...

[STS]

INvoluntary reversible sterilisation at puberty.
Unsterilise when they are eligible to breed.

In case you haven't guessed, I have no faith in humanity.

so you want to physically harm children for something they may never need nor want?

why don't you just move to china?

 

[Sinbad]

so you want to physically harm children for something they may never need nor want?

why don't you just move to china?

It's not harm. It's reversible, like I said.

As for the jabs at school, they helped eradicate smallpox and polio. This technique will eradicate pregnant schoolgirls and unwanted kids being dumped in bins and toilets.

 

[STS]

It's not harm. It's reversible, like I said.

As for the jabs at school, they helped eradicate smallpox and polio. This technique will eradicate pregnant schoolgirls and unwanted kids being dumped in bins and toilets.

It's an operation that inflicts physical pain twice.

I have no faith nor love for humanity either, but every person is born free and trusted, that is how life works.

for all you know, the father and daughter could have good genes, could have common sense, and could be entitled to having a kid, which is what this whole debate is about

P.S: have you been sterilised?

 

[Sinbad]

It's an operation that inflicts physical pain twice.

I have no faith nor love for humanity either, but every person is born free and trusted, that is how life works.

for all you know, the father and daughter could have good genes, could have common sense, and could be entitled to having a kid, which is what this whole debate is about

And that's why the planet is going to hell in a handbasket. People cannot be trusted.

If you have good genes and common sense you probably won't **** your daughter and impregnate her.

 

[STS]

And that's why the planet is going to hell in a handbasket. SOME People cannot be trusted.

If you have good genes and common sense you probably won't **** [-]your daughter and impregnate her.[/-](insert anything you don't agree with here)

FTFY

Simply because you sleep around and spread AIDS does not mean i deserve to suffer because of your actions. In many well-run schools, teenage pregnancy is far below 10% - so what you are advocating is that 90% of the school should be sterilised or judged on the basis that you can't trust 10%, and your solution to this is to hand it over to somebody else at birth(we don't know who, we don't know where, we don't know how ) and let them cater to your desires.

you've gone far off point now. this is their lives and this is their decisions. kids do not ask to be born with diseases, defective genes or into certain families, this is life, a kid is born and it's given the best life it can. whether i have a child or two homosexual males have a child or a family of female dwarves raise a child, who are we to decide what the child needs when we have no interest in that child's education, financial security or it's life?

it's just another taboo subject that people hate for no reason other than it "feels icky".

edit:
topic: two homosexual brothers want to ****. moral or immoral?

 

[HapticSimian]

Sorry, real life got in the way of arguments on the internet again.

I worded it badly, I meant who says everyone that has an incest relationship wants kids? People can shag whoever they want to shag

Yes, you did. And no, if there is a chance of giving rise to a child, people most assuredly should not be free to shag whoever they want to shag.

Why are genes faulty if she finds her father sexually attractive? It is purely psychological. Once again the occasional recessive gene mixture isn't a bad thing, it is down with cattle and their are communities in the world where they stay very close and spread genes around in a tight-knit group

Because such conduct would, if widely practised, be demonstrably bad for our species. We are not cattle, or cheetahs for that matter, or flowers, which exhibit comparatively stable genetic make-up in spite of rather more sparse gene pools. Inbreeding ****s us up right quick.

 

[STS]

Sorry, real life got in the way of arguments on the internet again.


Yes, you did. And no, if there is a chance of giving rise to a child, people most assuredly should not be free to shag whoever they want to shag.


Because such conduct would, if widely practised, be demonstrably bad for our species. We are not cattle, or cheetahs for that matter, or flowers, which exhibit comparatively stable genetic make-up in spite of rather more sparse gene pools. Inbreeding ****s us up right quick.

Your argument applies to everyone then - if there is a risk of cancer, diabetes, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or any of the other thousands of diseases that are passed on from parents, why take a risk at all? You're going to begin seeking partners based on their medical history rather than personality, love, activities, etc.

What gives you the right to tell people who or what they can shag anyway? You have your own life to worry about, not what couples do in the privacy of their home.

It is widely practiced in many places today as it is - yet the communities all over the world where incest is practiced - although they have plenty of faulty genetic disorders, are still happening and our species is still going on.

 

[STS]

On top of that, the fear that it will become "widely practiced" is the same fear that homosexuals will recruit our young. People cannot choose who they are attracted to

 

[HapticSimian]

Your argument applies to everyone then - if there is a risk of cancer, diabetes, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or any of the other thousands of diseases that are passed on from parents, why take a risk at all? You're going to begin seeking partners based on their medical history rather than personality, love, activities, etc.

What gives you the right to tell people who or what they can shag anyway? You have your own life to worry about, not what couples do in the privacy of their home.

It is widely practiced in many places today as it is - yet the communities all over the world where incest is practiced - although they have plenty of faulty genetic disorders, are still happening and our species is still going on.

Nope, sorry. It's not about eliminating risk - a practical impossibility - but mitigating such. There is a demonstrable increase in risk to children born out of incestuous relationships and as such any system or stance not actively opposed to such conduct is morally reprehensible.

 

[HapticSimian]

On top of that, the fear that it will become "widely practiced" is the same fear that homosexuals will recruit our young. People cannot choose who they are attracted to

Call me when homosexual relationships start leading to pregnancy. I can't give a fig what two, or 3, or many consenting adults do to or with each other.