The existence of the public school also means that unmarried and childless couples are coerced into subsidizing families with children. What is the ethical principle here? And now that population growth is no longer fashionable, consider the anomaly of liberal antipopulationÂists advocating a public school system that not only subsidizes families with children, but subsidizes them in proportion to the number of children they have. We need not subscribe to the full dimensions of the current antipopulation hysteria to question the wisdom of deliberately subsidizÂing the number of children per family by government action. This means, too, that poor single people and poor childless couples are forced to subsidize wealthy families with children. Does this make any ethical sense at all?
What's it talking about? Not war or torture, but witnessing the birth of their child in the delivery room, concluding:In the most striking cases, the symptoms that men experience come close to post-traumatic stress disorder, with its roots in the witnessing of an event that involves a threat to the physical integrity of self or others and responding with intense fear, helplessness or horror.
The symptoms, as my patients have reported, include recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event and efforts to avoid recalling it.
Women may want to consider the risks as they invite their partners to watch them bring new life into the world. For some of the passion that binds them together may leave their lives at the very same time.20070920: And now for a(nother) 10 step plan to fix immigration ("comprehensive" if you will, although not in the "we're trying to hide amnesty" way that liberal racists usually use the term), from fernt on fark.com (2007-09-19 12:19:19 PM), bold is mine: