or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by lightknight

But this doesn't solve the problem of "who gets to decide who can have the babies". This sounds horribly like "the ones with the most guns" or "the ones with the highest tech". Anyway, higher tech is bigger guns, right?  Unless I'm very mistaken or have been brainwashed (always a possibility), "white man" has already done sterilization, forced or manipulated, on Indians, American Indians, Africans, and even, in the case of Switzerland, on ethnic or social groups which "did...
No, not really what I mean. It's not about women not being able to decide, it's more about men not having any say about babies anymore, but all sorts of responsibilities inherited from the time where they had the power. Case in point, the ex-Minister for Justice in France, Rachida Dati, who had a baby with a man who apparently stated he did not want her to keep the baby. She had a legal right to have the baby, since it's her body. Fine by me. However, the Minister got the...
OK, I understand your point of course, even though some of the tools I use most often are the ones I learnt almost at he beginning of my studies.As for the big deal, my problem lies with the use, not with the lack of use. Until we have a much longer lifespan, having kids later will statistically increase the danger faced by women and decrease the lifetime of parents with their children, which penalises kids in the general picture. Did you know that after 30, the risk of...
I'm agreeing with all but the last one. Population Growth Control, in my opinion, leads to a natural question (who is allowed to make babies) with a logical answer, high potential humans, based on someone's calculation of who is high potential. This is called "eugenism", and in turn leads to the quest for the übermensch. It's one of my pet peeves ^^
This is a bit of a dishonest argument, though. It raises one question:  should we devote substantial resources to enabling men to have babies, in order to remove this unfair advantage of women over men?After all, it's like being born a Prince. By birth, you have a natural right to decide "when and where" to make babies. <3
Sounds exactly like the reasoning of people advocating for biological engineering for their offspring.Thankfully, until now, the State, which means, the collective wisdom of humans (hopefully, at least) has decided that unless there is serious medical benefits (solving a potential genetic illness), we're not going to play around with biological engineering. My opinion, worth exactly that and no more, but no less, is that we're having an identical moral conundrum here.Are...
An education starts being useful from day 1, actually.
In the meantime, Ubisoft, in Montreal, offers benefits for families of their employees. I have no clue if these are any good, but I noted it for future reference ^^
I hope my words did not sound as a judgment of people, who like you, ended up having kids a bit late. I'm not judging, just expressing a mathematical statement ^^
This is not good news. So basically, we're now giving women the opportunity to do that WRONG thing that men have a physiological capability to do, make babies at an age where they're likely to not be healthy enough to take them into adulthood with all their educative abilities? Think of becoming a father at 50. That's getting your kid to adulthood around 70. Why the hell would that be a good thing for women either? I wish big companies with lots of cash would instead...
New Posts  All Forums: