I’m not gonna talk about abortion today but I am still pretty confident that this will generate our usual exciting discussions!
A relative of mine lives in Tennessee. He is 31 years old, has a lovely wife and makes a good living as an attorney for a big law firm. He and his wife are very devout Catholics and faithfully adhere to all of the rules and regulations, including the one that basically says you should only have sex to procreate. They say they use the “rhythm method,” which I frankly don’t know if the church condones or not. But, basically, that’s their form of “birth control.”
Well, it ain’t working very well because in the last 6 years, they’ve had four children. And I just learned that they are now expecting baby number five! But when I saw them this weekend, I could not bring myself to congratulate them because I believe that producing five children is a very selfish act.
Now, they have enough money to raise the kids in a nice setting. We do not have to worry about them sopping off the public dole. And the kids will probably grow up to be productive citizens, although – yes – it is possible that one or two of the five might wind up being drug dealing psychopaths. But, let’s be optimistic and say that they will all grow up to be wonderful pillars of society.
Here’s the problem. The Catholics who read and comment on this blog believe that their religion is “the word,” that all of the other religions don’t have much to offer and, indeed, are way off base. This not only relates to the issue of abortion, but to so many other issues that the church pokes its nose into. But if it were up to many Catholics, we would all sign up with their church and join them in following the dictates of the Pope, like lemmings to the sea. And, if we all did that, we’d all be producing 5, 6, 7 kids.
And while each one of those kids might be a “blessing,” as many suggest, I still think that having that many kids is a selfish act. Many years ago, when we had an infinite amount of resources and it actually was helpful to have a crap load of kids
working the family farm. But that’s not the world we live in anymore. We are using up all of our food, our water and other natural resources at an alarming rate. Oh sure, those of you reading this might be sitting in a nice comfortable heated house but take a minute and read about the rest of the world, especially the Third World countries.
The point is that if every woman becomes a breeder reactor, the plethora of children they produced will be adversely affecting the world that my TWO children are living in. That’s because we share the same planet, we breathe the same air. We can just simply no longer afford to be propagating at a pace like this young couple.
And, let me throw in this wrench: if I told you the same story and the woman was an illegal immigrant and crack addict living on welfare in the Bronx, would you still be saying that her sixth child was a “blessing?”



October 2, 2011 at 7:38 pm
You’ve got two things going here, Pat — your relative is doing well; the crack addict ain’t. However, nobody should kill anybody else.
Oops, three things: that Malthus stuff is old hat.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Geez, John. You didn’t respond at all to any of my points. Are you not concerned about overpopulation? Aren’t you concerned about your kids and grandkids future? Or is all this global warming stuff bunk?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 4:24 am
1. nope
2. yup
3. yup
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 9:53 am
In my country, my wife died from baby in her tube, the Catholics would not kill the baby.
So the baby and my Wife both dead.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
bad Catholics
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Frederico: if you wanted an abortion, could you not have gone to another country?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 4:25 am
Freddy’s confused.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 7:41 am
Don’t have the money to go.
The Catholics killed my wife.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 9:35 am
Freddy’s really confused.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 9:08 am
Why does this man say I am confused?
The Catholics killed my wife. We are to win in court.
I am not confused.
LikeLike
October 9, 2011 at 9:22 am
OK, OK, Freddy, tell me — how did the Catholics kill your wife.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 10:08 am
This article was so offensive on so many levels that I am having a hard time putting it into words. But I will try.
1) How hypocritical can a person be? Really? You stand for abortion and a woman’s right to choose when and if she will have children UNTIL she has a few more than you think acceptable then you decide that you can judge her for having a few “extra” to the point that you cannot bring yourself to congratulate her? Is that not hypocritical?
2) You are judging her religious beliefs in a negative way. Why does the number of children she has based on her religion concern you more than if she decided to have an abortion?
3) The self-centered idea that she shouldn’t have 5 children because there will be less resources for your “two” is incredibly narrow minded. Her children aren’t using up your children’s corn patch. They have their own corn patch.
If you are talking about children in third world countries then you are still wrong. Her 5 aren’t using up their resources either. What is using up the worlds resources are glutton filled people all over the globe who waste and spend extravagantly to fill their selfish desires. The USA throws away enough food to probably feed the rest of the world. Her 5 have nothing whatsoever to do with this phenomenon unless they intentionally waste food. The problem is that 1st World countries (all of them) are consumed with self and let 3rd world children starve so they can have a new diamond or private plane or mansion. The problem is NOT that this woman’s 5 kids eat Cheerios each morning.
