Contraceptions should be made mandatory instead. They're cheaper, mainly. Abortions should be cheap enough to get, but not too cheap that they're easily obtained for the average 3 time a year knocked up whores. Although, do we really need funding to be dropped, so we can have more starving, neglected, beaten, homeless children in the world? The easier decision is to force the parent to work for their kid's time in an adoption agency. Thus teaching them about the importance of wrapping your tool, so you won't be a fool.

I would say yes, but only with a strict criteria. You have to pay them for their work in doing chores. You need to give them a reasonable amount of money, not too low, or too high. Too low, and they won't find it worth their time, too high and they will lose the understanding of a set income. The best way to incorporate chores and understanding money, is to find a way for them to need to spend money on something they NEED. You might have to urge them into wanting something as well. Without going into all of the chores, let's say your kid can earn a maximum of $50 a week. Your kid NEEDS to buy lunch at school, since you will only allow them a lunch that is nutritious, but they dislike. They will have to shell out, say, $1.50 each day for lunches. Then they want to go to the movies each Friday with friends, add another $15, including refreshments. More clothes that they don't need can add another $10. Make-up or video games can figure in $20 throughout the month, making about $5 a week. $37.50 a week on average would get a few "necessities".

If they didn't do their chores, they can't get what they want, so they'll do their chores, to earn money, but understand that they'll only be able to save a little if they get ALL their chores done, or get only some of their "necessities" if they get half of their chores done. Simple basics that your job teaches you, especially as a parent.

To add to the opposing side: Miss Universe pageants allow plastic surgery, but it doesn't make it fair or acceptable in my eyes. You should be able to compete for something you earn, not from what you buy. Working hard and buying a new face isn't what the pageant should be about, either. Some people are naturally better than others and that gives them an edge, as with every competition.

Adding steroids isn't going to make things any more fair. In fact, it makes it even less fair, since not all contestants can get steroids. It should be about eating healthy like how we should, and working hard for what you want to compete in. As steroids are an unnatural source of enhancements, why not add genetically engineered humans to the mix as well? Four-legged contestants, people with wings, or even 50 foot tall men? Where would it stop as to what is acceptable? It's just what the rules state. It's all about what the certain competition allows and doesn't.

In UFC, you can't hit anyone in the back of the head, but I have certainly seen people perform legal stomping techniques on someone's head in foreign MMA leagues.

There is no reason anything at all should be taken out, or added to any competition for any reason, since all competitors have to follow the rules.

It's obvious for why people lie. Everyone wants exactly what they want, instead of what they deserve, or need. You may want someone with this, that, and those, but not everyone has those three things altogether, and would want to date you. You first find who would date you, then you whittle out which "defects" you can cope with to get what you most desire. It's not wrong to do this; it's how humans work.