Well, that's a matter of people fitting in with your picture of social responsibility. That's a different question than whether they are entitled to choose the size of their families. And the answer is way to complex to reduce it to a simple head count.
krw, I agree with Leon's statement above.
Or an accident.
Just Wondering wrote in news:4e98a264$0$6530$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:
You think that octomom exercised her constitutional rights?
Me doing woodworking is not efficient. That doesn't mean I shouldn't try to do it. From what I see, the most extreme form of capitalism, like that which reaches into game theory and gambling by FDIC-insured banks, is not a pretty thing. I'm willing to give up some efficiency in exchange for some soul. I'm not for government that pushes its own lottery tickets either. I like many things which are difficult to put a dollar figure on, like fish, trees and clean air.
In the end, how much you make depends on what the person paying thinks your work is worth, not how much you sweat.
So do I (keywords: "should think about not") but that is NOT what you said.
Again, you said,
"And what makes a person feel they are "entitled" to have 6 kids?"
By who's authority are they to be prevented?
Words mean things, particularly in a text media.
What "right" did she exercise that you believe she didn't have? Also, please point to the passage in the Constitution that justifies your argument.
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
So in your opinion she exercised her constitutional rights to pay a physician who should get his license revoked (my opinion) to implant way too many embryos. I don't think the constitution enumerates the rights to become pregnant, so that is a moot point. In my opinion she didn't have the right to precreate on an industrial scale and let society take care of the consequences.
Sue the damned doctor to recoup the funds wrought on society by his damnfool actions. And get octobeeyatch a shrink.
-- Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving. -- Albert Einstein
--------------------------- The State Medical board has revoked the doctor's eight to practice as a result of his actions.
Lew
Absolutely she had that Constitutional right. If you disagree, please point to the passage that show otherwise. His license was revoked, AFAIK.
Of course it doesn't. The Constitution is a limitation on GOVERNMENT'S power, not on human rights. Humans have inalienable rights. They're *not* enumerated, ANYWHERE.
You say she didn't have the "right". Just where is that right limited? How is it limited? Would 7 embryos be within this "right"? How about six? Where is this limit? Because *you* think it's "wrong:, doesn't mean she doesn't have the "right" to be stupid.
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I said in my opinion she doesn't have the right because she is unable to care for the children. It is not a responsible thing to do. That's all. Moreover, it isn't fair to the children, because there is no way she could provide the proper gestational environment. End of story.
No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?
To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.
A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.
You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a "reasonable" person would think.
You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.
And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies and pays the same amount as the orphan. Fair is fair. Right?
Wear items are not covered by the manufacturer so if you wear the brakes wear out, wear the tires out, or run the tank out of gas, that is on you to maintain the vehicle.
You haven't done your research yet, I see.
-- Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Show me where that inalienable right has been revoked. Citation, please.
Smoking is irresponsible, too. Carrying a credit card balance is irresponsible. People have the right to be irresponsible.
All? You obviously want to run everyone's life the way *you* think it should be run. That is the leftist's goal.
No it certainly is not. *YOU* don't get to decide what others may do.
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
In my opinion is what I said. Legalese may decide otherwise.
No kidding, I did not say parents should be limited to how many kids they have nor was I agreeing with that statement.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required