Science > Abortion > Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
27 Apr 2006 05:22:19 AM |
| Object: |
Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49074
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Posted: March 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
A funny thing happened to me the other day when my wife and I had,
thank God, another baby (a boy). Many of my friends didn't seem all
that happy for me. Sure, they went through the motions of smiles and
congratulations. But it was evident that many thought me insane. Why
would a young man and his wife ruin their lives with eight children?
Who could afford the Jewish day-school bills? Didn't we want to live
life a little, and not just be burdened with kids?
It got downright surreal when a European film company, pressed me,
while my wife was in labor, to finish shooting a segment that had an
urgent deadline (I obviously told them they were insane). And the next
day, I was mildly criticized by a Jewish organization which was
supposed to be hosting me for a lecture for having to cancel on them
because the lecture clashed with the baby's bris.
I don't mind that the world doesn't really love babies, just that it
pretends to. It's time we got honest about our priorities. Most people
get a new car every two or three years, but one or two babies through
the life of their marriage is plenty. You can get drunk on an airplane,
laugh hysterically with your mates, and still not really anger people.
But if you dare bring a crying baby on board you will be given
malicious looks as if the little thing is a package that ticks. If you
walk your dog along the street, people will stop you to tell you how
cute he is. If you walk down the street with a baby, you might find a
woman or two who coos, but for the most part, you'll be utterly
ignored.
Indeed, the contempt shown to parents of many children is the last
acceptable prejudice in our society. As a father of a large family, I
find myself apologizing wherever I go, as if I committed a crime. The
frequent and loaded stares from scornful onlookers imply that the
famine in Africa was caused by my selfish insistence on overpopulating
the earth. Long ago my wife and I discovered that few hotels were
prepared to accommodate so many children, even if we took three of four
rooms, which is why we bought an RV for travel.
How strange to live in a world where loving children casts one in
infamy. Having a family with many children implies a backwardness and
primitivism that is deemed unbecoming in the developed countries of the
West. Large families, it is thought, exist only among religious
weirdoes or the teeming hovels of the Third World.
Rich countries, by contrast, prefer to increase their standard of
living rather than the number of the living. Looking at Western birth
rates for the year 2001, the United States averaged only 14.2 births
for every thousand Americans, and the birthrate among white Americans
is so low that the United States will soon lose its white majority.
Indeed, one can go for days in a wealthy city like Manhattan without
encountering a single pregnant woman. Riches and children have become
inversely proportional such that the more of the former, the less of
the latter.
Hence, the high birth rates of extremely poor African nations like
Uganda - at 47.52 births per 1,000 - or Niger with 50.68 births per
1,000, are deemed to be prime causes and indicators of their penury.
The abundant fertility and unconstrained sexuality of these countries
confirms the unspoken Western mindset of these country's inhabitants as
being just one step above savages. Contraception has become a synonym
for civilization.
A Christian mother of six once wrote to me, "I find it troubling to
worry about getting pregnant again ... because I don't want to face the
criticism of friends and family. Why do people not see children as a
blessing?" A fair question which deserves a fair response.
Why is it that even many snagogues today are not children friendly? Why
are people impressed that Jay Leno owns 20 motorcycles, but disgusted
that some religious families choose to have 10 children?
Let's not finesse the response. We all know why. A world that has lost
its innocence has trouble appreciating beings who are innocent. A world
that has become selfish has soured to the idea of leading a life of
selflessness. A world that has become grossly materialistic is turned
off to the idea of more dependents who consume resources. And a world
that mistakenly believes that freedom means a lack of responsibility is
opposed to the idea of needy creatures who "tie you down."
They can go fly a kite.
By just looking at my children, I become more innocent. By loving them,
I become more noble. By spending my money on them rather than myself, I
find transcendence. And by being a father and liberating all of the
love in my heart, my spirit soars free. I work hard to support a large
family and I give up no pleasures in doing so because my children are
my foremost pleasure.
