posted on September 24, 2002 09:09:22 PM new
Women in the U.S. are having more children than at anytime during the past 30 years, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. This kind of shocked me. In this day & age, where it\'s so obvious that our world is suffering from over-population, that news made me kind of sad. Is the message just not reaching people??
posted on September 24, 2002 10:44:35 PM new
Ask that of China and India. We are still a long ways from the one billion mark in this country. And even if we do, so what? There's plenty of food, plenty of land to still settle, plenty of resources. No problem.
That's what others always post when I bring this subject up. Good luck in getting any sympathy from this crowd.
posted on September 24, 2002 11:46:59 PM new
Well, after reading their 2002 news release, I'm not concerned. Appears that we're only replacing ourselves, where as we weren't in the past 30 years.
In 2000 the average number of children born to women over a lifetime was 2.1, according to a new CDC report, "Births: Final Data for 2000." During most of the 1970s and 1980s women gave birth to fewer than 2 children on average, a rate insufficient to replace the population (2.1 is considered the population's replacement level).
posted on September 25, 2002 08:54:39 AM new
And according to Pat Puke-Annin, it is the wrong type(wrong color, wrong race and too poor) of women that are having too many children.
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on September 25, 2002 12:19:44 PM new
When I see those pictures on TV of thin women holding bloated babies with flies crawling in and out of their mouths and ears, I always wonder, why do people continue to have children if they cannot care for them? Maybe the missionaries would do better if they passed out birth control in these third world countries.
posted on September 25, 2002 12:23:18 PM new
I guess the only answer is have the government come and tell each family how many kids they can have. That would make our lives easier, more government involvement in our daily lives.
posted on September 25, 2002 02:06:23 PM new
No, thechaser200, that should be up to responsible couples or single parents to decide, BUT if you're stupid (not you personally) and don't act responsible, the government WILL step in and make new rules... rules that have to be made because irresponsible people don't know any better. That's how we lose freedoms - by being stupid.
Borillar, LoL! My only point is wondering why, in this day & age, people having MORE children. While true, the U.S. is replacing itself, but that's just an average per woman. It's the women who choose to have more that 2 children that concerns me. A lot of couples are opting for no children but if they're just replaced by a couple having 4 children, then what good is it for people who want to try to curb the poulation growth? My concerns lie in feeding an ever growing population, which the U.S. is having difficulties with now. Maybe this is just one of those things I'll never understand. I would love to ask a woman who has more than 2 children, why she had more without her getting mad at me. Just asking people why they want one child is difficult enough... they look at you like you're nuts. Why is it such a sore spot?
posted on September 25, 2002 02:37:27 PM new
I can, however, be the first to let you know that the Food point is not in fact. I say that because soon you will be receiving a flood of posts telling you all about how as technology advances, so does the food supply and so forth. It doesn't take into account the civilizations that have collapsed from lack of food production because that's just past history. Nope! As it was in the Beginning, is now and shall forever be: Food without end! I can't tell you why anyone gets angry for being unable to tell you why they want children. I can, however, take a potshot at why they do make children, even though they can't say why.
There are several reasons. Biology first. Infatuation at first sight, often called "love" at first sight, is a condition that makes you stupid. The idea is to get you hot and bothered to mate with the other person and even to unwisely forego contraceptive devices. That is the purpose of that instinct and that is the main cause of teenage and out of wedlock marriages, IMO.
The secondary biological factor is an unstable mental condition on the part of the woman, coupled with a sociopathic tendency of a male donor to leave his sperm behind and walk away. I have seen young women in their teenage years who want to have a baby because they believe that they will have something guaranteed to love them back. Usually, they are depressed over the rejection of another person to whom they are attracted. No matter how you try to explain that the baby isn't going to love them, but depend upon them 24/7 and that they have no means of support, either monetarily or with baby help, they still go around single-minded to find any healthy male donor to give them what they crave. I've seen that so many times as well.
Then, there's the status thing. Oh, I don't mean the "I've gotta B-A-B-Y!" thing women do to show off their offspring, but because women seeking to become fulfilled in life, feel that they -must- become a mother to have it all! Once again, so many haven't a concern about producing a good man who is a willing father for the child - they just hang out at the nearest bar and copulate in the back parking lot until they are sure that they're pregnant. I've run into this an awful lot too!
Then most of the rest of humanity are couples who are immature and think that by having kids, they will stop feeling so insecure about their relationship. My next-door neighbor is one of them and he's a terrible father, as he competes with his small children to be raised by the confused, ditsy mother. Oh, those are the ones that vote Republican that I keep mentioning.
Finally, adult, mature couples in sensible relationships who feel that it is time that they start to produce replicates bearing tax-deductions. From the land of Blah, they create Blah replacements, and live out Blah lives. These are far fewer than the ones above, but at least they put taxes into the system rather than taking out of it.
Oh, I know posters will howl over these experiences that I've witnessed! KD, just like the people who became enraged at you, these others will bash me for my observations and deductions, as they are not politically correct. Science seldom is.
posted on September 25, 2002 03:45:05 PM newSomewhere on this globe, every ten seconds, is a woman giving birth to a child. She must be found and stopped.
posted on September 25, 2002 03:48:36 PM new
Being politically correct can be too conforming sometimes, can't it? Instead of having an open, honest discussion about personal feelings or observations, you get stuck on what the correct wording is, whether you'll offend someone, etc. Most of my questions are based on ignorance, so I just have to say what I say and hope for the best.
There are 2 subjects I cannot get passed though... big families and child abuse. I see more thought and planning going into grocery shopping than baby planning. I have witnessed the same type of air-headedness in people I've run across as well Borillar. Look at the situation basketman is in. 4 kids to support and he's broke. This isn't uncommon. That's just one example of non-existant planning or discussion... what happens if we divorce? If one out of every 2 couples marriages end in divorce, then shouldn't that alone be a leading determination on whether or not you choose to have children? Are people not aware of the divorce rate??
posted on September 25, 2002 03:54:27 PM new
There are many reasons why some people choose to have a lot of kids:
Poorer, agricultural dependent countries have large families because of the high child mortality rates, and because the children are needed if the family is to survive, helping in fields, etc. The US was in this position not so very long ago.
Religion in both poor and wealthy nations plays a large role. You have children because your God put here for that purpose. Contraception may even be outlawed entirely. Women in these circumstances can also be denied the option of deciding not to have another baby for a year or two.
Ignorance of contraception plays a role--even in the US. You'd think as much as it is spoken of, advertised, and written about that that would be impossible but it's true.
The belief that there is enough to go around no matter how many people are on the earth.
posted on September 25, 2002 04:20:36 PM new
It is just unbelieveable that there are people that think that they should decide who should have kids and who shouldn't, who in the hell do you all think you are, god. I am just amazed that you think that is it is wrong if a woman decides to have child.
I guess you would think it would be ok if we have to get a license to have a kid.
I guess you think there should be a maximum wage people should earn as well.
That has been done before to, it was the USSR and we saw how well that worked,
posted on September 25, 2002 04:38:56 PM new
While I'm uncomfortable telling a particular family that they should have X number of kids or earn a certain salary before having children,thchaser200, I'm paying a disproportionate share of my tax dollars to educate other people's children. I don't take a tax deduction for children but I pay for their schooling. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge an educated population, but people who have more than two children in particular should start thinking about who is paying for those schools, books, buses, teachers, etc.
posted on September 25, 2002 04:50:53 PM new
I know a lady who has 11 kids all single births and there must be at least 4 different fathers involved in that mix that we added up. She lives off the child support she gets. For as close as these children are in ages- it must be time for her to be prego's again. She calls it a blessing from God that she has so many wonderful children.
And on another note - with all the people in the world that are childless and want to adopt children- they go over seas and adopt-there many kids here in the USA have got it bad too. There are poor people all over the world who don't have enough to eat and many of them live in the USA.
posted on September 25, 2002 04:53:40 PM new
Though after thinking about it, thchasser200, I think that perhaps a license wouldn't such a bad idea in these days when people take no personal responsibility for themselves.
1. If you can't afford them, don't have them. Wait until you can support your kids, or at least feed them. If you can only reasonably support 1 0r 2 kids, don't have more than that.
2. Those on welfare should not have more children while on welfare--or at least not expect to get more money for the new ones.
3a. If you *know* you carry a serious genetic disorder that you *will* pass on to any kids you might have, get yourself fixed & then adopt kids if you want them. Case in point: about 4 years ago one of the newsmagazines did a story on a woman in this country who *knew* she carried the gene that causes retardation in male babies--her firstborn had it & the doctors told her what to expect in the future. So what did she do? Believing that this was God's will she went on to have a family of several boys (5 or 7, IIRC), each & every one severely retarded! Idiot!!!
3b. If you know you carry a serious genetic disorder that *will* pass on to offspring if your spouse also carries the gene check out your spouse--if he has it too, fix yourself & plan to adopt.
3c. If you carry a serious genetic disorder that has a 25-50% chance of being passed on, do the same as above.
And at the very least, parenting classes should be required before giving birth to a child--for both parents. Would certainly cut down a lot on child abuse.
posted on September 25, 2002 05:08:12 PM new
I think prospective parents should have to take a parenting test and pass before having kids. There must be a demo of parenting skills. Licensed to parent is a great idea! (But not motor mother or father, not a good idea) You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on September 25, 2002 06:03:46 PM new"And according to Pat Puke-Annin, it is the wrong type(wrong color, wrong race and too poor) of women that are having too many children."
I would like to see where he said that mlecher... the wrong type?? Well, if you took the word type out of that sentence, he does make a good point. It's the women who can least afford children that are having too many.
thechaser200, nobody is playing God here. It's just a discussion about curbing population growth, especially amongst women and families that can't afford the children they have. Before a woman becomes a new mother, she should at least be slightly aware of the statistics out there that are readily available for anyone to read. If your child becomes your job and welfare is how you get paid, you're not only screwing a good possible future for your child, you're screwing everyone else AND yourself by needing to be supported for the rest of your life. I also think a licence would be great! Even a 2000 word essay on 'Why I Need To Have More Than 2 Children' would suffice.
If women would just use some common sense, we'd never have to have a discussion like this.
posted on September 25, 2002 06:29:20 PM new
Pat Pukeannon has a book out ...something along the lines of the "Decline of Western Civilization". In that book he says that white people are not giving birth to enough babies and the other people are so whites will disappear and the others will take over or something like that. I've seen him talk about it on the Religious chanels.Scary stuff.
There are too many people. Even if the planet could support billions more it wouldn't be comfortable to do so unless you are an ant. We don 't need more people we need less. Not to worry though. We've a big war coming on and that'll kill a bunch and one good pandemic and we'll get those numbers down!
Snowy, have you a spare tin foil beanie? I seem to have misplaced mine.
posted on September 25, 2002 07:36:06 PM new
I'm going to make Snowy's Specials for the entire RT, even the ones who have gone missing.
If I send them out with fruitcakes, I'm sending offensive and defensive weapons at the same time. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on September 26, 2002 06:23:20 AM new
The book by Puke-annan is "Death of the West" where he discusses that American civilization is in decline because non-white Americans are out-producing White Americans in babies.
Though you do have give him some sympathy....he had a relative die in a concentration camp in Germany....he fell out of a guard tower....
.
A Man will spend $2.00 for a $1.00 item he needs.
A Woman will spend $1.00 for a $2.00 item she doesn't need.
posted on September 26, 2002 06:54:27 AM new
Bunnicula - LOL @ 'she must be stopped'.
Snowy - I'll take one of those specials please.
Kraftdinner -
It's the women who choose to have more that 2 children that concerns me. That's one of the things I like about living in America. We can choose, without limits, how many children we wish to have. I hope there never comes a time when our country is the one making that choice for us. I do support your opinion, and that of others here, who feel parents would be acting more responsibly if they only had as many children as they themselves are able to care for.
A lot of couples are opting for no children but if they're just replaced by a couple having 4 children, then what good is it for people who want to try to curb the poulation growth? I would hope that the decision not to have children wasn't based only on 'trying to curb the population growth'. My guess would be there are many other reasons women, like yourself and others here, chose not to have children. And I support the right of those who decide they don't want to have children, just like I support the right of those who choose to have 10 or 11 children. Again, I agree the parents should be able to support their own.
My concerns lie in feeding an ever growing population, which the U.S. is having difficulties with now. If we are only 'replacing' ourselves, how do you see it as an ever growing population? Are you referring to immigrants?
I would love to ask a woman who has more than 2 children, why she had more without her getting mad at me. Just asking people why they want one child is difficult enough...they look at you like you're nuts. Why is it such a sore spot? Has this always been your experience? I've never experience this myself, that's why I'm asking. I have seen the same thing when women share they are offended when asked why they don't have any children. [Like 'What's wrong with you that you don't want children' type of attitude.]
It's my opinion that it works both ways. Some are offended about being asked why they chose to not have children, some don't have a problem explaining why. Some of those offenfed about being asked why they have so many, don't have a problem explaining their choice either.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:38:38 AM new
Unlike China, we do have the right to choose how many children we will have, the jobs we hold, and the morals we keep.
However, when people choose to have more children, it should not result in standing in line to obtain more foodstamps. Funds are deducted from my paycheck against my will to support families on foodstamps and I resent it.
posted on September 26, 2002 11:57:15 AM new
Somebody here used to use the line quoted by Bunnicula as their sig file.
But one of the problems with a child limit would be the religious question. We have freedom from government intervention into religion. Some religions oppose birth control. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on September 26, 2002 12:03:51 PM new
I don't think we should put a limit on how many children a family can have but I do think that istead of the news glorifying women who have "litters" or women that have ten kids on mothers day we should put more emphasis on the smaller family. Also tax breaks only given to the first two kids after that your on your own..if you can afford it have them. This would not apply to those that adopt children. They are helping society not adding a burden. Public schools should only be free for the first two kids also after that parents better be able to ahndle the burden of paying for schooling on their own. Society as a whole should not have to supplement those that want to have huge families.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Sep 26, 2002 12:06 PM ]
posted on September 26, 2002 12:27:18 PM new
Am I understanding this correctly? We should allow illegal immigrants into this country...and spend our tax dollars caring for them, but we should support reducing the benefits of Americans who wish to have more than two children?
posted on September 26, 2002 12:36:33 PM new
Actually Linda, I've never said that . My opinion on this issue is mine alone. I do not support letting in immigrants and supporting them nor do I like the fact that children born here to illegals are afforded citizenship status.
Just because I say something doesn't mean that...say..Bunnicula thinks the same way. It is possible to agree on some things and disagree on others. Even you and I do it sometimes!
Disagreeing on issues does not make me like anyone any less. Just thought I'd say that. I do believe we all have a right to our opinion and a right to voice it.
posted on September 26, 2002 01:06:50 PM new
Raw - When I'm only speaking to you...I've put your name at the beginning of my posts. Not sure how me asking if I'm understand the position previously stated by some on different posts, become a personal statement to you. It's not meant to be. And I didn't say you were the one who supported illegal immigrants being taken care of.
My question was not directed to you...but a question for anyone. Okay.
posted on September 26, 2002 01:12:32 PM new
Oops! Linda, It's just that my post was the one talking about limiting funding for larger families so I assumedyou were mixing my post and someone elses together. Sorry.
edited to add Linda so that you would know I was talking to you! ACK! What a day!
