# Population Control Bill



## Ms.Doula (Apr 3, 2003)

I got this in my inbox today... Thought I would share....

It's Not just a pro-life issue anymore... but a freedom issue!!









Washington State Population Control Bill Would Urge Only Two Children
http://www.lifenews.com/state365.html

by Maria Gallagher
LifeNews.com Staff Writer
February 9, 2004

Olympia, WA (LifeNews.com) -- A Washington state lawmaker is
proposing a bill that even some veteran pro-life activists
describe as shocking. The legislation would urge parents to have
no more than two children.

State Rep. Maralyn Chase, the measure's sponsor, is calling it
the "Two-or-Fewer Bill." The lawmaker claims the measure will
promote population sustainability.

While the bill stops short of setting Chinese-style limits on the
number of children a couple can have, it would require a
taxpayer-funded pamphlet from the state health department to talk
about the alleged benefits of having no more than two children.

Chase, a Democrat from suburban Seattle, has said the bill is now
up for discussion. If it gains support, it could be voted on in
the next legislative session.

For many pro-lifers, the bill conjures up images of China's harsh
one-child policy, which punishes parents who have multiple
children with forced abortions and sterilizations.

The early reviews for Chase's legislation have not been good and
even the Seattle Times labeled it "unabashed government
nannyism."

In an editorial, the newspaper mentioned the fact that the birth
rate in a number of Western countries "has declined to
sustainable levels, largely because individual couples decided to
have fewer children for economic and quality-of-life reasons, not
because of a state-sponsored pamphlet."

Dan Kennedy, CEO of Human Life of Washington, the statewide
pro-life group, said, "This proposal is anti-life, anti-child,
and anti-liberty. It is as ridiculous as it is dangerous.

"Even the United Nations has begun to admit there is a
demographic disaster awaiting many countries because of the birth
dearth -- thanks to this very mentality."

"It is simply amazing that a public official in our state could
be so ignorant of the facts. Rep. Chase epitomizes the growing
totalitarian mentality that seeks to undermine individual
liberty," Kennedy added.

Preschool owner Lori Saymon told radio station KXLY in Spokane
that the idea for the bill is ridiculous.

"I think it's wrong," Saymon said. "If I had it to do over I
would have had 10. I think it's wrong for the government to get
involved with that."

Related web sites:
Human Life of Washington - http://www.humanlife.net


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

This goes WAY beyond pro-life, pro-choice or anything else. This is into some whole new territory...

And I completely think it is wrong!


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Wel I am too worried as I hink there is pretty much no chance that that bill will get any where close to passed anytime soon. This country still has a little integrity. That just tramples on way to much civil liberty.

Even if it just a suggestion at the tax payers expense it is still a slippery slippery slope.

wonder if she was just trying to make a point (it is just such a rediculous bill regardless of how people feel about large families it isn't something can or should be dictated). trying to show conservative pro-life people that if you think you can dictate what a woman can do with her body on one end of the spectrum the government can get just as involved on the other end of the spectrum. I mean my first though twas "you can't tell me what to do with my body! My reproduction is none of your business" sound familiar? Just a thought.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

I am torn because I feel that people should have a say in how they conduct their lives but also know how the planet is over-populated and believe in responsibility for the world that I leave my child.

I am a single mom so I choose to have one child. If I ever had a partner, I would probably only want one more child so that we would be equal 2:2.

I think eduacating people on how population is affecting the sustainability of the earth is a wonderful idea. I found out through research. However, it is getting into civil liberties if you are trying to tell people they have to do it.

So, I would probably support a bill that gave knowledge to people, but not a bill that mandated how many children one could have.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

I agree that passing a bill mandating 2 children would be an impingement of rights, but I am all for education on the overpopulation issue. I think to ignore overpopulation is to stick your head in the sand. I know this is a very unpopular stance here on MDC (and one for which I have been roasted to a fine doneness







over the coals for), but I cringe when I hear people talk about having 10 children.

(ducking tomatos)

I give props to the rep. for at least bringing it to the public's attention. The bill does tread a slippery slope of using taxpayer money to limit civil liberty.

Then again, my taxes are currently funding the patriot act.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Giving the info about overpopulation is one thing.

Passing a bill that says taxpayer money must be used to make a flyer that we can only assume will be handed out to pregnant women (just incase they don't get enough crap to feel bad about), begins to encroach on my life, my rights and my choices.

I also agree that there should be info available about population and the ecological footprint that a large family has.

But then I think information on how to live ecologically soundly shold be available easily anyway.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

The thing is though, I would never read that flyer so that would be taxpayer money wasted. it would hit the garbage can as quickly as the formula educational materials. I know the theories on over population and am not concerned. I have my ways of preserving the envirnment, limiting my family is not one of them. I htink it is such a waste of taxpayers dollars. This is what private organization are for. this is one area the government should steer very clear of taking a position on. Slipper slippery slope.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Ita with IslandMamma!









I would certainly support this far more than the gov't trying to push marriage initiatives on everyone (oops, not everyone, huh?).


----------



## Ms.Doula (Apr 3, 2003)

Islandmamma-

Quote:

.......using taxpayer money to limit civil liberty.
OH boy! I agree!! my thoughts Exactly, when I posted this!!!









Lilika-

Quote:

I have my ways of preserving the envirnment, limiting my family is not one of them.
That is my stand on it as well!







Though for our reasons are mostly due to our religious beliefs (and NO, our religion doesn't say to have as many as you can in a lifetime!!) :LOL

We may or may not choose to have 10 kids. That is my buisness. AND we will raise them, thank you! and we will pay for (most of) it!








I'm not to worried about something like this passing (although America is going to pot (literally :LOL ) Oh so fast. But hell, we've always been corrupt in one way or anoter, right?!







: And as for the overpopulation issue.... that should totally be a new thread. Hmmmmmmm... gives me an idea for the near-future.

~Melissa~ Pouring French Vannilla Creamer (NOT NESTLE'S) in my Fair Trade Coffee!!


----------



## shantimama (Mar 11, 2002)

If the American government is truly concerned about the impact of overpoplulation, limiting the number of children is not necessarily the best way to go. How about examining the overuse of natural resources in the U.S. and much of western culture for that matter? How about putting extra taxes on plastic products or throw-away items, revamping the culture so that disposable diapers are not the norm, heavily processed foods and insisting on all foods year round so that each meal travels hundreds or thousands of miles to an Ameican dinner plate. The current level of consumerism - which is pushed every time a politician urges people to get out there and get the economy going (meaning go buy stuff, use it up throw it away, then go buy more stuff!) - is what is unsustainable for our planet.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Jeez - I wrote my last post late last night and it sounds like I am advocating something. Let me clarify.

I think this bill is ridiculous.

I would like it if more info were readily available on ecologically sound living - but not handed out in a pamphlet. That would go in the garbage even for me. I just meant in general...less "palmolive single use dish cloths" more sustainable stuff.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I don't think a family planning to have six children would change their minds due to a stupid pamphlet. What can they tell us that we don't already know? Having more kids costs more money? They eat more? College is expensive? Do we really need a pamphlet to know that?

Also, I have a feeling I know WHOSE family sizes they want to limit, and it's not the super-rich.







: I'm sure that some rich celebrity or powerful businesswoman who has 4 kids isn't going to be visited by a state worker who wants to insult her intelligence by reading a brochure to her.

I wonder if this will be another way to shame women? Ever notice when a woman has a large number of children, she is seen as irresponsible? Odds are she had a man's help in creating those children. How come an unwed "father" can knock up as many women he wants and never be shamed, while the women are blamed for overpopulation?

If it's about money, there is enough to pay for all lives and all future lives. It's just not spent very well. We spend more on products to end lives.

I don't think it's about the environment. I think it's about not wanting to spend money on poor women and children.

Someone on the CPS thread mentioned that in her state, having more than 3 kids is a red flag for potential abuse.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I would be very interested to see exactly what information would be in the brochure. It boggles the mind to consider exactly what info they think people would not already know that would actually make them second guess such a large decision.

From what I see, though, there are not a lot of people having more than two children without giving it a lot of thought/feeling a true calling to do so. The people that would just have multiple children without thought are not going to be reached by a brocure, imo.

There was also not enough information given to determine the method of sending out the pamphlet. I am not opposed to this being something people are encouraged to *think* about. Perhaps as a topic in health or history class in high school. Outside of that situation, or just a general mailing, I don't know how they would impliment the policy. I definatley would not be comfortable if the brocures were given out as part of Healthy Start or WIC (something that only targets lower income people).


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Wow, that is ridiculous!


----------



## hvl25 (Jan 28, 2003)

nak


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I wouldn't be comfortable with this being handed out to minors. I would have to advocate birth control and since I find birth control a moral and health issue it is something Idon not want the government inbvolved in (but we home school so I guess this isn't really an issue for us)

the only acceptable way for them to target people IMO would be to give them the informaiton while they were in the hospital after giving birth. that is the only way they could reach a cross section of society other than mailing them to every man woman and child. I still don't see how this will be at all effective to those who don't wish to hear it (me). what would keep them from looking at it and tossing it. People can only be educated about somehting if they want to be and those people are already educated on the matter and have already formed thier opinions..


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

You know, the more I thought about it, the more I felt like maybe "lifenews" wasn't giving this bill an accurate write-up. So I went ahead and googled it . Here's the full text of the bill. The big heinous nasty is point 12:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...1_01282004.txt

If you read the whole bill, it's actually a great thing-- money for clean water, clean health facilities available to all, and other public health and sanitation improvements. (Doesn't say anything about vaccination, which makes me wary it's a wolf in sheep's clothes..). Point 12 is the last, and while I agree utterly ridiculous, it's not that threatening to me. As I've said before, there is a huge need for education about overpopulation and it's impacts.

Look at the bigger picture here-- the bill itself actually has some great ideas.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Ooh, now I feel stupid. I came down with the flu, so maybe I can blame it on that...

The bill is in fact an ammendment, pertaining to item 12. My bad. But I'll leave the link so folks can see what is being ammended.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I still think it is something the governement should not even take a stand on. They need to stay far far away from peoples family size.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

still can't seem to grasp why this topic would especially important to prolife groups?? From what I've read many prolifers think that you shouldn't be having sex at all if your not willing to get pregnant. So I guess those prolifers become celebate when the timing isn't right or they are done having kids. After all BC isn't foolproof.

Anyway, we do need some population control. It's completely out of hand. I would hope that it would be voluntary. So I guess since I only have one kid, I don't have to worry about celebacy, I'm still below the possible limit.


----------



## Artisan (Aug 24, 2002)

I am definitely against this type of legislation. Why don't we turn our attention to things that don't infringe on one's civil liberties, such as mandatory recycling, fuel cell vehicles, controlling pollution from big corporations, pesticide reduction, etc.?


----------



## ekblad9 (Nov 21, 2001)

We have five children. Who has the right to tell me that that is too many? We can afford them, we recycle, we use cloth diapers, etc. I have many friends who have one or two kids that don't do any environmental stuff. I am prolife and I do think that if you are going to have sex you have to be open to the possibility that you might get pregnant. We use natural family planning and are celebate during fertile times of the month. Of course that's not 100% and we are aware and open to that. Using taxpayer's money to print up a pamphlet about population control is ridiculous at best. It would make my kids feel quite awful about themselves, I'm sure. JMO


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

As I see it, it isn't simply can one afford x number of children or not. There is the _very_ important consideration of the emotional climate of the home and if that is compromised with more children added.

A couple can be relatively capable of handling two children, for example, but one or both partners might be very stressed and drawn to escapism (via substance abuse, internet porn addiction, infidelity, those sorts of things) if the family is too large and there just isn't enough downtime or space to breathe for either one or both partners.

Children definitely suffer in a home where it is obvious that the parents are not on the same page, are not happy, and are fighting or withdrawing from each other. That has nothing to do with the financial ability of the parents to 'afford' the children. I would argue that a family cannot 'afford' kids if the marital relationship is strained and would obviously be more strained if another child is added to the family.

I have known large families where there is considerable defense around their 'right to have a family of this size' but what is missed in that 'right' is the question of whether it is in the best interest of the marital relationship and the kids' emotional well being to have that size of a family.

I also am very confused by anti choice persons who demand to have any number of children they want, all in their 'right to have as many children as we decide.' The same people fighting for the right to have as many kids as they desire should also stand up for the right of families to not bring children into the world.

But so often, it only goes one way...'let me have all these kids but you can't control how many you have via certain birth control methods or termination.'

Strange...

Edited for many spelling errors!


----------



## ekblad9 (Nov 21, 2001)

I don't believe in "birth control" for myself. Others can do as they wish. I do not believe in abortion. Do I expect others to feel the same? Of course not.

In my household growing up we only had two kids. My parents were emotionally unable to handle us, IMO. We turned out fine. I am not defensive so much as I just get sick and tired of being judged for having a large family. People that choose to have one or two children for whatever reason do not get comments from me like "why don't you have more kids?" or "are you infertile?". But rude people don't mind throwing out "oh my gosh are you done?" or "ever heard of birth control?"


