Police: Woman sold daughter for car

[Joshua]

Not sure if this should go in the Auto Forum.. :hihi:

OKEECHOBEE, Florida (AP) -- A woman was arrested for allegedly forcing her 12-year-old daughter into prostitution and trading a 14-year-old daughter for a car.

The 39-year-old woman was charged with aggravated child abuse and sexual performance by a child. Both girls have been turned over to the Department of Children & Families.

The youngest girl and her mother were living out of their car, and would sell sex for food and an occasional shower at the men's homes, according to a report by Okeechobee County Sheriff's Detective K.J. Ammons.

The youngest daughter is three months pregnant, the report said; she was 11 when her mother first forced her to have sex with a man. The older daughter refused to be a prostitute and was allegedly sold for a car.

"She was sold to a man for a Mercury Cougar," Ammons said. "But he never gave the mother the vehicle." He was arrested in the case.

The youngest girl told detectives her mother took them out of school. "She said she was a good student and made A's and B's, and all she wants to do is go back to school," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/13/daughters.sold.ap/index.html

[eSDee]

I wonder what year the Cougar was.

[LegendKiller]

I wonder what year the Cougar was.


Dude, so wrong but I just spit coffee out because it was so funny

[Airencracken]

I wonder what year the Cougar was.

:lmfao: :bigmouth: :laugh:

Oh sh*t that's fvcked up EsDee! Awesome.

and I thought my mom was a b*tch. :gle:

Not surprising it's in florida...

[welfareloser]

:stupid: and :stupid: :heh:

[RoniMan]

Dude, so wrong but I just spit coffee out because it was so funny

:stupid:

:lmfao:....er...i mean :disa:.....:heh:

[nickel]

sad sad, just sad :(

what a horrible childhood, and failure of the system. i wonder how she just "took them out of school"?

[Joshua]

i wonder how she just "took them out of school"?

http://www.homeschooling.com/

[mrmb123]

More proof not everyone is qualified to "homeschool" .. Very sad

[nickel]

http://www.homeschooling.com/
yeh, but i didn't see that mentioned in the article.

hey - i know there are some homeschoolers here. how are you/your children checked for indication that home schooling is indeed happening?

[sizemic1]

Funny..when I read the title I was wondering what kind of car she was traded for :)

[Showtime]

What kind of ****ed up **** is this? The child is 12 years old and pregnant now.

The mother is completely unfit and should have given up the kids. Stupid self centered cow. I'm very impressed with the elder daughter for sticking up for herself. Too bad no one protected the little sister.

-j

[mrmb123]

Here in FL, you have to file papers with the county saying your not enrolling in school and submit a portfolio of work every year to qualify. Don't know if they are required to take the standardized tests but many do.

[cheapchinese]

i'm wondering if she can get an abortion, since she's a minor and all
but seeing this is in florida(Pro Life)...impossible

[bachviet]

Weird craps happen in FL.

This is f*ck up! :disa:

[molecularfire]

Man... we really need more laws to protect children from despicable excuses of human wastes. Every man of reproductive age should be vasectomized and have it reversed only after they have shown that they are fit to be parents.

[BrewMaster]

i wonder how she just "took them out of school"?
well, when you don't have an address since you are living out of your car, it's kind of hard for the school and/or cops to track you down.

[whitak24]

I wonder what year the Cougar was.
yeah, i was going to say....if i trade my kid for a car, it better at least be a BMW 5 series, 2002 or newer -- excellent condition, and low mileage.

i mean, a kid has a lot of years left....you need to get equal value back.

on a serious note, that is completely f*cked up :2far:

[ShawnLee]

Let's start taking up for a legal defense fund.
If Canta, LK, or IAHAD goes and takes this woman out, I'll be pitching in.

[OC]

Those poor kids, especially the younger one.

I really wonder what the hell we can do to protect kids more.

[CrystalDuck]

Man... we really need more laws to protect children from despicable excuses of human wastes. Every man of reproductive age should be vasectomized and have it reversed only after they have shown that they are fit to be parents. :stupid:

[molecularfire]

Holy crap!!! Someone here actually agrees with me. :gle:



Nice to meet you. :wavey2:

[zenbooty]

Man... we really need more laws to protect children from despicable excuses of human wastes. Every man of reproductive age should be vasectomized and have it reversed only after they have shown that they are fit to be parents.This would just make things worse. You sterilize a generation of 12, 13, and 14 year old boys against their will and against cultural custom and frankly, human norm, and you're going to have a generation of truly f**ked up individuals on your hands. A generation of psychopaths and damaged goods, probably.

[InfiniteNothing]

Also, a percentage of those vasectamines will end up irreversable. It would also create a large black market for repairs; sperm donating will become an industry; Urology will go in extrodinary demand bring the price beyond the reach of everyone but the extreeme rich.

[CrystalDuck]

How many 13 year olds do you know who care about their sperm? I'm not a guy, so I don't really know, but I would think that they would be relieved that now they don't have to worry about birth control or babies, just how to get in a girl's pants. And it would be easier to get in a girl's pants because she isn't worried about getting knocked up.

