too many children rant

[akemt]

Well, when they stop making corn into corn syrup and ethenol and stop using all our other grains and produce to create alcohol by the barrel-ful, then MAYBE I'll start to listen to the overpopulation debate.  Thanks for your input, stinkerbell.  Self-sufficiency is the key. 

The "libertarian philosophy" served our country well untill we started messing with the safeguards and standards of our government.  Now it is so very unrecognizable from what it was that you cannot look at our current mess and say it wouldn't work because of how things run now.  It did work; that is why people feared our country as an enemy.  Socialism is NOT the answer when it has failed every other country and civilization that has used it.  It is failing us already and yet we're pushing farther and harder towards it like that will solve our problems.

[Sonoran]

"Well lets see, you impeded on others when you slide into a family of four and killed two of them."   Exactly my point.  If I had been wearing a helmet it would never have happened.  Therefore it is a justifiable law on the basis that it does prevent me from impeding on others.

  But here are some other issues...drunk driving, texting while driving, smoking in buildings.  By the way, try and examine the inverse of this argument.  A person wants to smoke inside a building.  We tell him he can't because it impedes on our happiness.  At the same time we are impeding on his happiness because he can't do what he wants.  So why is it that we win, and get our way and he loses?  Because more people are being affected in a negative manner by his smoking than those who are being positively affected by his smoking.

Same thing with population control argument. Except it's more than a room full of people who are being affected.

Certain countries produce certain things because that's the only way they can gain a comparative advantage in trade. 

Then I think about how the whole self-sufficiency thing works.  In the 1800's, families would have large amounts of children in order to have help on the farm.  It also adds security because if someone get's hurt there are other people to carry the burden.  One thing parents would do was work on having enough money so that they could help their children get started on their own land when they were old enough.  Then the process would start all over again.  Families who farmed for a living were still dependent on other people. And often in debt for their land, which they would struggle to pay when there was a bad harvest.  In this sense, the only way to be self-sufficient, is a reliance on an exponential growth of the population.   

Being self-sufficient today is just as difficult as it was back when people were considered to be self-sufficient.  If you examine the issue before the time period I have suggested you may argue that it was easier, but then, why would it be harder when land was free?

Keep in mind that the U.S. only has 12% of the world's arable land.

[StinkerBell]

Well back to riding the motorcycle. Getting a drivers license is a privilege not a right and therefore you have to abide by the rules. The thing is automobiles/motorcycles where not an issue the forefathers had to deal with. This is why those laws are considered tort laws. However, having a dozen kids back in the day was a person right and probably common practice.


What I think you could argue is that there should be guidelines/laws about embryonic issues, seeing the technology is not addressed by the constitution. BUt then again, imo it is none of my business how many kids a person has as long as they can provide for them. With that said, knowing for information about the OP I consider what happened as medical malpractice. I also blame the women's parents for enabling her. Above all she is responsible for her actions too.

[ScottA]

The way I see it is as soon as you start to limit who can have kids and how many you open a can of worms. Before you know it only the rich will be allowed to have kids because they can afford them and afford to game the system. Next they'll pass laws that people with freckles can't have kids then it will be people with curly hair and so on until some ideal is reached. Nature by it's very nature will find away to break any such laws and this will cause more problems. When there are enough people nature will limit the population. We don't need to do it. As for the food issue, any scarsity of food we have now is man made. There are dozens of former small farms around here that are now deserted. Less land is devoted to food production now than there was 50 years ago.

[Dog]

Guess What! Mom wants 2 million dollars for an interview! ahhhh

[StinkerBell]

I agree Scott that we should NOT control how many kids a person has. However, we do have the power and capability to regulate reproduction technology. That is where I think certain laws could be passed.

[Redoverfarm]

Just to throw fuel on the fire.  I heard on the news that she got divorced just one year ago and that the ex-husband is not the father of any of the children and she has no one else to support them.  On the upside, she is a college graduate with a degree in child development, and she is currently going to school for a masters.

I think she will need it.

[StinkerBell]

Cable news (I believe I was watching headline news today) said she was never married and her parents in the last year claimed bankruptcy.

[wildbil]

I believe we can all agree that there shouldn't be any rules for how many kids, but there should be no artificial fertilization. that solves this problem. Although just cause there isn't rules about having kids doesn't mean people should stop using common sense.

[Ernest T. Bass]

I agree.. Artificially implanting embryos (especially outside of marriage!) is morally just as wrong as artificial contraception is, especially abortion in any form. Other side of the same coin. People selfishly trying to play God....

