Population control

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

For those of you who believe that there is a definite over-population problem, what do you think the solution is? Obviously, there are those of us who don't want to simply stop having kids. Some of us are not content to have two or less. Do you think that there should be legislature to keep the numbers down, or can it be done through social means? For example, by making it very unpopular and politically incorrect to have more than one or two children. What kind of a 'woman's right to choose' is it if we can only choose NOT to have them?

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), December 02, 2000


OOOOHHHHHHHH MMMMYYYYYYYYY I should stay away from this one but....I needed to say ..it is already very unpopular and politically inncorrect to have more than two kids ask a mom who is pregnant with any child from # 3 and up.But I will choose what my heart says and my Lord.But I ain't goin there!!!!!

teri...mom 5x

-- teri (mrs_smurf2000@yahoo.ca), December 02, 2000.

As always, whenever there is a hard issue, there are people that want to say, let someone else make that tough choice, not me. And then they will stand behind something that says, I don't have to be responsible it is God's will or some other excuse just as Teri did. Unfortunately, if we all take that same line, the problem doesn't get solved and we all eventually pay for it. I say, why don't we all share a little of the burden and not have a kid or two that you would truly like to have. In other words, if you would like to have ten, have eight instead, if you would like to have four, have two instead, etc. Compromise is how we solve these things. Not giving in any, never solves them.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), December 02, 2000.

I was always in favor of licensing at least as "strict" as driver's licensing - maybe you could have all of the kids you wanted, but only get gvt. assistance for the licensed number (allowances for unexpected multiple births.) To my mind, licensing of this sort would basically consist of counselling, training in budgeting, cooking, diciplinary actions, etc. I would suggest that basic care would be available for all of the kids, but nothing that the parents could benefit from (tax credits, etc). If you had to pay a licensing fee for each kid, the money could go to support services for alleviating the problems caused by overcrowding.

How about a tax credit for those of us who choose not to add to the gene pool - an incentive not to have a go at the ol' DNA lottery. Or maybe a one time cash bonus (say, enough to get a bachelors degree or other career training) upon sterilization.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

Oh! I like that Soni! As the resident MOM who takes the girls in our area to get on birth control, I have always said if they would give these kids incentive pay for not reproducing and staying in school! Definetly has a better ring to it than paying for the babies and the moms when they quit school to have them.

It really is a shame that this will once again end up as another thing that has to be legislated in the long run.

Have to be honest here, it is hard to smile and congradulate some of my friends when number 6 or 8 is on the way. I very simply don't see how you can do your best with each child with so many kids. My biggest fear for most, is that most folks live 3 paychecks away from being homeless, then it does become everyone elses responsiblity for all the childrn you chose to have. To say that you live on an island and don't impact others, is not true, very simplistically you don't even want to try to go to the dump behind some of our families out here, there will not be room left in the dumpster, even after squishing :) Vicki 3 kids, and I went kicking and screaming into having the 3rd, a boy for the husband.

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

Licensing!!!!! Are you out of your mind!!!!! Sounds like ya'll want to live in a communist country like China. I want the government to mind the governments business and not mine! Overpopulation is a myth. Yes in some parts of the world they are overpopulated but for the most part that isn't true. You seem to be making overtures FOR abortion. Plain and simple abortion is murder. Raise peoples morals and education and common sense and they won't have more children than they can support. Studies show that well educated people have fewer children.

-- Amanda in Mo (aseley@townsqr.com), December 03, 2000.

I apologize, Rebekah, if I am making an assumption here that is not what you meant. But I am assuming you really want to hear (read?) what solutions are proposed and NOT just a show of hands for how many think overpopulation is a problem and how many think it is not? Is that correct?

I am one of those who thinks the earth is overpopulated, beyond it's carrying capacity. My assessment is that unless population drops radically (yes, I know that has it's own problems) AND our consumption of resources (especially in the "developed" world and even the frugal amongst us) is cut down to a mere fraction of it's present levels, the human species will crash and decline and never recover -- the resources won't be there. And because I don't believe the majority of the population will see these measures as necessary, nor make the hard choices and sacrifices even if they do see the necessity, I don't think there is any way to prevent it.

My belief in the inevitability of the human species being reduced to a stone-age level nevertheless does not stop me from doing what I can to reduce my consumption. I can't explain that any better than to say that something in me makes me keep on trying. I know I'm not perfect, but I keep trying to walk my talk. Maybe it's most accurate to say it's a point of honor for me (also, I'm stubborn). I do believe that if everyone did nothing about population, but drastically cut their consumption, then the crash would be greatly delayed.

I greatly support choice in many facets of our lives, and so, believe that we should be free to choose how many children we have -- or not. I hope that people are choosing, not just letting it happen, and I hope that when they are choosing they're thinking about the consequences to the entire world and not just themselves. I don't believe the number of children should be legislated and has been shown to be fairly unworkable (for lack of a better word). I also believe that all our choices have consequences, and if we choose wrong, and make it impossible for humanity to survive at more than a stone-age technology or level of population, then so be it. If we're no smarter than that, not brave enough to make the hard choices, then we won't survive and, again IMO, we don't deserve to.

As to social means, yes, I think that has merit. I intend to keep expressing my opinions on the subject -- that could sway some, so would be a social means. In Rebekah's example: "by making it very unpopular and politically incorrect to have more than one or two children", I DON'T think it's acceptable to harass people about it. BTW, my disapproval of children, upon encountering them, would be due to their behavior rather than their numbers. Unfortunately, in my experience, the more children a person has in tow, the less well behaved they are, and the less the adult is paying attention to what the children are doing (generally, not always, of course).

I probably have more to say, but I am very tired, so will end now. (Aren't you glad?)

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), December 03, 2000.

I thought we went around this just a few weeks ago.

My sister is much more eloquent on this than I am, and I think my views on overpopulation are already evident. Yes, we're overpopulated -- we are destroying dozens of other species every day. TOTALLY GONE. NOT COMING BACK. But we've got LOTSA babies!!! Oh my yes, NO shortage of those. Our state is looking at building orphanages again we've got so many that no one wants because they're not infants or whatever. Where's my right to choose NOT supporting them? So far I don't have any.

Licensing parents seems like a great idea to me!! In the state of Texas, for example, you have to put in 150 hours schooling just to CUT HAIR. There are no requirements that you have any idea of what you're doing before you bring an infant into this world and do whatever you want with it. That is a two-bladed sword that cuts both ways -- both for the good and the evil. Where are the rights of the child who is born to the family that gets to starve, be beaten, be sexually assaulted or killed? Small consolation to the child that IF the parent gets caught they may be 'avenged' when the law prosecutes. The damage is already done.

As the population rises,so do these incidents. Living in a tiny town, one gets to observe the other inhabitants. Wife-beating is inherited from one generation to another in a family with seven children locally. We have another family with 12 children who are learning from their parents that having that many children will make a profit off of child services. Recently, they also got to learn about how daddy beat mommy unconscious, and left her for dead -- he didn't kill her after all, he just crippled her, and now us tax payers get to pay her disability, the children's upkeep, AND for dad in prison.

There will be outcries about how "WE aren't like that", and I am grateful that you aren't. Unfortunately, there are way too many others who ARE like that. The price of this ignorance is pretty high, especially for the children that you do not want to see aborted. Where are their rights? The rights to being nurtured, cherished, raised responsibly, and to have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a safe world to live in? Merely giving birth does not qualify as having dispensed with obligations to a child. One of the other threads was posing the question of water quality -- how people are already drinking each other's urine in their water. That seems to me like OVERPOPULATION.

I would also wonder what was wrong with child one and two that they were inadequate to fulfill whatever maternal urge this is. Are they deficient? If they aren't, whatever happened to quality over quantity? If you think that you are truly doing the most superior job of raising children, why not adopt some of those unwanted ones and BREAK the cycle that they're in? Many of them are looking for homes because the parents who selfishly wanted them as infants do not want them now, they are in foster care, and are even MORE in need of a nurturing home. There are families that have adopted a dozen children in this manner, including the handicapped ones and not just the 'desireable' babies. This would greatly diminish TWO problems.

I also fail to see why it is that the mother is always blamed for these births -- where is birth control for the father? What is his motivation to keep producing child after child? My personal conclusion is that it's a lot easier to control sperm production than it is to abort a fetus, so how about sterlization for males instead? As many of the men on this board have attested (and their wives) this in no way impaired their pleasure in sex, but it allowed them to focus on the children they wanted and giving them a quality life.

Sterlization could be a free service, with sperm kept in banks until such a time as the family decided that they wanted a child now and could support it -- family planning of this sort would greatly reduce 'surprise' pregnancies and help ensure that children produced came at intervals better for both the child and the mother. There would be no need for abortions, since pregnancies would be planned. We'd save tons of money to support the sperm banks with less children, the money for schools would mean more could be spent per child, there wouldn't be the overcrowding in schools, and the general quality of life would go up for many children.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), December 03, 2000.

God, please help me for I'm going to get in some real trouble here ! Would someone please remove my name from the top of the controverial list and put Rebekah's name there to replace it. lol

I have no answers but I have considered the problem on many occasions. What I do know is China's solution and abortion are dismal failures.(not to mention I believe them to be immmoral)

What I have considered is an age limit and I'm a bigtime supporter of the implant to stop teenage pregancy. I am in favor of of the the earliest child being born to a woman at age 25. Next I am moved to affordability. I have to ask what is wrong with someone proving they can afford a child ? You have to prove it to adopt, so why not to conceive ? (which is not the case to be a foster parent and that is an problem and another argument).

I also believe we will pay the supreme price for not dealing with the problem as we sit on our hands and do nothing. There are many good thoughts here ! Education, YES ! Birth Control, YES ! However, neither has put a dent in the problem. Legislation will only increase the number of kids found in dumpsters. SELF REGULATION, is the immediate solution and from there we must strive for better ideas.

Sorry, but I have to ask---momx5, can you really afford 5 children ? I fathered 2 children myself and my wife bore 2 of her own and together we have 4 and I must say it is a struggle sometimes. (understatement of the year nominee)

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), December 03, 2000.

There's a simple solution to this problem which isn't really a problem, but...How about we teach high morals?...self- respect?...positive self-images?...right and wrong...COMMON SENSE? The problem of teen-age pregnancy and out of wedlock pregnancies would lessen greatly...Instead of abortion we could have more adoptions. Oh but then Planned Parenthood and other such wouldn't get as much money, would they?

And for those of us who are Christian or Jewish, we know that God said to multifly and replinish the earth. Since He said this we know that He will equip us and the earth with what it takes to populate the earth.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

oh myyyy. i should stay way from here but I cant.I have 4 would like to have 2 more ,maybe we will maybe we wont,our choice not yours. No one out there has paid 1 dime towards my kids,nor will you. Teenage preg. is something totaly different,parents of the teen should be forced to pay for the offspring,both sets. I would never tell you what to eat, wear or drive why tell me how to live?Can we afford more? define afford. Will they all wear name brands,have the newest toys,go to private school? no .They will be warm,free to explore the world and be taught by me.{i will not receive the taxes back that I pay for public ed.} Lets be honest ,there are women who should not be allowed 1 child more or less 3-6,but when did"God"come down and give you his power? When I was going to the doctors daily with the twins people made me feel dirty,when they were born no visits from family no big homecoming,no cards or calls.I did get alot of "well I sure hope 1 of you gets fixed"my reply was always" sure wish your Mom thought of that before she had you." I am sorry so many of you guys feel like playing "God" play the role of christian first before you play God. Who has more then 1 brother or sister? which one should not have been born? are you #3 in the family? are you worthy of walking on this ground ?

-- renee oneill (oneillsr@home.com), December 03, 2000.

I'm doing my part. When it came to raising a family, I opted for adoption. As I tell DJ, most families decide to have children and then are happy when they are born. We built our family just as were building our homestead and lifestyle, one day at a time, with plenty of care and love. And remember spaying and neutering, its not just for cats anymore.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

You guys know these draconian measures will mever fly. We must have the freedom to bear all the children we choose. Even with this freedom, no modern industrialized nation has a population problem. The birth rate is below the death rate in almost all of them. Social and economic forces dictate that sensible people limit their progeny without being forced. So, why does the population keep growing? That's right, we continue to welcome anyone who wants to come and live in our country.

America has no population problem. We have an immigration problem. Sure, it was a good idea 200 years ago. It's a bad idea now.

-- Jim (catchthesun@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

Eugenics sounds good, but it is purely evil. As others have mentioned, why do you think we should have someone playing God?

Being the youngest of 5, I must tell you that there are some problems that come up because of people having too many children, however, most of the problems that arise are because of the overly quick and inflated society we have built up. Preedominately a time issue as opposed to a wealth issue.

Yes, more eduacted people have less children. In my close friends circle, there are very few children, out of 10 people and 8 spouses there are 6 children. Yet I know a few excellent parents who have six or more. And I know a lot of people who have only one and destroy the child by spoiling him/her and letting them think they are a little Ceasar.

I have to second Cindy's post above as for solutions.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), December 03, 2000.

As someone has already noted, no way would any sort of mandated birth control ever be accepted by current society. Nor do I think it's needed in the US.

The comment that the population in most industrialized nations is stable or declining is true. The idea that means the *world* population is declining is wildly false. Even the most optimistic projections don't see global population stablizing before 2050 or 2100, and by then it will be double, triple or even quadruple current levels. What does that mean for nations that have stabilized their population when they have nations bursting at the seams on their borders?

But to be honest I don't think we'll reach that point. We're already beyond overshoot, and Mother Nature *always* bats last. The one resource that has allowed modern population to grow isn't land or education or prosperity or even modern medicine -- it's energy. And by most educated projections, by the end of this decade at the latest we'll see energy (oil) supplies begin an inexorable decline. When that happens, the world of our children and grandchildren will in many places be a happy hunting ground for the Four Horsemen.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), December 03, 2000.

As indicated above, pro-choice should be an *informed* choice. Yes, by all means, chose...it's your right and I would not want it to be legislated that you couldn't have the size family that you want. However, make sure you exercise the thinking part of that right to chose. Get educated. Can you afford x number of kids? What kind of lifestyle can you support? Do you feel that God will "just provide?"...that can be a choice if you REALLY believe it. Or is it just convenient to think so b/c it takes you off the hook of personal responsibility? What happens if your husband leaves you? How do you feel about public assistance? etc. Just things that I would hope people would consider when they chose.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 03, 2000.

Cindy, dont you think there's just a wee bit of difference between instructions to 'be fruitful and multiply' (divine or otherwise) thousands of years ago in a world of comparatively few humans, and today's overpeopled planet????

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

First let's get one thing streight "GOD DID NOT TELL US TO OVERPOPULATE" you will not find that anywhere in the bible. I believe the word replenish means status quo. But to the problem. First take away tax breaks for children. One exemption for everyone no matter how many kids they have. This still leaves choice. Also we will have to play God in many areas to solve the problem. We have done this from the begining of time. God in a way gave this power when he let man help him kill other men in his name. He never took it back that I know of. When you use more of an item then can be replenished you have a population problem. If it continues, those in the future will die in horrible ways. Do I think we should act? No because it is too late already. I believe after it is all said and done there will be some seed left to replenish at a normal level. A word of warning to those with a lot of kids. As things get worse your friends, family and neighbors will proabaly turn on you and destroy you. It's the human curse.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), December 03, 2000.

This is a duel edge sword .Please forgive me but here I go .Where the hell does anyone get off telling or thinking of telling anyone how many children to have.I believe the real problem lyes in unwed and teenage mothers .There are plenty of woman on public assistance that have 6 or more children by differant fathers if they even know who the fathers are .

Lets think about it , my 4 children impack the earth allot less than the welfare moms 2 living in the city buying all prepackaged food and wasting resources.I think the solution is with education and morales .We have multi generations of families where welfare is a way of life as well as teenage pregnancys.What happened to teaching are children right from wrong ?

We need to change are system to give a helping hand when needed , not a helping hand for life .We have to watch are teenage children and give them guidence .We have to educated the welfare moms and dads so the can go to work and make a good living and make a new family tradition of hard work and pride for their children .

-- Patty (fodfarms@slic.com), December 03, 2000.

There's a book out in the last year called "Among the Hidden". Childrens book by scholastic. Excellent!! Everyone should read it and read it to your children and have your children read it again. If your kids are in public schools, buy it for your childs teacher to read to the class.

