2

1/31/2009 9:15:13 PM

it's the American way, part of the American dream, yadda yadda.

i'm all for population resctrictions.

i, myself, know probably 5-6 people who can't even afford to take care of THEMSELVES, and have between 3 and 6 children.

fucking disgusting, and selfish. not much makes me cringe more when I hear "I want kids". . .so selfish. kinda goes hand-in-hand with couples attempting to "rescue" a relationship by bringing a child into it. fucking bewildering that adult human beings can be so fucking offensively neglegent and thoughtless.

but, hey, that's the human race.

1/31/2009 9:25:20 PM

Everyone in the human race is NOT an immoral asshole.

If you can have this many kids and care for them all effectively, more power to ya.

1/31/2009 9:28:10 PM

of course they aren't.

but given our capacity (untapped) for rational thought, it's shameful how many "people" engage in such reckless thoughtless practices, ie, bringing in a child (or children) into the world when they can't even make fucking rent.

sure, people who can support the practice financially can do what they want.

but the latter--about whom I'm speaking--are just selfish and irresponsible, and practically making it near impossible for a lot of children to ever have a chance at a decent life.

1/31/2009 9:32:21 PM

^^ "more power to ya" blah blah blah.

but it is still socially irresponsible. The population of the earth is on a collision course as we run out readily available energy sources to provide food, water and shelter. In the aggregate, we should really barely be having enough children to sustain the population, and realistically, most countries should be working on decreasing their populations.
The easy argument is "yeah, well, Africa and India are growing like crazy, so why shouldn't we". Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[Edited on January 31, 2009 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2009 9:33:02 PM

seriously, families who have like 5, 6, 7 children, it's just dumb. irresponsible. neglegent. selfish. it just is. it doesn't mean they're "bad" people. they just don't visualize the bigger picture, at all.

why so many kids? trying to heighten your chances of living vicariously through a successful offspring? just can't get enough of how cute they are growing up? you're a glutton for punishment? are you trying to field a baseball team? is your surname THAT important?

1/31/2009 9:38:40 PM

that's really messed up

1/31/2009 9:44:02 PM

I don't think you should limit how many children you have (if you are able to take care of them) based on how many other people are on this planet

Do what you want (if you can pay for it) regardless of what every one else is doing.

Maybe I should be more "socially responsible" and give all my money to starving people in India.

Maybe I should be more "socially responsible" and leave my boyfriend (who bring me lots of joy) so I can have more time to work another job and use that income to help people throughout the world who don't have clean water.

This kind of sacrifice is ridiculous in any amount. I'm not sacrificing a something highly valuable to me for a bunch of people I don't know or care about. That's a recipe for misery.

1/31/2009 9:44:08 PM

^^why? do you come from a large family, and you take personal offense? if so, that's exactly the mentality I'm aiming for.

^that's not what I'm talking about. if you can help out kids in India AFTER helping yourself, sure, go for it. I can't. I'm not financially well-off enough. For that same reason, children is nowhere in the near future for me. The issue is the children. Not people in India. If you are having a kid, and know you can't take care of it unless the government floats you, then you're irresponsible. That's my bottom line. As a human adult capable of virtually ALL rational thought, you are bringing a CHILD into the world. You ought to be absolutely prepared, financially and emotionally. Fuck up and make a mistake? Grow up quick. Get as many jobs as you can. Can't find gameful employment or bona fied help in raising the child without mooching off of me? Abort. Your God doesn't want you to birth a child you can't feed. Trust me.

when the fuck did I mention kids in India or Africa? you're stretching the argument to tangentially skim your favor. I'm talking about introducing kids into the world where there are billions of kids who out the fucking gate aren't given a chance, just because their parents "wanted a kid". I'm talking about being responsible in YOUR OWN life, by only contributing to a world of too damn many people when you can take care of your own.

[Edited on January 31, 2009 at 9:51 PM. Reason : dsfasdf]

1/31/2009 9:49:15 PM

^ I don't think your comments are ridiculous, I was really responding to this gem:

Quote :

"The population of the earth is on a collision course as we run out readily available energy sources to provide food, water and shelter. In the aggregate, we should really barely be having enough children to sustain the population, and realistically, most countries should be working on decreasing their populations. "

1/31/2009 9:52:07 PM

that's not ridiculous. that's RATIONAL.

Everyone who is capable of being educated ought to be more responsible with their fucking and reproducing.

the fact that you think that's ridiculous is ridiculous.

1/31/2009 9:53:52 PM

Quote :

"it's shameful how many "people" engage in such reckless thoughtless practices, ie, bringing in a child (or children) into the world when they can't even make fucking rent. "

I think that's what is particularly offensive about this case though. All 14 of her children were conceived using IVF. It's not like she was having kids the good ol' fashioned way. The woman was already on welfare, only one source of income and had filed for bankruptcy before being implanted with another 8 kids. Her own mother says the woman is "obsessed with children."

Where was she getting this money for 6 IVF treatments? What clinic was unethical enough to keep pumping a woman in her 20s with more embryos?

1/31/2009 9:55:49 PM

It's rational to sacrifice your own desires (having children you can take care of) just because the planets population is increasing?

1/31/2009 9:56:05 PM

I see your point. There's certainly grey area. But, if only the capable, apt, and financially fit were having 4,5, 10 children, there wouldn't be a problem. As Purist and awful as it sounds, it's very true. I think there ought to be a credit check, income check, etc, before someone can have kids. Fuck, if I can't RENT A FUCKING APARTMENT without the shit, I damn sure shouldn't be allowed to bring a child into the world.

1/31/2009 9:58:56 PM

Quote :

"I don't think you should limit how many children you have (if you are able to take care of them) based on how many other people are on this planet Do what you want (if you can pay for it) regardless of what every one else is doing."

that's a great attitude. really. very helpful.
just do what you want. yes, regardless of how it affects anyone else. as long as you survive your 7x years and pop out a few kids, then why worry about anything else?

1/31/2009 10:00:14 PM

^that's partly my point, too.

you can't train someone to not have desires. but it's the human survivalist mentality to simply work for himself or herself as long as their own lifetime deems it necessary.

humans, as a whole, have never REALLY cared about future generations.

1/31/2009 10:01:38 PM

^^ Okay, I'm going to think of EVERYONE else when I do ANYTHING.

People in India are starving? Let me go get another job, even if that means I might see my friends once a month, so I can give them some cash.

What other choice would you have me make if I really care about how EVERYTHING I do affects EVERYONE else in the world?

1/31/2009 10:06:50 PM

Quote :

"but it's the human survivalist mentality to simply work for himself or herself as long as their own lifetime deems it necessary."

this is true, and it has been true of every species since the beginning of time. It's quite literally built into our DNA. This is how evolution works, and in almost all other plant and animal species, a natural balance is found.

Humans, since gaining self-awareness, have diverged from natural evolutionary roots, and as a result our population has exploded far beyond our "natural limits". This is not necessarily a bad thing, and we have mastered technology and science to an extent to offset the problems of our large populations. But, as always, all good things must come to an end, and we will not survive as a species if we indefinitely put off our problems onto the next generation.

1/31/2009 10:08:05 PM

Quote :

"Okay, I'm going to think of EVERYONE else when I do ANYTHING"

why do you bring up EVERYTHING??

the ONLY thing we're talking about is procreating. no one is condoning that you think of poor Nepalese kids when you run your dishwasher.

you exemplify the tunnel vision that is the human condition.

[Edited on January 31, 2009 at 10:10 PM. Reason : wat?]

1/31/2009 10:09:02 PM

Quote :

"^^ Okay, I'm going to think of EVERYONE else when I do ANYTHING. People in India are starving? Let me go get another job, even if that means I might see my friends once a month, so I can give them some cash. What other choice would you have me make if I really care about how EVERYTHING I do affects EVERYONE else in the world?"

what is your problem? Why the fixation with this? When did I ever suggest you do any of this?

I'm talking only about children right now, simply because the amount of children a normal person has is by far the most long-lasting impact he/she will have on the planet and the future. Every person and every family has an impact on the exponential growth of future generations. The question you must ask, then, should there be 25 direct descendants from you in 150 years, or 2500?

1/31/2009 10:12:06 PM

It doesn't sound like this statement is only in reference to procreation:

Quote :

"just do what you want. yes, regardless of how it affects anyone else. as long as you survive your 7x years and pop out a few kids, then why worry about anything else?"

1/31/2009 10:12:21 PM

ummm. . .

that's exactly what that statement is about.

are you of sane mind?

1/31/2009 10:15:02 PM

^ Yes, but you said:

Quote :

"why do you bring up EVERYTHING?? the ONLY thing we're talking about is procreating. no one is condoning that you think of poor Nepalese kids when you run your dishwasher."

So are we only talking about procreating or not?

1/31/2009 10:15:43 PM

^^^ that was a direct response to your overall flippant attitude that having as many children as you want should be included in all the other activities you choose to engage in.

Now, obviously, I would hope people can be responsible in all aspects of their lives, but that's quite a burden to carry. But I hold having children (and how many) as the pinnacle of decision making for most people, and therefore should carry an extra level of responsibility.

That is, in order of importance of almost all the decisions you will ever make in your life:

- how many children should I have
- should I have children at all
-
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
- everything else
- what color socks should I wear

[Edited on January 31, 2009 at 10:20 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2009 10:16:48 PM

Should my desires be more important in my decision-making process than the needs of the entire planet and future generations or not?

1/31/2009 10:18:15 PM

lol Vix, dear. . .

i am only talking about procreation, and its effects on the children who are born into quite literally nothing (millions), and that subsequent effect on our entire world (it's a very, very, VERY significant effect). i, and no one in this thread said you ought to think of anyone else while doing anything else. just when adding to the ever-compounding population problem.

^when bringing a child into the world, you should think of the child, not your own desires. yes. that's been the whole point. too many people just "want kids", but can't take care of them the way they ought to be taken care of.

LOOK AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

[Edited on January 31, 2009 at 10:21 PM. Reason : asdfasdfasdfsdd]

1/31/2009 10:19:29 PM

no, your personal desires to have kids should be less important than the needs of the planet

1/31/2009 10:19:37 PM

agentlion and i are just echoing each other pretty much lol

basically, having a damn kid shouldn't be on the same level as wanting to start your own business. it's a HUMAN INFANT we're talking about. too many adults (and teens) chalk the whole scenario up to simply "wanting children", when that's inherently what's problem number one.

the nimrod this week wanted 8 children on top of her 6. she's on welfare. the point is, she merely "wanted more kids". see what I'm getting at? it's the general mentality that's awful. I can guarantee you at least 10 of those children won't do shit but drain the economy.

[Edited on January 31, 2009 at 10:23 PM. Reason : asdfasdffff]

1/31/2009 10:21:35 PM

Why should I limit myself to just procreation?

Why not do what's good for the planet instead of taking care of my own desires in every other aspect of my life?

1/31/2009 10:21:56 PM

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA OH MY GOD WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD LIMIT YOURSELF TO PROCREATION

WE ARE SAYING THAT WHEN CONSIDERING ALL THE THINGS YOU DO IN LIFE AND ON AN EVERYDAY BASIS, THE ONLY ONE THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED WITH A LOT MORE WEIGHT IS PROCREATING. IT'S THE ONE DECISION YOU MAKE IN LIFE THAT OUGHT TO INVOLVE THINKING ABOUT THE WORLD AT LARGE. THE ONLY ONE. OK, THAT, AND DROPPING TOXINS INTO WELL WATER.

my god this is killing my brain. i gotta go.

1/31/2009 10:25:39 PM

Why should I not weigh many other decisions I make heavily also?

Quote :

"WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD LIMIT YOURSELF TO PROCREATION"

Okay, if I should not necessarily limit myself to procreation, where should I draw the line? What I do with my spare cash? What kind of detergent to buy? What kind of food to make? Whether to buy bottled water or not?

1/31/2009 10:34:39 PM

you're just trolling at this point.

i'm sorry for the mess we've caused.

1/31/2009 10:37:10 PM

^^ You're reading way too much into what everyone else in this thread has said.

1/31/2009 10:42:04 PM

are you trolling?

really?

We are saying that the decision to procreate should be considered, let's say, 2 orders of magnitude more important than almost any other decision you will make, as far as the future health of the population and planet (unless, for example, you are personally in charge of deciding if and where to install 10 new coal power plants, or you're the head of a team developing the next generation of nuclear weapon).

So if you want to draw a line with how responsible you are, then fine - just draw it under how many kids you have. Then, for every other decision you make, just go hog-wild. Do whatever the hell you want.

If you want to draw the line lower (at say, what kind of car you drive, how big a house you buy, or if you want to use CFLs in your house), that's fine too - just depends on how altrusic or socially and environmentally responsible you're feeling. If you don't feel like moving that line lower? Well, don't expect to win any Nobel peace prizes, but at least you can have comfort that you did make your life's most important decision with a modicum of decency.

1/31/2009 10:44:03 PM

I'm not trolling.

I just think that one should be consistent in ones virtues.

If being honest is a virtue, then be honest in every aspect of your life.

If considering the needs of the planet above your own is a virtue, then be virtuous in every aspect of your life.

1/31/2009 10:49:55 PM

this world is overpopulated as is. we're fast approaching our carrying capacity

1/31/2009 10:59:48 PM

Quote :

"If being honest is a virtue, then be honest in every aspect of your life."

sounds good.

so, i assume you won't be telling your __ kids about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? Or really about why Mommy and Daddy were arguing last night?


but seriously - the world is not black and white. That's a very..... "W" way of looking at things. Almost every decision you make is based on a continuum of some sort. One must decide what one's virtures are, then attempt to live by them, yes. But sacrifices and compromises are an essential part of life. You must be able to look at decisions, and rank in order of importance or necessity how vital it is to abide by your virtures for each one. Virtures are a guide, not a razor.

1/31/2009 11:00:30 PM

Quote :

"so, i assume you won't be telling your __ kids about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?"

I will not be telling them any lies like these. If something isn't their business, I will also say so.

Quote :

"compromises are an essential part of life."

I don't think virtues are things one should compromise. Integrity is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures and principles. Isn't integrity important?

I believe in being consistent in ones actions. If competence is a virtue, I don't expect my surgeon to compromise on it while he's cutting through my brain. If honesty is a virtue, I don't expect my significant other to compromise on it and go get some on the side. I'm not going to compromise on large things like these, or little things.

1/31/2009 11:17:36 PM

i think you're growing the definition of "a virtue" a bit too much. I, unfortunately, took your bait and ran with it. My bad.

Let's say, then, "environmental protection" or the "success of the human race" could be a "guiding principle" in the way you live your life. As such, the decisions you make should be guided by that principle. The outcome of any particular decision will vary, depending on the impact of that decision and the strength of the principle. This allows for necessary compromises, which it should. It allows you, for example, to own a car (because not owning a car may be overly debilitating), but also guides you on what kind of car to buy. If you find that your life is overly debilitated by not having 4 or 5 children, after having weighed the results of that decsion on it's impact in the future, then that's fine - you were still guided by a principle, but have just decided to put the bar pretty high as to what you find acceptable (as such, if one was being guided consistenly by that principle, and still decides to have 5 children, then I wouldn't expect them to value other environmental or societal concerns very highly at all).

1/31/2009 11:29:35 PM

Quote :

""so, i assume you won't be telling your __ kids about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?""

Quote :

"I will not be telling them any lies like these."

Your kid is going to be the one that ruins the fun for all the other kids in school I see.

1/31/2009 11:41:30 PM

If the other kids "fun" is based on lies, then yeah, my kids will ruin it for them.

1/31/2009 11:50:48 PM

well, the other kids' future success also depends on how many of your own rugrats there are dirtying up the world, so I guess they'll ruin that "fun" too, with your apparently unquenchable thirst for popping them out

1/31/2009 11:58:37 PM

ok, although we, on several occassions, have had different views.

this is one case where i couldn't agree with WillemJoel more

i was originally gonna quote something, but everything he has said pretty much sums up my thoughts.




also someone told me the other day that you get a tax break after 13 kids.
so you get one at 1 child, then 2 children, then 3, then four....
but the next one isn't until 13.
someone find out if this is true....



[Edited on February 1, 2009 at 9:42 AM. Reason : i would, but im about to leave]

2/1/2009 9:32:15 AM

I think tax breaks and welfare benefits increases raises should be capped at 3 maybe 4 people. The average american should not be forced to subsidized the child care costs of people who want to breed like rabbits.

2/1/2009 1:28:08 PM

Quote :

"As of January 2009, the world's population is estimated to be about 6.75 billion.[1] According to population projections, this figure continues to grow; the 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963. World births have levelled off at about 137-million-per-year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990's, and are expected to remain constant."

Birthrate is declining. That being said, not only am I from a large family (I am first of 5 children born within 6 years), I know a lot of large families. Families I have met had means of taking care of themselves.

I have a problem with people on public support having kids. It doesn't matter if it is their 1st or 12th. If one can support themselves, I do not care. I met a woman with 9 kids. she remarried and they both had children from their first marriage and then they had 2 more. They live in a nice house. Those kids do not get their own room, but have dance lessons and sports just like anyone else.

In this case, I do not think anyone really knows the full story right now except the fertility doctor and the woman. They come out with all sorts of facts one at a time.

Here are two examples of countries paying people to have more kids. I have heard of tons of instances because their country is declining.

Quote :

"The Parsi community in India is paying couples to have children, says a study by the National Commission for Minorities on Parsi birth rate. Census figures show their population declined by 40 per cent in the years between 1941 and 2001."

Quote :

" The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry has decided to raise the lump-sum payment for childbirth and child rearing from the current 350,000 yen to 420,000 yen from October 2009, it was learned. The plan was submitted to a meeting of the Social Security Council, an advisory body to the ministry, on Friday. As a decision to increase the payment from 350,000 yen to 380,000 yen from January 2009 has already been made, the additional sum will be 40,000 yen. "

2/1/2009 5:29:20 PM

While I disagree with most things agentlion promulgates on this message board, I must say that I hope he has lots of kids for the sake of the human race.

The problem is that only the stupid people have lots of kids by in large. Sure, agentlion's policies on limiting population growth seem to be responsible (assuming his world-view) but even he should see that his overall goal would be greatly helped if there were more people that think like him. If he is correct then it should be easy to convince his children of the virtues of his world-view. Then they can have kids and do the same...

Sort of like how Al Gore and Obama use all the energy they want for their own comfort but its ok since they care about the planet. To be consistent you ought to be inconsistent and have lots of kids that will care about overpopulation

Just think, after many generations you folks could outweigh the zealots like myself in society at large.

Anyhow, getting back to the original thread... can we safely deduce from this story that state-funded healthcare funds IVF in CA?

2/1/2009 5:30:24 PM

^^ eh, don't take that Japanese one at face value. The insurance here doesn't cover delivering the baby so you break even between the hospital bill and the baby payment from the government.

In Australia you get $2000/kid and their nationalized health insurance does cover the delivery.

2/1/2009 5:34:02 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that only the stupid people have lots of kids by in large. Sure, agentlion's policies on limiting population growth seem to be responsible (assuming his world-view) but even he should see that his overall goal would be greatly helped if there were more people that think like him. If he is correct then it should be easy to convince his children of the virtues of his world-view. Then they can have kids and do the same..."

yeah, i hear you.... and thanks for the shout-out

All I have to say to that is that I fear this scene will be becoming more and more true (someone to embed plz?)
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/idiocracy-intro/3405639971

2/1/2009 10:27:14 PM

Nature will just fix itself.

Do what you want.

2/1/2009 11:05:48 PM

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20256308,00.html


Interesting new info about the mom....

Quote :

"Angela Suleman explains that her daughter always wanted children, but had trouble conceiving because of a blocked fallopian tube; hence, the in-vitro – which Angela calls "not the normal way." She says Nadya had eight leftover frozen embryos from a previous in-vitro session and had them all implanted because she didn't want them destroyed. Later, when given the option to abort some of the resulting fetuses, she refused, according to Angela's account. "

2/2/2009 5:06:34 PM