Discussion:
Did you see the TIME mag. cover?
(too old to reply)
Shoe-Chucker 2
2013-08-27 15:45:44 UTC
Permalink
"The Childfree Life" cover.
great support for this.
http://www.times-standard.com/boomers/ci_23952389/second-half-childfree-l
ife?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
--
Karma ; what a concept!
elizabeth
2013-08-27 21:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
"The Childfree Life" cover.
great support for this.
http://www.times-standard.com/boomers/ci_23952389/second-half-childfree-l
ife?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
--
Karma ; what a concept!
Yeah, I saw it ... but it's not exactly news, is it?
Being CF is going mainstream . .. too late to stop the inevitable rapid drop in the number of Carcinoma Sapiens in the very near future .. .
Shoe-Chucker 2
2013-08-28 03:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by elizabeth
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
"The Childfree Life" cover.
great support for this.
http://www.times-standard.com/boomers/ci_23952389/second-half-childfree-l
ife?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
--
Karma ; what a concept!
Yeah, I saw it ... but it's not exactly news, is it?
Being CF is going mainstream . .. too late to stop the inevitable rapid drop
in the number of Carcinoma Sapiens in the very near future .. .
It's "news" to me that people still pressure their children to have
grandchildren for "THEM"
I thought we had evolved beyond that behavior . eh?
--
Karma ; what a concept!
elizabeth
2013-08-28 18:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by elizabeth
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
"The Childfree Life" cover.
great support for this.
http://www.times-standard.com/boomers/ci_23952389/second-half-childfree-l
ife?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
--
Karma ; what a concept!
Yeah, I saw it ... but it's not exactly news, is it?
Being CF is going mainstream . .. too late to stop the inevitable rapid drop
in the number of Carcinoma Sapiens in the very near future .. .
It's "news" to me that people still pressure their children to have
grandchildren for "THEM"
I thought we had evolved beyond that behavior . eh?
--
Karma ; what a concept!
I was so lucky to have parents who realized that overpopulation was the biggest danger facing most of the species on the planet . .in the 50s, after they had had children. We were *never* pushed or in any way encouraged to breed, the subject simply never came up.
Shoe-Chucker 2
2013-08-29 15:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by elizabeth
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by elizabeth
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
"The Childfree Life" cover.
great support for this.
http://www.times-standard.com/boomers/ci_23952389/second-half-childfree-
l
ife?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
--
Karma ; what a concept!
Yeah, I saw it ... but it's not exactly news, is it?
Being CF is going mainstream . .. too late to stop the inevitable rapid drop
in the number of Carcinoma Sapiens in the very near future .. .
It's "news" to me that people still pressure their children to have
grandchildren for "THEM"
I thought we had evolved beyond that behavior . eh?
--
Karma ; what a concept!
I was so lucky to have parents who realized that overpopulation was the
biggest danger facing most of the species on the planet . .in the 50s, after
they had had children. We were *never* pushed or in any way encouraged to
breed, the subject simply never came up.
Well, I think more people are waking up. After Earth Day some awareness
is seeping into the larger population.
--
Karma ; what a concept!
elizabeth
2013-08-29 18:52:41 UTC
Permalink
snip> >
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by elizabeth
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
It's "news" to me that people still pressure their children to have
grandchildren for "THEM"
I thought we had evolved beyond that behavior . eh?
I was so lucky to have parents who realized that overpopulation was the
biggest danger facing most of the species on the planet . .in the 50s, after
they had had children. We were *never* pushed or in any way encouraged to
breed, the subject simply never came up.
Well, I think more people are waking up. After Earth Day some awareness
is seeping into the larger population.
Too little too late. Tragedy of the Commons.
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Karma ; what a concept!
l***@yahoo.com
2013-09-03 13:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Bet you didn't see this:

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21229-time-magazine-childless-women-oppressed

First third of article:

Time Magazine: Childless Women Oppressed


August 9, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The latest whoop-di-doo about women choosing to remain childless was all started by a Time Magazine cover story entitled “The ChildFree Life: When having it all means not having children.” Predictably, feminists and conservatives have chimed in, each in their own nutty ways, informed more by political ideology than by the facts of the matter or by common sense or decency. Feminists naturally wail about a society that “punishes” women for choosing to not procreate. Conservatives like Tucker Carlson call such women “selfish, decadent and stupid.”

Me? I think if a woman wants to have a child, she should have one. That said, I don’t think the decision to have a child alone is a responsible one. Far too many children suffer far too much from that “lifestyle choice” for me to support it. But if she’s got a husband or reliable partner who wants the child too, I think they should go for it. If she doesn’t want a child, I think she shouldn’t have one. There are way too many children in the world as it is.

That’s my simplistic view of the matter and, as much as I’ve read on the topic, I still don’t see that it lacks much. Oh, I’m well aware that there’s more to it than just the private decisions of a couple of people who do or don’t want to be parents. But try as I might, I can’t shake the feeling that those people are talking to hear themselves talk.

For example, the Time piece quotes New York Times columnist Ross Douthat saying that the “retreat from childrearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion,” revealing “a spirit that privileges the present over the future.”

It’s a fair comment. American society today shows every sign of being at the end of an era, i.e. that of U.S. predominance on the world stage. Our politics are corrupt, and more and more responsive to narrower and narrower moneyed interests. People’s trust in political, social and cultural institutions is at an all-time low. We have an astonishing rate of unmarried childbearing and single-parent childrearing. We daily tell men and boys that they have nothing to offer anyone or anything. Elite interests have savaged our industrial base resulting in ever-poorer jobs, particularly for men. And if anyone has an idea about how to lead us out of the mess we’ve created, I sure haven’t heard it.

So I basically agree with Douthat’s observation, but feel I must tell him that his complaints, whether legitimate or not, won’t be addressed by women having more babies. The gradual slide in the birthrate may be a symptom of a cultural malaise, but treating the symptom, even if you can do it (which you can’t in this case), won’t cure the disease.

The Time article is by Lauren Sandler, and it’s an odd one. Sandler plainly approves of women deciding not to have children, which makes it strange that she begins her piece by overinflating the drop in the birthrate. After all, one of the chief arguments against having fewer children is that smaller younger generations can’t take care of more populous older ones. So you’d think Sandler would downplay the slide in the birthrate, but she does the opposite, going so far as to get her figures vastly wrong. ......

(snip)


Lenona.
elizabeth
2013-09-03 19:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21229-time-magazine-childless-women-oppressed
Time Magazine: Childless Women Oppressed
August 9, 2013 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
The latest whoop-di-doo about women choosing to remain childless was all started by a Time Magazine cover story entitled “The ChildFree Life: When having it all means not having children.” Predictably, feminists and conservatives have chimed in, each in their own nutty ways, informed more by political ideology than by the facts of the matter or by common sense or decency. Feminists naturally wail about a society that “punishes” women for choosing to not procreate. Conservatives like Tucker Carlson call such women “selfish, decadent and stupid.”
Me? I think if a woman wants to have a child, she should have one. That said, I don’t think the decision to have a child alone is a responsible one. Far too many children suffer far too much from that “lifestyle choice” for me to support it. But if she’s got a husband or reliable partner who wants the child too, I think they should go for it. If she doesn’t want a child, I think she shouldn’t have one. There are way too many children in the world as it is.
That’s my simplistic view of the matter and, as much as I’ve read on the topic, I still don’t see that it lacks much. Oh, I’m well aware that there’s more to it than just the private decisions of a couple of people who do or don’t want to be parents. But try as I might, I can’t shake the feeling that those people are talking to hear themselves talk.
For example, the Time piece quotes New York Times columnist Ross Douthat saying that the “retreat from childrearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion,” revealing “a spirit that privileges the present over the future.”
It’s a fair comment. American society today shows every sign of being at the end of an era, i.e. that of U.S. predominance on the world stage. Our politics are corrupt, and more and more responsive to narrower and narrower moneyed interests. People’s trust in political, social and cultural institutions is at an all-time low. We have an astonishing rate of unmarried childbearing and single-parent childrearing. We daily tell men and boys that they have nothing to offer anyone or anything. Elite interests have savaged our industrial base resulting in ever-poorer jobs, particularly for men. And if anyone has an idea about how to lead us out of the mess we’ve created, I sure haven’t heard it.
So I basically agree with Douthat’s observation, but feel I must tell him that his complaints, whether legitimate or not, won’t be addressed by women having more babies. The gradual slide in the birthrate may be a symptom of a cultural malaise, but treating the symptom, even if you can do it (which you can’t in this case), won’t cure the disease.
The Time article is by Lauren Sandler, and it’s an odd one. Sandler plainly approves of women deciding not to have children, which makes it strange that she begins her piece by overinflating the drop in the birthrate. After all, one of the chief arguments against having fewer children is that smaller younger generations can’t take care of more populous older ones. So you’d think Sandler would downplay the slide in the birthrate, but she does the opposite, going so far as to get her figures vastly wrong. ......
It's been demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between low IQ in women with early/frequent childbearing. Women need to be coerced in many societies to pump out more cannon fodder/corporate slaves because modern capitalism is an enourmous Ponzy scheme about to collapse. That, and the inevitable collapse of the ecology and the fact that mammalian fetuses absorb toxins at a very high rate, leads to increased severe and often fatal birth defects, etc.

It's not like we don't know what happens when a population "overgrazes its range" but the most inconvenient truth for Carcinoma Sapiens is that we are destroying what we need to survive by overbreeding . . .and we can stop that, but it's probably already too late and the tipping point is inevitable.
l***@yahoo.com
2013-09-04 17:04:24 UTC
Permalink
And then there's this:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart081613.php3#.UhZrALzgIy4

Since Betsy Hart (conservative divorced mother of four) is Presbyterian, I don't quite know why this appears in a Jewish publication. (She's also often on Fox News, from what I hear.)

I plan to post a response on her blog soon.

Lenona.
elizabeth
2013-09-04 18:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart081613.php3#.UhZrALzgIy4
Since Betsy Hart (conservative divorced mother of four) is Presbyterian, I don't quite know why this appears in a Jewish publication. (She's also often on Fox News, from what I hear.)
Ya know, perhaps some of the breeders realize that it's in their best interests, or the interests of their dna replicants, to encourage OTHERS not to have children, so THEIR children have less competition.

No one cares about THE children, people care only about THEIR children.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I plan to post a response on her blog soon.
Lenona.
Do post a link to your blog soon!
l***@yahoo.com
2013-09-05 18:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by elizabeth
Do post a link to your blog soon!
It's HER blog - not mine.

betsysblog.com

(I just found out that she doesn't post ALL her columns at her blog - some only appear in newspapers. Since she's syndicated, I don't understand why I can't find comments on her columns!)

Here's what I wrote (on the blog, you have to scroll down to Aug. 22 and then click on the column):


I think the first thing to say is that in a country where there will never be a shortage of relatively young immigrants, we will ALWAYS have a "village." Especially in a world of 7 billion and counting. Same goes for most countries, I'm guessing. If the human race becomes truly endangered, it will be due to OVERPOPULATION issues - like pollution and hunger. Kids need to know that!

"How does it impact the children who are already here?"

I will tell you. It teaches children that it's better to regret not having children than to regret having them - after all, if I change my mind, I can always adopt. What of those who have children and THEN change their minds? Sometimes parenthood simply can't be made rewarding.

It also teaches kids that it takes all kinds to make a world, and that many, such as Emily Dickinson, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Pablo Casals, Rachel Carson, Linus Pauling, and Ralph Nader just might not have benefited the world nearly as much had they had children. Not everyone can juggle the way some can. (Also, look up Albert Einstein and Gandhi - both were at least semi-rotten in the parenting department. Would it really have been so terrible, in hindsight, had they quietly chosen to have vasectomies when young?)

Keep in mind, too, that stereotypes sell, and TIME was no exception in its cover choice of a couple lying on the beach. That is, the above famous childfree (CF) people didn't spend every minute in luxury activities or in mercenary careers, and many CF people HAVE to work 80 hours a week and care for their parents as well, so it's no wonder they're CF. (I wouldn't DATE if I had to work even 60 hours!) Many, like Nader, find themselves called to do great deeds that are too hard for most people - unlike making a baby.

Besides, as Dr. Spock pointed out decades ago, adoptive parents should ONLY adopt when they love children so much they can't bear life without them - NOT for cold-blooded reasons such as carrying on the family business! Why should the rule be any different for other parents? Don't kids deserve better?

Also, one thing the American village has NOT done well for a century at least is to teach people, young and old, that they can't have it all and so they must save and save for their old age instead of wasting money and energy on a daily basis, in little ways. If the CF population means fewer taxpayers, that's another thing they can teach the young - they can help to force them to embrace Victorian thrift for its own sake, from childhood onward. After all, even the CF will have to save - for their own nursing homes!


Lenona.
elizabeth
2013-09-05 19:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by elizabeth
Do post a link to your blog soon!
It's HER blog - not mine.
betsysblog.com
(I just found out that she doesn't post ALL her columns at her blog - some only appear in newspapers. Since she's syndicated, I don't understand why I can't find comments on her columns!)
I think the first thing to say is that in a country where there will never be a shortage of relatively young immigrants, we will ALWAYS have a "village." Especially in a world of 7 billion and counting. Same goes for most countries, I'm guessing. If the human race becomes truly endangered, it will be due to OVERPOPULATION issues - like pollution and hunger. Kids need to know that!
"How does it impact the children who are already here?"
I will tell you. It teaches children that it's better to regret not having children than to regret having them - after all, if I change my mind, I can always adopt. What of those who have children and THEN change their minds? Sometimes parenthood simply can't be made rewarding.
It also teaches kids that it takes all kinds to make a world, and that many, such as Emily Dickinson, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Pablo Casals, Rachel Carson, Linus Pauling, and Ralph Nader just might not have benefited the world nearly as much had they had children. Not everyone can juggle the way some can. (Also, look up Albert Einstein and Gandhi - both were at least semi-rotten in the parenting department. Would it really have been so terrible, in hindsight, had they quietly chosen to have vasectomies when young?)
Keep in mind, too, that stereotypes sell, and TIME was no exception in its cover choice of a couple lying on the beach. That is, the above famous childfree (CF) people didn't spend every minute in luxury activities or in mercenary careers, and many CF people HAVE to work 80 hours a week and care for their parents as well, so it's no wonder they're CF. (I wouldn't DATE if I had to work even 60 hours!) Many, like Nader, find themselves called to do great deeds that are too hard for most people - unlike making a baby.
Besides, as Dr. Spock pointed out decades ago, adoptive parents should ONLY adopt when they love children so much they can't bear life without them - NOT for cold-blooded reasons such as carrying on the family business! Why should the rule be any different for other parents? Don't kids deserve better?
Also, one thing the American village has NOT done well for a century at least is to teach people, young and old, that they can't have it all and so they must save and save for their old age instead of wasting money and energy on a daily basis, in little ways. If the CF population means fewer taxpayers, that's another thing they can teach the young - they can help to force them to embrace Victorian thrift for its own sake, from childhood onward. After all, even the CF will have to save - for their own nursing homes!
Lenona.
Great post.
In fact, the buddha, before his conversion, realized with horror that breeding a child was a fetter and that idea, that procreation ties you to the physical plane and prevents enlightenment.

Or words to that effect. He had a really good point, which is one reason why in many religions, choosing the CF path was considered a Good Thing for those who were called!

Being a Vestal Virgin, for ex ... you retired with a pension, quite generous, about when menopause hit ... not a bad way to avoid arranged marriages and breeding for heirs for femmes not so inclined. You got to live in a great temple in Rome, all your needs were taken care of, there were plenty of books and teachers, so it wasn't such a bad life!

You retired with money, and you knew everyone important in town. I think they got plenty of volunteers!
Marten Kemp
2013-09-05 01:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart081613.php3#.UhZrALzgIy4
Since Betsy Hart (conservative divorced mother of four) is Presbyterian,
I don't quite know why this appears in a Jewish publication. (She's also
often
on Fox News, from what I hear.)
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I plan to post a response on her blog soon.
Lenona.
"Our grandparents, for instance, didn't agonize about when to start
their families -- or whether to have kids in the first place. Not just
because they (begin ital) couldn't (end ital) very effectively, until
the 1960s and the birth-control pill, but because they (begin ital)
wouldn't (end ital). It wasn't the way they thought about the world."

The Comstock Act made contraception illegal until 1931.
I can remember a vending machine with "For Prevention of Disease Only."
--
-- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
l***@yahoo.com
2013-09-06 16:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marten Kemp
The Comstock Act made contraception illegal until 1931.
I can remember a vending machine with "For Prevention of Disease Only."
When was THAT? Sheesh.

I also wonder when, outside of the Bible Belt, drugstores stopped keeping condoms behind the counters. Probably circa 1980.

(But then, even today, plenty of people - even adults - might steal them out of sheer embarrassment, not poverty.)

Lenona.
Marten Kemp
2013-09-06 20:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Marten Kemp
The Comstock Act made contraception illegal until 1931.
I can remember a vending machine with "For Prevention of Disease Only."
When was THAT? Sheesh.
I also wonder when, outside of the Bible Belt, drugstores stopped keeping
condoms behind the counters. Probably circa 1980.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(But then, even today, plenty of people - even adults - might steal them
out of sheer embarrassment, not poverty.)

Well, it *wasn't* in 1931, I'm not *that* old,
and I didn't have the foggiest idea what it
all meant - what condoms were and what diseases
they may have prevented.

It was probably late '50s or early '60s, in a
little town in Mississippi. There were also
segregated restrooms and water fountains in
the larger towns, in small towns "them niggers
knows their place."

I'm damned glad I didn't grow up there, just
visited grandparents.
--
-- Marten Kemp (Fix ISP to reply)
Pete
2013-09-15 17:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by elizabeth
It's not like we don't know what happens when a population "overgrazes its
range" but the most inconvenient truth for Carcinoma Sapiens is that we are
destroying what we need to survive by overbreeding . . .and we can stop that,
but it's probably already too late and the tipping point is inevitable.
Tipping point passed quite some time ago...Pete
--
The only GOOD republican is a DEAD republican
elizabeth
2013-09-15 20:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete
Post by elizabeth
It's not like we don't know what happens when a population "overgrazes its
range" but the most inconvenient truth for Carcinoma Sapiens is that we are
destroying what we need to survive by overbreeding . . .and we can stop that,
but it's probably already too late and the tipping point is inevitable.
Tipping point passed quite some time ago...Pete
--
The only GOOD republican is a DEAD republican
Yeah, you're right ... the tipping point was in the middle part of the last century at best ... carcinoma sapiens may have gone malignant some time before that ... well, I never wanted to get even as old as I am now, and I sure did have a lot of good times that are gone forever.

Let the children suffer the future!
l***@yahoo.com
2013-09-13 20:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Here's a hyper-conservative column on the TIME cover story:

http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df081213.html

Last paragraphs:

".......Some can't have children. Others forget to have them, being distracted by education and careers.

"But the proudly, defiantly childfree? To call them selfish is like saying that Barack Obama is somewhat disingenuous. Basically, their attitude is après moi, who-gives-a-bleep. Time magazine calls this trailblazing and heroic.

"In a Townhall.com commentary, David Stokes reminds us of the words of Theodore Roosevelt on a European tour in 1910: 'The greatest of all curses is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited on the willfully sterile.'

"The Old Bull Moose and committed natalist contended: 'If the failure is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the thralldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done.'

"It's a good thing our 26th president built the Panama Canal, created the National Park system, helped to launch the modern Navy, and – in many ways – guided America into the 20th century. The father of six, whose visage smiles down on us from Mount Rushmore, would never have made it at Time."



For those who don't know, Don Feder is a fundamentalist columnist. I seem to remember his writing about Disney's "Snow White" the last time it was on the big screen - that must have been soon before it went to video. He said, IIRC, that THIS is the sort of woman American girls should model themselves after. (He was also, I think, pretty bitter about all the more recent fictional female personalities created by Hollywood who didn't exactly - or even remotely - resemble Snow White's personality.)

I also remember his rave review of the 1999 Brendan Fraser comedy "Blast from the Past" and how he hinted that it was proof that the U.S. would be a much better place had the 1960s never happened:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/calvinist-baptist/conversations/topics/167
(this was the only place I could find the review)

However, the movie itself doesn't quite say that - for one thing, one of the first things Fraser's character does as an adult is to greet a black woman in a pseudo-polite manner that was clearly meant to make the audience cringe.


Lenona.
elizabeth
2013-09-13 21:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df081213.html
".......Some can't have children. Others forget to have them, being distracted by education and careers.
"But the proudly, defiantly childfree? To call them selfish is like saying that Barack Obama is somewhat disingenuous. Basically, their attitude is après moi, who-gives-a-bleep. Time magazine calls this trailblazing and heroic.
"In a Townhall.com commentary, David Stokes reminds us of the words of Theodore Roosevelt on a European tour in 1910: 'The greatest of all curses is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited on the willfully sterile.'
"The Old Bull Moose and committed natalist contended: 'If the failure is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the thralldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done.'
"It's a good thing our 26th president built the Panama Canal, created the National Park system, helped to launch the modern Navy, and – in many ways – guided America into the 20th century. The father of six, whose visage smiles down on us from Mount Rushmore, would never have made it at Time."
For those who don't know, Don Feder is a fundamentalist columnist. I seem to remember his writing about Disney's "Snow White" the last time it was on the big screen - that must have been soon before it went to video. He said, IIRC, that THIS is the sort of woman American girls should model themselves after. (He was also, I think, pretty bitter about all the more recent fictional female personalities created by Hollywood who didn't exactly - or even remotely - resemble Snow White's personality.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/calvinist-baptist/conversations/topics/167
(this was the only place I could find the review)
However, the movie itself doesn't quite say that - for one thing, one of the first things Fraser's character does as an adult is to greet a black woman in a pseudo-polite manner that was clearly meant to make the audience cringe.
Lenona.
Oh, for fuck's sake, we have over 7 billion people on the planet, the ecosystem is falling apart faster than the economy is ... we can't take care of those here now, breeders should be kissing our butts for NOT adding more problems to THEIR dna replicant's slim chance of a decent life on this filthy, overcrowded with Homo Carcinoma planet. We're about to join the species we extincted soon .. and we know how NOT to have kids, but societies would rather breed more cannon fodder, more consumers, and pollute more, knowing they leave all the toxic shit for the next generations to deal with, and all they wanna do is add to the problem!
SkyEyes
2013-09-14 06:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df081213.html
".......Some can't have children. Others forget to have them, being
distracted by education and careers.
"But the proudly, defiantly childfree? To call them selfish is like
saying that Barack Obama is somewhat disingenuous. Basically, their
attitude is après moi, who-gives-a-bleep. Time magazine calls this
trailblazing and heroic.
"In a Townhall.com commentary, David Stokes reminds us of the words of
Theodore Roosevelt on a European tour in 1910: 'The greatest of all
curses is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all
condemnations should be that visited on the willfully sterile.'
"The Old Bull Moose and committed natalist contended: 'If the failure
is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a
misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of
shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run nature
punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if
we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the
thralldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that
comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of
breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have
done.'
"It's a good thing our 26th president built the Panama Canal, created
the National Park system, helped to launch the modern Navy, and - in
many ways - guided America into the 20th century. The father of six,
whose visage smiles down on us from Mount Rushmore, would never have
made it at Time."
For those who don't know, Don Feder is a fundamentalist columnist. I
seem to remember his writing about Disney's "Snow White" the last time
it was on the big screen - that must have been soon before it went to
video. He said, IIRC, that THIS is the sort of woman American girls
should model themselves after. (He was also, I think, pretty bitter
about all the more recent fictional female personalities created by
Hollywood who didn't exactly - or even remotely - resemble Snow
White's personality.)
I also remember his rave review of the 1999 Brendan Fraser comedy
"Blast from the Past" and how he hinted that it was proof that the
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/calvinist-baptist/conversations/topi
cs/167
(this was the only place I could find the review)
However, the movie itself doesn't quite say that - for one thing, one
of the first things Fraser's character does as an adult is to greet a
black woman in a pseudo-polite manner that was clearly meant to make
the audience cringe.
That's all very well, written as it was in a time when the total global
population was only about 2.5 billion people. With today's 7-billion-
and-counting global population, it's a different story. Those who choose
to have children in this day and age should be worshipping at the feet of
the childfree simply because we are freeing up so many resources for
their offspring by not having any offspring of our own.
--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
l***@yahoo.com
2013-09-14 14:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by SkyEyes
That's all very well, written as it was in a time when the total global
population was only about 2.5 billion people. With today's 7-billion-
and-counting global population, it's a different story. Those who choose
to have children in this day and age should be worshipping at the feet of
the childfree simply because we are freeing up so many resources for
their offspring by not having any offspring of our own.
Trouble is, as they taught us in psychology (I can't remember the exact names for this) whenever a sizeable percentage of society starts taking precautions and conserving resources, the other people start getting more greedy and careless with their consuming habits. Sigh....

