Stop Having Children!!!

[Belial]

Just saw a clip where Nancy Peiosi pretty much says that having children is a burden to the states. This is in support of the stimulus package that includes the contraceptive measures. The idea is that somehow this will help the economy overall. So we are looking at sometime in 2010 before we see any kind of result. Thoughts anyone?

[Lex]

1. My thought is, what's up with the caps lock?

nt

[Belial]

7. Thank You.. missed that and corrected.. sigh.. I am such a noob at this

[tabatha]

2. The resources, both natural and economic, are overburdened

by too many people.

[L0oniX]

3. To be fare ...only the GOP repukes should be neutered.

:evilgrin:

[Dreamer Tatum]

78. Around the holidays here, half the threads are about having to deal with Repuke families

So I guess we'll be tossing some liberals out with the bathwater.


:eyes:

[NoSheep]

87. I'm in complete agreement with that.

A friend of mine's mother actually said she thought the Bush twins should be prevented from having offspring. She's in her 70's and quite smart. Actually, she said something worse than that but I won't repeat it here.

[L0oniX]

93. LOL

[ShortnFiery]

4. No, but it's an excellent Republican Talking point to not provide health care/family planning

to women. :thumbsdown:

I see the right to lifers saying that providing education, pap smears and family planning choices to women in the stimulus package EQUATES to "abortion on demand." :(

[CitizenPatriot]

66. they beat you to it

I already saw this on some wnd post;

"obama thinks killing babies will stimulate the economy!"

so tiresome.

[Taverner]

5. Honestly, I think you should get a tax credit for the first two kids, and PENALTIES for each after

Flame away

[Kitty Herder]

63. No flames from me.

I've thought the same thing for a while. The flip side of the coin, I believe the government should provide free contraception for anyone who wants it, no questions asked. Including vasectomies and tubal ligations. Most people don't want more than one or two kids anyway.

[CTyankee]

77. Yep, pro-natalism has always been linked with dictatorships!

We need a rational government, that's all. A government that responds to the peoples' needs and in this case, government can help people plan their families and have children whenthey are able to take care of them, both financially and emotionally.

If this is anathema, then I don't understnad their problem...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. Ahh, a slightly better version of what is happening in China

do you want to add sex selection abortions into that as well?

[Bucky]

6. But they go so well with my fava beans!

Slurp slurp slurp

[JuniperLea]

16. Bucky! Only at Easter!

And only Christian babies.

:eyes:

lol!

[enuegii]

49. Tender Baby Soylent Green Nuggets...

coming soon...

[Mz Pip]

8. Link?

I'd realy like to see that clip. I know Pelosi supports contraception but I never got the impression she was telling people to STOP HAVING CHILDREN!!!

[Belial]

15. Here is the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFU_jE9WasM

[JuniperLea]

20. At what point does she say anything like that?

I've watched it twice... what am I missing? Can you note the time?

[sandnsea]

24. "reduce costs to the states"

JFC what kind of birdbrains can't understand what she said. I cannot fucking believe the media is so completely distorting what she said.

[Belial]

27. JuniperLea - I am not trying to be difficult.. nor did I think I was

making RW talking points.. one of the things that I love about this place is how someone can see / read something and get some REALLY indepth perspectives from a wide range of people. That said..
What do you mean by "Note the time"
No.. she does not say those words.. however.. if you say that babies are a burden on the states and I think we need more birth control.. What kind of message does that infer?

Thank You

[sandnsea]

34. she didn't say that

She said family planning clinics are a burden on the states so the federal govt is going to help alleviate some of those costs -- so the states don't have to cut jobs or raise taxes and hurt the economy even more.

She didn't say one word about babies. It's 100% made up by the right wing who shoved it to the media who happily repeat it because they're stooges.

[Robb]

47. Can I recommend everyone skip the rest of this thread

...and just read this single post? Sandnsea nailed it.

[JuniperLea]

38. On The YouTubes... when you play a video...

There is a timer running.

No where did Pelosi say stop having babies... that is a RW talking point that has been happily spread around by the media... but if you pay attention to the video, Pelosi never says those words, yet you chose to entitle your OP with something that suggests she did. That is a patent RW and media trick... hence my confusion... I think:)

[Belial]

48. Gotcha.. I will confess.. I did enhance it a little to draw

discussion.. but.. if I had not.. I might not have gotten your very excellent points and insight.. I apologize for be crafty. :)

[Warpy]

9. One of the things that happened in the Depression

was a very low birth rate. What contributed to the Baby Boom years of the 1950s was the fact that women in their 20s, 30s, and even 40s finally felt secure enough to start their families.

Family planning money will help women do what they've always done in slim times without having to resort to the 30s solution of the back alley abortionist.

[JuniperLea]

10. Actually, improvement can start as soon as 9 months...

Because that's how long it takes to have a baby.

This is a common mistake when touting RW talking points... the logic, the truth, the real story.

[Belial]

17. I was giving a little extra time for the stimulus package to be signed..

[Oregone]

11. Its all parents fault. Blame the children. Blame the parents.

Where I live, parents seem to be one of the most powerful lobbies, with the conservatives even giving them money for their children. America is a different world these days.

[county worker]

12. I guess not having children will end the problem in a couple of generations.

We won't need to nuke each other and the rest of the animal and plant life can have the earth without us.

I don't have kids so I'm doing my part! Wait, what happens to the rapture if no one is here?

[Kitty Herder]

65. Ever heard of the voluntary human extinction movement?

Their motto is "May we live long and die out."

I'm doing my part. So far. I reserve the right to change my mind and have one or two kids.

[taught_me_patience]

13. Having children contributes to economic growth

We need to replace our aging population by having more children and allowing more immigration. I disagree with your idea and believe that it will be harmful to our society in the long run.

[wuushew]

29. There are very apparent limits to growth

also humans don't support the elderly, money does. As long as retirees have savings and there are easily taxable rich in a society I won't worry. How many nurses and care workers does the average nursing home require? Certainly the workers are greatly outnumbered by the residents.

Nothing says you have to maintain negative population growth indefinitely. The ideal sustainable population level is a subject of great interest.

Are you predicting the imminent collapse of Japan as a nation? This is not its first period of non-growth. Prior to forced relations with the West, Japan had a stable population profile for centuries.

[taught_me_patience]

33. I don't think we've remotely reached the limits

of population growth. Population can grow at 2% for the next 50 years. Social security will be in serious trouble if new workers are not able to pay the liabilities of the system. That's just the way the system works.

Yeah... I think japan is in real economic trouble over the next 30 years or so as their population ages...

[wuushew]

41. Make social security a true entitlement in a welfare state

people would still contribute into the system and get benefits relative to their input.

Social Security is a kick the can down the road system so ultimately why not address the transition now instead of a USA that is 500 million-billion in number?

Since wealth is derived from natural capital I fail to see the point of adding more consumers while the assets are fixed or declining in quantity. All you are accomplishing is a per capita decline in the standard of living.

Oil is in decline, gas will peak in the next fifty and coal is an environmental nightmare. These are where our fertilizers, plastics and consumer goods all come from. More people is not the answer. Unless conservation continuously keeps up with population you are going to lose.

[FarCenter]

51. 2% growth for 50 years gets the US to a population of about 800 million

Way too crowded.

But obesity won't be a problem.

[taught_me_patience]

54. I see no reason why the U.S. can't support 800MM

people. There is plenty of room and technology will advance, making food more plentiful and available.

[Lorien]

85. Delusional thinking

our infrastructure is strained as it is. The planet's resources won't hold out another 40 years for the population that exists today. Technology can't save us, only better choices today-which includes zero population growth.

Earth 'will expire by 2050'
Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

The end of earth as we know it? Talk about it here

Observer Worldview

* Mark Townsend and Jason Burke
* The Observer, Sunday 7 July 2002
* Article history

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

[Harry Monroe]

91. What food will be plentiful??

Soylent Green??!!

[Hannah Bell]

58. if today's worker can produce 5 times more goods & services than yesterday's,

why would you need to keep adding workers?

only if the boss is taking most of the value of the added production.

if not, it works out just fine.

[Lorien]

84. Stop thinking with your wallet

read the environment and energy forum for a change. It can be very sobering.

[blogslut]

40. Perhaps, but you speak of - replacing

That is the concept of zero population growth. Succeeding generations are replaced - not increased. If a couple produces two children, they replace themselves for the next generation. If the couple has four children, they have doubled their contribution to the next generation.

There are times and locations where an in increase in the population is beneficial. An example would be one of these dying little towns, up here in the Texas panhandle. However can a mid-sized city like Lubbock, TX thrive, with an increased population, when the whole nation is on the brink of financial disaster?

How much growth is too much? How many poor people are having children they can't afford because they have no access to family planning services? I speak about the panhandle of Texas. Do you know that there are only two Planned Parenthood facilities to cover the needs of 26 counties and 26,000 square miles? In fact, the two Amarillo facilities had to change their name and excise themselves from Planned Parenthood in order to keep their doors open.

Amarillo is a mid-sized city with a population just under 200,000. The national money woes are going to catch up to them soon enough and if some of that 'birth control' munny in teh stimulus package makes it to the newly named Texas Panhandle Family Planning and Health Centers, I'm all for it.

[Lorien]

83. Having children also contributes to climate change

having no viable planet to sustain human life will be very, very harmful to society. The World Wildlife fund estimates that we humans will run out of all major natural resources by 2050 at current consumption rates. Ready for a REAL world war?

[Sanctified]

14. What happens in 18 years when we face a shortage of workers/tax payers? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

19. Or young men and women to get sucked into the WAR machine?

:wow: We have plenty of workers. Having fewer children is WISE when families are strapped for cash.

[Sanctified]

53. Large families do better in Depression Era economies.

More children under one roof equal more workers under one roof.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Back when there was an agricultural economy that might have been true

But unlike any previous depressions, there is no self sufficiency almost anywhere anymore and people rely on markets to survive. If all of those kids can get jobs then great. But if it's a depression era economy, chances are they can't.

[Cleita]

28. We will get immigrants like we always have in the history of our nation

to make up for the shortage of workers, who will pay taxes and keep our country going.

[flvegan]

18. But then who will the pit bulls bite? I mean

considering how hard wired they OBVIOUSLY are due to generations being bred to attack children. :eyes:

[JuniperLea]

25. LOL!!

Oh man... I didn't even see that one coming!

:rofl:

[K Gardner]

26. I know its not funny, but ROFL !

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Also if there's no children then there won't be any breastfeeding in public

What will we ever do???

[MountainLaurel]

68. Wish I had known that

When I was a kid I could have asked my pit bull to attack several kids who pissed me off: creepy boy down the street, the neighbor girl who told me it looked like I didn't comb my hair. (Amusingly, the only dog we had who did attack someone was our golden retriever. And that fucker deserved it.)

[Vektor]

76. Hahaha! Best post ever.

Ok, one of them. ;-)

[sandnsea]

21. We don't want states to cut women's health

I sincerely hope nobody on this board is going to buy into the right wing bullshit on this one.

[JuniperLea]

22. Ahhh... you went and said it out loud...

I was expecting to see someone really toy with the OP a bit first and get the RW talking points down;)

[Belial]

30. Absolutely not.. If anything health care spending should be

increased.. I think there are plenty of studies that show prenatal health care are almost a necessity.

[dkofos]

23. Tell the pope.

[Cleita]

32. The Pope doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant and having babies.

He has no say in this matter, IMHO and Catholics should tell him so. You know the Catholic Church had no objection to family planning until the middle of the nineteenth century. Up until then the Church considered anything having to do with child birth women's matters and nothing to do with the Church whose provenance was spiritual matters.

[dkofos]

36. He doesn't worry much about contraception either.

He just ignores it.

[mike_c]

31. I wholeheartedly agree!

There are WAY too many people on the Earth. Want to do something good for the environment? Get a vasectomy!

And before anyone asks the obvious question-- yes, I did. Almost thirty years ago.

[stillcool]

35. All women need access to contraception....

and it will be extremely beneficial to the health of our families, and our society. The anti-choice crowd should be shouting hallelujah from the mountain-top. What's your problem?

[ihatehannity]

37. how about we apply this to the hate-mongers

Let's get hannity not to produce any offspring.

actually lets go further than that... how about nobody on fox news can have children

[kitty1]

39. Pelosi means stop having children if you can't afford to raise them....

and you're looking for the government to support you. I agree to a point, that if you can't find the means to pay for the basic necessities of life to keep a family going then maybe you should stop having them after the first 2 or so.
It's a different situation of course when there are many families thru no fault of their own, are displaced from their jobs and already have an existing family they need to support. That is the hard reality these days everywhere and that can't be helped. This is usually a temporary situation, and people need a hand up in times like this.
However, when people are already living in poverty and can't afford to feed a bunch of kids,let alone themselves, then really go spend a few bucks to get some birth control and prevent a future burden on everyone involved for years to come.

[Hannah Bell]

44. Government war contracts support her & her brood of five; their walking around

money comes straight from government coffers, made from blowing up resources & people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. Ahh, more code words for Minority Welfare Queens?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kashka-Kat]

43. Uh... what did she actually say? I mean, instead of "pretty much says"

As we are exceeding carrying capacity of earth its not a bad idea to be thinking of how to curtail population in a safe humane way. Have heard it said that wars for oil are nothing compared to what wars for water will be.

Not sure if that relates to what was said by Pelosi, but there it is!

[sandnsea]

50. See #34

Sustainable living is certainly a valid issue - but that isn't remotely what she was talking about.

[otohara]

45. And Stop Feeding The Existing One's McDonalds

problem solved.

[brentspeak]

46. FOX News and the Limblows of the radio world are hawking this non-story.

[spin]

52. Well if we all stopped having children...

we wouldn't have many problems in one hundred years.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. Talk About Melodramatic Overreaction.

Having children that can't be afforded IS a burden to states. She's 100% right. What is your complaint exactly?

[Lagomorph]

59. Wouldn't that leave 40,000,000

of someone else's grandchildren to pay off the national debt?

[Sultana]

60. She should tell that to the Duggars

[ThatsMyBarack]

69. When I saw the OT....

I thought it WAS a message for the Duggars!

[Richard D]

61. I personally think everyone should stop having children . . .

. . .for around 20 years, or have a strict one child per family policy. Let the earth have a break from it's infestation of humans for a while. there's way too many of us.

[Deja Q]

62. That's bizarre. Or is she hinting at there won't be jobs for children when they grow up?

:(

[NoSheep]

86. There aren't any jobs for adults now!

[annabanana]

64. ok. . .

(of course it's easy for me to say. . those days are GONE)

[8 track mind]

67. but, but , but ,

the bible tells us to be fruitful and multiply!!!! Having bucket loads of kids is like godly and stuff!

:sarcasm:

[Sultana]

73. .

:eyes:

What about the other religions?

[EmilyAnne]

70. I see nothing wrong with sane, rational family planning. Of course, since having a child is seen

a "miracle" by a certain kind of person, Nancy Pelosi's comments will be seen as irreligious, sacrilegious, anti-christian, anti-family etc. etc.

[mainer]

71. Europe and Japan and China will be having problems soon

precisely because they stopped having children -- or enough children, anyway, to replace their current aging population. As much as we'd like to "unburden" the earth of too many humans, if we don't at least maintain replacement numbers, our economy collapses. Social Security (which is, after all, a sort of Ponzi scheme) can't function without new workers putting in money to pay benefits to their elders. Without a new generation, there'll be no doctors, nurses, or aides to take care of the older generation as it ages.

I, for one, am glad I had children. They're grown now, but they are a continuing source of joy and delight, and despite their horrid teenage years, I will never, ever, ever regret having had the honor and the pleasure of knowing these two wonderful human beings.

[cynatnite]

72. She's right. n/t

[erebusman]

74. i dont think so

As an expectant father of a young man due in early May I'm simply going to have to NOT march in step to this one!

[readmoreoften]

75. Yes everyone knows that poverty is caused by having too many children...

That's why the Bush family is so poor. Or maybe it's caused by massive exploitation of labor. For example, people in Nicaragua who earn 19 c. a week can't afford condoms and abortion is illegal. Oh, and its as easy to raise 1 kid as it is 5 kids. Hell, they can start contributing to the family after they're old enough to hold stuff. In the US, it's not much different.

I have zero children and I'm pretty damn poor.

[Initech]

79. Watch late night Comedy Central... that aint fuckin' happening.

Seriously the ads I see there - alcohol, chat rooms, text messaging, boner pills, contraceptives, feminine aids, and birth control - un fucking believable.

[SoCalDem]

81. I did just that...waaay back in Dec 1978...No children born here since then

:)

[balantz]

88. Uh-uh...sorry, can't stop now. Momma's got number 20 in th' oven right now.

Tryin' t' beat the ol' record with th' ex, she pushed out 19 b'fore she keeled over.

[NoSheep]

89. But but but the repukes need cannon fodder!

[Harry Monroe]

90. Sure wish George HW and Barbara would have been practicing contraception in late 1945!!

Then perhaps the last 8 years would have never happened!!

[stuntcat]

92. I wish everyone would listen

Humans have quadrupled in a VERY short Earth-time. Now we're causing a mass-extinction and trashing our own future.. we're chopping down acres of old forests every day, blowing off mountain tops for a few hours of coal, killing whole parts of the ocean.

I blame every single person who pushes out a new Western consumer from now on. I blame them each for the mass-extinction and I blame them for giving the next 90 years to an innocent soul.