4) Children are a blessing, all of them, each and every one, with no exceptions! The problem is not the children. the problem is the adults view of the children. Our society has such a self-centered, me first, children are a nuisance attitude that we forget to look into their eyes and see them as valuable. What we see instead is someone who took away my premium cable package because they needed sneakers. Or someone who took my beach vacation because they needed braces, or someone who took my night out at the bars because they needed diapers. THE PROBLEM IS SELFISHNESS! You showed this clearly when you said that you didn’t want the resources taken from your two. Here’s an idea…what if we learned that because we are all humans and the resources on the earth are meant for all of us and we SHARED instead of hoarded for me and mine?
5) Having many kids is NOT a selfish act. You missed the mark on that one. Do you realize the amount of self sacrifice that goes into parenting 5 children? The financial expenditures? The time expenditures? Maybe they sacrifice their own fleshly indulgences because contrary to most of society they LOVE children and see their value.
I say a wholehearted CONGRATULATIONS to Pat’s relative expecting her 5th child! Good for you! You are setting a fine example of what LOVE looks like as opposed to selfishness!
I guess I did have the words after all! And I could go on!
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 10:26 am
Actually I think I will continue……
I took one of my kids to sports practice the other day and was watching thee children. There were about 50 kids in the room from about 5 years old to about 10. As I was watching them I found myself looking into their eyes, studying them. The one thing that these kids of different ages, sizes and backgrounds had in common was a sparkle of innocence and life in their eyes. At the moment that they were in that room they had no concerns about politics, war, terrorists, or death. Their only concern was having fun and getting their coaches instructions down. I watched them for an hour and thought about how the holocaust of abortion had killed so many more exactly like these who I found to be so beautiful at that moment. I thought about the child hating spirit that has taken over our society and how someday many of these innocent eyed children would participate in that same mindset deciding that it is acceptable to kill what they now are. I hated that realization, that they would loose that innocence to our corrupt world.
Those of you who think children are not a blessing and not more valuable than a premium cable package, go find one and look into his or her eyes and see if you can see what I saw. See if you can see their value. If you cannot it does not mean something is wrong with the child. It means something is wrong with you. Look for a group of children and see if you can decide which one should die because when you advocate for abortion that’s what you do. You decide which ones are worthy of death.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Not sure where to start, Voice. Let me suggest that you post individual comments/points so it’s easier to respond to. But you said: “decide that you can judge her for having a few “extra” to the point that you cannot bring yourself to congratulate her? Is that not hypocritical?”
When a woman has an abortion, she is not affecting me at all. It is her private decision. When a woman decides to have a child, and another, and another, I think it is totally different because that decision will affect me and, more likely, my children and their children. It’s totally different in my eyes.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:12 pm
voice says: “Children are a blessing, all of them, each and every one, with no exceptions!” Are you serious??? To take a page out of Charles’ book, was Hitler, Manson, George Steinbrenner or Bin Laden a “blessing.”??? Sure, when they are just born they’re delightful and, yes, its up to the parents but, c’mon, many many parents screw up and they produce monsters – monsters that could affect me!
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 6:35 am
Pat, We are all monsters in some shape or form. Look at what is said about the pro-lifers on this site, monsters each and every one according to the populous.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:18 am
Kathleen: Mother Teresa was a “monster”?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 10:18 am
Pat, You said that I didn’t.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 11:31 am
“was Hitler, Manson, George Steinbrenner or Bin Laden a “blessing.”???
Absolutely! They were a blessing before they lost their innocence at the hand of depraved societies, bad parents, religious dogma and mental illness among other things.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 5:14 pm
They wouldn’t have grown up to be monsters if you’d raised them, voice. I wish you’d think about that the next time you insist a woman have a baby she can’t or won’t raise.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 8:53 am
Ok thinking………nope, not a good enough reason to excuse murder.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Voice says: “You are judging her religious beliefs in a negative way. Why does the number of children she has based on her religion concern you more than if she decided to have an abortion?” I answered above (or maybe below). And if the Catholics had their way, everyone that could would have 7 or so children. Do you seriously think that would not affect our world?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 4:26 am
Sure it would affect it, for the better.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:21 am
If everyone had seven kids, John, how would that be “for the better?” So, for example, would it be “better” if the class sizes in our schools quadrupled?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 9:36 am
Sure, bigger is better, and they’d bail out Social Security.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:13 pm
But, Voice, what about the crack addict working on her 6th or 7th? Is that good for society????