Yes, some would be irreversible, but I think you exaggerate the consequences of that. Some people would be depressed that they can't have kids, but that's already true. And once everybody is getting snipped, doctors will get more practice reversing them, and new methods will be developed that are easier to reverse.

Black market for repair? Maybe. I know some people REALLY want kids, but don't you think that by and large those will be the people who are capable of raising them? I don't care if a few get by if we can massively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. And high demand for urology? Come on, you know econ. That will fix itself.

Despite all this, I realize it aint happening. Bearing children is nature's gift to healthy animals who lived long enough to become fertile. Just because it would be a really, really good thing, doesn't mean we can take away basic rights. But maybe we could set a program that would offer free reversals for those who choose to get snipped.

[welfareloser]

How many 13 year olds do you know who care about their sperm? ... Yes, some would be irreversible, but I think you exaggerate the consequences of that. Some people would be depressed that they can't have kids, but that's already true. And once everybody is getting snipped, doctors will get more practice reversing them, and new methods will be developed that are easier to reverse..

:spock:

have a conversation with a reproductive endocrinologist sometime. the quote that sticks with me is: "when you want to have kids, and you can't, nothing else matters. NOTHING." people will spend every dime they have to make it happen. the consequences are massive. it's on par with losing your spouse to sudden death... winding up in a wheelchair. it's as big as big gets, save, perhaps, your own death.

talk to someone who has been diagnosed infertile, whether they want kids now or not. ask how it makes them feel about themselves. find a 13-year-old boy who's had an injury that will mean he'll never be able to have kids. ask him how it affected his sense of manhood.

and you really are wrong about it just taking "practice" and "new methods" to reverse vasectomies. when sperm don't get released, testes stop making viable sperm. period. no "practice" or "method" in the world fixes that. and the longer after the snip it is, the higher the percentage that become permanent.


Black market for repair? Maybe.

definitely.


I know some people REALLY want kids, but don't you think that by and large those will be the people who are capable of raising them? I don't care if a few get by if we can massively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

unfortunately... most people want kids, including those who are massively incapable of raising them. don't you watch springer? :P "i'm 14 and trying to get pregnant!"


And high demand for urology? Come on, you know econ. That will fix itself..

sure. in 20 years. do you know how long it takes to train a urologist?


Despite all this, I realize it aint happening. ... Just because it would be a really, really good thing, doesn't mean we can take away basic rights.

i'll agree with the last half of that last sentence, anyhoo :P

as for it ain't happening... it did once. from the 1920s through the 1960s, tens of thousands of poor people were deemed "mentally incompetent" in the usa, and were sterilized against their will. they are alive and well and very much childless today. look into what they think about it...

anyway. it didn't do much for crime rates, etc, so i'd call it not a good thing and definitely not worth trying again.





As for this particular case... drug addict. it is amazing the depths to which humanity can sink. drug-addicted mothers prostituting their daughters is all too common. i can't even imagine what it must be like.



and i seriously doubt this woman even made a pretense of "homeschooling." you can take a kid out of school, and nobody checks up on it. happens all the time. school districts are tiny, local things. if a registered student goes truant, someone might make a few calls. but if you move, and never register at another school... or even if you don't move, but the school admin already knows that the mother is irresponsible, what can they do? they may save themselves the effort and never even try to see what's up.

[cheapie]

Let's start taking up for a legal defense fund.
If Canta, LK, or IAHAD goes and takes this woman out, I'll be pitching in.

no no...canta only VOTES in florida. he lives in atlanta!

:heh:

[DarkFury]

I wonder what year the Cougar was.
And here I was thinkin'... "What is the trade value of a 14 year old girl..."

:hmm:

:D

[LegendKiller]

I thought about taking a road trip ;). J/K, in all honesty the legal system will take care of her pretty well, as well as other mothers in jail/prison.

[cheapie]

And here I was thinkin'... "What is the trade value of a 14 year old girl..."

:hmm:

:D


shouldn't we be asking you that question??? you're the pimp!

[verve247]

Weird craps happen in FL.

This is f*ck up! :disa:

Damn straight. I wouldn't trade my daughters for no less than a lexus.

[bachviet]

no no...canta only VOTES in florida. he lives in atlanta!

:heh:
:lmfao:

[DarkFury]

shouldn't we be asking you that question??? you're the pimp!
I only take 'em when they legal...

No R. Kelly action for me... :2far:

[ShawnLee]

I only take 'em when they legal...

No R. Kelly action for me... :2far:So I shouldn't ask about the more interesting sexual rumors a la Dave Chapelle? Natch.

[molecularfire]

This would just make things worse. You sterilize a generation of 12, 13, and 14 year old boys against their will and against cultural custom and frankly, human norm, and you're going to have a generation of truly f**ked up individuals on your hands. A generation of psychopaths and damaged goods, probably.
A couple of things... first off 12-14 year old boys aren't thinking about cultural norms, they are thinking about what their friends are doing and well... their friends are all getting snipped also so I doubt anyone would make fun of them for that. Same with the older kids. Kids pick on each other by using their differences... you snip everybody and that is not a source of a difference. You aren't going to think of yourself as a freak when you get snipped if your older brother, dad, and uncles are also all getting snipped. 12-14 year olds aren't thinking about reproducing. I don't see how that would make them psychopaths.


Also, a percentage of those vasectamines will end up irreversable. It would also create a large black market for repairs; sperm donating will become an industry; Urology will go in extrodinary demand bring the price beyond the reach of everyone but the extreeme rich.
Ok... where to start...
1) a VAST majority of vasectomies are reversible, especially with the laser vasectomy procedure. That and even in the cases where it is irreversible, sperm is still being made, the tube that brings the sperm to the end of the peepee is just re-routed. The ability of the person to continue to make sperm is not hindered. So, even in the small percentage that can't be reversed you can still take the sperm from the guy via a syringe and implant it into the woman.
2) There would be a black market for repairs but it wouldn't be really large because most people should be able to get kids via legitimate channels. I'm not saying that you have to be super parents to be allowed to have kids... I just want there to be some safeguards to make sure that the parents have the basic requirements and desire to raise a child. That and humans have this association with cost and worth... the harder it is for them to have a child the more the child would be worth to them, the better they would take care of the child. That and we can decrease the amount of children out there without homes and/or in family situations that are horrendous I honestly do think that we can do more good than harm here.
3) Sperm donation shouldn't be any more of an industry than it is now because of the reason I outlined in example #1.
4) Why would urology go into extreme demand? Vasectomies are very simple procedures and with laser vasectomies techs. to most of the work anyways.
Given the amount of money that we would save on taking care of children whose parents can't take care of them as far as food, health care, schooling, crime, etc... we would probably save more money in the long run. Think of it this way... under our currently system, over half of all pregnancies are unplanned. We've shown that as individuals we are not capable of dealing with reproduction in a responsible manner. I think it is time that we deal with this issue responsibly as a society.


Ok, back to the story though... one thing I was thinking about... her daughters and her were already living in a car. What was she going to do with the second car?

[welfareloser]

A couple of things... first off 12-14 year old boys aren't thinking about cultural norms, they are thinking about what their friends are doing and well... their friends are all getting snipped also so I doubt anyone would make fun of them for that. Same with the older kids. Kids pick on each other by using their differences... you snip everybody and that is not a source of a difference. You aren't going to think of yourself as a freak when you get snipped if your older brother, dad, and uncles are also all getting snipped. 12-14 year olds aren't thinking about reproducing. I don't see how that would make them psychopaths.

you can take this line of reasoning only so far. if we're talking about the difference between blue jeans and chinos, sure. peer acceptance is the thing. start stealing basic human functions from them, and they're going to have an opinion about it. "everybody's doing it" will not make having manhood stolen okay.



Ok... where to start...
1) a VAST majority of vasectomies are reversible, especially with the laser vasectomy procedure. That and even in the cases where it is irreversible, sperm is still being made, the tube that brings the sperm to the end of the peepee is just re-routed. The ability of the person to continue to make sperm is not hindered.

okay. let's start here. you're wrong. when testes don't get to release sperm, they stop making viable sperm. you could give a man the world's most perfect, hi-speed, teflon-coated, wide-mouthed tube to shoot his semen, and that still won't restore his sperm.


So, even in the small percentage that can't be reversed you can still take the sperm from the guy via a syringe and implant it into the woman.

ahhh, yes. making it expensive and invasive. no moral problems there.


2) There would be a black market for repairs but it wouldn't be really large because most people should be able to get kids via legitimate channels. I'm not saying that you have to be super parents to be allowed to have kids... I just want there to be some safeguards to make sure that the parents have the basic requirements and desire to raise a child. That and humans have this association with cost and worth... the harder it is for them to have a child the more the child would be worth to them, the better they would take care of the child. That and we can decrease the amount of children out there without homes and/or in family situations that are horrendous I honestly do think that we can do more good than harm here.

once again... this experiment was tried and failed. eugenics didn't reduce crime, child abuse, population growth... it didn't fix anything. it hurt a lot of people.

politicians and extremist activists decided who was and was not allowed to reproduce. and... surprise! the criteria used came down to size of bank account and amount of skin pigment.

you really want politicians deciding who gets to have kids and who doesn't? you want politicians passing judgement on your morals and values? given the current climate, i doubt your atheistic sperm would be allowed out to play :P (you are an atheist, right? if not, strike that; no insult intended.)



4) ...
Given the amount of money that we would save on taking care of children whose parents can't take care of them as far as food, health care, schooling, crime, etc... we would probably save more money in the long run. Think of it this way... under our currently system, over half of all pregnancies are unplanned. We've shown that as individuals we are not capable of dealing with reproduction in a responsible manner. I think it is time that we deal with this issue responsibly as a society.

except that there is no way for anyone... not a committee, not a politician, not ANY group of people... to ever be able to determine who is and is not f***ed in the head, or will become so. it's impossible. it'll get f***ed up 100 different ways. 50% of the people who get sterilized will actually be perfectly good parent material, and 50% of the people who ought to have been sterilized will sneak their way through whatever tests are applied.

half of all pregnancies are unplanned... and we do deal with it pretty responsibly as a society. there are birth control, adoptions, abortions, welfare, and dcfs to take kids out of danger. it works pretty well. it could work better. most people only keep kids that they want. to say that forced sterilization is the answer to the problems with the current system is ignoring some pretty glaring facts of history.

[kimchicowboy]

let me just rip their balls off and feed them to sea gulls. irreversible for sure. :P

[RIVERWIDOW]

sad sad, just sad :(

what a horrible childhood, and failure of the system. i wonder how she just "took them out of school"?

And where the HELL were their father, grandparents aunts uncles etc???

[guiseppewv]

Let's start taking up for a legal defense fund.
If Canta, LK, or IAHAD goes and takes this woman out, I'll be pitching in.

:stupid:

Damn this is the type of $hit that infuriates me. :angry:

[Burzhui]

And here I was thinkin'... "What is the trade value of a 14 year old girl..."

:hmm:

:D


thank god you didn't make the reference about me and my cougar

[DarkFury]

thank god you didn't make the reference about me and my cougar

Yeah... about that.... :hehehmm:



/me looks to see if Lolita is lurking.... :hmm:

[cheapie]

she's uh...tied up at the moment. carry on.

[molecularfire]

you can take this line of reasoning only so far. if we're talking about the difference between blue jeans and chinos, sure. peer acceptance is the thing. start stealing basic human functions from them, and they're going to have an opinion about it. "everybody's doing it" will not make having manhood stolen okay.
The kids can still get them up and at that age that's all they really care about. They're not thinking about having kids at that age. Heck, they'll probably be glad that they won't have to worry about the risk of procreating.

okay. let's start here. you're wrong. when testes don't get to release sperm, they stop making viable sperm. you could give a man the world's most perfect, hi-speed, teflon-coated, wide-mouthed tube to shoot his semen, and that still won't restore his sperm.
Actually, they still make viable sperm. The difficulty with reversals are if they blow out their epididymis. However, you are right in that because of the risk of blow outs (which still allows for vasectomy reversals but just involves more complex surgery) the technology isn't quite there yet. I think I've mentioned in other threads that I don't quite endorse the idea yet because of the technical issues that still need to be worked out but I do think that it is a valid option that should be discussed. Here's a link (http://urology.jhu.edu/surgical_techniques/vasectomy/)

ahhh, yes. making it expensive and invasive. no moral problems there.
I have fewer moral and financial problems with that than with letting people with no idea what they're doing, and no means with which to do a good job anyways take care of what we keep selling as our greatest natural resource (even though we have absolutely no quality control measures for them whatsoever).

once again... this experiment was tried and failed. eugenics didn't reduce crime, child abuse, population growth... it didn't fix anything. it hurt a lot of people.
I'm not suggesting eugenics. I think this should be done with everybody from the homeless guy on the street to Donald Trump. I do think that showing that you have the funds to take care of a child should be a requirement (I don't have a problem with programs to help lower income families with this requirement if they meet the other requirements) but I don't think it should be the only requirement. They should be trained in how to take care of children, and have it pounded into them how important the job is. That and the more you make something cost (not just money but mainly time) the more people value and take care of things. Like it or not our society associates (incorrectly in my opinion) cost with worth.

politicians and extremist activists decided who was and was not allowed to reproduce. and... surprise! the criteria used came down to size of bank account and amount of skin pigment.

you really want politicians deciding who gets to have kids and who doesn't? you want politicians passing judgement on your morals and values? given the current climate, i doubt your atheistic sperm would be allowed out to play (you are an atheist, right? if not, strike that; no insult intended.)

Yeah, politicians and extremist activists really shouldn't be the ones deciding much of anything and you are right, there is a risk of this. The public does have to pay attention to the requirements when they are set and we shouldn't set it up so that it is particularly easy to add requirements and even then we have to stay vigilant. That said, right now we have drug addicts, moms like the monster above and stars with psychological issues deciding how to raise our future and that scares me worse.
Oh... and btw 1) I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. 2) my sperm doesn't come out to play. I know that I am not ready to have children right now and will hold off on activities that can generate children until I feel that I am in a good place (in terms of financially, emotionally, maturity wise, etc...) to have children. 3) no insult inferred. :)

except that there is no way for anyone... not a committee, not a politician, not ANY group of people... to ever be able to determine who is and is not f***ed in the head, or will become so. it's impossible. it'll get f***ed up 100 different ways. 50% of the people who get sterilized will actually be perfectly good parent material, and 50% of the people who ought to have been sterilized will sneak their way through whatever tests are applied.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of sterilizing all males (heck, I'd do it with females too but there really isn't a drug or procedure for females that I think is as good as a vasectomy for males. Also, yeah there will probably be problems with this idea and we should try to figure them out and address them. For those of you who remember my previous posts from way back know that initially I was thinking of putting something in the food but I couldn't find any drug that had few enough side-effects and was reversible so it is an evolving idea and maybe eventually will be discarded for a better idea but at least it should be considered and hopefully will get others to think of alternative plans. I mean right now our strategy is hope for the best and complain when kids are hurt.

half of all pregnancies are unplanned... and we do deal with it pretty responsibly as a society. there are birth control, adoptions, abortions, welfare, and dcfs to take kids out of danger. it works pretty well. it could work better. most people only keep kids that they want. to say that forced sterilization is the answer to the problems with the current system is ignoring some pretty glaring facts of history.
The fact that we have that many unplanned pregnancies shows that we aren't dealing with it as a society. Despite the fact that we do have birth control, we are still having too many people who are having children who can't and/or won't raise them properly. We have many, many children who are in foster care, who are raised by people who are doing it for the money, who are raised by the biological parents in absolutely miserable conditions. Do I think that I am going to see forced sterilization in my lifetime, no. Do I necessarily think that it is the way to go, no. However, I do think that it is a legitimate idea that should be considered and hopefully will spur others to think of other ideas other than sit around and hope for the best in a species that has shown that is inherently selfish, short-sighted, callous and destructive.

