The Public Opinion Soapbox

AnonyMouse · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 527

It seems to me that a person can't reject stem cell research on moral grounds unless they also oppose in-vitro fertilization, at least in the way it's most commonly practiced. It is morally inconsistent to approve the creation of embryos only to let the "spares" die in a freezer while opposing the destruction of them for scientific purposes. They are moral equivalents.

I would take the indignation and rage over the stem cell issue more seriously if the most vocal opponents were as loud and passionate about ending in-vitro fertilization. But I just don't ever see that.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2600 Location: Chambersburg

That's an excellent point AnonyMouse. I can't say I'm surprised that stem-cell opponents fail to see the logic in it, but excellent it is nonetheless.

Stem-cell opponents seem to have given up on logic long ago anyway, so the argument is a moot point.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2600 Location: Chambersburg

I'm so glad that I found this video... from the mostly awful movie "Idiocracy" this pretty much captures the climate of todays reproductive world:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/8245/

Just a friendly word of caution, the video contains what the MPAA would consider to be "foul language"

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 3060 Location: Chambersburg

My I.Q. is 122 and I bred...sorry. Sad

Luckily for you all I was going to breed more but haven't been able to.
_________________
Nevermind.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 560

deleted post?

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2600 Location: Chambersburg

I think the point is that if you have an IQ over 120, you probably have 2 kids or less. You know, the whole give back what you take thing.

What, the video doesn't right true? Basically, the dumber you are, the more kids you have. Exceptions exist to every rule, but just Google the "Dugger's" and you'll see what I mean.

And to cap it off, little moron football star survives surgery due to advanced stem cell research and years of study from people thousands of times smarter than him, so he goes on to father dozens more little twits.

What baffles me is that a lot of the conservatives in Franklin County get upset over welfare because their taxes are paying for some minority's children. Little do they know, they're most likely paying for their very white trailer-bound neighbor's children.

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 3060 Location: Chambersburg

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2600 Location: Chambersburg

The trend may be for wealthy people to have more kids, but I'm not so sure that's the trend for smart people. After all, there are a lot of dumb wealthy people, and smart, er, not so wealthy people.

Let's just say, there aren't a lot of Rhodes Scholars and Harvard Grads popping out 6-10 kids. Four seems to be a limit for most people; many have three, but I'd say that the vast majority of young, educated couples these days opt to have one or two kids.

Whether or not that will remain the same for years to come, we'll have to see. It's generational and all. Considering I'm a bit of a generational quagmire... too young for Gen-X, too old for Millennial... I fall somewhere in between. But my parents were boomers, so I guess I run in a family that decided not to start popping out kids, intentionally or otherwise, at age 19.

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 3060 Location: Chambersburg

You're one of the Gen-Ys like my middle sister and husband (yeah, I robbed the cradle. Just 5 years!!)

You (in general) should definitely be able to afford the ones you have (or plan to.) Then you've got all of the genetic disorders, use the testing that's available. Schools, environment, jobs, stress...all factors to consider. Factors I wish I'd considered more Confused

And then there's the line "The worst time to have a son is 18 years before a war."

Blah.

But, Hey, cute, smart people should have lots of babies. Seriously. Do the world a favor.

Isn't it past your bedtime?
_________________
Nevermind.

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2600 Location: Chambersburg

It most certainly IS past my bed time, but I want to be clear on something... I am NOT a Gen-Y. In fact, Generation Y is a derogatory term for those people that happened to be born in the early 80's. Thanks to some enterprising "generation-naming-people" the Gen-Y moniker was dropped entirely for the term "Millennial."

Seen purely as a "year of birth" phenomenon, the generation cut off seems to be that Gen-X'ers are those born in the 1960's and 1970's, with some leeway between 1980 and 1981.

But speaking in terms of those born of the generation before them, Boomers are the generation of those born of parents subsequent to WWII... i.e. my parents. If you think of it like that, Gen-X'ers could very well push into those born into the mid 80's.

Case in point; my mother is a boomer. She was born in 1952. She gave birth to my extremely disproportionately younger sister in 1988. While common sense dictates that she is a "Millennial" (Gen-Y) she is actually a Gen-X'er, despite the fact that most Gen-X'ers these days are in their late 20's to early 40's.

My parents had children later than everyone else.

Holy Geez, my kids will probably see an awful war, but that's not just far, fary away, it's ancient. I'm doomed to my parents trends of birthing late in life. You can only live with your girlfriend for so long before people in a relatively small town start talking.

.45chel · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 3060 Location: Chambersburg

Begging your pardon. I was certainly not intending to sling insults. I simply used the Gen Y term to refer to those born between 1981–1995. Thinking about it, I guess it would suck having a label only due to succession. Being a Gen X-er (a stereotypical reputation as apathetic, cynical, disaffected, streetwise loners and slackers--> I'm not apathetic!!(Some would consider me not a Gen X-er, but instead born at the beginning of the Echo boom, I'm a bi-centennial baby)) never bothered me, so I just assumed Gen Y was no big deal. My apologies.

We could probably have pages just dealing with when is the best time to have kids. When you're older you're more likely to be financially stable, younger you've got more energy--I don't think anyone is ever old enough to be ready for kids...

Personally, I'm more concerned with the "only live with your girlfriend so long" comment. You never struck me as the type of person concerned with what others thought. Let the bastards talk!
_________________
Nevermind.

QueenofHearts · Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Posts: 378 Location: On the Computer

I missed something...somewhere.

My IQ is 156 (it dropped after my last child!). I have 4 living children, twins were lost prior to birth (eh, you know what I mean). Plus, I am a Boomer and proud of it!
_________________
Some people try to turn back their odometers. Not me, I want people to know 'why' I look this way.

I've traveled a long way and some of the roads weren't paved.

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 560

how did this become an iq bragging ground? I have a high IQ score (taken w/ an actual psychologist) but I don't like to say what it is. Also IQ doesn't change, if it is changing it's probably an error in the measuring (ie taking an online or paper test by yourself)

anonymous_coward · Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 560

i guess my point is, an iq score of 156 is like statistically saying, out of a sample of 10 million people, I'm smarter than every single one of them. If your IQ is really that high great, but it's a little unbelievable.