[Jens]

Affordable, basic health care; local organic produce and products; and an almost total breakdown of the technological, and commercial framework of this world; that is the only way in which I see the world taking care of population, health, degradation of family, and finally getting a sense for helping each other.  The rich will still have what they have, and possibly more, and as written, there will always be poor among us, but if we learn to look within ourselves, and our communities, trust, and practice compassion, mercy, grace, and courage, then we can succeed.  Until then, well, God help us, cause no political system can.

I agree that number of children should not be limited, but also that fertility drugs are used too often.  I also think that abortion should be permitted, but that it is used too often.  I think that we need to teach our children that when they have sex, they must be ready to be a parent that day.  We aren't ever ready, but we must be willing, otherwise we end up with the "mistakes" that don't get enough attention, etc, and end up being takers.  We as a society need to learn to take responsibility for our actions, regardless of the consequences.  That doesn't mean not helping people who need it, with welfare, or personal donations.  Until we all take care of each other, that we may take care of ourselves, and help out those that need it, that in our hour we will be helped.  This is my prayer, that we may all (society) have this epiphany.

For the record, I have 4 children, some of my friends have four, my single father friend has 2, my sister-in-law has 6, and a good friend is from a family of 16 children.  I met a family from the area here with 15, and 1 on the way.  They sing together in performances, they are all homeschooled (God give that mother peace), they take care of their own, and yes, kids do end up raising eachother.  But how is that any different from a family with 2 kids?  I am an only child, by my cousins and I raised eachother.  We had to do things like dishes, and laundry, but in my day (and in my house now) we call that "participation", and "chores".  Kill the T.V., and put the kids to work.  Guess what, they will complain about either thing!  But at least if they grew up helping, and serving, they will have a better chance at helping and serving later in life.

Oh, our kids also read, bake, cook, garden, build, draw, sculpt, and clean up their own messes (most of the time  )

Shalom

[glenn kangiser]

I agree.. Artificially implanting embryos (especially outside of marriage!) is morally just as wrong as artificial contraception is, especially abortion in any form. Other side of the same coin. People selfishly trying to play God....

I have been told that my mom should have sat on me when I was born, Andrew.... would that be natural rather than artificial? hmm

[Ernest T. Bass]

For some reason, I can never think of those great witty responses to your questions, Glenn... I see no reason why that wouldn't be perfectly natural....

Jens, how can you say that abortion is not murder? No offense, but I can't rationalize it any other way...

[tanya]

I think people who can manage to survive a big family should go for it!!! They have alot of support and who cares really if they get a bunch of welfare?  After all for every welfare caseworker trying to find a reason someone shouldn't get assistance 40 more people could be fed.  By the time we figure out insurance and benefits and pay for the fat lazy state workers a lot more people could be fed.  The govt. takes the tax money regardless and they are spending it on far far less pleasant things than feeding and clothing children in my opinion.  And you know I hear a LOT more bitching about welfare parents whether they have one child or twenty than I do about tax dollars being spent on wars, and corrupt govt. workers. My daughters husband comes from a family of 15 children, god gave those children one by one to his parents who accepted and love them as well.  His sisters each have 6-8 kids and several borthers still are not married or to young to have children.  Here I am with ONLY ONE grandchild and her other grandparents have 27!!!!  I have no competition as far as the cousins go, all the cousins are at the other grandparents house.  By the way the adult children all work and contribute to the tax base even most of the younger ones work early on, yeah it takes more to get by but once they grow up they make up for it.  And one of thier children is in a coma from a car accident several years ago, luckily there are PLENTY of relatives willing to pull together to make sure he lives withthe family rather than in an assisted nursing home, which would cost a pretty penny too.  See god knew they would need that many kids to take care of that situation, and I just don't see how it can be so bad to have one's own army.  It's good to see the posts from everyone I have not had internet at home for a number of months so that is why I have been missing.  

[glenn kangiser]

Good way to come back, Tanya.  Good rant for the other side.

I view most government jobs as being in the same class as welfare.  They are parasitic as a fact -- there are only two types of income - that from people who work and that from parasitic jobs who derive their income from taking money from those who work.  (Ref Murray Rothbard- Anatomy of the State) Wait a minute -- three types now --- they can just print all they want. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html

I encourage family members  to take the parasitic jobs anyway - as long as we are paying for it some of our own may as well benefit.  They are dependable jobs - the government is not about to quit taking money from us so there should be no stigma attached.  I like to see welfare used when necessary to help get someone back on their feet but not especially as a way of life.

[Ernest T. Bass]

Only problem with gov. jobs and welfare are the strings attached... They always get something out of the deal, and it's usually a lose of your freedom in some way.. 

[glenn kangiser]

Yes - they are not for me, but for someone who is not a self starter and motivated, I think they are good.  Note that of course that blanket statement can't cover everyone.   

Now... If I could only find one that paid me about $250 k per year ..... but alas. I am uneducated.  

[Jens]

When I got fired from the phone company, I applied for assistance.  They said that my family of 4 would get $500.  If we make any money, they start reducing that.  Rent was over $1000!  The system is designed to keep you doing as little as needed if you want help, that is wrong IMO.  IMO, people should get assistance, not a hand out.  Denmark's system of welfare and unemployment is actually much better sounding to me.

Ern, I do not agree with abortion on any level, but I agree less with the government telling someone what they can and can't do within the limits of their own body.  Next thing, they'll be saying you have to be on life support, even if you don't want it, cause otherwise you'll be committing suicide which is technically against the law.  We as humans try to play God way too often (at all is too often IMO), and so I do not agree with either, but I worry about legislation.  In some very isolated cases I am ok with abortion, but the cold hearted side of me just says insha-alla...if God wills it.  The thing is, I think God is tired of man trying to make up the rules of the game, and so he interferes less with our self-destructive behavior.  I do that with my kids sometimes.  If they don't listen, sometimes they just have to find out the hard way that yes, concrete is hard, you can fall out of trees, when your sister punches back it hurts, etc.

The fact that it is a part of the woman's body at that time, that is the only thing that makes me contest the illegality of the situation.  Do I like it?  No.  But I don't like the alternative either.  IMO, the world would be a better place without it, but we are not without it so the question becomes, how do we protect our people.  Plus, to the gov, an adult woman is worth more than a fetus.  Wrong I think, but like it or lump it, that is the way it is.

Tanya, at least you don't have to worry about it being your house that is trashed after family days!  That's the other grandparents!  Our friend of 16, there are 50 or so grand kids in that family.  The calendar has a birthday every week!

[tanya]

Oh I have had a party here and I would have another.  The kids are really great but there were a couple of adults who wanted to brawl after to much fun of course.  No brawling allowed here I had to get a little mean!!!  Now they call me mean grandma

[Ernest T. Bass]

Life support can get to be a gray area nowadays, but abortion is crystal clear as human life is present before birth. Whether helpless and attached to the mother by an umbilical cord or not, it is still a living human soul. Killing a baby would clearly break the commandment, "Thou shall not kill"... I agree that the gov. shouldn't be dictating how we must live, but this isn't a mere man-made rule...

[StinkerBell]

THREAD HIJACK....I am so very sorry but I can not help myself with this one.

Ernest....It should be Thou shall not murder.

Hebrew the language that most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.The punishment for murder was the death sentence.However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.

[Ernest T. Bass]

The Catholic Church has maintained the original interpretation of the commandment using the word "kill", because the word "murder" is too limited and legalistic to accurately describe the Hebrew word ratsach. As long as the act of killing is approved by a legal entity, it is not murder. Because of this, the definition of "murder" varies from one jurisdiction to another. For instance, if someone is killed (accidentally) in the course of committing a felony in Pennsylvania, the killer is a murder. So basically, according to the KJV translation the killer is in mortal sin, but only because he happened to be in PA.

That being said, the interpretation of the word "kill" is the same as "murder" from a basic point of view.. The dictionary translates murder as "The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought", and that serves us pretty well. No need to split hairs...

If you want to dig down to the nitty gritty of the literal meaning of the word "murder", though, it is an inadequate translation for ratsach.

[glenn kangiser]

hmm I thought it was "Ape shall not kill ape... " 

[Jens]

A Ford and a Lincoln are both cars, they are even both made by the Ford Motor Company, but they are far from being the same car.  Although something may look like chicken, sound like chicken, doesn't mean it is chicken.  If the intent of the law was to target killing in general, then God would have never  told Israel to kill people.  Apparently, the difference in perception of the word must be great.  That is nothing new though.  Throughout history the church has been known to change words of the Torah to words that more clearly fit their ruling stratigies when they write their versions.  Cain murdered Able, he knew what he was doing, he performed the act with intent.  One of the mitzvot is that you shall put walls around the roof of your house so that if somebody falls off who is a visitor, you will not have blood on your hands.  By your logic, if that were to happen, that is considered murder.  If you threw a baseball, and it came down and hit somebody, they died, that would be murder as well.  Sorry friend, just doesn't jive with my way of thinking.

I'll not contribute to this hijack any more.  Fini. 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Certainly not all killing is condemned by the commandment. The bible itself and the Church further clarifies exactly what the word "kill" is referring to. Since the English language has no accurate word to translate the original Hebrew, the general word "kill" is used because it's the only word broad enough to fill in the gaps. Obviously it's not a sin to kill an animal for food, or to kill in self defense, etc. The ten commandments are very short and abbreviated, and you have to look a little deeper if you want to know exactly what they entail.