----------



## doulamomvicki (Nov 4, 2003)

Ok, this is really scary. In Europe the governments for years encouraged the 2 or less family size and look now. It backfired! The birth to death ratio is .3 births to each death. And do we really want the government telling us how large our families should be? I think that would be the ultimate infringement of civil liberty









I have 6 children in my home. 4 are my own, 2 are my ill sister's. Those 6 kids are more environmentally savvy, know how to work as a team, how to comfort and love better than most adults I know. We (thank God) can support our family with no outside help. No one in my home is emotionally neglected and my marriage is solid. Most of the marriages/larger families that are dysfunctional would be that way even if they only had 1 child. Studies have shown that the divorce rate for families having four or more children in only 7 - 14% of the rate for smaller families.

I am not saying that having a larger family is for everyone. But for those of us who wish to do so, the government has no business interfering.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Are they going to give these pamphlets to people who already have 3 or more children, or who are pregnant with a third? What would be the purpose - "Here, just thought I'd let you know how you are ruining everything?"

I wonder if this will create even more discrimination in healthcare. For example, will a child who is 4th in a family receive care that is of lower quality than an only child?


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

This is a ridiculous use of taxpayers money.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by ekblad7_
*In my household growing up we only had two kids. My parents were emotionally unable to handle us, IMO. We turned out fine.*
Um, 'fine' is subjective, no? We all believe we are fine!

I sincrely hope you aren't saying that kids turn out 'fine' when parented by two people who are 'emotionally unable' to parent.

I maintain that two parents who have serious issues between them and secrets like infidelity should not think that having more kids is a good thing. That is immoral.

Edited to add: I don't believe this pamphlet (if the bill passes, which I believe it will not), is anything to fear. Nor is it a threat to families with more than two kids, imho.


----------



## ekblad9 (Nov 21, 2001)

I am going to withdraw from this thread. It is clear that I will not be heard.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I was raised by an insane, abusive mother and while I did not turn out "fine," (but getting better!) I'm still glad I was born, even if it meant being born to her. I don't think she should have been discouraged from having more children, I think she should have received help she needed.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I was raised by an insane, abusive mother and while I did not turn out "fine," (but getting better!) I'm still glad I was born, even if it meant being born to her. I don't think she should have been discouraged from having more children, I think she should have received help she needed.*
AMEN to that!

And ekblad7, please do not leave.

***edited to remove my furious rant.







:


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

What is the quote.."I don't agree with you but will defend to the death your right to say it?"

Something like that...









This is an issue for those who don't believe in bc or abortion and those who believe in having as many children as they are blessed with.

This basically goes against their religion. Don't we have freedom of religion? That isn't applicable to just those with non-mainstream religions.

If my religion was opposed by a governmental decision I would be offended, wouldn't everyone? Even if it isn't my religion I would till defend someone else's right to have the government out of it.

I have attended protests to allow pagans to use public parks for celebrations. I am not pagan, I am a Christian (I am all for bc but not everyone is), but I will defend someone else's right to practice their religion without the government interfering.


----------



## ekblad9 (Nov 21, 2001)




----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

My own personal anecdotal experience is that large families are healthier than smaller families in that there is little disposable income for junk food and the frills in life.

Coming from a large family, 9, and being the mother of four, I do know that we were environmentally conscious and careful with resources. Everything was stretched to the limit. No one had the idea that they were the only person to be concerned with. Much sharing and little selfishness occurred.

I am sure there are other ways to achieve this however.

Once I read something by a Catholic Priest stating that we are missing genius in our society because of the smallness of our families.

I hope to make myself clear. Benjamin Franklin was the 13th child of a second wife to a man. Clearly he was a beacon of light in his time.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by applejuice_
*
Once I read something by a Catholic Priest stating that we are missing genius in our society because of the smallness of our families.
*








: Why would this Catholic Priest blame small families for the absence of genius in society?

How could genius be limited to large families?







:

Abimommy, yes, wonderful idea to fight for the right to speak,no matter the words spoken. ITA. I long for the day when antichoice persons can stand hand in hand with prochoice persons at a reproductive rights rally.

The problem is, of course, some religions call one's reproductive right 'murder' and 'evil' so cheering for the other side's right to speak becomes, well, complicated. I venture it's bigger than supporting pagans in the park.

As I said already, this pamphlet won't happen, imho, and really, if the large family holds such power, sacredness (and genius?), a pamphlet is no threat whatsoever.

The fight for the right to speak out, via a pamphlet on family size, should be protected to the end, ITA.


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by abimommy_
*
This is an issue for those who don't believe in bc or abortion and those who believe in having as many children as they are blessed with.

This basically goes against their religion. Don't we have freedom of religion? That isn't applicable to just those with non-mainstream religions.
.*
Are you saying this is _only_ an issue for the quiverful? Isn't it also an issue for those concerned about overuse of resources and horrific global warming (bye bye NYC) etc?

Why is it a tragedy that population growth has reversed in Europe? Does Europe _need_ more people to survive? I do not get the reasoning here. I am guessing its pop is still at least twice what it was 100 yrs ago, so what is the problem here? Look at Holland for ex. Horribly crowded. So what if the death rate outstrips the birth rate now? Why keep growing on limited landspace? Can someone try and explain this to me?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Some peoples' religious, cultural or philosophical values encourage large families. I think these people should be able to follow their beliefs in peace.


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

IMHO, I believe that if children are raised to respect the environment and make sound choices (i.e., environmentally, emotionally, etc), it shouldn't matter how many you have. As long as you have the emotional resources (and financial) to handle the amount of children you have, a large famiily is a blessing! Our big family is awesome when you see brothers and sister (only one girl!) working together, or taking a stand on something...


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:

Are you saying this is only an issue for the quiverful? Isn't it also an issue for those concerned about overuse of resources and horrific global warming (bye bye NYC) etc?
No it isn't at all just an issue for the quiverful. They are not the only ones who would have religious oppositions to such a plan.

Concern for overuse of resources? I think more can be done to combat that, that wouldn't have an impact on anyone's religious beliefs. Barely anything is being done at all currently, and our current admin doesn't even believe global warming exists.

Like sharonal said in her earlier post

Quote:

Why don't we turn our attention to things that don't infringe on one's civil liberties, such as mandatory recycling, fuel cell vehicles, controlling pollution from big corporations, pesticide reduction, etc.?
More could be done without it being made into a religious issue.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I think the idea of overpopulation maybe has too much focus. There are other ways to care for the planet than to limit family size. Along with icreased population comes increased potential for good things (look at the progress we've made in the ability to conserve the earth in the last few decades). That was the point about Ben Franklin--cut your population in half and you cut the *potential* for genious in half too.

If we have problems, it's not because we have too many people. It is because we have corrupt governments, wasteful attitudes, etc. There is food in the world to feed everyone, but it is wasted and misused. The same goes for every other resource. It's all there. Just not available to those who need it more, and then we see them suffering and say "Oh, what they need is The Pill". I suppose it's easier to get people to limit blessings in the form of children than to share some of our own blessings of wealth around.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Interesting topic.Being a mother of three with one more on the way I was drawn to this thread.
I think it is more of an issue of "HOW" resorces are used. Why does evry American "need" a large SUV? Or why are disposible diapers, towels, cleaning rags, etc promoted on TV while no resource saving things are? Why is formula pushed onto everyone, instead of promoting BF due to the fact that you need not buy anything (except reusable nursing pad! and maybe nipple cream) to do it. Our whole contry seems to be on the path to destruction because of HOW we use stuff. I think that if you have more kids you tend to use less, do to the fact that you have less money to go around.
We shop 2nd hand or get clothes free from our homeschool biannual clothing swap. We do eat alot, and because of that I try to buy in bulk, and we eat organic because I hate the idea of feeding my kids chemical cover fruit and veggies. I use cloth diapers, because possie cost so freaking much over the years. We recycle, have a garden, compost etc. I think we do a good job of decreasing our footprint then say a friend of mine, who uses every disposible thing ever made, and only just had her second cild... she dd was any only for 8 years.
And as others have pointed out, how do you send this out? A mass mailing? Or just to woman post birth? I mean what if I was going to a hospital to birth my 4th.... why even bother giving it to me.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I have a feeling this will be distributed only to women.







:

You know, if money were no object and I had only one child (or none at all) I could still overspend and overconsume and do a great deal of environmental damage. I blame the rich people, not the poor who just happen to have large families!

If we were encouraged to share resources, that would help more than limiting future births.

And if we're so concerned about overpopulation, why is suicide illegal?!


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*I have a feeling this will be distributed only to women.







:

You know, if money were no object and I had only one child (or none at all) I could still overspend and overconsume and do a great deal of environmental damage. I blame the rich people, not the poor who just happen to have large families!

If we were encouraged to share resources, that would help more than limiting future births.*
Yep!! I can tell you that we use a HECK of a lot less JUNK than someone on an equivalent salary who is single! (Not speaking for ALL singles in that boat, but probably most!).

I have to get by on a teacher's salary for our family of 1 adult male, 1 adult female, 1 17-year-old, and a 1 year old and another on the way. I have no room in my budget to buy throwaway junk.


----------



## ekblad9 (Nov 21, 2001)

We totally use very little resources. As little as possible. We belong to a food co op and my kids are all VERY environmentally aware. We reuse anything and everything that we can. We use borrowed clothes and hand me downs. When I had two kids I bought way more new things than I do now. 5 kids and one income. We live in a neighborhood where our house is the smallest (other than the condos) and people that have one or two kids live in mansions. Don't get me wrong, our house is wonderful but it's much smaller than the others around here. Many of our neighbors take expensive trips regularly. One is taking their son (12) on a two week cruise for his birthday. They have only two children. I have a hard time believing that they use less resources than we do or spend less money. They drive large SUV's, we do not. It is the people with more money not the people with more kids.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

It is the people with more money not the people with more kids.
I don't even want to go there. Because, statistically speaking, every one of us on line is "rich" (when you take a world view). People in "first world" countries use sooo much many more resources than those in "third world" countries. But, I am certainly unwilling to take my standard of living down to no electricity/modern transportation/etc. In much the same way I do not feel like I can ask someone else (even if they are rich, lol) to limit the number of children they have. It seems like one of the *last* places to tackle, IMO, and one of the most resistant to outside change (because of its close association w/religion).

Did that even make sense? I have my doubts!


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

Tired.....

I don't know which "side" you're on.... but it seems to me you just supported why this bill doesn't have ANY value if it is passed.

If people have 2 or less kids, they have extra $$ than they would have if they had lots of kids.... and I'm sure they tend to use more disposable, throw away JUNK.

It's not the Indian family who has 10 kids who uses the world's resources, it's all of us spoiled westerners. That's the honest to God truth.

But at least some of us TRY to use less resources. And that effort can happen if you have 1 kid or 100 kids.

Kimberly


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

What I meant was, a person who owns 10 luxury cars probably damages the environment more than a person with 10 kids.

What about people who adopt large numbers of children? I think they are doing a great thing for the world, and I bet others would agree. That's why I think this bill is more about controlling the births of certain classes of people, rather than the overall number of children per se.

BTW, does anyone have a link to this that is not from a pro-life group? I'd like to e-mail it to someone but I know as soon as he sees anything pro-life about it he will disregard it.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I don't know which "side" you're on.... but it seems to me you just supported why this bill doesn't have ANY value if it is passed.
Sorry I was unclear. That was the idea I was trying to get accross. Sure, putting out information about population sustainablility may be good, but should it really be a *priority* in the US? I don't think so. There are a lot more ways to help the environment that could be implemented with not only less outrage but easier actions.


----------



## kimberlylibby (Dec 28, 2003)

Ok, Tired, I get ya









And I agree.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Greaseball---

ITA. I just can't even really understand where this is coming from. I mean, for one thing if each couple only had 1-2 children wouldn't that not be Sustaining the current population? I am from a family of nine children. 8 are already married (1 engaged). We have a total of 15 children. That's already 3 less than "allotted"--- I just don't see this huge concern (and that is including 3 step children and we are a *Catholic* family!). There are so many things going out that are just obviously bad for the environment/sustainability (huge SUVs w/3-4 people families, disposable diapers, even air conditioning in mild climates!) there is no logical *why* to impliment this policy (unless you are right and it is about class warfare).


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

The fact that it will be distributed by state health departments also makes me think it's about class. Who uses state health departments? Not college professors, bankers, doctors, lawyers, and other "respectable" types.


----------



## ekblad9 (Nov 21, 2001)

Very true. What would I do without you sensible people. I know what I feel but rarely have the words to express it correctly.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

I think the the world is already quite overpopulated. Population increase is a very serious problem, and I am all for the government making policy incentives for people to have smaller families.

Yes, we also need to curb consumption. But the reality is that all these people from large families raised in environmentally careful homes will one day leave their parents and establish many more homes of their own and have big families raised in environmentally careful homes who will one day leave their parents and establish many more homes of their own... etc. It's just not sustainable.


----------



## ekblad9 (Nov 21, 2001)

They may not have kids at all. It's really hard to predict something like that, isn't it? I know lots of people from large families that have one or two kids or no children at all. Many are priests so obviously have no kids. :LOL I came from a small family (2 of us) and have a large family but my brother has only one child. My dad came from a family of 5 but had only 2 kids as did all of his siblings. My mom came from a family of 4 and had two kids. Her siblings had anywhere from 1 to 3 children but no more than 3. So just because you're from a large family doesn't mean you'll have a large family.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

So just because you're from a large family doesn't mean you'll have a large family.
Living Proof

DB1 none
DS1 none
DB2 none (two step-children; father has no others)
DB3 three
DB4 two
DB5 three
DB6 three
Me two
DS2 none (DF has one; may adopt)

With everything else going on, WHY is *this* an issue. I'm afraid that it would just encourage the lots of kids/poor/religous fanatic prejudice.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Hmm, so I just did a yahoo search for population growth and guess what I found? Hmmmm...

proponents for families only having 1-2 children also want to, can you guess...?

Decrease immigration. Its not about world sustainability, its about US sustainability I guess


----------



## cinnamonamon (May 2, 2003)

This is just sick.

What is more sick is that I know people who would vote for this.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

It seems a bit like it maybe a race/class issue. I mean if they are talking giving it out at public health offices... how many people with money go to the public health office. And if it is talking at all about immigration... uh I don't know. I don't like.
I wish it was ABOUT sustainablity. It is a sad fact that so many Americans feel that they "need" everything. When really they just want everything.
Here is an example. My mom "needed" a new car, it is just her and my dad. They never take my kids anywhere ( cuz I don't trust them! but that is another story) So instead of getting a nice hybrid car with great gas mileage, and such she HAD TO HAVE an SUV. They don't go off roading (yet she also got the 4 wheel package...????







), it guzzles gas like a freaking nightmare. Yet she thought nothing of it. She thinks I am crazy for even commenting on it. In fact when we went to Oregon in January when my Grandfather was ill we rented a FULL SIZE SUV. the thing was a monster (I was with my mom, bro his wife and me) It was embarassing to be in it. It was so freaking big, anyway, my mom's comment was... she really needed one this big!!














Apperantly her's isn't big enough! UGH!
Anyway my point?? I guess it is more about what you use, and how much you use.

H


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Decreasing family isn't going to help reduce consuming. It may even increase it since families will have more disposable income. Again to do anything the penalizes families who have more than the socially acceptable number goes against the speration of church and state. How many children I have is between me and my God and for the government tp penalize me for following my faith is big time bad. And whatever punishment they hand down to people who have more than however many children is deemed acceptable isn't going to change much anyway. Laws won't change peoples hearts. So by taking away tax deductions and credits and replacing them with population punishment fees you are just going to have more poor families. Nice. Anyone who actually cares about the environment has already done thier research and made up thier mind about how they feel about the population problem (and I don't think it is nessecarily a problem or at least no the problem) . A silly little flyer reminding them that they are uneducated and bad for having children is just going to get mad. I think that money would be much better used to educate about ways you can reduce what you use.


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

I just find it intresting that having two children doesn't replace the two of you. It takes more kids that that to replace a population because of the ratios of fertile women who choose to get pregnant to fertile men who choose to help them.

In reality the ideal family size for sustainability it would seem would be closer to four to five children. Then you have the folks who can only have one or none and the large families thrown in and it all evens out. I also find it intresting that the pattern of fertility and infertility set in place by ecological breastfeeding quite frequently will allow a woman only four or five chances to conceive in her fertile married years on average. This is definitley the case in many primitive tribal communities. It would seem that mother nature always makes just enough.

I am not advocating no family planning at all, on the contrart I am a fan of prudent use of natural family planning, large and small families and sustainable living.

This pamphlet wouldn't be worth the resouces used to print and distribute it. Save the poor trees for something better.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Again to do anything the penalizes families who have more than the socially acceptable number goes against the speration of church and state. How many children I have is between me and my God and for the government tp penalize me for following my faith is big time bad.
I'm not sure this comment was in response to the OP or just in general, but I wanted to comment: I am fairly certain there is no penalty being considered--- just a publication encouraging/promoting only having a couple children.


----------



## member234098 (Aug 3, 2002)

FYI:

When I studied Women's History in college, I was presented with statistics that stated, for what it is worth, that fertility per woman has DECREASED steadily for three hundred years (?!) with the exception of the twenty years following WWII (the baby boom).

I do not know what this ultimately means. I do know that I am from a large family (9), and I am the only one who has children (4).

My DH is an only child. He has three half siblings who have no children also.

This is not even near replacement level for our family.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Even if fetility decreases, the modern world can still give you a baby. Fertility decreases for a reason and us humans have a way of manipulating nature.

I don't feel that a law should be passed in the US. However, I think it is naive to think that a person does not threaten the sustainability of the planet. Every one does and unfortunately, people who believe this are referred to as environmental crack-pots or only caring for the planet not humans.

I also studied ecology in school and my family educated me to know the interplay between nature and survival. I think to trivialize it would be wrong.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Even if fetility decreases, the modern world can still give you a baby.
Only if you're rich...it will be interesting to see if this pamphlet touches on the risks of reproductive technology at all. Most likely it won't, since state health department clients are unlikely candidates for the available technology.


----------



## doulamomvicki (Nov 4, 2003)

Quote by Paxetbonum:

This pamphlet wouldn't be worth the resouces used to print and distribute it. Save the poor trees for something better


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

This pamphlet wouldn't be worth the resouces used to print and distribute it. Save the poor trees for something better
I wonder what kind of an impact that this has on the environment?







:

I'd also like to know how many children the pamphlet writers have.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by isleta_
*I don't feel that a law should be passed in the US. However, I think it is naive to think that a person does not threaten the sustainability of the planet. Every one does and unfortunately, people who believe this are referred to as environmental crack-pots or only caring for the planet not humans.

I also studied ecology in school and my family educated me to know the interplay between nature and survival. I think to trivialize it would be wrong.*
ITA, isleta. I wrote out a good long response with statistics and factual evidence that overpopulation *IS* a problem, and my computer ate it. (For the umpteenth time today, grr...)

I do think this ammendment to the original bill is just plain silly, and like Greaseball said, I do think ultimately it would become a classist thing, regardless of intent. I also agree with all the poster that have said this country needs to really look at how we consume our resources, and find ways in our comsumer patterns to lessen the burden.

However, no matter how you slice it, each person does consume resources, no matter how gently. I would like to point out we're a pretty earth-friendly bunch here on MDC; I think it can be true of families large and small that they consume / dispose too much, as well as the converse.

I stand by the assertion that overpopulation is one of the major problems facing the planet today, and we need to realistically explore the issue. A pamphlet is definitely NOT the way to do that, IMO.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by DaryLLL_
*Why is it a tragedy that population growth has reversed in Europe? Does Europe need more people to survive? I do not get the reasoning here. I am guessing its pop is still at least twice what it was 100 yrs ago, so what is the problem here? Look at Holland for ex. Horribly crowded. So what if the death rate outstrips the birth rate now? Why keep growing on limited landspace?

Can someone try and explain this to me?*
Apparently not! :LOL

Quote:

Why don't we turn our attention to things that don't infringe on one's civil liberties, such as mandatory recycling, fuel cell vehicles, controlling pollution from big corporations, pesticide reduction, etc.?
How 'mandatory recycling' and 'liberty' can be used in the same sentence, I do not understand. Sorry, if something is mandated, one doesn't have the liberty to disobey.

It isn't the fault of the Health Dept that certain folks' religions compel them to have large families as a sign of God's blessing or whatnot. The Health Department has an obligation to ignore religious creeds about certain things such as getting pregnant and having babies. Were they to conform their materials to avoid religious offence, they would violate a seperation of church and state.

This is science, not religion. If one's religion states one must do certain things, even if those acts are not wise for the planet or other humans, then so be it. But do not look to the Health Department to cater their message so it is consistent with any particular religion. If the Health Dept states a scientific message, it may contradict a religion, may not. That's not their concern nor should it be.

If you don't want your tax payer monies to go to a religiously biased health department, then there should be no problem with this pamphlet.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

suhternbelle---

Where is the quote in your sig line from?

TIA,
Kay


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by IslandMamma_
*ITA, isleta. I wrote out a good long response with statistics and factual evidence that overpopulation *IS* a problem, and my computer ate it. (For the umpteenth time today, grr...)

.*
little OT, but








I feel your pain!!!!







Really I do!!!


----------



## Pynki (Aug 19, 2002)

Just as it is wrong to tell a woman she MUST have an abortion, it is equally wrong to tell her how many children she may or may not have..

No one should be in control of your reproductive powers but you.. The woman..

The fact that any "pamphlet" that is handed it will be at PUBLIC HEALTH offices smacks to me of elitist.. They know what's best.. Not you.. They are assuming that because you are there you are poor, or low income.. And that either of those makes you illiterate, uneducated, or simple minded.. Put it anyway you wish, THAT is what it comes down to..

"There there you poor un-(or under) educated simpleton.. I will do the thinking for you... How would you know how many children you want.. It's really best to know that you are ruining my world by having that 3rd child.. Whatever.. If it was going to be manditory that ALLL OB offices handed it out as well then maybe i could choke it down.. Although it still chapps my already red hide....

My.02 on the subject..

Warm Squishy Feelings..

Dyan


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

I think that it is sad when cultures that have a rich and beautiful past and traditions die out. Think of the losses we have already incurred by the death of many Native American cultures. If the European cultures also die out there will also be a loss to humanity.


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

Just popping in to say that I think it a bit naive to assume that just because one has a large family that they will not eat junk food or drive gas hogging vehicles. I fail to see the logic.

I am part of a homeschool group that is mostly comprised of quiverful families. I on the other hand have 2 children.

When I look around me, this is what I see:
1. I can drive a small gas efficient car, I get 32 miles per gallon or 35 on the highway. My entire family fits into my small car.

All of these families have larger vans. You cannot have 7 children and still be able to drive even a station wagon. You must have a 9 passenger vehicle at the least.

2. These women (this is JUST my experience) eat horrible diets full of junk food and fast food. *I* am the one who is the "health nut". With a large family, it is harder to afford things like organic meats and whole foods. They are also VERY busy with their families and schooling that many children on different levels, so that leaves them less time for cooking as much from scratch etc...

I am not going to pretend to have all of the answers. I do not. FOR MY FAMILY, I believe in limiting size. I believe that humans are like a cancer on the earth and we are slowly eating ourselves into extinction. Would I vote for something that says others must involuntarily limit thier family size??? NEVER!!! For the very same reason I make sure to vote pro-choice. The government should not be able to tell me what to do with my body.

What I would like to see is a culture that does not put such an emphasis on women to be mothers. Motherhood should be a calling. Only those that feel it deeply in thier hearts to foster such a labor of love should. I have a dear family member who is about to have a child when she did not want them, but that is what is expected. Lets leave the babies to the women who want nothing more. Lets free up the career women to choose NOT to have children but to contribute to society in other positive ways. And above all, lets honor our sisters in the choices they make and love all children as if they were our own.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:

*
If you don't want your tax payer monies to go to a religiously biased health department, then there should be no problem with this pamphlet.*










excellent point


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:

*I think that it is sad when cultures that have a rich and beautiful past and traditions die out. Think of the losses we have already incurred by the death of many Native American cultures. If the European cultures also die out there will also be a loss to humanity.*
Most of the cultures that have "died out" have done so at the hands of people who worked to obliterate them. Let's see the forced conversions which stripped people of their native religion.
BTW, the native European cultures have died out. Only the converters, Jews and Muslims remain.

Too bad no one stopped the decimation that was done to them by missionaries. This same thing is still being done today in India and other countries.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

All of these families have larger vans. You cannot have 7 children and still be able to drive even a station wagon. You must have a 9 passenger vehicle at the least.
I have 2 children. (Well, soon...) We will be getting a minivan as soon as we can afford it! I like to have a lot of room around me when I drive, and I want the kids to have lots of space all to themselves so they don't have to say "Quit touching MY SIDE of the car!" It goes both ways. Some people are just going to use more than others do.

