How is this thread possible? Come on SG, you're killing me.

Just as an aside...anyone who manufactures crystal meth ought to be anally raped with a sharp stick....then given a rubbing alcohol enema.

So you want the government deciding who can and who cannot breed? What's the litmus test? Economic class? Substance abuse/ingestion? A "good mommy" test? An age limit like buying alcohol or smokes? Plenty of peolpe have made great parents despite dire circumstances just as plenty of people with everything going for them have royally screwed it up.

For someone who calls themselves "theconservative" you're asking for a lot of governmental interference in the lives of essentially half the population. But let's go further...why should we limiit it to just women? Let's chemically limit the ability for men to get a hardon (or force the developement of a male birth control pill whose ingestion would be mandatory) until they can prove they'd be good fathers. But once again, we're left with the problem of how can one prove they're capable to be loving good parents.

I never thought I'd see "black market" and "baby formula" in the same sentence.

I just wish there was an "ignore" function for "culture" articles written by some people.

I'm reminded of that one Halloween episode of the Simpsons where all the billboards and corporate mascots came to life: Maybe, if we ignore future articles like this (and something tells me there will be more), they'll go away.

It seems as though maybe your own mother did some severe drug-taking herself when she didn't choose to have you.

The unborn child has rights of it's own as well. Rights that shouldn't be compromised by some selfish, fucked-up, justifying "mother".

I thought this latest post did a pretty good job of answering the question 'what's the point'. A question being asked over and over by people who are apparently too pissed off to read any more.

Then that explains why you have no point. Every logical argument has already been made multiple times. She's just written the same article 4 times. No one is arguing logically here, because she is impervious to logic. Still attempting to argue logically at this point would only lend undeserved credibility to her non-existant point. It would offer the false impression that there's logic already present in her ignorance fueled rant.

Actually, the first one wouldn't be "use meth, no baby", it would be "baby, no meth". That's a not too subtle difference.

Secondly, we already have "no job, no baby". That's what Child Protective Services does. They take children away from people who cannot provide an adequate home. Personally, I'm in favor of it. Hell, I think the bar is already too low.

Yeah, I don't know whether it's a statewide thing in Iowa or not. I was just at the grocery store one day and saw the baby formula in the same place as they kept all of the flask-sized liquor, behind the counter--it was four shelves of liquor and then one shelf of baby formula. Odd pairing. I asked the cashier about it, and she mentioned its use in meth production, and then starts in on, "Do you know what they put in meth? It's just awful stuff," and rattled off a list of ingredients.

This is also, ironically, the core rallying cry of the Right To Life (or anti-choice) movement. The only difference is when you define "personhood" as starting. Since we're discussing activities that can and do have an impact on the body and the brain of an unborn child, when you define "personhood" as starting becomes really important.

But that's how all rights are granted in a societal context. I argue that women have the right to drive automobiles. Does that mean they should be allowed to drive drunk, or drive on the sidewalk?

All three "assholes" have the right to argue their points. You're assuming that there's the same level of medical evidence behind each of them to grant them equal validity in terms of becoming governmental policy.

well, here in burlington it's right out on the shelves and i didn't know about a limit on sales.