As a parent of a 10 year old, I have met many, many people who should have seen this judge about 11 years ago!
As a parent of a 10 year old, I have met many, many people who should have seen this judge about 11 years ago!
Does this explain why LRC is populted with male virgins?
just wonderin' wrote:
Does this explain why LRC is populted with male virgins?
Populted? Nice.
just wonderin' wrote:
Does this explain why LRC is populted with male virgins?
No, not at all, but it does outline your own virginity.
Back on topic, I think that there should be more regulation on who and who isn't allowed to have children. I work in the Special Education field.
Yes! hahaha! I know many people who should not be allowed to reproduce...
On that basis the judge ruled thatletsrun .com posters do not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide them with sex education “in the hope that they thereby gain that capacity”.
Let's Run is ubiquitous!!
You would seem to be one in favor of sterilizing low IQ people? I can't believe people of such low morals and ethics can work for in special education
E rela Vent wrote:
just wonderin' wrote:Does this explain why LRC is populted with male virgins?
No, not at all, but it does outline your own virginity.
Back on topic, I think that there should be more regulation on who and who isn't allowed to have children. I work in the Special Education field.
Margaret Sanger would absolutely love that judge.
Birds do it. Bees do it. Even educated fleas do it.
scotus 1927 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
We have a winner!
It would appear that "Kieron" should perhaps be banned from the act first. He's the one that's banging/being banged by a 'tard.
Pretty sure Buck v. Bell was overturned in Skinner v. Oklahoma, where the court ruled that all sterilizations for "insidious" discrimination was prohibited.
The state of North Carolina did that to 7500 people between 1929 and 1974. Google "Eugenics".
I'm for it! How about we stop pretending that just because something was associated with Nazism that it is uniformly and unequivocally bad. The Nazis were fans of the color red too, and there is no universal boycott on that. Some form of state enforced eugenics probably isn't a terrible thing. If we can agree that two pedophile, cancer-predisposed, crack addicted, handgun-around-the-house-leaving siblings having children should probably be stopped by some government intervention, then it becomes an issue of line drawing, and my lines would make sure to have people like Octamom and the guy with the 49 IQ on the absolutely-must-be-sterilized side.
Why don't we start with you and your family?
Internet Sargent Slaughter wrote:
I'm for it! How about we stop pretending that just because something was associated with Nazism that it is uniformly and unequivocally bad. The Nazis were fans of the color red too, and there is no universal boycott on that. Some form of state enforced eugenics probably isn't a terrible thing. If we can agree that two pedophile, cancer-predisposed, crack addicted, handgun-around-the-house-leaving siblings having children should probably be stopped by some government intervention, then it becomes an issue of line drawing, and my lines would make sure to have people like Octamom and the guy with the 49 IQ on the absolutely-must-be-sterilized side.
Legal Historian wrote:
Pretty sure Buck v. Bell was overturned in Skinner v. Oklahoma, where the court ruled that all sterilizations for "insidious" discrimination was prohibited.
Skinner was about using sterilization as part of a sentence for a crime. It didn't exactly overturn Buck v. Bell- the discrimination there was between people who committed white collar crimes and other crimes.
Skinner did say that sterilization should get strict scrutiny. Buck v. Bell would be in trouble if anyone challenged it today, but since no states actually use compulsory sterilization laws anymore that isn't likely.
Dude, I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it is hard to pronounce.
Did anyone actually read the article? It wasn't because he was procreating, he was having sex with another man. It was because the court was worried that he didnt understand what was happening or the health risks that went along with his actions.
yeah if you don't even know that sex could lead to birth any other then protected sex from services should be forbidden.