I can't grasp why Feder and others of his kind can't grasp two things. One is that the Bible says "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." With a Texas-sized patch of garbage in the Pacific (yes, that's a true story) haven't we done at least ten times more "subduing" than "needed"?

Second: It's one thing to expect reluctant adults to marry and reproduce in the days when young people blindly did what the Bible commanded - or what the Bible merely allowed, such as slavery! There are tons of reasons we don't just assume anymore that the Bible writers had the right ideas on anything! So why in the world does anyone think that ANY unwilling couple is going to have children for the sake of the ECONOMY? Who has ever done that in the last millennium?! No one. (That's not the same as a baby boom that happens after a devastating war or earthquake - after all, many of those parents were likely just fencesitters, not true CF types.)

Lenona.
elizabeth
2013-09-14 17:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by SkyEyes
That's all very well, written as it was in a time when the total global
population was only about 2.5 billion people. With today's 7-billion-
and-counting global population, it's a different story. Those who choose
to have children in this day and age should be worshipping at the feet of
the childfree simply because we are freeing up so many resources for
their offspring by not having any offspring of our own.
Trouble is, as they taught us in psychology (I can't remember the exact names for this) whenever a sizeable percentage of society starts taking precautions and conserving resources, the other people start getting more greedy and careless with their consuming habits. Sigh....
It's well described in the essay, The Tragedy of the Commons. And the official way to describe people like this is Flaming greedy Assholes.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I can't grasp why Feder and others of his kind can't grasp two things. One is that the Bible says "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." With a Texas-sized patch of garbage in the Pacific (yes, that's a true story) haven't we done at least ten times more "subduing" than "needed"?
Well, in the very near future, a lot of "children" will be demanding answers .. . I hope the first question they ask of their breeders is, WEll, since breeding was a choice, and you knew things were getting bad, why did you have me? I didn't ask to be born!" or words to that effect.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Second: It's one thing to expect reluctant adults to marry and reproduce in the days when young people blindly did what the Bible commanded - or what the Bible merely allowed, such as slavery! There are tons of reasons we don't just assume anymore that the Bible writers had the right ideas on anything! So why in the world does anyone think that ANY unwilling couple is going to have children for the sake of the ECONOMY? Who has ever done that in the last millennium?! No one. (That's not the same as a baby boom that happens after a devastating war or earthquake - after all, many of those parents were likely just fencesitters, not true CF types.)
See The Marching Morons
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Lenona.
Telecat Johnson
2022-12-28 04:32:40 UTC
Permalink
"The Childfree Life" cover.
great support for this.
You're a Trumper. You deserve to be murdered...Pete

Loading...