18...make that 19 children...

[crandc]

I feel bad for you that you can't understand why people believe in such things. I think they are out of their minds but I don't feel it needed to judge them like you do. If you don't like the way they are raised, what do you want to do? Outlaw it?

Do you really want to open that door? If we are going to start outlawing things that people have a right to do, watch out.

By the way, those children and women who would have died might be in heaven laughing at you and me right now. I doubt it but please prove them wrong.

I don't understand why you want to invent things I never said. I never said outlaw having 19 kids or being a religious reactionary. I do say they have no right to impose their sexist homophobic religious bigotry on my life by outlawing what I do. Which they insist they have the "right" to do.

I agree with those who say they should not be rewarded with extra tax breaks, or for that matter, publicity.

I can't prove someone is not in heaven. The ones who claim there is a heaven and that a given person is there have the obligation to make their case, not me.

Actually, I do understand why some women believe in such things. They've been told from the time they learn to talk that their value is in producing offspring, preferably male, that being a woman means they are inferior and subordinate. That they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to offer their god or the world but their uterus. It's like the health care debate, keep saying death panels and people start thinking it's true. But at some point a person has to start thinking for him/herself and question whether what he/she hears is true. I admit it's hard when someone is kept from hearing alternate views.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Just wondering, because I don't know anything about this family. Any one of those 18 kids been in jail? Dropped out of school? Said that they resent their parents for taking their childhood? Gone hungry?

I didn't get to play Little League b/c my parents were a two-income household and I had to babysit my brothers after school from the time I turned 9 1/2 and was able to get the CPR card the base required. I only had two brothers--is it immoral to have 3-child families?

 

[maxiep]

As soon as I tell everyone else to be infertile, then I'll be a hypocrite. The difference between thinking everyone should be infertile, and thinking that having 19 kids is criminal is rather substantial. But I'm not surprised you fail to grasp that.

And I'm not surprised you fail to grasp that you're actually advocating government-mandated family limits. Why do you hate freedom?

I'm sure there were people like you 100 years ago in China and Japan who thought the same way. What about the current generations right to happiness? Or do they not matter?

Hayseed, that's not much different than Manhattan. I'm sorry you haven't traveled enough to know that every part of Japan or China isn't Tokyo or Hong Kong.

It's amazing how some refuse to learn from the past. Who's the more fool, the fool or the fool who follows it? A great man once said that.

I agree wholeheartedly. You're following fools before you.

 

[Erroneous Subterfuge]

And I'm not surprised you fail to grasp that you're actually advocating government-mandated family limits. Why do you hate freedom?

We have laws on abortion, marriage, and adoption, why not on the amount of children you can have? What's the difference?

Hayseed, that's not much different than Manhattan. I'm sorry you haven't traveled enough to know that every part of Japan or China isn't Tokyo or Hong Kong.

Hick, I can guarantee you I've seen much more of the world than you.

No shit not all of Japan and China are like that yet, but they're sure moving closer and closer to it each day, just like us... I'm simply amazed you can't understand this basic concept. My view is based on nothing more than common sense and necessity. I'd love it if we lived in a perfect world where people could do whatever they want without any consequence, but we don't.

 

[Nate Dogg]

That's just nasty. Really though, can you imagine her woman parts?!?!?!?! Bologna sandwich on wheat!!!!! Extra cheese!!!!!

Its too bad she doesn't have an expiration date!


Dante, your avatar picture looks like that woman is ready in a gloryhole room!

 

[maxiep]

We have laws on abortion, marriage, and adoption, why not on the amount of children you can have? What's the difference?

And who says those laws are good?

Hick, I can guarantee you I've seen much more of the world than you.

Golly, if you guarantee it, well I guess that settles it.

No shit not all of Japan and China are like that yet, but they're sure moving closer and closer to it each day, just like us... I'm simply amazed you can't understand this basic concept. My view is based on nothing more than common sense and necessity. I'd love it if we lived in a perfect world where people could do whatever they want without any consequence, but we don't.