[CrystalDuck]

Hear, hear!

It's just depressing that people who shouldn't have kids or don't want kids have them. If anyone else has any other idea to prevent that, I'd love to hear it.

Hey MolecularFire, have you thought about proposing this to your congressperson? Maybe send a proposal to Planned Parenthood or something?

[welfareloser]

The kids can still get them up and at that age that's all they really care about. They're not thinking about having kids at that age. Heck, they'll probably be glad that they won't have to worry about the risk of procreating. .

again... you've obviously never known an adolescent that has had an injury that left them possibly or definitely infertile.


Actually, they still make viable sperm. The difficulty with reversals are if they blow out their epididymis. However, you are right in that because of the risk of blow outs (which still allows for vasectomy reversals but just involves more complex surgery) the technology isn't quite there yet. I think I've mentioned in other threads that I don't quite endorse the idea yet because of the technical issues that still need to be worked out but I do think that it is a valid option that should be discussed. Here's a link (http://urology.jhu.edu/surgical_techniques/vasectomy/) .

that is NOT the only difficulty. yes, any testis with a blood supply will still make a viable sperm ehre and there, but that doesn't make you fertile. being able to make a baby does. and you need to be able to put out a lot of very high quality sperm to do that most of the time. the longer the sperm isn't allowed out, the less good sperm get made. period. we can't do squat to reverse it. even with a perfect reversal surgery, after 5 years of being shut down, 15% of men can't make a baby after a reversal. that number keeps climbing the longer the time between vasectomy and reversal.


I have fewer moral and financial problems with that than with letting people with no idea what they're doing, and no means with which to do a good job anyways take care of what we keep selling as our greatest natural resource (even though we have absolutely no quality control measures for them whatsoever). .

here's the problem i presented that you haven't addressed yet: who gets to define the "quality"?

EDIT: okay, you sort of did down there, in a fuzzy way... the politicians decide, but we should all be really, really vocal about it! okay. some people's values will be compromised in the process. and it is not the government's place to define our values. our government steps in when crimes are committed and makes them stop. it does not assume that everyone is a criminal and make them prove otherwise. it'll be one scary freakin day when that becomes our ruling principle.


I'm not suggesting eugenics. .

yes, you are.


I think this should be done with everybody from the homeless guy on the street to Donald Trump. .

that doesn't make the process equal, since...


I do think that showing that you have the funds to take care of a child should be a requirement .

that's eugenics.


(I don't have a problem with programs to help lower income families with this requirement if they meet the other requirements) .


that's benevolent :P


but I don't think it should be the only requirement. They should be trained in how to take care of children, and have it pounded into them how important the job is.

or we could keep the government the hell out of our private lives in an innocent until proven guilty kind of way...


That and the more you make something cost (not just money but mainly time) the more people value and take care of things. Like it or not our society associates (incorrectly in my opinion) cost with worth. .

so the rich get all the babies they want; the poor can't. those poor ppl who may have been able to afford it otherwise, won't be able to once the costs of reversals, classes, applications, etc are applied.

that's eugenics.

and for 20% or so, the reversal isn't going to work. not cool.


Yeah, politicians and extremist activists really shouldn't be the ones deciding much of anything and you are right, there is a risk of this. The public does have to pay attention to the requirements when they are set and we shouldn't set it up so that it is particularly easy to add requirements and even then we have to stay vigilant. .

you're so damned cute when you're idealistic. :P "staying vigilant" doesn't do a particularly bang-up job of making the govt what "we" want it to be...


That said, right now we have drug addicts, moms like the monster above and stars with psychological issues deciding how to raise our future and that scares me worse. .

yes, that is scary. but putting everyone in jail and only letting them out when they prove they're not guilty isn't a solution.

we have things in place to deal with bad parents. we could fund them more and see one hell of an improvement.



I mean right now our strategy is hope for the best and complain when kids are hurt.

we do quite a bit more than that. at-risk children and parents are identified and given education and support - WIC (more of a health and nutrition education program than a free-food program), crisis nurseries, head start, etc. it averts problems before they start. more funding for such programs would avert even more. it can't solve every problem. we'll never solve every problem. especially by your guilty-til-proven-innocent-which-costs-a-lot-of-money-and-by-the-way-20%-chance-that-you-don't-get-set-free-even-after-you-prove-yourself-innocent method.

nothing is ever going to work perfectly. so advocating a more draconian regime just because our current underfunded efforts are inadequate isn't a solution.


The fact that we have that many unplanned pregnancies shows that we aren't dealing with it as a society. .

i think most of us would prefer that our pregnancies not be "dealt with" by "society."



