procreate. If this rule is brought about enforced at a time when obesity, drug abuse, juvenile crime/ganglife, etc are confined to a minority of the population, we could eventually get somewhere.

But whatever, lets just go with what you said. (2) would be particularly difficult to enforce in a democracy where the majority currently happens to fall within my definition of "“undesirable”.

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Exactly, it’s common sense. When I read about stuff like this, it confirms for me that not everyone should be allowed to have kids. Some people might hate this, but I really think people need to have to prove they are capable somehow before they are allowed to reproduce. Whether it be some kind of formal licensing process, or testing process, or whatever.
[/quote]

[quote]tedro wrote:

Abortion need not have anything to do with religion. Religion is simply the argument used by those that are against abortion but unable to form a logical reason as to why.[/quote]
All those who oppose abortion tend to do so from a religious front. I usually find that one is quite hard pressed to find an athiest against abortion.

[quote]tedro wrote:
I would be one. The only question that needs to be answered in the case of Juliana’s is whether or not her future is worth living for. As noted, she has normal intelligence, and therefore full understanding of her condition. In this instance, since she is fully capable of thinking, it is not the parents duty to decide if the life is worth living, it is Julianna’s. If Julianna decides her life is not worth living, and she is deemed mentally capable of making such a desicion, euthanasia should be an option for her, but only if that is her uninfluenced will.
[/quote]

This does not matter. That stance is quite cruel actually. You are saying, instead of parents protecting the interest of their child, rather than their own vain perception of what is right or wrong (it’s the inside that matters, which is the half truth) they should let her live a life of suffering. Can you imagine the stares she must get? In a society which is so “shallow” and “self conscious”, i don’t see how you could even think about letting that poor child experience it.
Someone who knows their child will be seriously mentally or physically handicapped (as in Juliana’s case) does not show true love by saying “it’s the inside that counts, she should be allowed to live” but rather shows it by thinking of the tremendous suffering the child will go through and realizing that sometimes the best course of action is the least painful.

Let’s say juliana decides to kill herself at the age of 18. Then what? “Oh, well she did it of her own accord, so it’s ok”. Never mind the fact that she will have suffered tremendously for those 18 years…and to what end…so she could kill herself? Too cruel for me, sorry.

[quote]tedro wrote:

Good point. The decision the parents are making is one of convenience. Abortion would be the convenient choice, but also the choice that potentially denies a future worth experiencing from the child. The question could easily be rephrased to be: “Is a child’s right to life more important than convenience in your own life?”[/quote]

That’s where you misunderstood my point (kind of). The convenience is not a convenience of the parents (which was what these people were focusing on) but the convenience of the child!
You put your child(ren) first.
An interesting argument to your question could be: “How can you refuse a child’s right to life if the child isn’t born yet”?
How can you take a life away from something that is not living?
The fetus is not a person. A person by definition is a member of society, has history, independent cognitive abilities, and so forth. Most importantly, a person can communicate.The fetus doesn’t have such abilities and is entirely reliant on the mother.

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Obviously the father shaking the baby is wrong. No question about that. One thing in the article that stuck out in my mind was the fact that the baby had previously broken ribs that were undetected by medical exams. I wonder if Brittle bone disease (osteogenesis imperfecta) had anything to do with it.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/brittlebones.htm[/quote]

the point about brittle bone disease is a valid one.
I have a friend of mine that went to prison on a life sentence for child abuse and attempted murder of a child under 5 years of age.

what had happened was his girl friends 4 year old child was choking on a peice of an otter pop and he got the otter pop out of the kids throat.
in the process he accidently broke one of his ribs by holding him wrong and also caused a neck fracture I beleive,not sure about that though

after 3 years of fighting and putting the kid through medical tests come to find out that the kid had the onset of brittle bone disease,and my friend wasnt too rough with him and it was truly an accident he was aquited and released,but the trust factor was gone people still see in the back of there heads that he hurt a child.
even though he may have saved the kids life from a choking hazard.

[quote]tedro wrote:
A vasectomy gives a bit more of a gaurantee. Of course, there also must be tubal ligations for the females deemed ineligible to breed. Determining an age for licensing and the surgery would require some more debate.[/quote]

Given the tendency for mistakes, I’d prefer something (easily) reversible. The only time RISUG has failed in a human male is where it was incorrectly administered.