Like I said, you can help with overpopulation. You just have to decide whether you're willing to make the sacrifice.

 

[Erroneous Subterfuge]

And who says those laws are good?

Please answer my question. What's the difference?

 

[maxiep]

Please answer my question. What's the difference?

Sure. Right now the law of the United States says marriage is between one man and one woman. That means gay people are exluded as are people who believe in polygamy. But why does government concern itself with marriage at all? What business is it of the government's who loves one another? It seems to me to be one concerning the church. Governmental interference in marriage is a bad idea. Just like your idea is a bad one.

 

[yakbladder]

Violent? I am just tired of hypocrites wanting to tell other people how to fix these supposed problems, when they don't do anything to fix it themselves. You can keep your sarcastic comments about drugs and shady corners and use them as a suppository.

Poor guy, I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry if you feel violence is your only answer.

 

[BenDavis503]

Do what you want with your body. Unless you're one of the gays.

Not that theres anything wrong with that!

lol

 

[yakbladder]

Yeah, Erroneous Subterfuge said to make it illegal,

I stand corrected, my apologies. My personal viewpoint is that it wouldn't be made illegal and as others had responded to that I wanted to set the record straight.

However, if I said that I'd also vote that homosexuals could get married, but not get "married tax credits", would that be right/fair/bigoted? I mean, the "dis-incentive or not" issue is up to them?

Except that homosexuals getting married don't further burden the system whereas having 8+ kids most definitely does.

As for people utilizing services they're not paying for: how many programs do we have in our country that are used by people who don't pay taxes? How many renters send their kids to school on my property tax? I don't have kids!

And as I said earlier, it's already not fair with non-parents getting penalized. I think that's why we need a different way to tax people that is more equitable. That being said, I think that education is a compact (to a point) that society makes among itself to educate their citizens.

 

[Erroneous Subterfuge]

Sure. Right now the law of the United States says marriage is between one man and one woman. That means gay people are exluded as are people who believe in polygamy. But why does government concern itself with marriage at all? What business is it of the government's who loves one another? It seems to me to be one concerning the church. Governmental interference in marriage is a bad idea. Just like your idea is a bad one.

Think you misunderstood, I'm not asking for your opinion on the laws or a definition of them, I'm asking what the difference is between regulating those things and regulating child-birth.

I'm with you on marriage, so at least we agree on something. I think the need to regulate child-birth (reasonably) in this day and age is much more important than outlawing gay marriage. I don't see the problem with gay marriage at all.

I can tell neither of us will budge, so if you feel like continuing this feel free to PM me. Otherwise you can have the last say and I won't be reading it.

 

[Eastoff]

...
By the way, those children and women who would have died might be in heaven laughing at you and me right now. I doubt it but please prove them wrong.

The Hindus say that their gods have many arm, one for each ability. Prove them wrong.

 

[Eastoff]

...
I'm sure there were people like you 100 years ago in China and Japan who thought the same way. What about the current generations right to happiness? Or do they not matter?
...

Actually Japan has been declining and they are encouraging their citizens to have chidren. They are starting to consider giving more right to their second class citizens to get more population. But yes, China and India more so, are the problem.

 

[Eastoff]

Sure. Right now the law of the United States says marriage is between one man and one woman. That means gay people are exluded as are people who believe in polygamy. But why does government concern itself with marriage at all? What business is it of the government's who loves one another? It seems to me to be one concerning the church. Governmental interference in marriage is a bad idea. Just like your idea is a bad one.

Married couples have certain rights that dating couples do not. If I am married to a wealthy woman and she dies, I now have power of attorney unless otherwise stated. But if I'm dating a wealthy gay man, most states we can't married. If he doesn't have a will, and he dies, his family that he may hate, would get all of the resources. This is a very greedy example, but it makes the point that married couples have rights that dating couples do not.