Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Great Moments in Eugenic Economics (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Great Moments in Eugenic Economics
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if you're poor, you shouldn't have children?

Argue away.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, depends on how poor. If you can't provide safe shelter and healthy diet to the child, then yeah, you should wait.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TinMan
Member
Member # 960

 - posted      Profile for TinMan   Email TinMan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, well, my ideas are far out there anyway.

My end goal would be to sterilize the entire human race (reversible of course). Only when a couple has passed a thorough course on child-rearing and parenting will the sterilization be reversed. They must also pass financial stability and background checks. Follow up courses will need to be passed as the child progresses and the couple desires more children. If the couple fails these follow ups, the children will be moved to state care or foster care homes.

Premarital sex will then only be problematic for the issue of STDs, thus making it an issue of primary individual responsibility rather than societal responsibility.

It IS a Brave New World, after all. [Smile] )

Note: Yes, I am serious. I think this plan would be near optimal for human society. I have greater plans than this, but that's a step further and would require breeding programs. No, I do not expect most people to agree with this opinion in the currnt cultures, except maybe China.

Edited for a faulty keyboard. My fingers cannot possibly be to blame [Smile]

[ November 19, 2005, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: TinMan ]

Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pretty much what RickyB said.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is definitely an irresponsible act to conceive children you can't adequately care for. But, whether you can adequately care for a child is a decision that should be solely yours to make.
Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What RickyB said, but I'd add healthcare to shelter and diet.

Please - no arguments that this ought to be the government's job. Until it is, parents must do so as a primary responsibility.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with everyone but TinMan.

As a side note, I don't think "eugenics" is the proper word here. While children born into poverty are more likely to be poor themselves, I'm unconvinced that the correlation is strong enough to call it hereditary, especially here in the land of opportunity.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The right to have children is an inherent right of all living things.

Society assumes that it is right for those who have children to nurture them according to what is in the best interest of their children.

If the poor can raise those children to the best of their abilities, then they should keep their right. If they do not act in their best interest, they should lose that right.

Being poor is irrelevent.

$0.02

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My daughter thinks it’s alright to have kids if the Grandparents can afford them.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TS Elliot
Member
Member # 736

 - posted      Profile for TS Elliot   Email TS Elliot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hmmm Athelstan, care to elaborate?
Are you the grandparent or parent?


Anyway, lotsa americans can't afford kids, still have them, and turn out well. We call these kids 'child actors'. RickyB doesn't think of the fact that most poor people havea lot of kids exactly because they are poor and count on them for pension etc.?

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with everybody except TCB.

I do find a potential difficulty with ED's assumption that all have a right to have children, however as he rather assumes that some nice lady will incubate a foetus for a paraplegic alcoholic living under a bridge for nothing. Is there a phrase missing from his clarion call declaration:

The right to have children is an inherent right of all living things unless, of course ...

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My statement assumed that the "all" was a couple, it did not assume that all individuals have that right. Procreation can only occur between a male and female. That "Nice Lady" has a right to choose the paraplegic, and, thereby, form a couple. The paraplegic has no rights without her choice. The right to choose and be chosen as a partner should not be confused with the right to procreate.

And you're making inferences that were not present in my point. [Smile]

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course not. People who have kids when they can't support them are doing a diservice to those kids. The facts are there if you want to find them. Higher rates of malnutrition, susicde, violent death, and STDs.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are somethings we havn't the right to decide.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We're dealing with should and shouldn't. Not laws and legistlation. People shouldn't have gay sex. But I disagree with the idea of there being a law against it.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we did decide who could and couldn't have children, I certainly wouldn't want to work in that bureau. Shooting fatalities would be hideously high in its ranks. Can you imagine the disgruntled customers on both sides? [Smile]

(This moment in poor taste brought to you by,...)

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"People shouldn't have gay sex."

<arches eyebrow, grumbles, decides to let it pass in the spirit of non-derailment>

TS - I am familiar with what you raised. I just think it's very wrong to have children in order to be awarded a pension. I knew a woman who did that and I soooo wouldn't want to be her kid.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is one of those 'wouldn't it be good if I had an extra arm' type threads. Let's face it the mass state mutilation of every male child's testicles is not going to happen. Only a totalitarian state could make reproduction a privilege rather than a freedom.

Even then it would most likely be those at the fringes of society, usually the poor, that would evade the system by giving birth away from hospitals.

Just because you disapprove of the context in which a tiny percentage of the population create life doesn't mean you should control it. Not everything in life can be run on the basis of cultural merit.

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EDanaII:
The right to have children is an inherent right of all living things.

Society assumes that it is right for those who have children to nurture them according to what is in the best interest of their children.

If the poor can raise those children to the best of their abilities, then they should keep their right. If they do not act in their best interest, they should lose that right.

Being poor is irrelevent.

$0.02

Ed.

I'd mostly agree with that, especially the poor being irrelevant part. Money does not equate to good care of the child no matter how much americans want to believe.

I do have one quibble though.

quote:

If they do not act in their best interest, they should lose that right.

Best interest is too open interpretation and thus to government interference. The US government interferes with families too much as it is. [Frown] Who's to say what the child's best interest is? Richard would say teaching the child religious values is not in his or her best interest.

I would change this to something like. They should lose the right to the child when they are demonstrably abusive.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

My end goal would be to sterilize the entire human race (reversible of course). Only when a couple has passed a thorough course on child-rearing and parenting will the sterilization be reversed. They must also pass financial stability and background checks. Follow up courses will need to be passed as the child progresses and the couple desires more children. If the couple fails these follow ups, the children will be moved to state care or foster care homes.

Seeing an american so eager to give up freedom makes me want to cry. [Frown] I'd join al qaeda before I'd join your plan.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL - obviously a sarcastic takeoff on my "Great Moments in Liberal Economics" thread.

Interesting arguments here, but I'd like to clarify my point about poor people having no business having children they can't afford.

I do not in the least advocate ANY kind of Governmental oversight or regulation for monitoring, approving, testing or whatever people before they can have children. That's totalitarian to the extreme.

My point is that people who irresponsibly have children -- those working minimum wage jobs full time and as their sole source of income, however many that may be -- should not be subsicized by the people in our country who made the responsible decisions and waited until they were able to afford having children themselves.

When we debate things like minimum wage and welfare, I just don't find arguments like 'Minimum Wage is not good enough for a single parent of three to live on' compelling whatsoever.

Of course it's not. Minimum wage is the entry level pay for a person with no particularly specialized job skills or relevant work experience. When you are at that stage in your working life, you have no business having children. Doesn't mean you don't have the RIGHT to have children...but I believe you certainly do not have the right to expect the rest of us to subsidize your poor decision making.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I believe you certainly do not have the right to expect the rest of us to subsidize your poor decision making.
Like invading Iraq?
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Haggis:
quote:
I believe you certainly do not have the right to expect the rest of us to subsidize your poor decision making.
Like invading Iraq?
Wow, what an odd connection. So many holes I can't decide where to start... so I won't bother.

[ November 21, 2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Serotonin'sGone
Member
Member # 1219

 - posted      Profile for Serotonin'sGone   Email Serotonin'sGone   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good read on government sterilization programs

some gems:
quote:
The world has accepted compulsory vaccination against small-pox, which is surely an invasion of the body.... And the state so claims control of the body of its male citizens that it compels them to accept military service, and of the bodies of its children -- male and female -- as to force their attendance at school.... In this context I do not think that sterilization after an allowable number of births is so revolutionary a restriction on personal freedom as it may first appear to be.
--John P. Robin, Ford Foundation, Representative for East and Central Africa, 1968