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 4:27 am
Probably not, but you never know.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:22 am
Of course, the answer is probably not! So, if it is probably not good, why not give those (and other) women the chance to abort?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 9:39 am
You may not kill an innocent person. However, if she’s determined, let her kill the guy or herself, whoever’s more responsible for conducting that little fellow here in the first place.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 10:09 am
I’m totally sick and pissed off with my own countrymen here in Southeast Asia that 99% of the people here are wanting to have 7, 8, 9 kids for a f***in’ kickass pride with the world or this “blessing” factor thingy, that’s regardless whether or not they’re Catholics or the other religions. I can only imagine how stupid such people who wouldn’t bother thinking about it, nor even the broad consequences if everybody in my country keeps on doing this. Nobody here takes the time to think about it, nor do they get the logic with this “blessing” factor.
Fortunately for you, thy prowess Pat Richards, I have to absolutely agree with you for your holy gospel of words that you have to write in this blog. By the way our country IS a third-world country, not to mention a second-class citizen majority (75-90%).
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Thanks, Carl John! I think we in the US are so myopic, we just look at our own home, our own neighborhood. We do not look at the entire world and we forget how our continued consumption of precious and finite resources affects EVERYONE. We just see the nice little family with their five kids at the supermarket and think that is oh so sweet…
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 7:36 am
My pleasure thy prowess dear author. I think I have to believe what’s otherwise with some couples in the US – some couples believe they don’t want kids for logical reasons of the sort – the overpopulation thingy, its consequences and it’s not that necessary for couples to have kids especially because the recession is here to stay. They don’t want the money to go to waste in rearing kids, they learn their lesson in logic with the effects in overpopulation and they won’t join the bandwagon, and they prefer to call the shots if they want an abortion or concrete measures in reproductive suppression. We here in our country are much worse granted the myopia, they think it’s bad (if not evil) not to have kids, and you’re damned by the Church or the society. I say – WHAT A F***IN’ DAMN!!! I have to agree once and for all granted the very selfish act the “need” or want to have kids.
In the 1940’s – 60’s in my country, couples who had 10 kids and more used to be the prowess of “rock on” or “you’re the coolest”. That totally sucked way too much!!!
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:25 am
What country are you in, Skyjettjackson??
LikeLike
October 7, 2011 at 10:04 am
I’m from the PH (philippines).
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 12:15 pm
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 12:30 pm
I’m thinking about it, but, so far, nothing.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 12:43 pm
The point is that the over-population myth is a myth. There are NOT too many people for the earth’s resources as Pat stated there was. The problem is that some are stingy with it and don’t share.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Two more things; we’ve hardly started to colonize outer space. What fun that will be!
And, God let us know that we Chosen People would be more numerous that grains of beach sand. Don’t even try to imagine that number, but it is finite.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:19 pm
You’re not serious, John, about colonizing outer space are ya? So, will you support increasing NASA’s budget by a gazillion dollars?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 4:28 am
See below — necessity is the mother of invention.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 5:22 am
Plus: “You’re not serious, Pat, about colonizing “America” are ya? So, will you support increasing King Ferdinand’s budget by a gazillion pesos?
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:18 pm
What planet do you live on, Voice?? So, are you saying that if EVERYONE produced all of those little “blessings” as much as you want them to produce, it would have not affect on our world???? Where do you live?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 10:23 am
Pat, To quote a young child ” Why does God make new people, why doesn’t he just keep the old ones he has”. I’m for that. Is everyone forgetting the people who die every day leaving space for all the babies to be born. In my part of the world there is still a lot of open space waiting to be occupied.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 10:56 am
That’s myopic of you.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Exatly! There is plenty of land out there to be “used”. Plenty of water. Plenty of crop space. The problem is not a lack. The problem is management.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 5:11 pm
“exactly” Sorry my keyboard is sticking and sometimes I don’t notice.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 2:54 pm
If it is selfish to want to keep my big screen HDTV, then I’m guilty. I don’t want to give it up so that child #8 in some third world country can get another subsistence meal. I want to keep that TV AND I want the people in those third world countries to also be able to have one. If the population rate growth in those countries does not drop, then they will never get there. Population growth is slowing BECAUSE women are getting educated and learning that life is MORE than making massive numbers of babies. There will always be the educated baby factories, but fortunately their numbers are falling. The sooner the better.
Pat, perhaps you should suggest a vasectomy – 15 minutes in a urologits’s office. As far as I know, the Pope has not proclaimed this off limits. I can assure you their is no reduction is ability to have sex and no reduction in the desire to do so. Plus, there is no need to try to limit sex to those few days projected by the unsuccessful rhythm method. Furthermore, the woman does not have that nagging worry about an unintended pregnancy, and as a result she is likely to be more enthusiastic about having sex. No chance for kids, great sex! Sounds like the perfect option. Oh, and by the way, I understand that using modern techniques, the procedure can often be reversed, although the expense is high.
