Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

of course having children is a right. anyone who thinks otherwise is insane.

No one can stop a parent from having a child, but that do don't deserve to have them. Some children live in filth, drugs, violance, poverty, and abuse. That is unacceptable

People here can get their kids taken away too. I think all people have the right to at least give it a shot (except people who have extreme mental conditions and are simply incapable of caring for children at all). If it doesn't work out, the kid can be taken away.

exactly, thats what CPS is for.

of course it's a right


who would say that i dont deserved my daughter?

Darth i wont take what you say personal, because i know you didnt mean it towards me


but the thing is that i live in fear that they'll take my daughter from me

Yeah, I know about that from the Schizophrenia thread... I don't mean people like you, because I know you're perfectly capable of taking care of your daughter... I'm referring to people who really are dangerous to their children and may/may not be aware of it.

yeah i know Darth

Omega--I agree with that, basically my thoughts on the matter are that people who are going to hurt their kids shouldn't be allowed to have them... But the thing is, you don't always know when somebody's a drug addict, or an alchoholic, or whatever. I said what I did because it's not all black and white--it's not like there are people who shouldn't have kids and people who should, and everybody knows it. Tough issue, this.

BE--good, just makin' sure.

No can stop someone from having a child, but there are alot of times where they shouldn't. It's their right. It sucks that that child will have a horrible life.

Yes, having children is a right. Should it be that way? Probably not. I think you should have to get a license before you become a parent. I don't think just anyone should be able to have kids. It's because of this freedom that there are so many abused children, obese children and overpopulation. Because so many parents are unfit to be parents.

I also think you should limit the number of children a person is allowed to have. This could be decided by their income and their ability to take care of numerous children. There shouldn't be poor people, living in the projects having 8 kids when they can't even take care of one properly.

I agree with what u said. Only ppl who can properly take care of their children should have them.

Having children will always be a right and should be one. No one has the right to say 'you can't have a child because we don't think u can raise on properly'

Yes, if there are rules fo adoptions, there should be the same (if not more) rules for having children of your own.

I agree with BackFire and Omega about the adoption thing.

Yes, like that. There are rules for adopting kids, I don't see why there shouldn't be rules for making your own.

yes anyone should b allowed to have kids....kids can change someone.....an thats so unfair if theyre not allowed kids, its got nthin do do wit ur life so why take it away from them?

well put, man.

That may be true, but there are kids born into irresponsible families that would abuse them. The kid deserves better

What about the people who lock their kids in closets, giving them one slice of bread a day to live on?

What about the drug addicts who bring there kids up on drugs, turning them intu future drug addicts/dealers?

What about the people who have kids and then end up killing, raping or torturing them?

You think all of these people should have kids? Despite the fact that the kids will only be hurt by these people.

Obviously not everyone should have children. It isn't good for society, and it isn't good for the kids.

Key word: CAN. Kids CAN change someone. But more likely things will turn out on the worse side of things if the person has a serious problem.

Yes, having kids is a biological right, we were born to grow to reproduce ourselves to replace us. Now, this right comes with a lot of responsibilities

ok, but how r u gonna know what happens until theyve had kids....youre never gonna know if you never give em the chance....if they do that to their kids they should get taken away from them!

Sometimes the rules for an adoption have been modified to fit the country the child's from. E.g. some countries won't be part of a adoption-program if they have a suspicion the child might end up with a single parent, a homosexual couple, etc. I saw a program where the child's new parents were actually chosen, not because of their personality or financial situation (though of course the latter wasn't a problem), but because the staff at the children's home the baby was from felt it was God's intention this particular couple should be the new parents. So the criteria and regulations for adoption can be altered and changed, depending on whose involved. Nobody share's the completely same ideas of what the perfect parent's like. That would make it hard to make rules for the the parents expecting their own child as well.

A license for parents would indeed be a good idea, tho I think it's almost impossible to make up such a test and stuff.

Second of all not everyone should have the right to give birth. As DR said not everyone is suited to take care of children, bringing kids into this world for whom the parents simply can not (or won't) take care of should NOT be allowed.

We have pretty strict adoption laws in Belgium, yet we do not have laws against having kids. (except in some extreme cases) That's just weird and wrong I think the reason is pretty obvious, what would you do when you make laws to prevent people from having children when they aren't suited for it?

Mandatory sterilization??? that goes a tad to far for me.

Altho it should be controlled I think it is something that can not be controlled. Best thing to do IMO is to EDUCATE ppl that children simply aren't for everyone

Exactly. Is having children right? is the gayest question I've ever heard.

I'd have to agree with you.

Even though you are insulting me

Nopes. But apparently the rules you'll need to follow before they'll let you have it can change quite a lot, depending on who's involved. If such an individual and personal entity as God can suddenly be drawn into the discussion and alter the criteria, it shows how differently we regard the parent role, thus making it even harder to create a set of rules for parents to follow. Who should make those rules? And how far-reaching should they be?

I definately agree with you on the problematics of upholding such a licens. That does echoe some very nasty scenarios indeed.

But labels indicating disorders of the self are applied to pretty much anything nowadays The only way to decide on whether someone is a fit parent is whether or not they can do better for the child than an institution could.

Well yeah, but all the problems a kid got from his/her bad parents don't magically disappear when they get taken away.

Children who are institutionalised often have their souls destroyed (in the UK certainly, and I doubt it's much different elsewhere)

Having a child is a person's right just like anything else.
That being said, there are also agencies to protect these children who may be born into a bad home.

I don't think anyone has the right to decide who is a fit parent, raising children takes experience and practice and you get better with time.

Not necessarily

You'd be surprised how many people really don't give a shit about their kids. That or they are truly incapable of parenting them right. My mom's a school counselor, could be why I have a rather negative outlook on this. Anyways, there's this lady who has a reeeaaally low IQ (something like 60) and is hugely obese. She has two kids who also are not very bright and are completely out of control. The lady can barely walk for God's sake because she's so damn fat. There are some people, like her, that simply should not be allowed to have kids.

I agree actually.

People in different cultures take care of their children diferently, you cant have a set rules of what makes a fit parent and what does not, that would not work.

The other thing is, how can you stop people from having children? Make everyone who is classed as ''unfit parent'' if they have a kid, make them have an abortion? Thats silly.

I think agencies that help children like NSPCC over here in England and many other, should work more and harder to get this children safe.

So should the same people not be allowed to choose their own religion? or speak out in public?
I think it's a right just like anything else, and no one can take it away from you, unless you are putting a child's life in danger.