-- Amber in WA (mikeandamberq@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

I'm glad to see the christians on the forum have not been quiet. As far as overpopulation goes in this country (including immigration..illegal or otherwise)....just stop the wellfare program. This is simple and easy to do. If people weren't making money by having more and more children they would quit having them. I know of couples that won't get married because then they couldn't get welfare...even though they have had 3+ kids together. Has anyone considered the amish? They have more than 2 children as a general rule and provide for them financially, spiritually and emotionally. Studies show they are the happiest and most mentally sound portion of our population. Part of that has to do with a strong sense of family. They do not accept any government money....not even social security. Another thing to think about. Ya'll are talking about limiting the number of births.....how about speeding up deaths? One reason we have more people now is we are living longer. Noone seems to think we ought to take Ma and Pa off their medications though. I'm not encouraging this by any means but lets look at this from all angles (even though I really think this is a totally weird topic to have on this forum and is really inappropriate). Please do not presume to instruct others in what is right and what is wrong, but in the case of welfare I don't believe in enabling it either.

-- Amanda in Mo (aseley@townsqr.com), December 03, 2000.

I do know of a few I would like to take off there meds.I couldn't help but laugh at that one.

-- Patty (fodfarms@slic.com), December 03, 2000.

Earthmama, God never un-said it. Overpopulation isn't the problem. Go to the other thread in the archives on this subject, somebody wrote about putting all the people in the world in Tx and each person having 1200sq feet. You can also read similar in Countryside 1-80 page 6. Mismanagement and greed are the problems. If the farmers were allowed to do what farmers do best, there'd be plenty of food, instead the developers get to take all the country and turn it into the city. (another thread). But it's "somebody's" agenda to make it look like we're losing. Who knows, maybe someday some of these "folks" will come to us homesteaders to find out how to straighten the air, water, land out. Just a thought.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.

When I said Iwasn't going there,it was to avoid this kind of I know whats right and you don't na na na na na na stuff.Colleen you couldn't possibly,from the two sentences I wrote,know enough about me,my partner or my life to decide that my giving life is an irresponsible choice and that I use my Faith in God as an excuse.I have many family who do not choose to have children for many reasons,and I support them in their decision,they not I live with that.I have also held the hands of many girls as they sit in the hospital waiting to terminate their pregnancy.We are foster parents to 6 children other than our own.Your life is precious no matter what you choose to do with your ovaries,I have not judged those who think that the world is over-populated,I applaud you,it is I am sure an opinion you did not come to lightly,and I respect your right to think that way,so who pooped in your cheerios this morning?

teri..chose to be mom5x

-- teri murphy (mrs_smurf2000@yahoo.ca), December 03, 2000.

Teri congradulations on number 5 .Better you than me , I have 4 and thats it .I did not have easy pregnancys or deliverys .@ c-sec a v- back and another c-sec .If thats what you want and could take care of them I'm happy for you .Now if you could only skip the teenage years .

-- Patty (fodfarms@slic.com), December 03, 2000.

We have four young 'uns. Hubby wannted 12--I talked him down to four! Two boys, two girls, and wouldn't want to trade any of them in for anyone's kids. We we on WIC for awhile, and foodstamps (YEARS AND YEARS ago), when Hubby had some post Vietmam issues that had to be worked out and the Carter recession hit us like a load of bricks. Things got better after we got serious with the Lord, and I think that there lies the crux of this problem.

The Bible says that those that WILL NOT support their own are worse than infidels. Notice that I said will not--CHOOSING not to support their own families. Everyone know of instances where circumstances are such that the adults CANNOT support their own--and that is what the safety nets of church, community and gov't. are there for.

BUT...I believe that a great deal of our problems come from the lack of moral directives in this country. We have taken God and morals out of the school and homes. If we kept to the commandments to keep sex only for marriage, and keep ourselves from divorce, there would be FAR fewer children out of wedlock and far fewer single Moms struggling to raise a family on their own. If husbands kept the commandment to love their wife like Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, how many beatings would there be, and how many homes would be happier? If we kept the directives to live an honest hardworking life, there would be far fewer on the welfare rolls...and a more prosperous life all the way around.

AND YES, these directives can be kept, and enjoyed, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is power there to do these things; they are not just wishful daydreams. Our marriage is one that has been changed, much for the better.

No, I do not believe that population control should be legislated...tho sometimes the thought has its charms, when I see a troubled family having yet another child. But, A MISUSED RIGHT IS NO EXCUSE TO TAKE A RIGHT AWAY. If an angry person goes into town and kills a bunch of folks with his semi-auto rifle, does that mean the gov't has the right to take my gun from me, a peaceful citizen? If an SUV goes out of control and creams several smaller cars, does that mean that I have to get rid of our old Suburban? If someone is careless in canning their veggie soup and get sick from botulism, can the FDA forbid me from putting away my family's food from our garden? If my church doesn't meet with the gov't appproval (and strictly speaking, it doesn't, since we believe in the second coming of the Lord, and in moral absolutes, etc.) does this mean that the BATF has the right to burn the roof over our heads?

We are human beings, and as such have the right and responsibility to make appropriate choices; if you take away the moral guidelines for these choices, of course you are going to have lousy choices being made. But we do have a choice. I have seen kids from large families well fed and raised--maybe not with the finest of clothing, etc., but with lots of love and direction--into fine, responsible, capable adulthood. Andd I have seen little ones spoiled rotten when they were raised alone with no disipline (yes, you can raise a single child well...but just because he or she is the only child in a family is no gaurentee of them turning out well). The Amish are only one example of raising a large family into good community members. Large families can be raised responsibly and well; please don't take away our choice to do so!

A post script--if we did more praying, when we come upon an awful situation, or just anytime, for a return to good moral roots, and gave a hand when we can to families in crisis....then maybe we would see less of it happening around us. Prayer changes things.

-- Leann Banta (thelionandlamb@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

Read the thread that follows this on the list 1st ("see ya"). Then came to this. WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think I'll go have dinner w/ my wife and out 3. John

-- John in S IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

I hear you John,

-- teri (mrs_smurf2000@yahoo.ca), December 03, 2000.

oh booooooooooyyyyyyyyy pooped in the cheerios ha ha will i get sone mileage out of that one. cant wait till coffee shop time in the a m. Bob in s.e.ks.

-- Bobco (bobco@hit.net), December 03, 2000.

Seeing this topic is kind of weird, since it has been on my mind for awhile now. I had until now, thought that I was the only one with such concerns. In my early twenties I took for granted that I would, in the space of a few years get married and have a "typical" family. How- ever, a series of events in the upcoming years had the effect of dis- tracting me from those intentions. Now, nearly twenty years later I look around and see serious change coming ahead. Up until recently, the majority of this country was rural in some aspect, now it is suburban at the very least and urban at the worst. In the east where I live, almost all the farmland has been developed, and people continue to move farther and farther out from this develpoment, hence dragging it along with them. Agricultural activities are becoming concentrated in certian areas, making them prone to the effects of weather and overly dependent on long distance transportation. People often cite China's humanitarian abuses, but strict policys are the direct effect of such a large population and the sad reality of the need to control it. On the other hand, how can you look into a child's eyes and deny the magic that lays within? Not I. Will there be a crash? Almost certianly! It will only be after we as a species survive that; will we finally stop lying to ourselves and finally admit that we are of this earth like every other creature. That we too, with such intellect and drive are bound by the laws that regulate the existence of every other creature .

-- Bob (caseyr@99main.com), December 03, 2000.

Leann, I enjoyed reading your post, you have said what I believe to be the truth also, only you said it much better than I could. And Teri, I think it's a wonderful thing you are doing loving and caring for the foster children as well as your own. When we give our lives to God to use as He see's fit, we naturally want to help others in any way we can and to take care of what He has given us.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), December 03, 2000.

Yes Joel,we can afford 5 or more kids,Don't be sorry for asking it was a legit question.They don't wear designer clothes,and they can all operate a woodstove,skin a rabbit,make soap,or bread and all of them know how to think independant of my values or opinions if they so choose.They are the joy of our lives,and very interesting people to boot.I appreciate the way you express yourself...teri

-- teri (mrs_smurf2000@yahoo.ca), December 03, 2000.