Young children are a wonderful sight to watch; the problem is that they don’t stay young. Oh, I’m sorry, I missed the point: make lots of babies so there are always young ones of your own to admire.
I don’t believe that abortion should be used for birth control because there are alternatives that work. However, abortion should be available at a reasonable cost when the woman concludes that taking the fetus to term would place her in a very bad situation against her wishes.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:22 pm
David is right on. We can all have our HDTV to watch the games but folks can have two children and we won’t increase our population, right?
But what do you mean, David, when you say abortion should not be used “for birth control?” Isn’t abortion the ultimate form of birth control?? And thanks for joining us!
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 4:32 am
Vasectomy is off limits – no one may mutilate himself.
“Young children are a wonderful sight to watch; the problem is that they don’t stay young.” That’s not the problem, that’s the glory.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:26 am
A vasectomy is “mutiliation?” What about getting your tubes tied? Is that mutiliation also?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 9:40 am
yes
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 11:02 am
That’s right. No one may mutilate their body. So no ear piercing, no circumcision of newborns, no blood donations, no surgery, no alcohol that mutilates the brain. How utterly absurd.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 12:58 pm
ears — minor\
circumcision — minor
blood — not mutilation, praise worthy
surgery — necessary mutilation
alcohol — nourishing (I should know)
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 12:03 pm
“If it is selfish to want to keep my big screen HDTV, then I’m guilty. I don’t want to give it up so that child #8 in some third world country can get another subsistence meal.”
yea, that’s selfish! You proved my point that the issue is not lack. It is selfishness.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Population control has crowded out many of the resources needed for disease prevention and treatment and has often led to massive human rights abuses by governments eager to meet their population reduction goals. Human rights abuses were committed by population controllers but also by the Catholic Church and others to increase fertility in a world threatened by anti-natal forces. But encouraging women in low-fertility countries to have more children won’t work without draconian measures. For proof of that, see the failure of the Catholic Church: It ends up encouraging patriarchal social norms that push women toward ultra-low fertility, such as in Italy where there is a zero growth pattern.
There can be no doubt that the world population has grown and continues to grow. Scientists have been coming to the same conclusion for decades. We are headed toward a dire lack of resources, environmental collapse, and a plummet in the average quality of life. But the same people who believe overpopulation is a myth are likely the same folks who will deny the scientific evidence of global weather changes.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:24 pm
You’re right, Anonymous, they will say both are myths. Which always interested me – why deny the scientific evidence? And let’s say the “evidence” is wrong: shouldn’t we be conserving anyway? Shouldn’t our automobiles get even better mileage? Shouldn’t we be using more organic products? NO matter what you believe, what would be the harm?
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Indeed, Pat. Why deny scientific evidence?
And why not be grateful for all Mother Nature (or God) has bestowed on this earth and be a steward for future generations? Why not conserve our urge to overpopulate? Why not make better choices about what we really need? Why not give considered thought about our driving habits?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 4:39 am
Deceptive thinking: “Why not conserve our urge to overpopulate?” We don’t have that urge. Our urges are big tv, big house, big car, big vacation.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:28 am
Yeah, I”m not sure if folks have an “urge” to overpopulate. It’s just the way they were raised and of course they have the Pope (and HIM) watching their behavior very carefully.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Yeah, it’s him, it ain’t the Pope.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 5:44 pm
The Pope just tells us what he tells him.
LikeLike
October 3, 2011 at 11:03 pm
“Ester Boserup wrote in her book The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure, that population levels determine agricultural methods, rather than agricultural methods determining population (via food supply). A major point of her book is that “necessity is the mother of invention”. Julian Simon was one of many economists who challenged the Malthusian catastrophe, citing (1) the existence of new knowledge, and educated people to take advantage of it, and (2) “economic freedom”, that is, the ability of the world to increase production when there is a profitable opportunity to do so.[20] The economist Henry George argued that Malthus didn’t provide any evidence of a natural tendency for a population to overwhelm its ability to provide for itself. George wrote that even the main body of Malthus’ work refuted this theory; that examples given show social causes for misery, such as “ignorance and greed… bad government, unjust laws, or war,” rather than insufficient food production.[21]”
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 4:40 am
Now we’re getting somewhere.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:30 am
I actually dont think that gets us anywhere. Hey, Nunya, what’s your point in a sentence or two?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 7:25 am
And this entry completely ignores the obvious irreversible damage caused by global climate changes and quickly dwindling natural resources (like water, clean air, forests, and oil) that won’t be available to the many “blessings” that result from lack of prudent family planning.