quote:
If some excesses appear, don't blame me.... You must consider it something like a war. There could be a certain amount of misfiring out of enthusiasm. There has been pressure to show results. Whether you like it or not, there will be a few dead people.
--Dr. D. N. Pai , Harvard-educated director of family planning
in Bombay, commenting on his plans for compulsory sterilization
(New York Times, 1976)

better yet, sterilization in the US...
quote:
uncontroverted evidence in the record that minors and other incompetents have been sterilized with federal funds and that an indefinite number of poor people have been improperly coerced into accepting a sterilization operation under the threat that various federally supported welfare benefits would be withdrawn unless they submitted to irreversible sterilization.
quote:
In 1976 the U.S. General Accounting Office revealed that the federally funded Indian Health Service had sterilized 3,000 Native American women in a four-year period using consent forms "not in compliance ... with regulations.
Obviously it has a huge ****off agenda and is highly biased, but it's still a good read.

[ November 21, 2005, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Serotonin'sGone ]

Posts: 1117 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Haggis:
quote:
I believe you certainly do not have the right to expect the rest of us to subsidize your poor decision making.
Like invading Iraq?
LMAO

Don't be a moron Haggis. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin]
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TinMan
Member
Member # 960

 - posted      Profile for TinMan   Email TinMan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma said:

quote:

Of course it's not. Minimum wage is the entry level pay for a person with no particularly specialized job skills or relevant work experience. When you are at that stage in your working life, you have no business having children. Doesn't mean you don't have the RIGHT to have children...but I believe you certainly do not have the right to expect the rest of us to subsidize your poor decision making.

And then, these children exist, yet you do not want to subsidize them. Non-subsidization in these cases means letting the children starve to death, or worse, as a logical conclusion. Welfare is subsidization; so is foster care. You take away these options, you doom these children. It is interesting to see that you seem to think that I am so cruel as to take away peoples' "rights", yet to me you are so cruel as to let children starve, live in filth, etc, simply for such an artificially defined contruct as "freedom", especially when these freedoms are infringing upon the future rights of others, namely the children.

We agree in principle that the "unqualified" have no business having children. What we disagree upon is the solution. Allthough frankly I fail to see exactly what your solution is....

Allthough I am being called a totalitarian, which I probably am in principle, I am more exactly a meritocrat. I believe that society should be run by those most qualified. These are not, and never will be, politicians or military dictators. The difference is substantial.

Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TinMan,

quote:

Allthough I am being called a totalitarian, which I probably am in principle, I am more exactly a meritocrat. I believe that society should be run by those most qualified. These are not, and never will be, politicians or military dictators. The difference is substantial.

What disqualifies a politician or military dictator from being qualified on a 'meritocratic' basis? For instance Caesar? Or alternatively what 'merits' are qualified? Artistic success? Academic success? Success in a particular profession? Only economic success? Does a lottery winner have 'merit'? How about the inheritor of a fortune?

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One who is strong in the Force
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just kidding. I'd be much too frightened to tease a Senator. Believe me, I wish I could just...wish away my feelings, but I can't.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TinMan - me, personally? I want society "run" as little as possible. Your ideas have been advocated AND tried before. They have generally produced oppression, war and narrowness of mind. That's how I read history, anyway. There is one notable example, but it too eventually produced a petrification that led to great misery and ruin.

Now, let me point out that I originally said people who cannot provide "should wait". Not "made to be wait", nor "punished or disadvantaged, they or their children, in any way for not having waited".

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Joe Schmoe:
quote:
Best interest is too open interpretation and thus to government interference. The US government interferes with families too much as it is. [Frown] Who's to say what the child's best interest is? Richard would say teaching the child religious values is not in his or her best interest.

I would change this to something like. They should lose the right to the child when they are demonstrably abusive.

Except, Joe, I wasn't just talking about what society SHOULD do. [Smile] I was talking about what society _does._

Can you say "Legal System." [Wink]

The problem is, Society DOES interfere, and will always interfere for as long as the individuals of society hold opinions of what is right and wrong, and for as long as those opinions remain strong and in consensus.