Despite the fact that we do have birth control, we are still having too many people who are having children who can't and/or won't raise them properly. We have many, many children who are in foster care, who are raised by people who are doing it for the money, who are raised by the biological parents in absolutely miserable conditions.

and again... we tried this "sterilize against the future" thing once. it didn't improve society at all. we gave it 40 years... do we really need more evidence?



Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of sterilizing all males (heck, I'd do it with females too but there really isn't a drug or procedure for females that I think is as good as a vasectomy for males. Also, yeah there will probably be problems with this idea and we should try to figure them out and address them. For those of you who remember my previous posts from way back know that initially I was thinking of putting something in the food but I couldn't find any drug that had few enough side-effects and was reversible so it is an evolving idea and maybe eventually will be discarded for a better idea but at least it should be considered and hopefully will get others to think of alternative plans.

Do I think that I am going to see forced sterilization in my lifetime, no. Do I necessarily think that it is the way to go, no. However, I do think that it is a legitimate idea that should be considered and hopefully will spur others to think of other ideas other than sit around and hope for the best in a species that has shown that is inherently selfish, short-sighted, callous and destructive.

i do agree with one thing... it would be nice if we were all sterile until we decided to magically flip the switch to "fertile." but given that our species is inherently selfish, short-sighted, callous and destructive, i fail to see how giving any group the power to decide who gets it flipped is ever going to work out fairly, let alone WELL. ;)


Hey MolecularFire, have you thought about proposing this to your congressperson? Maybe send a proposal to Planned Parenthood or something?

:heh:

jerry falwell might be a more receptive audience. or the heaven's gaters...

our congressmen are busy right now trying to get reparations for those who were harmed in the last round of eugenics. they're probably not too interested in starting up the next round quite yet :P

planned parenthood is a little more pro-reproductive-rights than ayone who would honestly advocate forced sterilization. you might as well send them a proposal on nuking the evil leprechauns who live under your bed and steal your condoms.

and how might he propose paying for this one? dealing with those who defy the law? are we going to invade canada when they decide to accept our refugees from this persecution?



that's gonna hafta be one monster of a proposal, is all i'm saying. looooooots of stuff to explain :heh:

[molecularfire]

again... you've obviously never known an adolescent that has had an injury that left them possibly or definitely infertile.
Yes I have and that is not the case here. The sterilization process isn't permanent. We're not telling a kid that we are going to make it so that you can never have children. We are telling them that we are going to make it so you won't have children until you are ready to have children.

that is NOT the only difficulty. yes, any testis with a blood supply will still make a viable sperm ehre and there, but that doesn't make you fertile. being able to make a baby does. and you need to be able to put out a lot of very high quality sperm to do that most of the time. the longer the sperm isn't allowed out, the less good sperm get made. period. we can't do squat to reverse it. even with a perfect reversal surgery, after 5 years of being shut down, 15% of men can't make a baby after a reversal. that number keeps climbing the longer the time between vasectomy and reversal.
Not quite true. Good quality sperm is continually getting made and reabsorbed. That and the volume of semen that high up the tube is very small (more volume gets added later down the tube) and it takes time for a sperm granuloma to get made and blow. Unless it blows, there is still quality sperm being made. Like I said, yeah the technology isn't quite there for this to work yet but your understanding of the mechanism why is wrong. The reason that this is important is because as long as we can get proper drainage of the sperm (ex: lets say we do a shunt from the epididimis to the peritoneal cavity or to the GI tract) we may continue to have quality sperm production. Yeah, the technology isn't there yet but I have to disagree with you that it can't get there in the near future if we put some effort into it.

here's the problem i presented that you haven't addressed yet: who gets to define the "quality"?
My answer to that is I don't know. Like I said, this isn't a completely thought out idea given that as far as I know, only a couple people on this board have even brought this up and well... most of you are probably thinking "if I ever meet this guy I should probably keep him away from my kids" right about now. How about this, we write up a constitution of reproductive rights and have the same requirements for adding constraints as we would for amending the constitution. Or we set it up so that you have to have to have a federal proposition voted on in order to change it. I am open to ideas.

that's eugenics.
No it isn't.
link (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/eugenics)
eugenics
A noun
1 eugenics

the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)

I am taking monetary ability as a factor because it is a factor. Do you plan to argue that monetary ability isn't a factor in raising children? Throwing around words with bad associations to scare people serves no purpose.

or we could keep the government the hell out of our private lives in an innocent until proven guilty kind of way...
And let the blood of those children be on our hands? As a society, we have more children conceived unplanned than planned. As a whole, we are guilty.
We are willing to take risks and screw up the lives of our future just so we can get our rocks off. That to me is the epitomy of selfishness. We complain that the big companies are killing our future by cutting down trees, by drilling for oil, etc... heck, we are killing our future, bringing children into this world into miserable conditions by people who didn't plan them for orgasms. How's that for being selfish.