You can have all the agricultural knowledge that the best minds offer but without water, there’s no food. With polluted air, people and plants suffer.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:32 am
Here, here Anonymous! Nunya, do you reject the thought that we are wasting away our resources? Do you not believe we need to conserve?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 9:42 am
Give ’em hell, NY.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 10:59 am
I’m puzzled at the level of myopia and general disdain for scientific evidence on this blog among a few commenters. Good lord, are you folks joking around or are you really that convinced that overpopulation isn’t a problem?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 11:53 am
The problem is no too many people. The problem is that the people who are here are stingy self-centered hoarders who waste and decide that it is legit to buy private islands and ignore starving children.
According to The Food Safety News website:
“Every year in America we throw away 96 billion pounds of food. That’s 263 million pounds a day. Eleven million pounds an hour. Three thousand pounds a second.”
Also
“6.7 million tons of food, or about one-third of the food bought, is thrown out in the United Kingdom every year”
And in Canada:
“There’s too much abundance, so much food, that we don’t know what to do with it,” says Wayne Roberts, author and project co-ordinator of the Toronto Food Policy Council, a committee of the Toronto Board of Health that examines food issues as they relate to the environment and poverty.”
And around the world:
“Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted…” UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization released a very interesting report on global food waste.
The problem is NOT Pat’s 5 cousins. It is waste!!! There are not too many people. There is too much waste!
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 11:59 am
Furthermore, “Industrialized and developing countries dissipate roughly — respectively 670 and 630 million tonnes.
Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).
Fruits and vegetables, plus roots and tubers have the highest wastage rates of any food.
The amount of food lost or wasted every year is equivalent to more than half of the world’s annual cereals crop (2.3 billion tonnes in 2009/2010).”
Un’s Food and Agriculture Org.
“Squandering resources
Food loss and waste also amount to a major squandering of resources, including water, land, energy, labour and capital and needlessly produce greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to global warming and climate change.” Un report.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Think more critically about why there is waste. What’s not working, not in place, or inherently wrong that facilitates all this waste? And how do the answers to these questions relate to population issues?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“And how do the answers to these questions relate to population issues?”
The whole point that Pat was making was that he didn’t think his cousin should have five kids because they were squandering all the earthly goods. My point is that no they aren’t. It’s waste that squanders it.
“What’s not working, not in place, or inherently wrong that facilitates all this waste?”
I don’t know what’s not working and not in place. The thing that is inherently wrong is that prosperous 1st world countries are self-centered and think only about them and theirs. With the amount of wealth on the earth and the amount of food wasted there is simply no excuse for starving children in third world countries. We just don’t care enough to figure out the “what’s not working and what’s not in place” because we have all that we need. So to most of us the rest of the world doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Bullshit. You can’t even argue anything sensibly. You admit that you don’t know what’s not working and not in place and then you have the audacity to say “the thing that is inherently wrong is that prosperous 1st world countries are self-centered and think only about them and theirs” and then you continue ad nauseum with your hand wringing.
Let me tell you that you are BLIND. You may be living in luxury or in relative comfort but not everyone in the USA lives so well. You’re blind to the realities of others. I live in Pennsylvania and can tell you that there are large populations living in inner cities and rural area who live in abject poverty, I can also tell you from living in other parts of the US, that this poverty is not uncommon. It’s not a GD myth Homeless is not a myth. Children living with food insecurity is not a myth. Domestic violence is not a myth. Global climate change is not a myth. And, dear folks, overpopulation is not a myth.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Why so angry anon? Chill out a little before you stroke out.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 3:48 am
Bozo, I mean Kate, I mean anon do get angry, don’t she.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 5:11 am
Angry? No, I’m fed up with your whining and simple responses to complex issues. You and others like NunYa whine about having discussions then don’t. Then John comes along with his usual dribbles.
Your singular driver about waste is only that….singular, a one issue factor in a more global problem which seems to me to be equity. We have pockets of individuals who think its OK to breed like animals with no regard for others and do so because their faith says its OK. Like Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians—breed, breed, breed. And we have everyday practices that have ruined the global climate for any children now and in their future–practices such as driving cars, such as having either nonexistent or poor mass transit systems. Our government has demanded little to stop pollution from poison-belching industries and dumping toxic wastes into our waterways. We have pockets of plenty living next to and being blind to others’ poverty. We have greedy corporations mostly run by conservative Republicans who have free speech rights (thanks to our Supreme Court activist justices) to manipulate and purchase elections. We have public relations professionals who have hijacked journalism such that Fox News looks like hard hitting journalistic excellence when it is, instead, hype and lies. Without objective reporting, we get info from lapdog journalists, info that serves the interests of the corporations, the government and the military and not the people. And we have broken or nonexistent systems to fix these problems. So your waste issue is just the tip of the iceberg.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 8:43 am
So is that you Kate? Sure sounds like you spewing anger. Why the anon name?