And religion...the pamphlet would not be in favor of religion, but it would be in favor of things that are against people's religions.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Funny, I also am with a homeschool group and I would say that it is a 70/30 split on who eats whole foods, organic, etc. (70 being the eaters of organic) we also have quite a few who even grind their own wheat, to bake their own bread. Maybe I just found a good group?
Yes we drive a gas gussler (bury my head in shame) a minivan, but I do try to make up for it.
I must say that I find the whole idea of humans as being cancers on the earth a bit much to swallow. I mean if you honestly feel that way, why even have kids? I don't feel that humans are a cancer, can we do better? SURE! 100%, but there is so much beauty humans, I mean there really is. (Some people sure suck, and well I guess that is the price to pay) but I look at this group of humans here on the earth right now and I knowI know, that something good is coming, that their are enough of the "new" generation who think and try really hard to tread lightly.
I mean all living things use up the earth in someway or another, Not like humans....
I don't know. That comment upset me sorry to rant. Because I look at my family and the wonderful beautiful families around me, and I don't see cancer... I see HOPE!

H


----------



## Aura_Kitten (Aug 13, 2002)

i am ....... astounded.

this is so wrong on SO MANY LEVELS.

women have fought for years for the right to their bodies and now some *****************







*****







*** ******







**** comes in and does something like this????!!!!

_el facismo no esta bien_

... why not actually motivate americans to move toward a more sustainable lifestyle??









** edited because i didn't know that china changed their policy


----------



## DaryLLL (Aug 12, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Paxetbonum_
*I think that it is sad when cultures that have a rich and beautiful past and traditions die out. Think of the losses we have already incurred by the death of many Native American cultures. If the European cultures also die out there will also be a loss to humanity.*
Expanding on what Arduinna said, this is not logical, paxet.

Indigenous American culture did not die out b/c NAs were using too much birth control. It died out b/c NAs were slaughtered and died of European diseases they were not immune to. Their culture/religion has almost died out b/c it was considered savage demonism by ethnocentric missionaries.

Ditto to the Druidic/Celtic faith in Europe early CE.

If the Dutch population (for example) remains stable or decreases somewhat, all the more room for tulip fields and less need to take down old buildings and windmills and other architecture to build soulless high-rises for the virus that is mankind. This would protect Dutch culture, not destroy it.

I say "virus," like Agent Smith did. Cancer may be a little too strong of a word! :LOL


----------



## Chanley (Nov 19, 2001)

Sorry to have offended...

I say cancer because of a quote, I cannot remember who said it but it goes like this, "Growth for the sake of growth is the theory behind the cancer cell."

Dh and I quote this all of the time.

Any animal will do this given enough food and lack of predators to keep the population down. Tribal societies had delicate balances to make sure they did not out-eat themselves.

Modernization has taken away the need for self limiting. We have plenty of food and we have obliterated our predators (except ourselves, yes we kill eachother).

Anyway...I too see the beauty in my fellow man. But I am pretty crunchy and yet I see the huge impact that I am making on the environment. Every time I buy gas for my car, everytime I use electricity, everytime I throw away a ziplock baggie that is too worn out to clean and re-use, everytime I use a little bleach in the laundry.

Do these things make a huge impact in themselves? No, but if EVERY household in the US does this on a semi-regular basis, it all adds up to lots of oil consumption, lots of electricity which contributes to the loss of natural resources, lots of plastic bags in landfills which are filling up, and lots of bleach which does not break down.

Life means death but we need lots of bio-diversity and as humans keep over-populating, well...we will keep pushing that bio-diversity into extinction.

And the argument that people need to learn to live with less and that people do not take up much room, is a bit naive as well. Each person needs a certain amount of land. That land is where thier food is grown. we take up more space than our house and lawn.


----------



## Poddi (Feb 18, 2003)

I don't understand. I thought the average number of children a North America woman has is very close to 2 already. It takes 2.1 children for every couple to replace themselves. When you count those who don't marry, who don't want kids, who can't have kids, somebody has to make more than 2 kids to replace the population, right?







Or do they think we have too many people in North America already and really need to decrease our population? I thought North America is doing just fine and can definitely have more people.

(Sorry if I sound clueless. I grew up in China. US has more natural resources and about 1/4 the population of China. Do they really need to worry yet?)


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Personally I think cancer is the appropriate term here. Because cancer is a cell that replicates but doesn't die. I understand that it offends some. I guess seeing it up close and personal as I have it doesn't bother me anymore?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Well, here is something that says just the opposite:

Population Growth Rate Slowing
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pd082801b.html

Many who are concerned with this issue are actually concerned with the fact that the white middle/upper class population growth rate is slowing (which is more than cancelled out in the US by minority population growth and immigration).


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:

*Or do they think we have too many people in North America already and really need to decrease our population? I thought North America is doing just fine and can definitely have more people.*
Well, I certainly think there are already too many people in North America. Look at the huge amount of space in the U.S. that's covered by noisy highways, acres of parking lots, ugly strip malls, huge boring housing developments, giant ugly apartment buildings . . . Even in relatively attractive suburban neighborhoods, most people aren't able to walk in the woods, find solitude, see interesting wildlife, or go cross-country skiing or fishing or horseback riding without having to drive somewhere else (maybe somewhere pretty far away.) Most people don't have space around their houses for a really big vegetable garden, or a pasture for livestock. Most kids don't get to play in the woods or wade in creeks. Some kids don't even have a safe place to play outside.

Sure, North America can probably contain a lot more people without us all starving, but I want more for myself and my daughter than survival. I want peacefulness and beauty and open space and lots of plants and birds and animals all around us, and as the population grows, there's less and less of all those things.

That doesn't mean I'm in favor of mandatory population control, or even handing out informative pamphlets about overpopulation. I just wish more people would at least recognize that overpopulation really is a problem, and not just in some distant third-world countries.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

The National Center for Policy Analysis (link above) is a pretty conservative think tank.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

>Look at the huge amount of space in the U.S. that's covered by noisy highways, acres of parking lots, ugly strip malls, huge boring housing developments, giant ugly apartment buildings . . . Even in relatively attractive suburban neighborhoods, most people aren't able to walk in the woods, find solitude, see interesting

Those are all space/resource issues, not people issues. And simply a result of people moving *towards* crowded areas and making them more crowded--that's where all the convenience is. We could do with a lot less, but the American way is "More and Bigger" you know.







I do wish we could get rid of the highways and have a well developed train system instead. And design cities and towns to be more convenient for walkers, as in Germany (wish I lived there!). Our town is in no way overcrowded, but designed in such a way that you have to drive to get anywhere.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

I'm thinking that using taxpayer money to limit civil liberty would be unconstitutional, however, I'm not a bit surprised that the push is on. It is really a very bigioted idea as the wealthy, and those in power, are generally aren't having large families.

Sounds like The Brave New World to me!


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Funny how for the population issue, there seems to be so little support for the crunchy maxim usually embraced by the MDC crowd, "Think globally, act locally."