so the rich get all the babies they want; the poor can't. those poor ppl who may have been able to afford it otherwise, won't be able to once the costs of reversals, classes, applications, etc are applied.
Actually, I never said that we were going to make them pay for it. I think that this should be a govt. funded program and any costs associated with it should be paid for by society. As for the rich getting all the kids they want, that's not true either. Money is NOT going to be the only requirement, heck I don't even think it should be the most important requirement. They still have to go through the training program just like everybody else (and no, the nanny can not come in lieu of the parents).

you're so damned cute when you're idealistic. "staying vigilant" doesn't do a particularly bang-up job of making the govt what "we" want it to be...
Nah, it does a great job. We just haven't done it in our generation. And btw, I am cute 24/7/365. ;)

we have things in place to deal with bad parents. we could fund them more and see one hell of an improvement.
Yes, our things in place consists of let people do whatever the heck they want, hope for the best and try to clean up the mess when they f#@k it up. Unfortunately we can't pick it up until the child has been damaged, often permanently. If this was an issue of something reversible or heck even if it was just kids dying, I probably would not be as aggressive with this but this is worse. At least with death, it'll be over for them. These kids are going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives.

nothing is ever going to work perfectly. so advocating a more draconian regime just because our current underfunded efforts are inadequate isn't a solution.
Neither is let's-hope-for-the-best-and-be-glad-that-it's-not-our-kid-and-feel-good-about-ourselves-because-we-didn't-do-it-even-though-we-let-it-happen system that we currently have. I'm not saying that I am sure that this is the way to go. However, I do think that we need to start exploring other ideas, start putting stuff on the table and evaluate them. You can't possibly look at this system and say yeah it works so well that let's just tweak it and let's not even look at other ideas because while it's not perfect it works well enough that it is definitely the way to go. Maybe you do... I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but for me, I don't think our current system works well enough for us to say that. Funding isn't going to make people less selfish. It isn't going to stop them from having sex. We have pumped plenty of money into abstinence programs and they have failed miserably. We have now fallen back to teaching them protection because even though it isn't as good as abstinence it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. And even with that, people still use birth control improperly and people still don't use birth control at all and when it comes down to it if it came down to giving up our pleasures or risking f#@king up some kids life, we chose risking f#@king up some kids life.

and again... we tried this "sterilize against the future" thing once. it didn't improve society at all. we gave it 40 years... do we really need more evidence?
Yes because we did a bad job of it with wrong assumptions and for the wrong reasons. The technology wasn't there, the experiment wasn't planned or set up properly and the data wasn't analyzed right. Look at the time since then as a another experiment. We still have problems with child abuse, population overgrowth, and crime. We still haven't fixed anything and people are still getting hurt. Do I know that mass sterilization is the way to go, no. Do I think that we should consider ideas instead of just getting in a frenzy and yelling eugenics, yes. Heck, gene therapy research was stalled for decades for the same reason and we are recently only beginning to see the uses of it for things other than for makng a super race of aryan soldiers.

Hey MolecularFire, have you thought about proposing this to your congressperson? Maybe send a proposal to Planned Parenthood or something?
No. The reason is because the technology IMO isn't far enough along that I can support this yet. I do think that this is an issue that we need to deal with and that we should have some form of mass sterilization idea on the table. However I am not confident that it is necessarily the way to go yet and that vasectomies are necessarily the way to do it. It is IMO currently the best way given what we have and the ideas that I have heard but I prefer to keep an open mind. Ideally, I would prefer something that can be completely reversible and put into the food and would not involve surgery if possible. However, I haven't been able to find it yet. Laser vasectomies do look promising, so do shunts to prevent sperm granulomas but we don't yet have enough data on them to be very confident about them yet. The research is getting done and while I don't think that the govt. would be interested in furthering that research there really isn't much they could do to speed up the research anyways. There is enough private sector interest in exploring different more long term, but reversible forms of contraception that the research is getting done at a fast enough rate for me.

[cheapie]

is this conversation really happening?

[welfareloser]

No it isn't.
link (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/eugenics)
eugenics
A noun
1 eugenics

the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating)

I am taking monetary ability as a factor because it is a factor. Do you plan to argue that monetary ability isn't a factor in raising children? Throwing around words with bad associations to scare people serves no purpose. .

yes it is.

i'm not throwing around a scary word. i am using the one and only word that exactly describes your proposal. EUGENICS. i have several books from the eugenics press. there's more to eugenics than that one-line definition you dredged up.

it's a large concept, and does not necessarily need to include the goal of improving the genetic pool of humanity. a group of people deciding who may or may not reproduce with the intent of improving society is EUGENICS. period. the word has scary associations because what you are proposing is scary. i didn't mis-use the word.

eugenics took many forms, for example, virginia:


It focused on "defective persons" whose reproduction represented "a menace to society."

no genetics involved.

here is the "model law," on which most states based their eugenics laws:


Advocacy in favor of sterilization was one of Harry Laughlin’s first major projects at the Eugenics Record Office. In 1914, he published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the "socially inadequate" – people supported in institutions or "maintained wholly or in part by public expense. The law encompassed the "feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent" – including "orphans, ne'er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers." By the time the Model Law was published in 1914, twelve states had enacted sterilization laws.

genetics was actually tacked on to the concept of eugenics later. they were mostly concerned with criminals and beggars making more criminals and beggars. they didn't care if it was nature or nurture :shrug:

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org


You can't possibly look at this system and say yeah it works so well that let's just tweak it and let's not even look at other ideas because while it's not perfect it works well enough that it is definitely the way to go. .

and you can't possibly propose that your system, which will be run by the same selfish idiots for the same selfish idiots, is going to function any better. show me ONE case where giving the powers that be MORE power over the lives of the average joe has worked to the benefit of society.

you also can't say that our current system doesn't work at all. it is quite a bit better than nothing. and it could be even better.

you're imagining a utopia in which every baby is a wanted baby, every parent is a good parent, and the streets are paved with gold. and candy! and arby's sammitches grow on trees... :dodgy:

anyway. that's the thing about utopias... we can't make them happen. we will never achieve perfection. it would be wonderful if everybody had exactly the number of children they wanted, no more, no less. it would be wonderful if the people who f*** up kids never got near a kid. it can't be done.

here's history's rule for utopias... the more iron-fisted you get in trying to induce a utopia, the more awful it is for the people you're trying to do it to. there are endless examples...

and now, back to reality... perfection simply isn't possible. there will always be some litter in the streets, there will always be kids getting abused. that doesn't mean we don't try... but we don't try at the expense of the freedom of others who have done nothing wrong.

and as for accidental pregnancies... 50% of them get kept. and the vast majority of them are wanted, loved, and raised well enough by parents who can't imagine life without them. i didn't plan to have twins; does that make the extra kid something that should have been prevented? unplanned may be "suboptimal," but suboptimal isn't the terror you make it out to be. unplanned pregnancies are hardly the cause of societal ills; they're so ubiquitous, and strike the rich and the poor, the sane and insane, the competent and incompetent, nearly equally. not only do i think that 100% control of fertility would do little to reduce societal burdens, i think that giving that control to someone other than the owner of the reproductive organs in question is a doomed effort... doomed to do more harm than good.


Yes because we did a bad job of it with wrong assumptions and for the wrong reasons. The technology wasn't there, the experiment wasn't planned or set up properly and the data wasn't analyzed right. .

do you REALLY think that we're now suddenly capable of doing it for the right reasons?

the data is still there. go analyze it. south carolina was extremely aggressive with their forced sterilizations; 100s of 1000s of people deemed "unfit" were sterilized against their will and usually without their knowledge. show me any corresponding dip in SC's crime rates or welfare rolls. it ain't there.

i've seen some attempts to analyze the data to prove that it helped society. they were bad. it didn't work. even the people who desperately want to prove that it worked couldn't twist the numbers to their liking.


Look at the time since then as a another experiment. We still have problems with child abuse, population overgrowth, and crime. We still haven't fixed anything and people are still getting hurt. Do I know that mass sterilization is the way to go, no. Do I think that we should consider ideas instead of just getting in a frenzy and yelling eugenics, yes. .

you're the one yelling eugenics... you just don't want to use that particular word for it.

yes, bad parents raising bad kids is a problem. your solution isn't any kind of solution. if the sterilization were non-invasive, 100% reversible, AND anyone was given a reversal whenever they wanted UNLESS they were proven guilty of some heinous no-kids-for-you crime, i'd be totally supportive. of offering the OPTION.

because you know what... maybe a lot of people wouldn't admit this, but an unplanned pregnancy is often a good thing. most of the 50% of people who keep them would say that it made their lives better. i know girls from high school who were complete jerk-offs, got knocked up as teens... and totally pulled it together to be a good person for their baby. it's actually a very common story. taking that away simply should not be in the power of any committee.

so actually... i wouldn't be surprised if you would have a hard time even proving that unplanned pregnancies are likely to cause problems for society. the overwhelming majority of them don't. you can't take away everyone's driver's lisences just because 1 in 1000 may do something bad with it.

oh, and the religious right will assassinate you if you take this proposal out and try to drum up support for it, so nyeah :pfft: problem solved :P

and finally... dammit, boy, i understand vasectomies. yes, everything you've mentioned can be a factor. but YOU are ignoring some things that can be factors that have NOTHING to do with ANY physical blockage.

often after a long-standing vasectomy, men will develop sperm antibodies, an immunologic response to their own sperm. these antibodies can make fertilization more difficult despite adequate numbers of sperm. there are other theories out there; this is the one that has the most evidence out there.

here are some numbers...

Years since vasectomy...........................<3........3-8........9-14........>15

Chance of rebuilding open vas channel.......97%......88%.......79%........71%

Chance of pregnancy.............................76%.......53%.......44%........30%

Belker AM, et al.Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. Journal of Urology 1991; 145(3):505-11.



notice that of the 97% of perfect reversals after less than 3 years - those which don't have the scarring and don't develop the granuloma problems you describe - only 76% can achieve pregnancy. after 15 years, of the 71% who wind up with a physically perfect reversal, only 30% can achieve pregnancy. again, this has NOTHING to do with technique and technology. you don't let your sperm out for long enough, they get pissed off and stop working for The Man. that's medical fact :P

numbers from vasectomy.com and vasectomyreversal.com ... yeah, i know, not my usual assault of journal references, but these pages were written by docs who had conveniently already assembled all the necessary references, and i'm lazy :P