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 12:37 pm
because Kate’s ashamed of herself
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 10:22 am
Voice, these are good stats and I take them at face value. I just think that it’s a combination of waste and overpopulation. C’mon, be honest, it is not just all waste!
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I think it’s waste and the fact that 1st world countries hoard everything for themselves because they don’t even think about the rest of the world. On person could sell their private plane and feed an African village for years. How many of us care enough to do something about it other than complain?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 5:38 pm
“Good lord, are you folks joking around or are you really that convinced that overpopulation isn’t a problem?”
Both. Otherwise, I’d put a bullet through my frustrated head. Listening to the rationalizations of you killers’ helpers would drive me to damnation.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Don’t think about it too much—the bullet. Who cares, anyway? You think you have anything to offer? anything to be proud of? Your offerings here on this blog provide little other than a miniscule irritation and, sadly, a faint hint at something of an intellectual argument of someone who might, at one time so long ago, been a real man. Now you’re just martini-schlepping add-on. I mean, really, read what you offer man. You’re just a lavender old lady, scared to say what you really mean.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:32 pm
That sure was harsh anonymous. If you’re going to talk rubbish at least stop doing it under “anonymous”. I like John. He provides comic relief when you guys get out of control.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 10:24 am
That was a tad bit harsh…
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 3:50 am
“Bozo, I mean Kate, I mean anon do get angry, don’t she.”
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 5:31 am
And I prefer cheerleader to “lavender old lady.”
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 6:30 am
Hey John, I will take that title “lavender old lady” if you don’t mind, fits.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Sure, but I think Kate gave it to me because she thinks I’m a girly girl.’
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 6:52 am
In 2006, Planned Parenthood performed 289,750 abortions, or approximately 23% of all abortions, making them the largest abortion provider in the United States. Even as the overall national abortion rate goes down, Planned Parenthood continues to perform more abortions every year.
Now look at all the space they provided for the rest of us to waste!
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 8:44 am
I don’t get your comment can you please explain?
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 10:26 am
Yeah, I dont get it either although I think he is saying that because there are less people around because of PPFA, uh……something about space being available…..uh…..I dont know….
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 9:13 am
We need to begin to grapple with the real overpopulation issue – recognizing the realities underlying this issue, recognizing the injustices and inequities prevailing in domains such as politics, economics, and business. The fact that, for example, the United States, with 5% of the world’s population, is consuming 30% of the world’s resources, cannot be ignored. Our growing awareness of this imbalance should inspire both individual and communal efforts to right the wrongs, and reduce the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 9:15 am
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE DOES MATTER, of course. But how people consume resources matters a lot more. Some of us leave much bigger footprints than others. The central challenge for the future of people and the planet is how to raise more of us out of poverty–the slum dwellers in Delhi, the subsistence farmers in Rwanda–while reducing the impact each of us has on the planet.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 10:29 am
And if you want to read a very chilling report on global warming and the effect it is having, go to this month’s edition of Rolling Stone and see what the heck is going on in Austrailia. It is totally frightening. Even taking into account the magazine’s liberal bent, it’s very hard to ignore what is going on down there. I dare any of the pro-lifers to read it and say there’s nothing to worry about. Meanwhile, however, it’s easy for folks to say there are no problems right now because we’ll all be dead with the crap really hits the fan. That’s the selfish part: forgetting what we are leaving our children….
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 3:24 pm
“And if you want to read a very chilling report on global warming and the effect it is having, go to this month’s edition of Rolling Stone and see what the heck is going on in Austrailia. It is totally frightening.
It’s the Apocalypse headed your way. Maybe the end………………
What ya going to do when it comes for you? (hummed to the tune of COPS)
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 4:44 pm
“And if you want to read a very chilling report on global warming and the effect it is having, go to this month’s edition of Rolling Stone and see what the heck is going on in Australia.”
This shows how much I respect you, Pat — I never go where people send me, but because of you I tried to go to Rolling Stone. Course I didn’t get there. All I got was “error.”
LikeLike
October 7, 2011 at 9:38 am
I appreciate that you tried to find that article, John. Again, I know RS is a liberal publication and no doubt so is the author of the piece. But maybe putting aside the 20% of so that is bullcrap, it’s very chilling. And it almost brought me to tears when I started thinking about the world that I’m leaving my children….