Thanks, Rebekah for the question. Thanks to all for your response. If I can only see one side of an issue, my mind is closed and I can not grow. I appreciate this opportunity to grow. Clearly, I can't pretend to offer a solution since now you've helped me see that there may/may NOT be a problem. But it sure is nice that we ARE allowed our opinions,huh? I respect your right to think what you want, say what you like. Label me strange. I rarely get emotional over opinions. Legislature? I'd probably get loud. --Deb.

-- Debbie in ne NC (demeads@inteliport.com), December 03, 2000.

First, let me clarify, I do not think that the US has a population problem, and I don't have a problem with families who have 12 children, as long as they are not abused, and are being lovingly raised to be responsible people. But we already discussed whether or not overpopulation was a problem on the population thread. I was surprised how many were offended by families having children.When the euthanasia thread came up, I noticed that many of the same folks who were against our having our own offspring were also in favor of euthanasia. So, I'm concerned and interested in knowing just how people think we should reduce the number of births without infringing on our freedoms. Inappropriate? Well perhaps. I don't think it's any more inappropriate than what went on in the population thread. Rural folks often have larger families. We have more food to feed more children, and sometimes need an extra hand, or want children to pass the farm down to. I wouldn't advocate having kids just to have extra help,but if you have a large family, the fact is that you are going to be able to do more projects and expand in ways that you couldn't do so easily with just two people. The subject also concerns our environment and consumption habits. I am not meaning to offend anybody, just so you know, I have four children, and love them all!

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), December 03, 2000.

Just wanted to say that I'm the middle child out of 11. My mom was a stay at home mom & my dad a farmer. We were never on any type of government assistance. We grew most of what we ate. We all pitched in to get things done. I would not change my childhood for anything. We didn't have name brand things. We wore hand me downs & such, but I couldn't have asked to be more loved than I was. By the way, I'm only 30, so this wasn't that long ago. I am now due with #5 anytime. I am a stay at home mom also. It is a struggle to make ends meet at times, but we manage. We have also never had any help from the government. All of our kids were planned & are all well loved. I couldn't imagine not having any of them. My parents are now enjoying 24 grandkids with 3 more on the way. We all live within 15 miles of each other & get together often. I feel sorry for people at times because so many don't have that close knit family. We are always there for each other & I don't have to worry about my family turning their backs on me when I need them. It is our own personal choice how many kids we have. I do not want anyone telling me how big of a family I should have. I do agree that welfare needs an adjustment because it is too easy for people to keep having kids & not caring for them on their own. As far as overpopulation goes, I leave that in the hands of our Creator. I believe He knows what He's doing. I get so tired of people asking me if I'm going to get fixed after this one. (they said that with #3) I just say no, I'm not broken! I hope the Lord blesses us with another after this as I always wanted at least 6. I can't imagine there being a day when I would ever feel unhappy about the kids I have or a pregnancy. There is no greater joy in this world. If people would stop focusing on gaining material things, their life would be much happier. The joy I recieve I get from watching my kids & no amount of money can buy that!

-- Wendy (weiskids@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.


I advise that you all read a great book called World Hunger Twelve Myths by Frances Moore Lappe', Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset. They address many of your concerns and give substantial reasons why these beliefs are myths.


-- suzanne wilson (mtsuz@hotmail.com), December 03, 2000.

It is like anything else there is no solution that everyone could agree on. Me we have 3, I wanted 6, tried to adopt, not enough income. We did use some gov.aid but realistically I also paid for it, I pay taxes too. Would I do it again, yes. Responsibility is the only solution to any moral problems. I am responsible for mine. I am no. 7 out of 8. No regreats.

-- Tom (Calfarm@msn.com), December 03, 2000.