I am often asked by women dating men how to tell whether they are
marriage material. I tell them, "See if he enjoys children." A man who
loves children is playful. He will spend his life joking with his wife
because he loves to see her laugh, and will flirt with her because he
loves to see her smile.
There was a time when husbands and wives worked hard to ensure they
could afford the blessings of a large family. Today, the higher your
earning bracket the fewer children you have, but then we always knew
that many turn money from a blessing into a curse.
Before he died, the Lubavitcher Rebbe launched a campaign asking
parents to have one more child than they originally planned. It is a
campaign that a dwindling Jewish community should revive as it
continues to disappear.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
29 Apr 2006 08:52:52 PM |
|
|
I am from a family of 10 and I think it isn't fair to your children to
have so many kids. There is no possible way to give them the attention
they need. I truly believe you love your children, and that my parents
loved me. But kids need more than that. They need parents who can see
the child as an individual. I look at my siblings - we are all grown
now, the oldest is 48, youngest 32 - and I see how we are all hurt by
this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nancy S." |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
30 Apr 2006 10:12:01 AM |
|
|
<melissahduncan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146361972.346568.149890@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am from a family of 10 and I think it isn't fair to your children to
have so many kids. There is no possible way to give them the attention
they need. I truly believe you love your children, and that my parents
loved me. But kids need more than that. They need parents who can see
the child as an individual. I look at my siblings - we are all grown
now, the oldest is 48, youngest 32 - and I see how we are all hurt by
this.
Years ago I dated a young man who was one of 16 children. His mother had
several sets of twins and a set of triplets. He told me he barely knew his
parents as his father held down a part time job plus his full time job. He
was in bed by the time his father come in at night. There was no time for
any kind of relationship with his dad. His mother simply didn't have the
(quality) time to spend with each child since she frantically did laundry,
cleaned the house, shopped and tried to help the youngest ones with their
homework. She loved her children but just didn't have the time necessary to
have a relationship with each of them -he believed. What a shame! His
oldest sister and brothers left home as soon as possible because there was
no real family atmosphere there... just work and chores trying to help raise
the younger ones..... very sad.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
27 Apr 2006 04:27:08 PM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2006 03:22:19 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Off topic spam.
What does this have to do with abortion or the Freedom of Choice?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
27 Apr 2006 05:19:42 PM |
|
|
In article <tod252l6aemja7h558fp3glnnumbllup37@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 03:22:19 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Off topic spam.
What does this have to do with abortion or the Freedom of Choice?
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.
do you feel like a hypocrite criticizing others for doing what you
do? even osprey has legitimately commented on your hypocrisy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
27 Apr 2006 09:00:58 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
28 Apr 2006 04:03:05 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could
side with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed and
self centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'... but
I'd like to hear your side.
H
--
"What gift has Providence bestowed on man, that is so dear to him as
his children?"
-Cicero
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
29 Apr 2006 11:44:52 PM |
|
|
On 28-Apr-2006, "Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could
side with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed and
self centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'... but
I'd like to hear your side.
It's only irresponsible when people can't take care of the children.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
30 Apr 2006 04:32:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:44:52 GMT, wrote:
On 28-Apr-2006, "Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could
side with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed and
self centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'... but
I'd like to hear your side.
It's only irresponsible when people can't take care of the children.
Bringing a dozen kids into an already overpopulated world is
irresponsible no matter what.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
30 Apr 2006 09:28:27 PM |
|
|
On 30-Apr-2006, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
It's only irresponsible when people can't take care of the children.
Bringing a dozen kids into an already overpopulated world is
irresponsible no matter what.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
28 Apr 2006 05:23:59 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Hugh Betcha in episode
<1146258184.964431.255060@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could side
with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed and self
centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'... but I'd like
to hear your side.
You want to talk about self centered? Trying to genetically out compete
your neighbor by having a large family is self centered. Human population
is already dangerously high and the peak is going to be even higher. The
potential for a population crash has been lurking for years now.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
28 Apr 2006 09:50:55 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:FY-dnQ_yyt1iCM_ZRVn-jA@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Hugh Betcha in episode
<1146258184.964431.255060@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could side
with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed and self
centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'... but I'd
like
to hear your side.
You want to talk about self centered? Trying to genetically out compete
your neighbor by having a large family is self centered. Human population
is already dangerously high and the peak is going to be even higher. The
potential for a population crash has been lurking for years now.
Frankly, I don't see how people can afford it. One of the main reasons why
we didn't have another kid is the cost. My kid cost me over $800 a month
when she was in daycare until she got into 1st grade.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
29 Apr 2006 11:54:29 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Hugh Betcha in episode
<1146258184.964431.255060@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could side
with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed and self
centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'... but I'd like
to hear your side.
You want to talk about self centered? Trying to genetically out compete
your neighbor by having a large family is self centered. Human population
is already dangerously high and the peak is going to be even higher. The
potential for a population crash has been lurking for years now.
So what are you suggesting? Population control????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
30 Apr 2006 07:18:43 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, osprey in episode
<1146372869.197397.68110@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Hugh Betcha in episode
<1146258184.964431.255060@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could
side with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed
and self centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'...
but I'd like to hear your side.
You want to talk about self centered? Trying to genetically out compete
your neighbor by having a large family is self centered. Human
population is already dangerously high and the peak is going to be even
higher. The potential for a population crash has been lurking for years
now.
So what are you suggesting? Population control????
Don't have to. People will do it on their own in stable, prosperous
economies where cheap, effective birth control is widely available.
It doesn't cost much to do programs that provide birth control widely in
areas where its difficult to obtain. And its in the interests of the
first world to stabilize the third.
And what are these people who whine about declining birth rates
complaining about if birth rates aren't already coming down? The estimated
peak of human population has already been revised down once. Put some
effort into it we could stabilize at a number not that far from where we
are *now.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
01 May 2006 08:27:17 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, osprey in episode
<1146372869.197397.68110@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Hugh Betcha in episode
<1146258184.964431.255060@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could
side with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed
and self centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'...
but I'd like to hear your side.
You want to talk about self centered? Trying to genetically out compete
your neighbor by having a large family is self centered. Human
population is already dangerously high and the peak is going to be even
higher. The potential for a population crash has been lurking for years
now.
So what are you suggesting? Population control????
Don't have to. People will do it on their own in stable, prosperous
economies where cheap, effective birth control is widely available.
The point I am making is you can't do forced birth control. We can't
force people to take birth control in this country.
It doesn't cost much to do programs that provide birth control widely in
areas where its difficult to obtain. And its in the interests of the
first world to stabilize the third.
Sure, I support the idea of having these programs. But how do you
propose that we get people to go to these programs and take the
necessary steps "voluntarily" to control the population?
And what are these people who whine about declining birth rates
complaining about if birth rates aren't already coming down? The estimated
peak of human population has already been revised down once.
Actually, if I recall, it's been more than once. When I took a
genetics class, there is evidence in our DNA that at least, at one
point in time, we went through a MAJOR population decrease, and they
estimate this has happened throughout our history a few times. Sooner
or later, nature takes it's course.
Put some
effort into it we could stabilize at a number not that far from where we
are *now.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
01 May 2006 08:58:11 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, osprey in episode
<1146490037.669262.145870@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, osprey in episode
<1146372869.197397.68110@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Hugh Betcha in episode
<1146258184.964431.255060@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could
side with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed
and self centred cynicism that makes people look down on
'breeders'... but I'd like to hear your side.
You want to talk about self centered? Trying to genetically out
compete your neighbor by having a large family is self centered.
Human population is already dangerously high and the peak is going to
be even higher. The potential for a population crash has been lurking
for years now.
So what are you suggesting? Population control????
Don't have to. People will do it on their own in stable, prosperous
economies where cheap, effective birth control is widely available.
The point I am making is you can't do forced birth control. We can't force
people to take birth control in this country.
And your point is pointless. It's a red herring. You don't *have to force
people.
It doesn't cost much to do programs that provide birth control widely in
areas where its difficult to obtain. And its in the interests of the
first world to stabilize the third.
Sure, I support the idea of having these programs. But how do you propose
that we get people to go to these programs and take the necessary steps
"voluntarily" to control the population?
By opening the doors.
I hate to tell you this but those women in the third world having baby
after baby will line up far as the eye can see to get birth control. No
"force" needed. They know they can't take care of twelve kids. They *want
children but they don't want whole litters of them just to watch them all
starve.
And what are these people who whine about declining birth rates
complaining about if birth rates aren't already coming down? The
estimated peak of human population has already been revised down once.
Actually, if I recall, it's been more than once. When I took a genetics
class, there is evidence in our DNA that at least, at one point in time,
we went through a MAJOR population decrease, and they estimate this has
happened throughout our history a few times. Sooner or later, nature
takes it's course.
Nature's "course" in terms of the human species is for us to steer our
"course." We developed the ability to learn, reason, and plan tens of
thousands of years ago and started taking control of our "course." That's
how we got to a point of such a high level of population to begin with.
Curing diseases, extending life spans, reducing infant mortality.
A population crash from *this level could very well mean the permanent end
of human civilization. Think about it. When our technology got started,
metals were just lying around and oil could be had by poking a tooth pick
in the ground. Now the acquisition of materials and energy require a high
level of technology. A level you could not boot strap your way back to
without the easy access that used to exist.
If we let "nature take it's course," nature is just as likely to take us
down to being a small, backwards species stranded on a minor planet, being
kicked around by whatever natural forces come along until our eventual
extinction.
Nature does have a habit of weeding out the stupid...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"Corps chief admits to 'design failure'"
(Took them long enough)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3EF62DEC
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
30 Apr 2006 10:15:08 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Hugh Betcha in episode
<1146258184.964431.255060@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
<1146133339.338001.258410@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
The contempt shown to parents of large families
Because they're irresponsible.
So you say; care to elaborate? I don't understand that position; it
requires a HUGE degree of responsibility to raise children. I could side
with the good Rabbi and assume it's simply materialistic greed and self
centred cynicism that makes people look down on 'breeders'... but I'd like
to hear your side.
You want to talk about self centered? Trying to genetically out compete
your neighbor by having a large family is self centered. Human population
is already dangerously high and the peak is going to be even higher. The
potential for a population crash has been lurking for years now.
So what are you suggesting? Population control????
How about self-control?
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
29 Apr 2006 11:52:39 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
->Why is it that even many snagogues today are not children friendly?
Why
->are people impressed that Jay Leno owns 20 motorcycles, but disgusted
->that some religious families choose to have 10 children?
What is the income tax deduction for 10 children? It comes to $32,000
doesn't it? Now, if that religious person happens to give, for example,
$5000 tithing to his Church, the first thing you know they are paying
little or no taxes while the rest of us are paying through the nose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
01 May 2006 03:17:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
What is the income tax deduction for 10 children? It comes to $32,000
doesn't it? Now, if that religious person happens to give, for example,
$5000 tithing to his Church, the first thing you know they are paying
little or no taxes while the rest of us are paying through the nose.
I've found that raising a kid is just a wee bit more expensive,
when all is said and done, than the tax deduction covers.
I won't say that noone's having another kid because they
want the tax deduction, but such people are about as
financially responsible as someone on welfare having another
kid so the monthly check will be bigger.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
27 Apr 2006 05:28:48 AM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49074
World Net Daily? 'Nuff said.
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
I'M THE DECIDER
(Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when ***** shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...
Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong
I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
27 Apr 2006 06:09:15 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6budnd_-WKSMAM3ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49074
World Net Daily? 'Nuff said.
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
It's sound of trumpet. 'nuff said ;)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gulo Gulo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
01 May 2006 08:32:55 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49074
World Net Daily? 'Nuff said.
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
I'M THE DECIDER
(Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when ***** shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...
Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong
I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo
Unless Bush is having an affair with an older walrus, I think "koo koo
ka choo" is the wrong lyric ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Liberals Show Contempt To Parents Of Large Families? |
01 May 2006 01:30:51 PM |
|
|
On 1 May 2006 06:32:55 -0700, "Gulo Gulo" <gulo.gulo@yahoo.com> wrote:
--sexkitten-- wrote:
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49074
World Net Daily? 'Nuff said.
--
--sexkitten--
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
I'M THE DECIDER
(Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when ***** shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...
Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong
I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo
Unless Bush is having an affair with an older walrus, I think "koo koo
ka choo" is the wrong lyric ...
Actually, it's "Goo Goo Goo Joob."
Which, admittedly, doesn't make any more sense.....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions |
01 May 2006 08:38:43 AM |
|
|
You know, I think I could get behind an idea like this. Suppose we could
send the Fundies to Alaska?
WASHINGTON - The senior Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that
Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni
— with a central government in Baghdad.
In an op-ed essay in Monday's edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph
Biden (news, bio, voting record). D-Del., wrote that the idea "is to
maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious
group ... room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central
government in charge of common interests."
--
--sexkitten--
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.
-Aristotle
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions |
01 May 2006 08:39:27 AM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- wrote:
You know, I think I could get behind an idea like this. Suppose we could
send the Fundies to Alaska?
WASHINGTON - The senior Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that
Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni
— with a central government in Baghdad.
In an op-ed essay in Monday's edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph
Biden (news, bio, voting record). D-Del., wrote that the idea "is to
maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious
group ... room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central
government in charge of common interests."
Guess I could stick a link in there, too....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_11
--
--sexkitten--
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.
-Aristotle
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions |
01 May 2006 03:13:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 May 2006 06:39:27 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
Guess I could stick a link in there, too....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_11
Why? Joe's solution extracted from Bosnia is already been poo-pooed as
unworkable in Iraq.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions |
01 May 2006 03:41:02 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2006 06:39:27 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
Guess I could stick a link in there, too....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_11
Why? Joe's solution extracted from Bosnia is already been poo-pooed as
unworkable in Iraq.
By the same admin. that poo-pooed the law of the land, because their
office is above it? I don't think that's a valid opinion.
--
--sexkitten--
Be Like Christians! Create Your Own Religion!
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/religion/create/
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions |
04 May 2006 04:58:48 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 May 2006 13:41:02 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why? Joe's solution extracted from Bosnia is already been poo-pooed as
unworkable in Iraq.
By the same admin. that poo-pooed the law of the land, because their
office is above it? I don't think that's a valid opinion.
What law has been poo-pooed by the administration? So far, all is legal, to
especially include Iraq, wiretapping, and plame.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions |
04 May 2006 05:00:37 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2006 13:41:02 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why? Joe's solution extracted from Bosnia is already been poo-pooed as
unworkable in Iraq.
By the same admin. that poo-pooed the law of the land, because their
office is above it? I don't think that's a valid opinion.
What law has been poo-pooed by the administration? So far, all is legal, to
especially include Iraq, wiretapping, and plame.
Only in your obviously fertile imagination. Quite possibly the only
fertile thing about you, Duke, Unamerican-American.
--
--sexkitten--
God is dead.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions |
03 May 2006 04:29:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 May 2006 13:41:02 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2006 06:39:27 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
Guess I could stick a link in there, too....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_11
Why? Joe's solution extracted from Bosnia is already been poo-pooed as
unworkable in Iraq.
By the same admin. that poo-pooed the law of the land, because their
office is above it? I don't think that's a valid opinion.
Well of course not! It is, after all, Puke's opinion.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions |
01 May 2006 08:57:31 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 May 2006 06:38:43 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote:
You know, I think I could get behind an idea like this. Suppose we could
send the Fundies to Alaska?
Do we really want another place where religious extremists are in
control of the oil?
WASHINGTON - The senior Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that
Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni
— with a central government in Baghdad.
In an op-ed essay in Monday's edition of The New York Times, Sen. Joseph
Biden (news, bio, voting record). D-Del., wrote that the idea "is to
maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious
group ... room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central
government in charge of common interests."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