LikeLike
October 9, 2011 at 9:28 am
Well damned then, I’m going to have to buy it. If only to put to rest your fears. My guess is that it’s 90% bullcrap..
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 5:04 pm
The selfish part, indeed. We are leaving our children with a messes that are our own selfish creations, our ignorance of or willful laziness toward corrupt governments, corporations and military (including our own). We opt for the short term and forget the long term. And those who we count as blessings will suffer because of our inactions. That’s selfish and shameful and irritating as hell.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Pat, you raise interesting points: You can’t afford to judge people by the number of children you think they should have, but you can judge them by how well they take care of the number they have.
Very few couples have their sexual impulses controlled by their desire to limit the population to a number the globe can support.
The self-proclaimed “pro-lifers’ ” contention that the world CAN support whatever the Bible tells them it can is simplistic because they have to devote their major efforts toward fighting abortion, not to understanding reality.
The “children are a blessing” mantra is just another of their tools, especially employable when they don’t want to nurture them personally. I could look into hopeful, sparkling juvenile eyes all day and go home feeling quite good about myself, but am I willing to have my taxes raised 100% to provide those kids with the needed education?
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 5:45 am
The picture of that Catholic family comes up a little short, I believe. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach was # 20 or so.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 6:32 am
I realize that I am off-topic but thought I’d share anyway. Two recent lectures on campus, both focused on the theme of the ethics, morality and politics of memory and forgetting, have provided ample evidence of implanted memories at the individual and social/cultural level. Stephanie Koontz talked about how memories can be implanted by families and by society. But they can be wrong and can be dangerous, especially when policies are established based on false memories.
Jonah Lehrer, a neurobiologist lectured last night (“Why our memory is a liar”) about how new evidence suggests that our memory is not stable, that our memories are not immutable, that memories can easily be false. The implications, while far reaching, are quite intriguing when considering women who claim, years later, that they regret their abortion. It makes me wonder how, over time, their memories reconsolidate, revising their stories to fit a completely new memory.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 7:10 am
Oh Geez: “. . . new evidence suggests that our memory is not stable . . .”
As if no one ever discussed this with anyone else, as if Updike and Shakespeare wrote nothing, as if there’s no such thing as common sense that does not need “new evidence” to support it,
The more Kate and Chuck comment, the more I become convinced that most of our problems stem more from the modern secular colleges and the many phony courses they offer than from any other source.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 8:57 am
Preach it!!!!!!
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 9:10 am
Kate that is another insult to women who have had and abortion and regret the experience. They don’t regret it because their memory got skewed. It’s more basic than that. They regret it because at some point they stop repressing their conscience and admit to themselves that they killed their child. In Chattanooga Tennessee on the property that once housed and abortion clinic is The National Memorial To The Unborn. Thousands of women have made the journey, some across country, to visit this memorial and leave letters and sentimental gifts to their aborted child. ALL have expressed regret for the abortion. A book has been written that contains some of the letters, “Empty Arms”by Wendy Williams and Ann Caldwell. To suggest that these women have “lying” memories is an insult and takes away the women’s right to mourn. That is unfair because the mourning process helps in their healing. To try and connect the mourning of post abortive women with “lying memories” is grasping at straws. Their memories are real, very real and many of them would give life and limb to not have to have them.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 11:02 am
By virtue of your stating that they repressed and admitted is a form of reconsolidation, a revision of memory, thus, the possibility of their memory lying. You can be insulted all you want. But if there are ways for women to see their abortions as experiences that they chose with the best information and moral judgment at the time, why not? If someone is impacted by their peers, to think abortion is wrong, to admit they had one years ago is refocusing her decision made in the past. It’s like revisionist history and the woman suffers. Perhaps that’s what you want women to do, to suffer, to regret, to feel miserable, to live in the past?
Anyway, it’s not my work, far from it, it’s just an intriguing research on the frontier of cognitive science. So the ideas shared by Jonah Lehrer may change or may become quite the standard. The examples he gave were about PSTD for soldiers in Fallujah and witnesses to auto accidents–all studies on how memories are processed and reprocessed continually.
He also mentioned Elizabeth Lutz as another colleague doing similar astounding work. Both have some amazing studies to consider for the future.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 7:39 am
Yikes, this is getting pretty heavy! As for memories, I dont know about you folks but mine keep changing all the time and they are subject to persuasion. Indeed, I am sure I’ve altered some of my memories to make me appear better than I am so when I’m on my deathbed, I will go with a smile on my face, thinking I was actually better than I really was.
Phew! I need a drink now – and it’s only 8:30 a.m.!!!
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 9:45 am
Join me.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 11:12 am
Hey, the joke’s on my. I said Elizabeth Lotz, operating from memory. Bad! Her name is Elizabeth Loftus…here’s a passage about her and her work:
“She has been called a whore by a prosecutor in a courthouse hallway, assaulted by a passenger on an airplane shouting, “You’re that woman!”, and has occasionally required surveillance by plainclothes security guards at lectures. The war over memory is one of the great and perturbing stories of our time, and Elizabeth Loftus, an expert on memory’s malleability, stands at the highly charged center of it.
Even in her field, opinion is divided between fury and admiration. “I have nothing good to say about Elizabetb Loftus,” says Bessel van der Kolk, M.D., a psychiatrist at Harvard, who is an expert in dissociative disorders. “I have only the highest regard for Elizabeth Loftus’s work,” states Frederick Crews, former chair of the English department at the University of California at Berkeley, and author of the most widely debated and discussed series of cover stories the New York Review of Books has ever published on the recovered-memory movement.
Loftus has spent most of her life steadily amassing a clear and brilliant body of work showing that memory is amazingly fragile and inventive. Her studies on more than 20,000 subjects are classics that have toppled some of our most cherished beliefs. She has shown that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, that false memories can be triggered in up to 25 percent of individuals merely by suggestion, and that memory can be interfered with and altered by simply giving incorrect post-event information.”
Again, I find this intriguing and suggest again that some post abortive women might benefit from this research, in time, especially ***false memories can be triggered in up to 25 percent of individuals merely by suggestion, and that memory can be interfered with and altered by simply giving incorrect post-event information***
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 11:56 am
excuses, excuses, excuses…if you have to justify something, then for sure it IS wrong!
I hate to change the subject here but we all know that Steve Jobs died today..well did any of you know that he was adopted? well, well, well….whatcha got to say about that? His mother choose LIFE and we all benefited from her UNSELFISH choice! Imagine life without him…there possibly would be no more blogging for ya’ll
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 12:32 pm
And the good news, is that it was Steve Jobs’ biological mother who made the choice to carry her pregnancy to term. The operative word is choice–something ALL women deserve. As for the selfish vs unselfish qualities, I’ll leave that to you to judge others.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 12:35 pm
If you have to justify something it is wrong? Don’t preachers, rabbis, priests and other religious types justify their faith? Don’t medical professions justify their beliefs about health care? Don’t prolifers justify their position? And you think it’s wrong? Really?
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 12:39 pm
When altruism becomes dangerous is the topic of a recent NY Times article (Oct. 3) and features Dr. Robert A. Burton, neurologist and author of “On Being Certain” and the coming “A Skeptic’s Guide to the Mind”
“Dr. Burton is a contributor to a scholarly yet surprisingly sprightly volume called “Pathological Altruism,” to be published this fall by Oxford University Press. As the book makes clear, pathological altruism is not limited to showcase acts of self-sacrifice, like donating a kidney or a part of one’s liver to a total stranger. The book is the first comprehensive treatment of the idea that when ostensibly generous “how can I help you?” behavior is taken to extremes, misapplied or stridently rhapsodized, it can become unhelpful, unproductive and even destructive.
Selflessness gone awry may play a role in a broad variety of disorders, including anorexia and animal hoarding, women who put up with abusive partners and men who abide alcoholic ones. [or dare I say, sidewalk counselors?]
Because a certain degree of selfless behavior is essential to the smooth performance of any human group, selflessness run amok can crop up in political contexts. It fosters the exhilarating sensation of righteous indignation, the belief in the purity of your team and your cause and the perfidiousness of all competing teams and causes.”
I love this article because it reminds me of the righteous indignation witnessed every time I observe the protesters.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Kate, will you stop quoting blurbs? Everything up there sounds like a blurb, but the quotation marks indicate otherwise. Are you sure you’re using the marks correctly?
And I wouldn’t call what Pat and Doug and Billy and EFXB, and you yourself do “righteous indignation.” Looks to me more like pouting and giggling.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 2:33 pm
dear ms. copy and paste queen…
me thinks you protest to much..and THAT speaks volumes!
Dr, Scott Hahn (scripture scholar), said that Judgment in a scriptural sense is meant to judge the soul as whether it was going to heaven or hell. What we are called to do is judge the Moral Act as whether it is being good or evil, not the person. If we can’t make a judgment on the Act then we are morally paralyzed.
chew on
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 2:42 pm
chew on that!
as a matter of fact…meditate on that whole last paragraph…let it sink in…keep repeating it often until you understand what judgement really is. you know Kate, you really are not as smart as YOU think you are! we all see right through ya!
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Oh, goodie!
LikeLike