Just for clarity, I will make a list of people who factualy should not have kids.


-Drug Adicts: If they want to have kids, they should have to give up the drugs. You don't want to do that? Tough shit, then you don't really want kids that badly, no good will come of it.

Rapists/child molesters/murderers: As soon as you commit this crime, you should have to get an operation that destroys any chance of ever having a child. Don't like it? Don't kill/rape/molest people.

Someone who doesn't have the income necessary to take care of kids- As I said, poor people who make 300 dollars a week should not have 9 kids. Like it or not, kids are expensive and you need money for food/clothing/toys/medicine ect. If these people have too many kids, the children should just be taken away and put into a foster home that can take care of them.

That's all I can think of as of now. None of these people should be having children obviously.

Don't the states offer money for every child in the home if they can't be supported?

Yes, but it's usually not nearly enough. It's just barely enough for food.

Well here I think it's about 200 or so dollars per child, so people with 9 kids do get enough

Not really. 200 dollars a month, per child is very little. Like I said, that's just enough for food, and some medicine should the kid get sick. Also, I'm sure there is a limit to the total amount of money a family can get.

I understand what you are sayign, but how exactly are you gonna stop those people from having children?

Government doesnt know where all the drug addicts are, and rapists/child molesters usually commit those crimes after tey had some kids or against their own kids *shudder* as well as poor people, you cant exactly stop them from having children.

One simple word: Abortion. Or, if it's to late for that by the time it is found out that these people are pregnant, then forced adoption right after birth is the way to go.


I"m also aware that the government can't know where every drug addict is. However, there are many who are known, and these people shouldn't be allowed to have kids, at least untill they have gone to the trouble to give up drugs all together.

As far as the rapists/muderes/molestors go, I'm also aware that not all of them will commit a crime before they have kids, but there are some that do. And after they get ouf of prison, (assuming they will) they should not be able to ever have kids during their life.

Finally, for the poor people, it would be handled much like it's handled today, if they have to many kids for their own good, then the kids are taken away to a foster home. People need to know their limitations.

Of course, all these people not having children is in childrens interest, however, abortion would not go down well, especially not in USA
Besides, people would complain about forced abortion killing their children...its so complicated, and i think the approach of having a government organisations like NSPCC(in uk) is the best way to go about it...till there is a better solution.

Abortions can be commited even in the 9th month of pregnancy actually.
But it is illegal in many provinces, states, countries.

There's a much higher risk involved that late though...

I agree with BackFire, for once. It's not right to bring a kid into the world in the hands of somebody who is not going to take care of him/her right.

I see you're all for trusting the rehab systems!

Silver Tears> What do you mean "it's a right like everything else"? What "everything else"?

Lil Bitchiness> I have to agree with BF, again. ABortion or forced adoption. If experienced psychologists and social-workers are asked to interview all expecting couples who - say - submit a bloodtest or something - it should be fairly easy to weed out those who should not have children.
No one is saying mandatory sterilisation. People may change. I had an abortion at age 19. We were young and sometimes young people are foolish. I went on to got a good education, and am now married (to a completely different guy) and have a great job. I wouldn't have been able to handle the responsibility of taking care of a small new human being back then.
Babies are not toys, they're not the thing that should make addicted parents quit their drugs, nor give people a meaning with their lives.

That might scare many addicted women away from seeking help. If society responds them with a "get an abortion, then we'll help you", they'd probably just stay away from the hospital, isolating themselves even more, maybe even giving birth in secret. These are women who have probably been let down loads of times before in their lives. They need support and guidance. A forced abortion must be the ultimate way to humiliate them yet again.

Omega: I agree with you. A child's not a toy and shouldn't be the parent's instrument for a better life. Still, forcing people to have an abortion might effect them in a very bad way, just messing them up even more. Besides, where will the limit be? This might create a slide.

I never said i disagreed with the abortion, nor with anything BF said, i was questioning it and what i said is that there is a unlikely chance that any time soon this kind of practice you all are talking about is gonna be accepted.

Line> I absolutely agree with you. The ultimate humiliation indeed.
If you start making this kind of law, where will it stop...who will make a decision as to who is a fit mother and who isnt, it isnt all that simple and it would create a slide indeed. This would lead to laws like no one can have a sex without liecence and similar stupidity. How about emotionaly destroying a women.....forced abortion does not sound right!

Besides, think of a scenario of a forced abortion? Seriously now, imagine woman kicking and screeming being dragged to hospital to take her baby away, because government decided she isnt fit to have one.

I mean is that if you can do basically anything in modern society, you should be allowed to have children if that is ultimately your choice.

If you are allowed to seak your mind, or practise any religion, than you should be allowed to have a child, if you have an intention in caring for the child. If not, the child is better off at a foster home or even a group home.

There's still a lot of thing's one cannot do in modern society, beating, raping, molesting being some of them. And even though there ARE many things we CAN do, I don't see why this should make it logical that having a child would automatically be one of them?
I can't see the connection between the right to practice any religion of your own choice and having a child? Religion's only about you yourself. With a child , you do bring someone else into the picture.
I don't think many people choose to have a child without intending to care about them. The problem is, wether they're capable of it?

Yes ideed, but forced abortion is certainly not the answer to go about it, i dont think.

Me neither. Forced adoption, maybe, if the mother's incapable of taking care of the child (though exactly when she is that can be difficult to decide.) I also believe that the social services sometimes should act faster. At least here in Denmark many children have been interviewed and uttered the wish to have been removed from their home before they were, as well as they felt the social services weren't taking them seriously when they seeked help.

no it aint a right, its a blessing for those who have children, but it aint a right. It is the law of nature that everybody cant reproduce.

FINTI, YOU'RE HERE !!!! so good to see you around.

thanks Keo

We're not - so ...

Abortion is not a 'simple word', it is an agonizing process that can damage a womans psyche for years, even decades. Studies have shown that its not society's view of abortion that makes it so hard on a woman, but rather an innate sense of loss that women go through when having a life ripped from their womb.

Having kids is not a right or a privilege, it is the duty we owe our species. Procreation is the single most important thing to the continuation of homo sapiens. I know it sounds obvious, but you'd be surprised at the number of selfish individuals (mostly homosexuals) out there that think its more important to be successful and secure than it is to make a baby.

Also, its not about being 'ready' to have a baby. Its about having a baby and doing what you have to do to provide for him/her. I would argue that its better to have loving parents who barely make ends meet as than it is to have rich parents who let a nanny raise their child. I wasn't even close to being ready for kids, but when my son was born I damn sure grew up in a hurry.

There will always be bad parents. Theres no way to take a biological function and place rules on it. Some people just aren't fit to be parents, but sadly, that won't stop them from doing it, and in the big picture, at least theyre doing their duty.

No, no no no. It is not a duty. It's that kind of mentality that is to blame for our extreme overpopulation. If anything, fewer people should be having babies, not more. It's not liek there's going to be a shortage of babies. Accidental births alone probably account for at least 1/4 of the total number of births in the world.

It is a right as of now, but it should be a priveledge. That's the only way to cut back on over population and crappy parents.

I do agree on your statement about poor people loving their kids though. I agree love is more important then money, and if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I never said that poor people shouldn't breed at all. I simply said they shouldn't have an outrageous number of children when they can't even support one or two with the bare necessities.

As far as abortion goes, if they don't like it. Tough shit. How about they just don't have sex. I'm sick of hearing about these "victimized" people who act like they just got pregnant at random - "Oops, I'm pregnant, how'd that happen?" It's not a mistake when you get pregnant, when you have sex, with or without protection, you always know that there is a chance, small or large, that a baby will result from your actions. People should not be having sex if they aren't prepared for the results. I do not pity people for their own stupidity.

Yes, there will always be bad parents, but by somehow disallowing just every moron from being able to have kids, it would be possible to at least cut back on the overwhelming number of bad parents that are currently out there. But, ah yes, they're certainly doing their duty by randomly having kids without being ready, if their duty is to contribute to the overpopulation of the world, that is.

Omega:
I agree, which is why I'm not too fond of the idea of the baby-licens touched upon earlier. And, just for the record, I'm not against abortion, actually very very happy that we in this country have that option. If anything, I've been wondering wether abortion shouldn't be made a right ...
I follow you on the education. At least when it comes to how to take care of a child, what's expected from you, etc. I don't know if you've heard of a project carried out a place around here, where nurses visits parents with babies till the child's around three (I think), helping them choosing the right food (which is discussed in the obesity-thread), how to teach the child limits, etc. A nurse was interviewed and told that exactly what good parenting is has been discussed so much, and too many different answers have been given, be firm the other day, then suddenly you're told to just let the child have it's way, etc. Parents now a days are simply too confused for the better good of the child. This project's been running for some years now, and already there's a lot less obese children in this area, as well as less children with problems in school, children, who can't concentrate and are being dificult.
Still, I't not sure I'd like the idea of being taught that sometimes an abortion'd be the right way. That's something the involved needs to find out for themselves. Feeling a pressure from society, as small as it may be, to carry out an abortion, can't be nice.

Well, I was done with this, but you dared me, so here I go:

I can 'choose' not to take care of my kids, that doesn't mean its not my duty.

The 'planet' is not overpopulated. Urban centers are overpopulated. Who wants to live in the country when you can live in Fancy New York City? There is a lot of empty space on this planet.

Why do you keep bringing up the 'having 10 kids' thing? I never once even hinted that a person should be that irresponsible. Basically nature dictates how many children you should have. Cats have litters of multiple kittens because their lifespan is short and their chance of survival is quite low. Insects have hundreds, sometimes thousands of offspring, since they get killed left and right. Humans, on the other hand, rarely have more than one baby at a time. Back in the day, when standards of living were lower, people needed to have more babies since you never knew how many would die of some plague or wild animal attack or whatever. Nowadays I don't think people really need to have more than one or two kids, and I agree that having more is irresponsible. That doesn't change the fact that it is our biological duty.

You can say what you want about the current world situation, for every bad point you bring up, I can bring up two positive ones. I choose to be optimistic, and try to give my kids the best possible environment for them to thrive in, so that they might...wait for it...grow up and be mature enough to be decent parents.

Saying that gays are irresposible for not procreating may very well be rude to those programmed by today's PC society, but it is my opinion, so live with it. I will not be bullied into an opinion based on how many people I might insult. If you have a problem with that I suggest you grow some mental callouses.

I think kids are irresponsible and selfish too, and I love kids.

Finally, each time you have sex (even safe sex) you are practicing for the big moment when that action results in a baby. Therefore, when you are looking for sex, you are looking to procreate. Its instinctual, programmed into our genes. Everything you do that has to do with staying healthy, looking good, and attracting the opposite sex are all so you can make a baby, you obviously just don't know it. Like I said, do some research, my opinons are based on psychlogical and biological theories that have been around for years.

Omega, do you even have kids?

Line> But the need for nurses TO go around an visit parents, and tell them about nutrition and up-bringing shows that there IS a problem. ow come we've lost the ability to just have a child, feed it and bring it up to be a decent human being?
Too much going on? Career-wise? Too much contradictory information on how to raise a child?
I think that teaching teen-agers that sometimes an abortion is a good choice is perfectly okay. Antropologits have shown that we humans have resorted to infanticide and abortions since the dawn of time - if it was necessary. Just because we have enough to eat, doesn't mean we are READY to are for another human being. I understand what you mean by "that's something the involved needs to find out for themselves", but who's to tell them about it?
And is it not better there is a sight pressure to WAIT having children, than a pressure to procreate no matter what?

Cheechur> Oh, please. READ what I write, will you? I said it's not a duty for humans to have children, as we can choose not to.

The planet IS overpopulated. You seem completely ignorant as to what the word means. It's not just about space. It's about having enough ressources. If everyone on this planet were to achieve my standard of living, well... good-bye Earth.

Why are you comparing humans with cats? Cats do not have a sense of self anywhere NEAR that you find in humans. Cats can not plan, nor do they know of contraception... A woman can get pregnant a coule of months after giving birth. A woman can get pregnant around the age of 13-15 and until around 50. Now COUNT the number of kids nature - according to YOU - dictates that humans should have.

And it is NOT a fact that procreating is a duty. There is nothing NATURAL about humanity anymore... Or did your comp grow on a tree?

"You can say what you want about the current world situation, for every bad point you bring up, I can bring up two positive ones." Well, and they are... ?

"Saying that gays are irresposible for not procreating may very well be rude to those programmed by today's PC society," No, it is just rude. Gay people CANNOT have children so it's an old-fashioned and easy way of pointing fingers. It's like accusing bald people of bringing down the shampoo-business.
What about men-women couples who cannot have children either for various reasons. Are they selfish, too?
You are - of course - entitled to your fundamentalist and conservative opinions all you want. But guess what? You don't have monopoly on the truth, and if you feel bullied because I reply - then you're the one being overtly emotional. Not I. And I suggest you grow some mental callouses.

Or rather - practice what you preach, will ya?

So, I assume by your extremly selfish positions that you do not have kids.

You want people to tell you how to raise kids. You want the choice to end a life because it will inconvenience you.

"Cheechur> Oh, please. READ what I write, will you? I said it's not a duty for humans to have children, as we can choose not to."

I do read your posts, and I spell YOUR name right. You reiterated your point, you already said that in your last post, and I told you why I think youre wrong.

We have more than enough resources for everyone, we've just forgotten how to share like good boys and girls. While we are currently coming to a point where we will have to look to other means of energy and resources, we just have to figure it out and move on.

If everyone on this planet were to acheive MY standard of living, we'd all be just fine. Again, your staements paint you as a short-sighted and selfish individual. No way do you have kids.

I compared humans to other species as an example of why I agree with you that having too many kids is a bad thing. Youre so full of negativity and your own opinions you even argue with me when I agree with you!

I'm optimistic and happy with my lot in life. I can cite good things about my life and life in general all day long. I'm truly sorry that you can't do the same.

We'll just agree to disagree about gays and their position within our species. Its not really off-topic, but its a non-issue to me. Everyone seems too caught up in the politics of gayness to say anything but what the media has forced down their throats.

Baldness certainly can't be good for the shampoo industry.

and Mamma jumps into the fray........I have worked with the school system for the last 10 years now. I have seen women who have no job or husbands have babies and KEEP ON HAVING babies just so they can stay on welfare. And let me tell you this..that THOSE mothers have NO BUSINESS being mothers. A cat is a better mother to its children. I am must admit I've seen children who have been badly abused. One little boy's mother locked him in a trunk a few times a week when he pissed her off. I have seen little kids badly beaten by both their fathers and mothers. People like that should A. Have their children taken away from them and B. be sterilized! Maybe that sounds harsh but it's become a harsh world. If you do any research you will find that the majority of serial killers and rapists etc have had virtual no home life. They've been abused to the point of inhumanness. Social services is no help in my opinion because 70% of the time they return the child to the parent or put the kid in foster care which doesnt amount to crap in this country anyway. It's human nature to procreate but not everyone should. That's just my opinion.....I could be wrong.
Mamma

Gays are irresponsible....... What an irrelevant statement. No discussing homosexuals in this thread please. There is no reason to bring such irresponsible and irrelevant statements about gay people into a thread about having kids.

Selfishness is part of humanity, it is a humans instinctual concern to stay alive, and live as comfortably as possible. Everyone is selfish, like it or not. In fact, the majority of people who have kids do it for selfish reasons.

And overpopulation is indeed a concern. By the year 2040, there will be nearly 10 billion people on this earth, and in another 40 years, probably 15 billion and so on. All because people are "doing their duty" a little too well. The only way to ensure that the next generation of people won't all be starving is to cut back on the amount of unnecessary children people irresponsibly have.

And what species are they exactly What a rediculous statement. How can anyone take anything you say seriously after such statements.

Sorry BF.

Overpopulation IS an issue indeed. There are more people alive today then there ever were before, but the thing is, the overpopulation usualy happens in developing countries, and poor countried.

Then again, look at China, 1/6 of all worlds population lives in China alone.

how hard do you think it is for a lesbian pair to get pregnant? If they want a kid bad enough one of them will get one. Now for the male gays it is a different story but with enough cash there are enough women who gladly be a surrogate mother/ bearer for male gay couples as well.
So actually the homosexuals CANNOT have children is a bunch of crap. So Creechuur maybe you should follow your own advice

our biological duty is to look after our own so that it is your own blood/kin that survives. That, like in the animal kingdom, is the biological duty. Toward your own, not the entire species

True. But it also shows that an awareness of this problem is kicking in, and that the right help can do the trick, so yes, I agree with you when it comes to educating people in childcare.
Still don't like the idea of being taught about when or when not it might be a good idea to have an abortion though. I don't think there should be such a pressure, as well as I don't think there should be a pressure to procreate ( though lately I've noticed that scary-articles about how bad it goes, when women wait too long to have children, and how bad it is for them to choose carrier instead of children (theese seriously makes my blood boil, if there's such a saying)) keeps popping up - no mentioning on the men of course. Having a child is a personal matter. So is having an abortion. Society shouldn't interfere. If the couple needs help and advice, they should be able to get it from professionals who are nonetheless neutral, as well as from family/friends.

"The only way to ensure that the next generation of people won't all be starving is to cut back on the amount of unnecessary children people irresponsibly have."

I definitely agree with that. Having too many kids is bad, and it doesn't contradict my main point. Everyone should have kids...just know when to say when.

"And what species are they exactly"

Notice that I said "our species". The HUMAN species. Sheesh. You are usually more intelligent lil, that was just bad reading comprehension.

Overpopulation is a good argument to limiting how many children a couple has, but it is by no means an argument for not having children at all.

Sorry Finti, but I believe that a man and a woman are best suited to raise children. Same sex couples cannot give a child what he/she needs, IMO. Gender roles are very important to shaping identity and an individuals place within society. I was raised by a single mom, and I think I missed out on a lot not having a male role model in my early life.

Guys, these are not my 'isolated views'. I have done a lot of research on these subjects, and based my beliefs upon that research. Obviously some of what I said is purely opinion, but the bedrock of my stance is based on accepted bilogical theories. I don't see that basis in a lot of posts in this thread. Rather I see a lot of emotional response. Theres nothing wrong with that, but it puts us on different pages.

But that's just it, not everyone should have kids. Only people who are willing to take up the massive amounts of responsibility that come with the territory.

I never claimed that there should be no children at all, if that's what you thought I, or The Omega said, then that is bad reading comprehension on YOUR part. I simply think only people who want kids should have them, saying "everyone should have kids" implies that people, even those who don't want kids, should have them because that's your belief, that my friend, is selfishness at it's best.

Dont insult or question my intelligence.

Re-read what you wrote:

''We'll just agree to disagree about gays and their position within our species.''

How does that sound...if you said ''within our socety'' that would be complitely different.
Homosexuality isnt even an issue.

No, everyone should not have children, but i dont think there is a way to stop people from having children.

Some people dont see children as a blessing or something pressious, unfortuatly.

I keep readng about these psychos who kill their children, beat them to death or throw them arround, its so shamefull, but i dont think there is a way of stopping people from having children.

Labeling might be the way out, or it might not. Many people who turn to crime later on in life, or abuse their children were abused themselfs.

^Agree

First of all, gays are not irresponsible. They cannot have children, and they don't choose to be gay. That's just the way they are, so learn to deal with it. Some gays adopt kids, (or try to) which is very responsible IMO. Well, theoretically, lesbians can have kids, but it seems like that whole microsurgery business would be a little expensive... And gay males obviously can't.

Yes, animals are there to prolong their species. Humans were originally here to do the same. Just that there's so damned many of us by now that we can afford to slow down a little.

About the "empty space"--actually, you seem very misinformed on this. Firstly, ever heard of something called the environment? See, you can't just put people wherever you want to, because that requires clearing land for people to live on, which requires forcing out anything else that was already there. Why can't we just knock all the trees down and plow over all the grass? Lemme think... Maybe... Because we need nature to live? Everything, and I mean everything, that you use on a daily basis, comes from nature, even if indirectly. Plastic is made from oil, which is made by compressing organic matter over billions of years. Obviously, wood comes from nature. And oh yeah, food. If we got rid of all the space, how would we make food? The earth doesn't have an unlimited amount of resources, believe it or not, and being so optimistic that you think you can DESTROY all those resources "for the good of the species" is just plain stupid. We are not the only species on this planet and if we were we probably wouldn't be here right now. Furthermore, people don't all live in NYC, an increasing number of people are doing just what you described--moving into developments in previously rural areas. It's not a good thing either.

Finally, humans have more responsibilities than other animals. We have a responsibility to make sure all the other organisms here don't disappear because of our reckless overpopulating. If everything else dies off, it is inevitable that the same will eventually happen to us. Better to have a smaller, stable population of humans than a larger, rapidly expanding population.

I heard of some theory or other that says that when a species gets to prolific for its ecosystem to support then natural law dictates that is WILL decline in numbers. I should think that before our numbers reach 15 billion there will be some sort of cataclysm - think of the drain on resouces and the effects that'll have; especially with all the inefficiency.

Probably will come to that. Too bad, it could be avoided just by people not having as many kids.

Or indeed a more efficient managment of resources...

Even with the best recourse management possible not everyone would be able to get what they need, especially with 15 billion people.

Certainly not 15 billion. There might just be enough resources for six billion persons to each have at least a reasonable life style with the utmost possible efficiency in place

Indeed, but the fact is, within 40 years the population will be at least 10 billion people, probably more. If this doesn't change then nothing, not even the best recourse management imaginable would be able to accomidate everyone with a decent life.

My own view is that with current levels of inefficiency, matters of overpopulation are already approaching critical.

Agreed.

OK OK, I'll admit it...

I guess I should change my title from Ish Disturber to Devils Advocate. Most of what I said was my opinon, and a lot more was based on stuff I have read or otherwise digested over the years. Really though, I was just taking a stance to push some buttons...its so easy to get you people riled up. I mean c'mon, do you really think I would want our nice planet to become like Coruscant, with people covering the entire surface?

Ewww.

I do honestly believe its our responsibility to have children, but certainly not all of us. There a lot of bloodlines that are just diluting the gene pool. If they choose not to procreate, all the better for the species. Darwinism and all that, y'know. So, to all of you who choose not to have kids, thank you for not passing on whatever is wrong with you to a new generation.

"I heard of some theory or other that says that when a species gets to prolific for its ecosystem to support then natural law dictates that is WILL decline in numbers."

Absolutely. That theory was actually in the same book as the 'biological duty to reproduce' theory. AIDS, war, abortion, even our instinctual tendency towards violence as a problem solver, all those things and more help to keep the population down. Those things all seem so horrible on the surface, but ironically they are necassary for our survival.

Overpopulation is certainly a growing problem, but as with most things, its better to educate and act responsibly than to simply not particiapte in your species continuance...unless your genes suck.

Well some people simply don't want kids, despite having good genes.

Like me. I don't want to have to dedicate 20+ years of my life to a kid... I want to live my own life. Might sound selfish, but we as a species really will get along alright without one or two more people.

well you are entitled to your opinion

you make it sound as though the simple act of choosing not to wanna have children makes the genes suck?

Yes, I do, don't I?

can't see what it's got to do with the genes. might be because of how your environment has shaped you.

maybe Omega but I still feel reluctant towards the idea

Creech> "We have more than enough resources for everyone, we've just forgotten how to share like good boys and girls." Oh, so within the next week, the leaders of the world will all aree TO share? Yes, I read the UN report that says, that with more efficient recycling, better treatment of natural ressources, and more research into renewable energy-ressouces the planet could sustain 10 billion people - no problem. but welcome to the real world, where that won't happen.

Or are you going to claim there is no starvation, hunger and epidemics in the world??

A statement like "We jst ahve to look for other means of energy and ressources... and move on" is extremely short-sighted and shows an amazing lack of knowledge of the state of the world. You keep accusing me of being selfish - yet yor own statements shows that you're atually exactly what you accuse me of being.

I suggest you cough up that bible, and forget your homophobia. Being afraid of gay people because they can't have kids and accusing them of being selfish because of that is somewhere near the most ridicilous I have ever heard.
And frankly, I think some gay couples may be better suited as parents, than some straight couples.
"But the bedrock of my stance is based on accepted bilogical theories." Says you, huh?
"There a lot of bloodlines that are just diluting the gene pool." Bloodlines?? Type A og B... or what are you talking about?

And those who, today, choose not to have kids are usually highly intelligent academics, while the poor and uneducated have many.
"So, to all of you who choose not to have kids, thank you for not passing on whatever is wrong with you to a new generation."
Not really...

Fire> I know. If anything this thread has shown that while many of us think that not everyone should have children, how that should be regulated is not clear at all. I'd like to think further than a 17-year old boy and girl, who'll drop out of school and center their lives on a baby. I'd rather they waited until they were really ready. And with ready I do not necessarily mean just money-wise - I mean time and space wise, if you understand?



BF>"In fact, the majority of people who have kids do it for selfish reasons." Exactly. And having read Spadesmammas post, I'll stand firmly on the opinion that not everybody is fit to have, nor raise children, and that it is NOT our duty to procreate.

Finti> So, lesbian women just go out and have sex with a strange man?? While I agree it is a possibility, don't you think it a it akward to say it is "Just like that"? And what about gay men?

Line> Well, then we probably disagree on educating people to maybe have an abortion, when the couple in question is in no way ready to care for a new human being. I would rather young people, without money, job and a place in life WAIT.
"Having a child is a personal matter."
Ah, but that is not exactly true. Especially not if social services need to remove the child from un-fit parents, when society has to provide day-care and kindergardens and schools.

who said he had to be a stranger to them? Lesbian do know men too you know. And no I dont think it is akward to say just like that at all.
About gay men?, well if you read what I wrote it is all in there

Now for the male gays it is a different story but with enough cash there are enough women who gladly be a surrogate mother/ bearer for male gay couples as well


If gay male couples want kids they need to pay big sums for it, at least at present time they do

Me too. But I don't like the idea of them being told that by a teacher.
True. But the decision wether to have an abortion or not IS a very personal one and has a lot to do with personal beliefs, etc. There's probably, in most cases, a lot of bad conscience involved already. This shouldn't be increased by a "I'm not exactly making society happy by having this baby, so I'd better ..."-feeling.

abortion shouldnt be used as a birth control

No.

Omega , I am absolutely speechless. The way you pick and choose what to argue is confounding. I don't even think youre reading entire posts, you seem to be just taking what you don't like and attempting to shoot it down. Your arguments are idealistic at best, and for the most part have no place in reality. I'm done even trying to point out the flaws in your logic...I mean emotional responces. I've tried to explain that there is a lot of proof that what I say is generally accepted by the scientific community, but you just keep coming back trying to make it sound as if I made it all up. We're going in circles. While most of this threads participants have accepted that we all have opinions on the matter, youre still trying to be insulting with the bible and homophobe crap. That was so yesterday.

The simple facts that you think there is some kind of guidebook to being a parent, that you want outside help and seem to not want to take on any of the burdens of parenting yourself, and that you have an emotionless lighthearted view of abortion tells me that we are on opposite sides of the moral compass. Feel free to insult and belittle me, I can't respond to you anymore or my freakin head will explode.

To those of you who let me have my opinion even though you might not agree with it and thoughtfully debated instead of lashing out, thanks.

No. If the girl goes to the psychologist for counceling, the psychologist is of course obliged to give her her/his oppinion. I'm not against the counceling, on the contrary, so yes, we probably agree on most of this. Still, I do feel that the counceling should be given by a neutral person, who does not directly tell the girl what she/he feels she should do, unless of course the girl asks that specific person's opinion.
What I feel uneasy about is wether it should be taught in school for example. Wether a girl should have an abortion or not should be discussed with her as an individual, not a pupil among many others.
Yes, I often do think that an abortion would be the best solution if the girl's very young. But we're all different, some may be capable of bringing up the child, others may not. It depends on maturity, personality, support, economical situation, etc.
I've got friends who've been through abortions too. They were also convinced that it was the best solution, but still felt bad about it. I guess that depends on the individual woman.
Yes, I see what you mean. But some may be of a different opinion, and I think they should be allowed to keep that.

Damn. I've got Monthy Python on repeat in my mind now ...

The whole 'ready to have a child' thing is such a joke. Its the mantra of the young and selfish, I know because I once held that view. Although everyone is entitled to an opinion, if youre not a parent your opinion on having kids is delusional at best, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Like I said, you have a kid and you grow up real fast or you set that childs life up for disaster. All the counseling in the world will not make a person a fit parent. The only way I could even loosely define 'being ready' is making a deliberate choice to sacrifice your freedom for that child, which apparently many of you are not willing to make. Believe me, when you see that head pop out of your loved one's vagina, it changes you. I was a selfish immature bastard on June 11th, 1999. On June 12th at 9:58 pm, I grew up.

My son was a preemie, and his lungs were not fully developed when he was born. For the first three weeks of his life I had to visit my boy in the Intensive Care Unit, wondering if he would live through the day. I had to be careful when I held him and fed him, because of the plethora of wires and sensors trailing from his tiny little frail body. I had never been so scared in my life. I had also never realized I could be so entirely selfless, that I would have given up my life to make sure he survived. Luckily that wasn't necassary. He will be five on Saturday, and I'm crying as I type this, the memories are so vivid.

My girlfriend (who will soon be second and final wife) is the mother of three kids. She had her first when she was a very immature 18 years old. Some of you would say that she was not ready for parenthood...that she should have aborted, right?

Wrong.

She rose to the cause and gave up her youth for those kids. Some of you are probably scoffing right now, saying "what a sucker she was, I would never be that stupid". For her though, the rewards have been vastly greater than the effort and sacrifice she made. She is without a doubt the best mom I have ever met, and her kids love her like no other. Their relationship is the stuff TV shows are made of. I honestly didn't think a family could be so tightly knit in this day and age until I met them. And this is someone many of you would have written off as 'not ready'.

I don't know of any parents who were 'ready' to have a child. You can plan all you want, but parenting is the most chaotic thing I have ever experienced.

Before any of you make any further posts, I think it would be relevant to first say whether or not you are a parent. To me, it means the difference between taking you seriously or making you part of the peanut gallery.

"My girlfriend (who will soon be second and final wife) is the mother of three kids. She had her first when she was a very immature 18 years old. Some of you would say that she was not ready for parenthood...that she should have aborted, right?

Wrong.

She rose to the cause and gave up her youth for those kids."


That's all well and good, but a lot of people wouldn't have done that. They would have seen the child as a burden and treated it as such. They would have treated it badly, possibly abused it, and maybe blame it for the sacrafices they now have to make. It's great that your wife was able to handle it so well, but you have to remember, not everyone is your wife.

And when I say "I'm not having kids till I'm ready" I mean this: When I have a steady, well paying job. When I have a good, solid foundation in a relationship, and I can rest assured that I'm with the person I want to spend the rest of my life with. And when I feel I'm mature enough to handle a living being depending entirely on me to survive; that is when I feel I will be ready for children. That may sound like nonsense to you, but I think you'll agree that someone who meets all the above criteria is more prepared to have a child then some 17 year old kid who got drunk at a party and knocked up one of the high school cheerleaders.

It's naive to think that everyone is going to instantly mature when they have kids. That simply isn't the case. And you should not have kids untill you are prepared for the sacrafices and drastic changes that will come with the territory. You may not be able to completely predict what exactly happens when you have kids before you actually do, but people have at least a vague idea, and I think someone who is planning and mentally prepared to have kids is definately more "ready" then someone who is not.

no not adoptions, they pay women to bear their child, a surrogate mother who has been fertilized with one of the mens sperm.

"It's naive to think that everyone is going to instantly mature when they have kids."

Well I guess that makes me one naive, instantly matured motherfu(ker. *pats self on the back*

"It's great that your wife was able to handle it so well, but you have to remember, not everyone is your wife."

Your damn right. Not many people have my girls strength of character and unfailing sense of DUTY. I'm a lucky man. She brought up a good point when I told her about this thread. She feels that if God (or Nature, or The Great Spirit or whatever) didn't intend for us all to have kids, we wouldnt all be born with reproductive organs. Its a little spiritual for my tastes, but it does ring true to me. Nevermind that though, I give up on trying to prove that point to y'all anymore.

Reagarding my last post though...Man, you missed the point sooo bad. The point flew past you as you stood there with your oft-repeated negativity. If you turn around you might still be able to get it, but youre probably too busy grousing about something. My own fault for trying to warm some hearts in this frigid thread.

I WASNT READY TO HAVE KIDS.

Amazingly enough, I'm a pretty damn good dad, judging by the way my boy's eyes light up when I enter the room. When I look at my son, when I laugh and play and learn with him, even when he wiped poop all over the walls during potty training, I think, "what sacrifice?" There is no greater reward than the love of your child.

Life is chaos. Financial stability, relationships, health are all fleeting. They can crumble in an instant. You keep waiting until youre ready...I just hope youre sperm hasn't turned to dust by the time you make your decision. I'm not being sarcastic, I really hope you can experience parenthood someday, its a trip.

Backfire, I'm not tryin to harsh on you. Unlike Trinit...I mean Omega, you have not stooped to personal insults to prove your point or shoot mine down, and I appreciate that. It just sucks to see so many people so down and frightened of having kids. Just be good, its not as hard as it sounds, I promise. All the bad parents out there you guys keep talking about...its not simply that they werent ready to have kids. Theyre BAD PEOPLE. Only an evil hearted or sick person would abuse a child. Dont be so scared of failing, look forward to succeeding. I'm not saying it doesn't take effort, but its really not as hard as some people make it out to be.

All biology and theories aside, having kids is not a right, privelige or duty. Its not a burden or an impossible load to bear. Its an honor.

I'm pretty much convinced that I am the only parent posting in this thread (except SpadesMamma, but I havent seen her post here in a bit). Therefore, I now get to lecture all of you incessantly. Just another perk to being a parent!!!

WRONG

I am a parent

Line> But what IS neutral councelling? If a psychologist an readily tell, that a young boy and girl would be better off if they didn't have the child, should he/she not say so? If he/she can feel that the girl really wans to have the baby at age 17 no one can stop her. But what is she gonna do with her life? What career will she have? A great scientist may get lost there.
Sure, some people be able to handle kids AND education. But you need people made out of a special material.
Of course youngsters should be taught about abortions in school - just as contraception. There is no stopping hormones, no stopping inctincts... The kids need to know what to do to avoid getting pregnant and what to do if an accident happens.
"It depends on maturity, personality, support, economical situation, etc."
I agree 100 % with you here.
Perhaps what I really want is that we're taught from we're young, that we need to plan for kids. That having a child is a great responsibility.


"The whole 'ready to have a child' thing is such a joke." With the abused kids in the world a joke, indeed...
"Its the mantra of the young and selfish," So YOU know better now? It's extremely arrogant to accuse your opponents of childisness and selfishness, just because they do not share your views. But everyone is NOT entitled to heir opinions, right?

"All the counseling in the world will not make a person a fit parent." No, may it may prevent a disaster, if the consellors prevent unfit parents from having a child. Some people do NOT grow up real fast when they have kids.

So, now you're a dad. Congratulations. But your very optimistic views on yourselves may be what you're trying to tell yourself. You've been repeating it as a mantra by now.

"My girlfriend (who will soon be second and final wife) is the mother of three kids." Well, so good thing you didn't have any kids with your first wife, right? But what if you had?

I'm not saying you can mentally prepare for a child. No one knows what it is like, until the child is actually there. But some people are just not FIT to parent. They may become that later in life, it may never happen. And for the sake of the child, I'd rather it grew up happily, in safe surroundings, than it is beaten and mistreated because its parents cannot handle it.

So, you think that because YOU have kids, it makes you an expert on whether or not all people are fit to parent. I'm sorry, but YOU are not everyone on the planet. You say you rose to the occasion. Well, for your kids sake I hope that you did. And good for you that you were in social/financial circumstances to continue and education and move on with your career. What does your soon-to-be-second-wife do for a living?
We are NOT discussing being scared of having kids. We're not discussing YOUR kids either, but why do you feel so threatened by a discussion on whether or not everyone is fit to parent? Which - just to remind you - is the actual topic here.

I am the foster of a child in India. A 9-year old girl in a poor and underdeveloped area. I pay for her education and support developments in her community. I can see how someone like you would call that VERY selfish... (nods slowly).

And .. for the third time: You want some bloodlines eliminated. I'm still waiting to find out what blood-lines you're talking about. It seems like you're just choosing some specific things in my posts to reply to and not reading the whole thing.

I want to stand up and cheer for Creechur. I'm absolutely stunned.

You have all battered him down for having experience and opinions, and I find that sickening.

Well done man, you stood strong when waves of pessimism and thoughtlessness washed over you.

And for the record, I just read the entire thread, and I, for once, have nothing to say on the actual matter. It's been discussed to a point where I don't think anything more can really be said without severe repetition.

All?
well maybe you should read them again since you kind of really missed out with the first comment that is quoted to you.
It aint only enough to read the thread , to get a grasp on what you read is part of it too

Edited.

Sorry, maybe not all, I was generalising, apologies.

But surely you must see my point? Creechur gave full, detailed opinions, based on his knowledge and experiences so far. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with his opinions, but that's the point. Opinions are an individual's point of view. Therefore they cannot be seen as right or wrong, so the petty arguing that ensued was futile.

And I did get a grasp on the thread, which is why I felt it unnecessary to give my view. Most of what I believe has already been stated, mainly by Creechur and Omega. Ironic really.....

Lady van Tramp> So how does one man becoming a father make him an expert on whether or not all people on the planet are fit to be parents? And whether or not having kids should be a right?

The sad fact of the matter is that we can debate this issue to death and things will not change, people who shouldnt be having children will continue to have children, abortions will always continue, gays will be gay, homophobes will always be that way, the conservatives and the liberals will always disagree and theres not a damn thing any of us can do except learn to get along in this world and do the best we can.
mamma

sounds more like real life, yeah well put

I see your point, in fact I agree.

But turn it around. None of us are experts, we all have different experiences, which leads me again to individual opinion. I don't think he stated once that he was an expert, just that he's an individual. As are you and I.

Mamma --> You are totally right. As unfortunate as it may be, that's the way it is. No amount of fighting between us is going to change a single thing. It's really quite sad.

Well jeez Fin, I asked 2 or 3 times and no one said anything.

OK, Fin, Mamma and I can lecture the rest of you until this overcooked thread is closed, like Lady von T so intelligently suggested.

Thanks for the kind words Lady. I'm getting used to being under fire around here. Its actually shocking to get any support, I totally did a double take when I first read your post, waiting for the dripping sarcasm to set in! I like a good debate as well as the next guy, but 'debate' and 'petty argument' seem interchangable here at KMC. All in good fun though right?

I've come to the conclusion that Omega just wants a fight, and I'm not willing to give her one anymore.

"The sad fact of the matter is that we can debate this issue to death and things will not change, people who shouldnt be having children will continue to have children, abortions will always continue, gays will be gay, homophobes will always be that way, the conservatives and the liberals will always disagree and theres not a damn thing any of us can do except learn to get along in this world and do the best we can.
mamma"

You said it Mamma. We just gotta do the best we can. Its better to try and be the solution rather than accepting your lot as a statistic in the making.

I second Lady von Tramp's motion that the thread be closed. If nothing new is said in the next three of four posts, I think this dog needs to be put down.

who is Fin

Oh for the love of jebus...

FinTI. Happy?

if you wanna adress me, use the name that I am signed under here, secondly there is nothing at all you can lecture me about regardless topic.

What Lady says is, however, entirely incorrect.

Everyone here has the right to judge an opinion right or wrong if they want. If you are not prepared to have your opinion criticised- DO NOT POST IT. It is absolutely not so that an opinion cannot be called right or wrong just because it is a point of view. If a point is advanced it is open to be refuted, regardless of how much experience is claimed behind it and hence the argument was legitimate. People's arguments should then stand or fall on their own merits.

Is Finti Norweigian for 'Cranky Smurf'? You northerners need more sunlight or something...buncha grumpy ol codgers.

I'll remember not to aim humor your way anymore, master Finti.

Ush is the true lecture-meister around here anyways. I was wondering what took him so long to add his two cents.

You just gotta love the mods here at KMC.

Indeed you do.

is Creechuur creole for "Im an ignorant yank"

mamma heads out for popcorn for the second act of this little production..........hehehehehe

No, its Californian for "I'm an rude, overly sarcastic yank with no sense of political correctness". Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

jerry

I love when you guys call us yanks...as if its supposed to be insulting. You want to insult me, call me French...or Euro liberal. Oh wait, those are the same things.

Uh oh, I went there! I made a political statement. Now I must burn in Norway...I mean Hell, and this thread must be closed according to The Rules.

Why are there blue and red bandana'd smileys? Have crips and bloods taken the fight online?

it aint ment as an insult, we actually call you all yanks. After all it was the US soldiers during WWII that ran around calling themselves yanks so I dont see why it would be an insult.

oh you are most welcome to Norway, we gladly burn you under the suspicion of being a "French" or Euro liberal. The fire would do us northernes good, kind of substitute for sunlight for us grumpy ol codgers.

Guess it would be some sort of "french fry" at the stake then

Ah! Finti made a funny! Good show, you salty dog!

You can be the straight man to my buffoon. Our big joke will be me calling you Fin, and you hitting me with your hat!

"Creeeeeechuur!!!!" *smack*! Vaudeville, here we come.

Honestly, thats what I love about this place. We can tear each others throats out and still share some laughs...well, at least I'm laughing.

http://bb.bbboy.net/moods/dazzler.gif

actually our big ass cute little inheritage viking battle axe would be better

Creechuur there is no reason to make fun of the rules. Plz keep this on topic.

whats a topic??

and on that note.......... i think each situation is different . my cousin is a prime example of someone whos "rights" to have children should be taken away . she has 5 children whom are lucky to get fed when they do . her & her husband would rather enjoy pot instead of put food in the house . they live in such filth its disgusting . piles of trash every where , dirty diapers piled on the kitchen counters & and out on the lawn to which their rotwielers have used as chew toys . not to mention the bruises on these babies legs , arms & back . i could tell you stories that make would make you sick . dss has removed the children from their care 7 times saying each time that the next "offence" will result in them losing custody . well , unfortunetly our socail workers are understaffed & underpaid , so the children suffer instead . do i think its a right to have children ? in their case , HELL no .

from the associated press
Courtney Love Surrenders to Police

Now see heres a prime example of someone who should not have any control over the raising of her daughter. And I dont mean because of the headline I mean because she is a complete and utter mess. I feel for her child.

that doesnt sound to good

I've heard of people who council women on this matter. They help them see their situation from different perspectives to help them make up their mind without forcing their own view upon them.
A psychologist is a more personal councelor with a good knowledge of the person before him/her. If such a person should speak their mind I wouldn't feel as bad about it, as if it was a teacher in class telling them when and when not to have an abortion. I'm not saying teenagers shouldn't be taught about abortions, I just don't like the idea of teaching them when it's the right time, according to us, to have them done.

We pretty much agree on the entire counseling and education-matter, so yeah, let's agree we agree on that and let's agree on disagreeing where we do not agree (fantastic word I must say )

Von Doom?

Either a little rude or a totally innocent play on my name change. Or nothing to do with me at all and I'm just jumping to conclusions.

And no probs with the support thing, I happened to agree with a lot of what you suggested, and was quite moved when you described the joy you get from spending time with your child.

KMC gets ugly sometimes, but Von Doom will continue to fight the good fight

offtopic

No, I was talking about Victor Von Doom. Doctor Doom, y'know. I would never be rude to the only person in ther thread who had kind words for me!!!

I dig the #ell out of your name, much better than Syren. Lady von Tramp...trashy, yet sophisticated.

You hit the nail on the head.

I called myself Lady Syrenna von Tramp a while back in the Gent's Club, Peloquin (cool guy) was going all James Bond, tuxedo and rose giving, so I decided to role play as the hostess of the ball. Ergo Lady SvT.

Unfortunately, the full name was too long, so I dropped the first name. Sophis, I dig that compliment

use the pm system for personal correspondence

Finti, you are joking right?

You mean to tell me that we can't write a single post to another member unless it's exactly relevant to the thread??

That's ridiculous and you know it, isn't this forum supposed to be a place where we can meet and interact with other, like-minded people? So, by your theory, we have to immediately go to PMs as soon as it looks like we're going to get to know someone?

Sorry, but that is just ludicrous.........