Ed.

Edited for clarity.

[ November 22, 2005, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TinMan
Member
Member # 960

 - posted      Profile for TinMan   Email TinMan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rather than derailing this thread, I am starting a new topic on Meritocracy.

And Ricky, this was more in response directly to Daruma rather than you.

My reply to you is that what people should do are the guidelines we use to set our laws. We must thereby discourage those that do not do what they should do, or else laws become worse than meaningless.

Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, discourage, ey? How, though? That is the great question.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we recommend people choose to remain childless due to their poverty, can we also ask those who have a poverty in spirit to refrain?

What riches are most important to bequeath?

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TinMan:
We agree in principle that the "unqualified" have no business having children. What we disagree upon is the solution. Allthough frankly I fail to see exactly what your solution is....

I don't claim to have a solution, because frankly there is no solution that forces people to behave responsibly without imposing an oppressive totalitarian Government.

I'm simply opposed to the current policies to a large degree that are based on the emotional guilt-trip laden rhetoric of "You don't want to fund welfare, you want kids to starve to death."

Simply put, it's really a matter of choosing between two sucky choices: subsidize bad behavior, which encourages MORE of that behavior, or let the consequences of bad decisions be bourne out by those that have made those decisions to the deteriment of their innocent children -- but having less children being born into that situation to begin with.

In either case, I think there is something very wrong with a government forcibly siezing a person's income who was responsible and made the prudent decisions in life, and giving it to people who made bad decisions...and to top it off, turn around and tell the people who's income you've forcibly siezed that they are cold-hearted and selfish because they object to such actions.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If we recommend people choose to remain childless due to their poverty, can we also ask those who have a poverty in spirit to refrain?"

Of course. I have zero problem opining that people who aren't ready, personality-wise, shouldn't have kids. What I do have a problem with is acting on those opinions.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To quote a certain outlaw:

The government has no right to make us be "good."

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TS Elliot
Member
Member # 736

 - posted      Profile for TS Elliot   Email TS Elliot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
since it's 2 mericans with 1 stone:

lwko: "People shouldn't have gay sex."
People shouldn't be allowed to say things like "People shouldn't have gay sex." I mean, what kinda crap is that?

quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
<arches eyebrow, grumbles, decides to let it pass in the spirit of non-derailment>

TS - I am familiar with what you raised. I just think it's very wrong to have children in order to be awarded a pension. I knew a woman who did that and I soooo wouldn't want to be her kid.

Ricky, you misunderstood I think, I was referring to the custom of old in Europe and something which still goes on in the 3rd world, that poorer families tend to be big, so parents have a bigger chance that at least some kids will take care of them, or, that more kids will mean more support when the parents get old.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TS Elliot
Member
Member # 736

 - posted      Profile for TS Elliot   Email TS Elliot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Haggis:
quote:
I believe you certainly do not have the right to expect the rest of us to subsidize your poor decision making.
Like invading Iraq?
Wow, what an odd connection. So many holes I can't decide where to start... so I won't bother.
Oh come on, javelin. The issue at hand is "Poor decision making at the expense of the taxpayer" and Haggis believes that it is less worthy to cheat the the taxpayer out of 200 billion or so dollars in order to kill approx. 100.000 Iraqis and totally control their oil, than let the taxpayer give money to poor people with minimum wage for child support.

Now the second thing, child support, seems a matter of civilisation to me, you, as a society, let your citizens rot or not.
The first thing is an act of primitivity: you bashed to somebody's head in, in order to get his oil.

Another thing: I suppose that most rightwingers agree with the notion to stop childsupport for min.wagers. These are the same people that are against abortion, which has proven to be an excellent way for those exact same min. wager to decide that they weren't ready to have kids yet!
Contradictory much?

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1