For US and world population clocks see http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/clock.html


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by barbara_
*I'm thinking that using taxpayer money to limit civil liberty would be unconstitutional, however, I'm not a bit surprised that the push is on. It is really a very bigioted idea*
barbara, what exact civil liberties are limited by taxpayer money in this example?

what is 'unconstitutional'?

You are leaping to conclusions ('brave new world').

I'll say it again: if you want a religiously biased health department funded by tax payer monies, that would be in violation of the seperation of the church and state.

it is NOT the job of the health department to cater their pamplets to a specific religion! If a religion encourages large families as a sign of God's blessing, that is not the health department's concern, nor should it be.

Science, not religion, folks. If the US (for example) has a resource problem and ONE (repeat: ONE) strategy toward sustainable resources for everyone is to consider smaller family size, that is a statement about resources, family size, NOT God. And I'm glad it's not about anyone's God or what he/she/it thinks about numbers of children!

Will this pamphelt render infertile those who wish to have large families? No. Will it make it impossible for large families to obtain state funded programs? No. Will this pamphlet make a large family a veritable pariah in the community? No.

The comments those of you with large families have received are sad. But that is not the fault of the health department either. Stupid, big mouthed people exist. People will always talk. That has nothing to do with this pamphlet on resources and family size.


----------



## cumulus (Jul 17, 2002)

"Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children." ~ Tatanka Iyotanka

Within a couple deciding on whether or not to have a child, would it be appropriate for either the female or the male to insist on their individual rights and adopt or have a child whatever the other felt? I don't think so. And so it goes for the family of man wherein as who we are and how many we are affects those around us and the earth itself. I think it's time to move beyond individual rights and expand our considerations beyond our immediate environment to consider our place in the family of man and all the children of that family.
The signs that there are too many of us are everywhere.

"My daughter is every mother's child and every mother is the mother of my child." ~ Glen Close


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

The problem with this idea is, I don't know ONE person who it would sway even slightly in their decision of how many children to have. It might make them feel a bit better if they had already decided to have 1 or 2, or a bit worse if they had decided to have 3+ but it wouldn't alter their decisions in the least.

Maybe if we started teaching about the problems of overpopulation at a younger age it would help. And, I don't think the best solution is encouraging smaller families--- I think it lays in encouraging only those people called to have a child to have a child. I think one of the best steps our country could take for improving marraige & family is to DISCOURAGE people from getting married or having children unless they are 100% sure they want, not just because its the "next step."


----------



## cinnamonamon (May 2, 2003)

My problem with the gov't handing out pamphlets, is that I'm afraid it would encourage an attitude towards those with large families.

I see it as somewhat similar to breastfeeding. WIC doesn't discourage breastfeeding, but they ask about/offer formula constantly, and those who aren't sure, having trouble, etc. are ultimately being encouraged to use formula instead. I'm not saying that large families are good and small bad, but I am saying that the gov't can and does influence public opinion, and the existance and distribution of such a pamphlet would influence the public not necessarily against having more children (as intended), but against those who have large families.

After the public opinion is swayed toward smaller families, (as it once was toward ABM), it will become strange/unwelcome to see larger ones. Insurance companies may limit the size of families it will cover, or drastically raise premiums beyond the second child (as it used to refuse to pay for breastpumps, etc...). Talk of mandatory sterilization of women/men with at least 2 children who want/need gov't assistance will begin...

See, it's really the snowball effect I'm concerned about. The occasional person would become much less "occasional," and you would be often hearing comments such as: "two children are plenty; they will take all the love and time you have." Which means, of course, that myself and my sister were well loved and cared for, whereas my 4 youngest siblings were not -- as there isn't enough time in the day or space in a mothers heart for more than two.







:

Now that comment doesn't really *hurt* me, but have it repeated over and over by different people (teachers, neighbors, "friends," etc. ) throughout my children's lives, and I'm afraid it would be hurtful to them.

That is why I don't think the gov't should make a stand in the fashion it is proposing.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

If the government makes the descision to support one life styl;e ver the other (small family over large family) first it is just a pamphlet, but what is next? You can only claim the first 2 you had? If you are on WIC or Medicaid you can only cover the first two? Pressure to not have more than two? it is snowball effect.

Also with just a pamphlet I don't know anyone who would actually read it much less be swayed by it. I would be so offended that I recieved somehting from the government that said I needed to limit my family size would send me into a moral outrage. How dare they stick thier nose into this area of my life.

there are lots of ways to make people less of an impact on the earth. How about pamphlets about breastfeedig, cloth diapers and recycling. How about rebates for appliances and cars that use less enrgy (they actually were doing that here for a while for HE washers and toilets). The problem isn't over population. it is lack of resources which effects our ability to reproduce as we are naturally inclined. so why not pick the part of the problem that is less invasive? It is so much easier and useful to talk about and use taxpayer money to encourage recycling and conservation.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Cash assistance already won't cover additional children. Maybe soon it will happen with food stamps, WIC and Medicaid.

(It's a little different with the welfare example...they won't cover any child who is born into a family already receiving benefits...but I think they will still cover a family who has 4 kids at the time they apply. Still, it's a way they attempt to limit family size among certain populations.)


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by playdoh_
*barbara, what exact civil liberties are limited by taxpayer money in this example?*
I was responding to the op that quoted the following article:

Quote:

Olympia, WA (LifeNews.com) -- A Washington state lawmaker isproposing a bill that even some veteran pro-life activists describe as shocking. The legislation would urge parents to have no more than two children.

State Rep. Maralyn Chase, the measure's sponsor, is calling it
the "Two-or-Fewer Bill." The lawmaker claims the measure will
promote population sustainability.

While the bill stops short of setting Chinese-style limits on the
number of children a couple can have, it would require a
taxpayer-funded pamphlet from the state health department to talk about the alleged benefits of having no more than two children.
I think there is a difference in publishing a pamphlet that encourages birth control and in requiring a taxpayer-funded pamphlet that encourages no more than 2 children per woman, which in turn encourages women to abort. IMO that is a religious belief and should not be the reinforced as the "Government belief." Let the pro-choice folks pass out the pamphlet, it is not the function of Govt.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

How dare they stick thier nose into this area of my life.
ITA Lilyka!


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

I think it's time to move beyond individual rights
Cumulus, that is a nice sentiment, but it is not reflected in the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps you are not a US citizen and so this does not pertain to you, but this is a thread discussion a proposed bill in the US, and therefore it is pertinent to the discussion to point out that the "pursuit of happiness" is a corner stone of our civil liberties in this country.


----------

