If it is considered unacceptable to pass judgment on a woman

[Le Taz Hot]

who has made the decision to have an abortion, at least among liberals, why is it OK to criticize a woman's choice as to when and how many children she does decide to have? I just find it blatantly hypocritial to defend a woman's right to one choice (abortion) as being pro-choice but denounce another (having multiple children) but which is also pro-choice.

[FormerDittoHead]

1. Being a man, here's what I think...

:popcorn:

[niyad]

2. is there some particular example you have in mind?

[atreides1]

5. The Duggar family

Number 20 is on the way.

[abelenkpe]

10. Knew a guy in ghana who had 80 children

and many wives. The Duggars are lite weights.

[pitohui]

114. was the man in ghana doing it to be on teevee?

did the man in ghana have the ability to get an abortion?

is ghana a country of 300 million people with advanced computers, tech, and robots such that there are good jobs for only a tiny fraction of those people, so that most people invest thousands of dollars in education only to end up bitter and broke?

i think not

[Le Taz Hot]

8. It started with this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2261880

I was just dismayed at the derision the woman received from so-called "liberals" for exercising her right to reproductive choice.

[Matariki]

42. When someone's decisions have a negative impact on the world we have a responsibility to criticize.

At this point in time, having 20 children most certainly has an enormous negative impact on the world we share.

[RainDog]

84. exactly

and, as I said elsewhere, the Duggars use their children to make money and to support an ideology that has a regressive view of females.

THEY chose to make themselves public figures whose fame rests upon their decision to have so many children.

If they were private citizens walking down the road, I wouldn't say a thing. but when they made a decision to be public figures whose fame rests upon their reproductive choices, they are putting that decision into the public sphere for discussion BECAUSE of their reasons and because of their choice.

If a woman went on television to say that all women should remain childless, then she would also be opening herself up to public debate.

[musette_sf]

47. I think she (and hubby) are abusing their children,

especially the female children who end up doing ALL the housework and ALL the child care (of the younger children). I think it is child abuse to have 20 kids, dump ALL the workload on the female children, and endanger your own health in the process - thereby making even MORE housework and care responsibilities to dump on the female children. I've seen the TV show a few times, and they work the female children as housekeepers, cooks, child care, and care of Mrs Duggar The Eldest since her pregnancies become more and more risky and require more and more bedrest. It's obscene.

[arbusto_baboso]

98. If you knew more about her situation you might not think she has much "choice"

The quiverfull types are more like "subjects" to their husbands.

[trof]

99. You have a right to do really dumb stuff.

That doesn't make it not dumb stuff.
:shrug:

[Nye Bevan]

3. It's like free speech. That's why I respect the ACLU; they defend unpopular free speech too,

like the right of the KKK to march.

[Drale]

4. Well as far as I'm concerned no one should have more then 2 children

We have a population crisis that we are going to have to deal with, or it will cause irreparable damage to the earth.

[Nye Bevan]

7. If nobody has more than 2 children, humans will eventually become extinct (nt)

[redqueen]

11. That seems illogical.

At least to me, the implication from the previous post was that such measures, since made necessary by exploding population, would be no longer be required once the population stopped exploding.

[abelenkpe]

15. Many countries are not replacing their population (Italy for example)

and if every couple only had two children statistically a certain percentage would not survive to adulthood and humans would not replace themselves slowly leading to extinction....

And not everyone has children. Not everyone ends up in a relationship. Blah blah blah...

We'll kill ourselves through violence and war before that happens.

[redqueen]

25. Did I not just say such measures can be logically inferred to be temporary?

The key word in your post is "slowly".

Temporary measure + slow changes = not worthy of "but we'll go extinct!" nonsense. IMO.

[Matariki]

35. The total WORLD population is increasing in a decade at a rate that used to take more than a century

So what possible difference does it make if the population isn't growing in one particular region (Italy for example).

Look at this:

1804 - 1 billion
1927 - 2 billion
1960 - 3 billion (years elapsed: 123)
1974 - 4 billion (years elapsed: 33)
1987 - 5 billion (years elapsed: 14)
1999 - 6 billion (years elapsed: 13)
2011- 7 billion (years elapsed: 12)


Do you think that's sustainable? I don't.

[abelenkpe]

56. K worry about it all you want

Knock yourself out

[Matariki]

58. Whether a person worries or doesn't worry doesn't change the effects of over-population.

The level of damage done to the planet in terms of pollution, killing entire species, resource distribution, etc, is undeniable - unless you have your head in the sand.

That said, the real causes of over population aren't so much people like the Duggars having crazy large broods. The places with them largest explosions in population are places with high child mortality rates, lack of social safety-nets for the elderly (apart from having a large brood of children), and lack of education and equal opportunities for girls and women. Addressing those issues has proven to bring down over-population.

Interestingly, and where people like the Duggars and all those 'Quiverfull' lunatics come in, is that fundamentalist religions really seem to want to prevent or destroy the solutions to those very things.

[abelenkpe]

65. Matariki

I think all you've posted is spot on. I'm not arguing with you. We should do all we can to provide strong social safety nets, education, health care and secure jobs for every nation and person on the planet. The cynic in me just thinks we'll probably destroy the earth before that can happen. I mean look at the crazy people running for office in our own country. Can you imagine any of the republican candidates with the ability to declare war or launch a nuclear attack? I'm glad that there are people like you who have solutions to very real problems other than gaping at the rising lunacy within our own country. I hope we get a chance to solve them one day and that my own kids get to grow up in a better world.

PS. I only have two and that is enough :)

[Matariki]

68. Yeah, I get cynical too.

It often seems that people will piss in their own drinking water before doing anything rational.

[TheManInTheMac]

61. World population, yes. Not US population.

What do you propose? Genocide in countries where population is expanding?

Do you think that's acceptable? I don't.

[Matariki]

67. Genocide?!? Seriously?

Read my post above - #58.

ps, on edit. If nothing is done then eventually genocide will occur on it's own. Look at what's happening in, for instance, Thailand right now. Hundreds of people killed from record-breaking floods. Flooding that is lasting a very long time. You don't imagine this has nothing to do with global warming? And global warming has nothing to do with over population?

[0rganism]

80. classic example of exponential growth

look at the doubling times -
1-2 billion: 123 years
2-4 billion: 47 years
4-7 billion: 37 years, and we'll likely hit 8 billion around 2020 (i.e., about 47 years from 4 billion)

Which means, for the last century or so, the human population's been growing at approx. 1.5% annually.

The only sustainable exponential growth rate in the face of limited resources is 0%.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. actually, it's slowing down, and NOT exponential.

you can thank contraception, secularism, improved living standards and PERSONAL AUTONOMY.

[0rganism]

85. well, it would have been nice if you were right...

...but the doubling times over the last 2 centuries tell a different story.

1-2 billion took 123 years, i.e. under 0.6% annually.

Sure looks like the growth rate has jumped up since 1927.



2 out of 3 of the UN population estimates shown have the population hitting 8 billion before 2030. That's consistent with over 1% annual growth.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. since the introduction of the pill, it has slowed. It's still growing, but not exponential

the take-away lesson is, in places with high standards of living, personal
(esp. religious) autonomy, rights for women and access to reproductive services, population growth manages itself, outliers like the Duggars notwithstanding.

[0rganism]

89. until i see evidence to the contrary, i'm assuming an exponential model

population growth can usually be modeled piece-wise by exponential curves. if there is a slowing, in the absence of catastrophic singular events, it can still be modeled by a lower growth rate.

and again, any growth rate higher than 0% is NOT sustainable.

[laundry_queen]

106. I don't think you can assume an exponential curve with human population

since the invention of reliable birth control. Generally, populations that follow the J-curve reproduce at a rate that reflects their ability to exploit their environment until the environment can no longer support the population, then it crashes. While a crash surely may still happen, with rapid globalization and education of women, along with access to reliable birth control, I think you will see the human population stabilize yet within our lifetime (well, mine). Think about it, when I was born, most of the world had NO access to birth control. The birth rate has been falling since then, all over the world. Sure some places still have an average of 6 kids, but those places 40 years ago had a birth rate of 11 kids. We're headed in the right direction, however it will remain to be seen whether or not we can slow down and reverse population growth before our finite resources are all used up. I think the only humane way to try to control it is to support programs for women that promote education and free access to birth control.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. okay, evidence to the contrary:

(That's the problem with this 'issue'- people think they know what they know- statistics and real-world evidence notwithstanding)

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm

The world's current (overall as well as natural) growth rate is about 1.14%, representing a doubling time of 61 years. We can expect the world's population of 6.5 billion to become 13 billion by 2067 if current growth continues. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years.

Is it still growing? Yes. Is it growing exponentially? NO. Like I said, since the pill, it has slowed, and is now almost entirely a localized phenomenon dependent on largely economic and cultural factors.

[0rganism]

123. wait -- you cited an EXPONENTIAL GROWTH MODEL as counter-evidence?

When someone says "the growth rate peaked at 2%" they mean exactly EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. The fact that the doubling time of a 2% rate is 35 years shows directly the use of the ln(2)/AGR method to get their number. 0.70/0.02 = 35 year doubling time.

The growth rate may increase or decrease, but it's still an EXPONENTIAL growth rate. For instance, the doubling time in the 1960s of the 2% (annual) growth rate was 35 years, and now the doubling time is more like 50 years -- that's an improvement, but it's still exponential, and unsustainable. A growth rate of 0.5% would get us to 14 billion people in 140 years (2160). That's certainly better than some projections, but we'd better have more agriculture and efficient industries ready to feed and clothe all these people than we do now.

Sorry to disappoint you, but our population's growing AND it's growing exponentially, overall. Currently, the highest growth rates are in Africa, the poorest continent on the planet -- those folks are facing a tough time. When we outgrow our limits, nature takes over and provides us with famine, pestilence, and war. Look at where the high rates of disease, starvation, and civil unrest are, and they'll line up nicely with where the population's growing quickly.

I think we agree on this much: availability of birth control and education of women makes a huge positive difference in reducing the population growth rate. More of both is especially needed in Africa.

[Warren DeMontague]

124. saying it's growing exponentially NOW implies that it's not just growing, but the rate is increasing

Otherwise, it's not 'exponential growth', it's just 'growth'.

I mean, that's the point of those scary looking reverse ski-jump population graphs, nevermind the fact that the lion's share of that growth- and attendant growth rate- is attributable to little developments like sanitation, modern medicine, antibiotics, etc.

Funny, you don't hear much complaining about those.

My point- and we probably do agree to an extent- is that the so-called population 'problem' is localized and dependent upon largely economic and cultural factors. Where people are free, their standards of living are good, and they have access to contraception, they control birth rates on their own.

[0rganism]

126. hardly the implication

exponential growth indicates that the next quantity delta is proportional to the current value. If you just want to call that "growth", go ahead, but please understand that there are other types of growth (e.g., linear, polynomial) and your use, even in this context, is obfuscatory and nonstandard.

I'm not going to explain all the math now, that's not important, you can look it up yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth_model

> the lion's share of that growth- and attendant growth rate- is attributable to little developments
> like sanitation, modern medicine, antibiotics, etc.
> Funny, you don't hear much complaining about those.

Indeed. We generally consider those to be progressive social goods, but they do exacerbate the problem of population growth in the setting of limited resources. If you have a free hour or two, maybe take a look at Albert Bartlett's excellent lecture, Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

He covers exactly this point -- the things that are seen as civilized, decent and beneficial leading to unsustainable population increases. And he also discusses the various ways we can choose to limit our population growth (birth control being by far the most comfortable) before nature does it for us.

> the so-called population 'problem' is localized and dependent upon largely economic and cultural factors

I think we agree that it's more of an issue in some places than others, but we appear to disagree on the reality of the problem itself.

> Where people are free, their standards of living are good, and they have access to contraception, they control birth rates on their own.

While I generally agree with you on this, I think we likely differ on what constitutes the premise. With respect to the African nations experiencing the highest birth rates, I believe access to contraception and controlled birth rate will necessarily precede higher standards of living and greater personal freedom, especially for women.

[Drale]

12. If it goes on forever yes but safe guards don't have to last forever. /nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. 7 billion.

SEVEN FUCKING BILLION. At 2 kids per couple, it will take until 2300 to reduce that to 6 billion - where we were 12 years ago.

There is NO danger of humans going extinct for having too few kids.

[Matariki]

37. + six billion

It's hard to believe people don't get this

[redqueen]

43. Thank you for doing the math... 2300...

forgive me if I do have an authoritarian streak, but I do think this needs to be addressed.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. how?

How, specifically, would you like 'this' to be 'addressed'?

Also, the majority of population growth in the US comes from immigration. Were you aware of that?

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Robble Robble Robble

[Occupy_2012]

44. The Chinese have had one child for years.

Their government came to the conclusion decades ago that if they didn't have less than the replacement number of children, the country would be destroyed by overpopulation. It's decades later now, and they seem to be prospering just fine. In most cases, a smaller, better educated population is better. That's why the U.S. and England were so prosperous for so long, not because their popluation was larger than China's. There is also the issue of overpopulation causing pollution, particulary water pollution, which causes diseases and epidemics. We could lose 5 or 6 billion people and be fine, probably more. It would take centuries to do that, unless some epidemic, famine or pollution wipes us all out. If that happens, overpopulation will be what caused the end of the human race, not people not having babies. You know people will always have babies.;) I don't get the fear that people aren't going to have enough babies. There's no evidence for that. Just the opposite.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. A lot of the 'not enough babies' stuff comes from racist organizations

which are actually worried about 'not enough of OUR babies'. Europe is going to be overwhelmed by brown immigrants because the white natives are not having enough babies. Israel cannot allow Palestinians to return because the Palestinians will outbreed them. Quiverfull is virtually entirely (and maybe entirely) a white christian organization - I am unaware of minorities pumping out babies for god under Quiverfull auspices (though there may be a few - the threat they see is non-christians taking over the world).

We are likely moving into an era of pandemics - with so many billions living so much closer together and the intermixing of populations, it is almost inevitable that there will be a bug come along that NO population will be safe from. At one time, disparate populations that were widely separated kept that from happening. The Black Death devastated China, the Middle East and Europe, but pretty much left Africa untouched and never made it to the Americas at all - I don't recall its effect on the Indian sub-continent. We don't have those protections anymore, and the more people there are, the greater likelihood of it happening.

[Nye Bevan]

50. China's one-child policy has been a disaster,

Illegal children will be confiscated
The one-child policy is not just a human-rights abomination; it has also worsened a demographic problem

Stealing children is not an official part of Beijing’s one-child policy, but it is a consequence of rules that are a fundamental affront to the human rights of parents and would-be parents. The policy damages families and upsets the balance between generations. It is so hated that even within China it is now coming under political attack. For the first time a whole province, Guangdong, with a population of over 100m, is demanding exemptions (see article).

Chinese officials are fiercely attached to the one-child policy. They attribute to it almost every drop in fertility and every averted birth: some 400m more people, they claim, would have been born without it. This is patent nonsense. Chinese fertility was falling for decades before the one-child policy took effect in 1979. Fertility has gone down almost as far and as fast without coercion in neighbouring countries, including those with large Chinese populations. The spread of birth control and a desire for smaller families tend to accompany economic growth and development almost everywhere.

But the policy has almost certainly reduced fertility below the level to which it would have fallen anyway. As a result, China has one of the world’s lowest “dependency ratios”, with roughly three economically active adults for each dependent child or old person. It has therefore enjoyed a larger “demographic dividend” (extra growth as a result of the high ratio of workers to dependents) than its neighbours. But the dividend is near to being cashed out. Between 2000 and 2010, the share of the population under 14—future providers for their parents—slumped from 23% to 17%. China now has too few young people, not too many. It has around eight people of working age for every person over 65. By 2050 it will have only 2.2. Japan, the oldest country in the world now, has 2.6. China is getting old before it has got rich.

The policy’s distortions have also contributed to other horrific features of family life, notably the practice of aborting female fetuses to ensure that the lone child is a son. The one-child policy is not the sole cause, as India shows, but it has contributed to it. In 20 years’ time, there will not be enough native brides for about a fifth of today’s baby boys—a store of future trouble. And even had the one-child policy done nothing to reduce births, the endless reiteration of slogans like “one more baby means one more tomb” would have helped to make the sole child a social norm, pushing fertility below the level at which a population reproduces itself. China may find itself stuck with very low fertility for a long time.


http://www.economist.com/node/18988496

[Occupy_2012]

57. The problem isn't that China has a shortage of children.

The problem is that both China and Japan don't value their girls, which manifests itself in different ways. In China, people have literally thrown girl babies in the street to die of exposure, for hundreds of years, long before this policy, because society values boys. Boys care for parents in their old age, girls care for their mother-in-law. Girls are a worthless investment in their eyes. That's why they allow so many girl babies to be adopted. The number of boy babies being adopted from China is very small. In India and many other countries where people can have as many kids as they want, they abort girls because they don't want to pay for girls' dowries which can be very expensive. Now they have male/female population inbalances, which could be easily solved by encouraging female immigration (it was done here in America, in the early days), but these cultures don't tolerate marrying foreigners easily in many cases. They don't want a lot of half-foreign babies "diluting" their culture and bloodlines. Chinese often are prejudiced against other Asian cultures and people, thinking them "inferior."

Japan has no birth limit. Their problem is boys are extremely spoiled, girls are treated very unequally in the workplace. Seldom are they managers, they are responsible for child rearing, and it's common for husbands to work very long hours, then drink in bars with co-workers very late. Every night. It's part of the social custom, and done in part as a way to show you are loyal to your company team. Wives are left at home to raise babies with very little time with their husbands. Girls got so sick of this arrangement they quit marrying. Now, "vegetarian boys," young single men, don't even want to marry, they want to stay home and play video games and never even date or take on adult family life. So now you have a culture that has so discriminated against women, and has so little tolerance for racially mixed kids, the entire culture is dying out. That's natural selection. Nobody's making them do this.

We'll never have this problem in America, because although whites are reproducing at a low rate, foreigners come in as they always have. Our culture changes every century or so as new waves of immigrants come in - African, Irish, German, WWII Jews and other refugees, Mexicans, Russians etc. After a period of adjustment, they all go into the melting pot. We adjust. It's societies that refuse to adjust that die out. America's population isn't rising due to new babies, it's new immigrants, who usually are younger and have larger families. Immigration props up the tax base and social programs like pensions and social security. Want to solve the social security problem? Put a lot of illegal Mexicans on the books and make them pay into it. That will raise the number of payers supporting each payee. My retired dad's union's pension fund was saved by young Mexican carpenters.

[provis99]

54. yet the Chinese population continues to grow at a fast pace.

I think there's a little cheating on that whole "one child" thing, which doesn't apply to rural areas anyways.

[hamsterjill]

24. Thank you.

I agree with you totally. I believe that is responsible parenting.

[Abin Sur]

66. What steps should governments take...if any...to keep people from having more than 2 kids?

[Scout]

69. no tax credits for more than two per couple/one per single person n/t

[Abin Sur]

70. Actually, I would be in favor of eliminating all tax credits for children.

Whether or not you have zero children or twenty, it's *your* decision, and the government shouldn't play a part.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. you're trying to solve a 'problem' that doesnt exist.

Population growth in first world countries where people have a high degree of personal and sexual autonomy (yes, even to do things you don't approve of) freedom from intrusive religious institutions and access to reproductive services, MANAGES ITSELF JUST FINE.

But it's really not about that, is it?

[Scout]

92. oh for fuck sake, you and your "you just want to CONTROL people"

who do things you don't like crap.

did i say people CAN'T have as many children as they like? did i say make it illegal to have more than X number of children, no i did not.

i said stop giving tax credits. do you have the same complaint for Abin's post?

[Warren DeMontague]

116. wow, how reasonable you must think you are.

still, it's NOT A PROBLEM, because the US birthrate is hanging around replacement-- in fact, US population growth is due, essentially, to immigration.. So aside from 'fixing' something that doesn't need fixing, you'd be hitting a lot of lower income families, particularly those in immigrant communities with traditionally big families, and you'd be doing it in a misguided quest to solve a problem that isnt there.

The way to address population growth is through education, contraceptive availability (as well as all other forms of reproductive care, for both people who do and don't want kids) and standing up to the forces & institutions (cough. the pope. cough) that try to run peoples' lives for them.

Oh, and raising standards of living, wages, sanitation, health care, etc.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. Nonsense. The population of the US has doubled in the last fify years.

And it is not because we've had 150 million immigrants in that time.

but please, enlighten me. What is it REALLY about?

[Warren DeMontague]

119. yeah, don't bother with actual facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2009 is 2.01 children per woman, which is below the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1.<8> However, U.S. population growth is among the highest in industrialized countries,<9> since the vast majority of these have below-replacement fertility rates and the U.S. has higher levels of immigration.<10><11> The United States Census Bureau shows population increases ranging between 0.85% and 0.89% for the twelve-month periods ending in 2009.<12> Nonetheless, though high by industrialized country standards, this is below the world average annual rate of 1.19%.<9>

[Warren DeMontague]

75. the so-called 'population crisis' is a localized, cultural and economically dependent phenomenon.

I assume you're talking about stomping on over to Guinea-Bissou or one of the other countries that has a reproductive rate of 7+ and passing laws on THEM re: how many kids they can have?

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. Can you count to 7 billion?

Long before you get there, there will be 12 billion people on earth.

Borders are fictional lines. When some countries have far more people than they can support, those people will cross those borders. Overpopulation is EVERYBODIES problem, not just the problem of the countries with the highest population growth.

Your attitude is exactly like that of people living in a gated community, unworried about the crime and poverty in the slum down the road. When they come busting through your gate, THEN you start to worry.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. okay, so borders are fictional lines. What do you propose, since US birthrates are already

below replacement levels?

Those borders may be 'fictional lines', but something accounts for the difference in birth rates.

But let's cut to the chase, since this is 'everybody's problem', and obviously lowering local birthrates as has been done since introduction of the pill isn't enough for you.

C'mon, hard-nosed realist. Let's hear the plan.

[redqueen]

6. Maybe it has to do with excess.

Some people are just big fans of moderation, sustainability, etc.

I haven't read it but I assumed this was triggered by the Duggan thread. She hasn't just had "multiple" children, she's had 20 and is working on more (at least that's what the headline claimed). So it's not so much multiple children as it is so many that it really is shocking in this day and age.

[seabeyond]

9. i can have my opinion, in either situation. i can even "pass judgment" if i want. to deny her right

to have 20 kids would be more in lined with denying someones right to an abortion

[Le Taz Hot]

13. And I just think that we either defend

a woman's right to choose or we don't. Either way, the savagery that was displayed in that post was pretty disturbing.

[seabeyond]

18. i agree with you. i dont care what the woman does. i dont think it is healthy in a number of ways

and that is about all the opinion i have on it.

[cui bono]

45. I haven't read that other thread, but I disagree.

Having a lot of children doesn't just impact the woman or her family, it impacts the entire planet and its inhabitants. We have an overpopulation problem, a big one. I think it is selfish and dangerous for people to have more than two children. And that's not just the woman's choice, those familial choices are made as a couple, so it's the husband's choice as well in a hetero couple.

I honestly wonder when legislation has to kick in to save the planet, though I don't like legislation to be that intrusive, but when it's a matter of keeping the earth able to sustain life it may be necessary.

And defending a woman's right to not have to endure a forced pregnancy is no where near the same thing as being critical of people who choose to endanger the sustainability of our planet.

[fizzgig]

14. i judge the crap out of her choices

but i'm not going to advocate that choice be taken away.

i can support the right to choose while personally disagreeing with the choice.

[Bunny]

16. The distinction was pointed out to you repeatedly in that thread

We can criticize anyone's decisions about anything at all. What NO ONE in that thread did is attempt to restrict her right to choose how many kids to have. I can criticize a woman's choice to have 20 abortions all I want. What I can't do is try to restrict her choice.



Do you REALLY not get it? Because I would be embarrassed to admit that I have no ability to distinguish between the two.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. Please address the questions posed

on this thread -- it's why it was created so as not to further hijack the other one. The question in this thread has to do with why it is NOT OK to judge a woman exercising her reproductive choice (abortion) but it IS OK to judge a woman exercising her reproductive choice (having multiple children). And just for future reference, I'm never embarrassed to ask questions.

[Matariki]

60. Well I've answered your question numerous times in this thread

and you've yet to acknowlege it.

I'll say it again - the choice of a woman to not have a child impacts only her and her partner or family. The choice to have twenty children at a time when the earth's population is doubling in less than a single generation impacts all of us. Negatively impacts all of us. And therefore it is reasonable and responsible to say something and try to discourage people from making choices like that.

It's also reasonable to address causes of over-population such as child mortality, food distribution, elderly care, and female equality on a global basis. Then this argument probably wouldn't be necessary.

[REP]

102. It also effects those (female) children forced to raise their siblings in the case of the Duggars

In most cases, huge litters of children are detrimental to the CHILDREN, whether it is a scarcity of food and other necessities or simply parental attention/affection, nurturing and discipline. It is simply impossible to give equal attention to 8, 9, 10 or more children simultaneously. All these things can have lasting negative lifelong ramifications for the CHILDREN involved.

When a woman has an abortion, it affects only the woman - and numerous studies have shown, that effect is minimal and transitory. And yes, I can cite them.

[niyad]

22. thanks, have been out of touch recently. the OP clearly does NOT "get it"

[Odin2005]

Ever heard of overpopulation?

[meegbear]

17. If a woman had 20 abortions, I'd criticize her for that ...

20 abortions? Get your tubes tied or become celibate.

[Warpy]

19. I feel very, very sad for her and for her daughters

because the eldest daughters have been turned into surrogate mothers for the younger children and robbed of their own youth by the crackpot Quiverful movement. They all exist within a bubble: home schooling, home church, no dating, and only brief association with other children from Quiverful families.

I save my rage for the movement, not the women trapped within it.

[RobinA]

29. Not Only

the daughters for having to be mothers, but ALL the children for being herd members instead of having the individual parental attention human development is based on. It's mind-boggling.

[City Lights]

21. I referred to her as a "freak" in that thread.

Having 20 children or 20 abortions makes her a freak in my book. However, I would never try to deny her the right to make her own reproductive choice. Choosing birth or abortion is her decision.

[hamsterjill]

28. I referred to the act of having 20 children as "disgusting" in that thread.

And I state that fact again here. It is completely disgusting to me.

And as stated in that earlier thread, it is not about her RIGHT to have 20 children; it is about the advisability of her doing it.

There is no way that two parents can properly take care of, both emotionally and physically, TWENTY children. Most parents in today's world who have two children are run ragged. The Duggars draft the older children into doing some of the parenting. And while the older children are certainly capable of caring for some of the needs of the younger ones, their efforts in doing that should NOT replace the parental involvement. It's the ratio of parents to children in this situation that I believe is ridiculous.

I also think it's a ratings boost. And if they aren't in for the money, then why are they doing a television show in the first place?

[Zoeisright]

49. Bravo!

That's exactly it. Besides the fact that the world does NOT NEED more people. We're at a tipping point in population growth, climate change, pollution, dwindling resources, clean drinkable water, etc. etc. etc. Celebrating this sick large family size is only exacerbating the problems.

[City Lights]

53. Can you imagine trying to help that many kids get their homework done?

:crazy:

If I had 20 cats or 20 dogs, I'd be considered a hoarder, and the animals would be removed by animal control.

[Matariki]

23. Personally I think these are two different issues

But whether we'd agree on that or not - there is a HUGE difference between criticizing someone and passing laws aimed at controlling reproduction.

Why I say it's two different issues is because while no one has to live with a person's choice to NOT have a child, we ALL have to live with the effects of overpopulation and all the problems that go with that. Having huge broods of children at this point in human history is staggeringly selfish and ignorant and the reasonable response to that is criticism and social disapproval. That or we may be eating each other later on.

[redqueen]

27. Very well said. (nt)

[Angry Dragon]

31. +1000

I was thinking along those same lines

[cui bono]

46. Exactly, that's what I said. Plus forced pregnancy is a completely different

thing than not having more than two children.

[Occupy_2012]

51. In other words,

Having two chidren, if you like children, is very nice. Having even one child, if you don't want to have sex with that person or have or raise that child, is very horrible. Horrible is different than nice.

[cui bono]

59. Huh? n/t

[riderinthestorm]

55. Exactly. +1 nt

[efhmc]

121. You did a great job of showing the difference.

[Matariki]

26. delete

duplicate

[undeterred]

30. I totally agree with you.

[slackmaster]

32. I pass judgments on anyone at any time as I see fit

I don't allow my opinions to be confined into arbitrary restraints based on vague group categorizations.

[ohheckyeah]

33. Absolute right to choice doesn't equal

an absolute right to freedom from criticism. I'm sorry if that concept is to complex to grasp.

[Iggo]

36. I'm not saying she doesn't or shouldn't have the right to have as many or as few as she wants.

I'll defend that right to the death.

My opinion, however, is that she's had way too many.

You may not like my opinion. You may come right out and say that you think it's wrong.

But I expect you to defend my right to have an opinion and to express it.

Same thing.

[treestar]

38. I see your point on the choice issue

but then there is another issue about sustainability of population. OTOH, I can't see any way to limit the number of children people have without it being severely tyrannical. It's a conundrum. Mostly we need to see increase in living standards which brings down birth rates.

[Tsiyu]

39. Didn't read the other thread

Already know what's in it.

But I will add some math.

I have 15 cousins.

Those fifteen cousins have in turn had 11 children between us all. We are in 40s to 50s so that's about it for our procreation.

I've found many in my generation - outside of my family, in US - did not have kids.

(Of those eleven children born to fifteen cousins, six are mine.)

[Bluenorthwest]

40. That's pretty funny material....

Supporting free speech surely does not mean one can not criticize speech one does not agree with and supporting choice does not mean one has to support the choices others make, just their right to make them. The right to do a thing is not the right to do it without reaction.

[dtexdem]

41. Reproductive rights are just that: rights.

We can always be subject to criticism for how we exercise our rights. The important thing is to support such exercise, even if we criticize it.

[lapislzi]

52. Either way, it's none of my business.

But I may have an opinion about either one.

Being a parent, I can assure you that a child, while a joy, is also a crushing responsibility. I might easily have chosen not to, knowing today what I didn't know 18 years ago.

I hope people who choose to reproduce know exactly what they're getting into...and take the very, very long view.

Unfortunately, I don't think that happens too often.

[Solly Mack]

62. For many, myself included, it is a question of choice

when we see people such as the Duggars/ or the 'quiverfull' thinking (I'm not convinced Michelle Duggar isn't all about the Benjamin's at this stage of the game..she may have started out as quiverfull but, I dunno. The price does seem to be right these days)....if you're reared to believe your most important function in life is to produce children, then where is the choice? If you're reared to believe you are subservient to a man, then where is your choice? If you are raised to believe that children come from some God and it is all up to some God if you have children or how many you have, where's the choice?

If you don't know that you have choices because you don't know what those choices are, then there is no choice.

Not true choice.

It would be impossible to deny that certain beliefs do limit choice. That said limitations are almost exclusively placed on the woman.

So, where's the choice?

How do you make an actual choice when you aren't allowed your full range of choices? (and this goes for anything)

That a woman willingly, or seemingly so, allows herself to be oppressed/limited/restricted by allowing men, other women, or an institution such as religion to determine what choices she has doesn't change the fact that she is still limited in her choices, and the question does arise - 'Is she making a choice based on all the information - or on the limited information she is allowed to have?' 'If she wasn't taught to believe she has only one function, would she make a different choice?'

If you've been raised to believe that you're beneath a man, not worthy, second-class, bad or will go to hell - if you don't adhere to some arbitrary rules that limit your choices....Well, I call that coercion, emotional blackmail, and a controlling and oppressive environment.

Where's the choice in such an environment?

Point being, a lot of us question whether there was a real choice involved for those women who make it their life's mission to have a lot of children.

Have 0 children or 30 children....it is your choice. But by choice, I mean just that.....that you have choices (plural - many - multiple - more than 1)

A lot of the mocking you see is a reflection of our own fears for the women in question (and women in general)....I fear for Michelle Duggar and other 'quiverfull' women. I don't know that they are making their own choices or just doing as they're told because of the limited choices they are confined to due to the religious rules imposed on women.

How does anyone choose to oppress themselves? Why would they?

It happens (or appears to)...and that's a scary thought.

How does anyone choose to kill themselves by continually having kids when they know their health is at stake? It's not selfless to knowingly put your life and the life of the unborn child you claim to love at stake. Michelle Duggar or fetus dies this time around, the man will claim it was "God's will" - as if they had absolutely no control over it. Why would I ever celebrate a belief system that dismisses a woman's death so casually?


A woman has the right to have as many children as she wants...or to not have any children at all. But that doesn't mean I can't question whether or not she truly had a choice.

See...I want to have choices as a woman...and I want all women to have choices. Poverty is a limiting factor in choice. Religion is too. Ignorance limits choice.

This goes ever so much more deeper than just reproductive rights and choices. It's about women, period. About sexism and misogyny. About our equality and our rights. About the thinking that oppresses women in the home and the work place. In educational and religious institutions. Just walking down the street...

A woman having a lot of children sends up a red flag...and it only makes sense (to me) to question it...because this isn't a simple issue. And this could be a woman in trouble...and that matters to me.

Maybe I am being arrogant. Maybe I'm just wrong to think these women have no true choices.....but I've seen too much happen to women (myself included) to not question it.

Yeah, I make jokes (and will continue to do so)...but believe me...there's fear there. Fear for women...all women.

[LanternWaste]

63. Seems to actually be more than one discussion...

I think one of the problems in the discussion re: the OP is that is seems to actually be more than one discussion. We may talk about choice. We may talk about the personal responsibility angle. We may talk about world population problems. We may talk about the impact on the social safety net. And I imagine there are yet still other topics that may be found within the initial posit that I haven't seen discussed. In the number of threads I've read discussing this, a lot of us are conflating and confusing one discussion with another.




That being said, recognizing (or believing) her choice to be irresponsible is certainly not the same as denying her a choice any more than criticizing someone wearing an American flag speedo and nothing else to Wal-Mart is denying freedom of speech. I support his right to wear it, I support the infrastructure in place that allows him to do so-- but I still find it vulgar.

If we laud free speech yet deny someone the same to them, then we are hypocrites. However, if we laud free speech and observe, conclude and opine said speech being used in a manner we (on a wholly personal level) find distasteful, irresponsible, or simply icky, we are merely maintaining an opinion-- without endorsing the denial of the means of that speech.

We often have negative and positive opinions of what one or more people may or may not say, but we rarely have opinions (negative or otherwise) of a person's silence.

[SomethingFishy]

64. Try a poll... Ask how many women want to remain

pregnant for 20 straight years. See if you can find one.

This isn't a choice, this woman is brainwashed.

[Wait Wut]

71. Judging and making something illegal are different things.

I feel completely comfortable judging others. We all do it. It's what keeps this very site alive. However, I don't believe in using that judgment to create laws preventing others from doing something I don't agree with (except for the obvious, duh).

I think to have multiple children (where to draw the line? Maybe 3) is wrong in today's society. That's my very own opinion. It's obvious that others don't agree and that's just dandy. It's a freeish country. I will have to confess that I would support a law limiting the number of children born to a family. I'm concerned with the quality of life of coming generations. Living/breeding like cochroaches isn't going to help our planet or our children's children.

Just so you breed happy folks don't get too pissed-off at me, I'm not going to start a petition. We just won't get along well if it ever comes up for a vote. ;)

[pipi_k]

72. I see Pro Choice as a specific thing...

The freedom for women to NOT have children they don't want.

I don't equate that with anyone's questionable "right" to have as many babies as she wants to.

Especially an active alcoholic or drug addict or someone who KNOWS...while having unprotected sex...that she cannot support those children.

Have a stable home...a stable (as much as possible) job...no addictions...be a damned ADULT before bringing innocent children into a world that can be hard enough to live in without saddling them with more burdens.

My argument for the rights of children isn't the same as the "fetus rights" the RWers rant about. I do believe that every child deserves the very best its mother can provide for it. NO child should be born to a person who can't provide for it, financially and emotionally.

[The Straight Story]

73. So if a cavewoman could not provide financially for a child, she should not have it?

Funny how much money is a factor in life today.

[Wait Wut]

86. A cavewoman probably wouldn't have.

Our own little furry friends will eat their own if they don't think they can support them or if they think they're in danger. Because a cavewoman would probably behave similarly. She might not have eaten her child, but she may have clubbed it or tossed it off a cliff.

I won't even address the cavewoman's lack of "money". :eyes:

[Wait Wut]

78. I agree.

But, again, it's a discussion of "judgment" vs. "right". Yes, it is every woman's "right" to have 15 children she can't take care of and doesn't really want. It is my "right" to judge her as an asshole who shouldn't be allowed to have a dog, much less a child.

Too often we worry more about the rights of an adult over the life of a child. The right gets it backwards, the left can take it too far. Pro-choice shouldn't mean the right to be an abusive, neglectful parent.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. some people like to put asterisks after "pro chice"*

i.e. they only support your right to make choices THEY agree with.

Unfortunately there are authoritarians on the 'left' who are pro censorship, or who want to outlaw people having kids or more than one kid, etc.

they're a minority, but they're there.

[Scout]

93. gee Warren, who was talking about Censorship? no one but you....

trying to change the subject to your pet, porn?

LOL

who in this thread mentioned making anything illegal?

[Warren DeMontague]

112. I'm taking about people who claim to be pro choice butbutbutbut

as in, the minute they get the opportunity to try to run other peoples' lives, they're all over it.

I didn't say anything about 'porn', but since you bring it up, nevermind the fact that the population 'problem' has fairly well resolved itself in places with high stds. of living, self-determination for women and reproductive rights (we all support those, don't we?) I would think that the "TOO MANY BREEDERZ!!! TOO MANY BABEEEZ" hand-wringers would be pro-porn, so to speak.

I mean, smut magazines don't get pregnant, now, do they? :shrug:

[Motown_Johnny]

77. .

[Warren DeMontague]

83. ***

[Motown_Johnny]

88. !

[Warren DeMontague]

90. like the so-called population 'problem', it's a tragic yet localized phenomenon

which has jack shit to do with yuppie 'breeders' taking their kids to fancy restaurants, or the Duggars for that matter.

[Motown_Johnny]

109. 1 woman having 20 children does seem a bit extreme

2 or 3 seems normal, 20 doesn't

[Warren DeMontague]

113. it's not normal, it's freakish IMHO

but the duggars aren't going to singlehandedly cause a US birthrate population problem that doesnt exist, mo matter how many they have.

[RaleighNCDUer]

104. Inteesting how those two maps line up. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

108. exactly

I would assume that the fertility map does not take infant mortality into account, so even though these women are having more children the impact on population growth is not what that map would imply.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. if that's the case, then there's no population issue whatsoever.

because it's not coming from the countries that have reproductive rates hovering around 2, or less.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. the problem isn't choice or freedom, it's religious god-bag delusion

unfortunately, that doesn't get some people as fired up as choices they don't like.

[tabasco]

94. Having lots of kids hurts the environment.

Getting an abortion doesn't.

[jberryhill]

95. Do you know the difference between a "diet" and an "eating disorder"

It is anyone's choice to be a vegetarian or not.

It is anyone's choice what foods they like and which foods they do not like.

It is pathological to engage in gluttony, bulimia, and anorexia. Those are sicknesses. They are not choices.

[REP]

96. Lots of reasons

and none of them change whether or not it's legal for a woman to have as many children as she can bear. The Duggsrs have aired their dirty linen in public; people are going to have opinions.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

101. i would criticize someone who had 19 abortions. nt

[REP]

103. I wouldn't; better than having 19 children.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

105. yeah, but i wouldn't legislate either. i judge people who are unkind too

and that doesn't mean i am about to pass a law against it

i think these arguments about judgment conflate the issue of abortion. mostly, we are talking about anti abortion legislation, which is hardly the same as criticizing someone

[rbnyc]

107. I can only speak for myself...

I am pro-choice. A woman's choice whether or not to have an abortion is entirely personal.

I am critical of parents who have many biological children. Having 4, 6, 10, 19 kids is not entirely personal. We live in an overpopulated world with limited resources. Over-breeding is a social issue. The fact that there are many children who do not have parents to care for them and who need homes makes the choice to have multiple biological children especially repugnant. That's how I feel. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.

Overpopulation has a negative social impact. Restricting access to abortion has a negative social impact. Providing access to safe and legal abortion has a positive social impact.

[pitohui]

111. having multiple children is not pro-choice, having 20 children is murder of the planet

having an abortion harms none, having 20 children is a great harm and a theft of the world's dwindling resources

i don't know why common sense is so damn uncommon, it is one thing not to judge someone who is doing something perfectly harmless to make her own life better and more secure, it is quite another to judge someone who is doing something incredibly destructive to her own children and to the planet just because she has a sick need to be on television and she has fuck-all in the way of any talent or any skill or any reason whatsoever to be in the news

i can judge duggar perfectly well, she's an idiot unworthy of my respect and to anyone who doesn't like it that i use my brain to make judgments that's too fucking bad

i WILL make judgments about stupid people, i WILL make judgments about people who over-breed to the detriment of this planet, we have limited room and resources and to encourage people who follow religious hate to out-breed those of us who are kind and thoughtful to the earth and make our decisions based on reason...well...that lack of judgment will kill us all

duggar should have been sterilized 12 kids ago

we canNOT tolerate a planet where women are encouraged and even paid big money and big publicity to pop out baby after baby after baby

if you can't figure out why it's bad to promote this kind of thing, i would suggest a return to elementary math class for starters

we are being out bred by idiots and fools, who pass down the beliefs of idiocy and foolishness, because we allow it

we don't need a stupid woman who believes in religious slavery for women breeding and raising 20 children

common sense, please!!! every one of those 20 children will be brought up stupid, in their stupid religion of misery for women, and they will be allowed to vote! is that what you want YOUR children to be up against? it is out DUTY to make these judgments and to have our peer pressure heard, since we do not have laws to stop these crazy people breeding like flies...we only have peer pressure and our ability to point out what asses they are...let's use that ability

[defendandprotect]

117. Think the line disappears when you're talking about the Druggars ... !!

That's a special kind of insanity ---



There can only be so many birds in the sky --

and so many ducks on a pond --

Something we have to face --

[closeupready]

118. Unrecced. These constant baiting threads are tiresome.

Every day, there's a new angle on how to fish for targets and I'm sick of it.

[kctim]

122. Just another example of

claiming one is for freedom of choice as long as it's a choice they agree with.

Kind of like: I'm pro-choice, here's your list of approved choices to choose from.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

125. Because abortion doesn't affect anyone else.

Having an early or mid term abortion is a decision which doesn't affect anyone else, so it's a purely private matter.

Having a child does affect other people, so it's legitimate to criticise.

[JI7]

127. i don't consider it unacceptable, i'm against Legislating it, i feel the same way with having 20 or

whatever many kids. i'm opposed to banning it but i can judge all i want.