I was laying in bed praying about this post. This is what came to me to write. This discussion is totally pointless. All of it is an exercise in futility. Each and every one of you is God's creation. You have no control over the population. You have no ability to control it. The truth is there is not a thing anyone of you can do to even extend your life one second beyond what God wills it to be. God is in control of that just as he is in control of everything. If you believe otherwise it is a deception of your mind. You cannot make new land. Only God can do that. You cannot save one species of life if God wills it to disappear from the earth. You cannot change the course of the planets as God holds them in their place. You are nothing next to him. Your lifespan is but a vapor next to his eternity. You can say he doesn't exist, and it is but a joke on you. You can rail against his existence and only buy yourselves eternal agony. Ultimately your very next breath depends upon Him allowing you to have it. For every single person you seek to rid this planet of, he can replace them with a hundred new ones. For every baby you abort, he can cause millions more to be born. For every person decieved into rejecting Him there are that many more behind to take their place, and become his children. By the infinite patience of God you are allowed to exist. By the grace of God you have the choice to spend an eternity in his presence. By the justice of God you will eventually pay a price if you choose to reject him. In the end nothing you do will matter to that outcome. Whether you deny Him, curse Him, whether you believe yourself to be out of his reach, it will all come to nothing in the end. Because He is God and he knows every thought you have before you can think it, every breath you'll take before you can breath it, and everything you will ever do before you do it. Nothing you or I can do to change that, not now not ever. Praise the Lord I am ever a slave to Christ, God's son and Messiah, Emmanuel! Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 04, 2000.

Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a real blessing. Psalm 127:3

-- Diane Green (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), December 04, 2000.

Good, Little Bit! All I can add is that God many times calls children a blessing. So far as I am aware, children are the only blessing people ever decide they don't want any more of! I have three, and would have liked to have at least six. My husband didn't want any, so we compromised. I'd like to adopt some of the foster children who are waiting for homes, but he doesn't want to do that, either. My observation has been that people who don't want children are usually so self-centered that they wouldn't be good parents anyway, so it is better that they don't have children (better for the children). But they'd better not start telling other people how many children they can have, based on their own selfishness -- some of us love children, and can handle a big family just fine, thank you!! I think we are pretty much counter-balanced by the people who choose to have only one, or none. And somebody above commented that you can't legislate against the responsible people just because some are irresponsible, which is true. I agree that it would be best to remove welfare as a prop -- there should be other ways to help those who are in genuine need. But families of handicapped or ill people should be expected to do what they can, first, before turning to outside help.

I, too, noticed that the same people who support abortion and limiting family size are also supporting euthanasia. And those same people almost without exception probably believe in evolution. What you believe about our origins does have a profound effect on the decisions you make, and on your morals. If you believe that we were created by God, in His image, then you will have to value human life from conception to death, with everything that comes in between. If you believe that we evolved from animals, and are in fact no more than a *higher* form of animal ourselves, then it becomes okay to practice the kinds of culling and population management that farmer's practice on their livestock. Going to God's Word for answers is NOT "hiding behind" anything. It is making decisions based on the solid foundation of our lives. All the humanists, evolutionists, and pagans have for a foundation is the shifting sands of human opinion. I'm not about to base my whole life on anything so shaky.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), December 04, 2000.

LBF - You go, girl!

-- glynnis in KY (gabbycab@msn.com), December 04, 2000.

I was not going to post on this thread but just have to say HURRAY LIL BIT!!! I couldn't have said it so well, shows what prayer will do. GOD is in control and praise the Lord for people like you.

-- bwilliams (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), December 04, 2000.

Li'l Bit....Amen!

-- Leann Banta (thelionandlamb@hotmail.com), December 04, 2000.

Please read "The Selfish Gene" by R. Dawkins. Geesh.

-- Anne (HT@HM.com), December 04, 2000.

Little Bit Farm,

Thank you for your post - what I wanted to say but you said it so much better!

We have four children - two born to us, one went on to heaven before being born and one adopted. Would have liked to have had lots more but doesn't look as if it were in God's plan for us to have anymore born to us and adoption is a lot more expensive than most people understand - and we didn't even go the route of a foreign adoption. We adopted our son here in the U.S. - a special needs adoption through a non-profit adoption agency that works with all state and private agencies, but there are still costs for the home study to be done and an attorney for the adoption to be finalized. We took no subsidy money (we believe he is our responsibilty just as our other two are) and there wasn't any kind of a tax break either.


-- Terry (aunt_tm@hotmail.com), December 04, 2000.

Bless you Little Bit, and Amen!

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), December 04, 2000.

There is enough food for everyone right? We in this country had a surplus at one time that amounted to say 150 lb. of wheat per person. Due to population increase, even with outstanding crops that per person amount would be about 10 lb. The amounts are examples since I don't remember the exact ones but the comparisons are fairly close. With encreased production the per capita amount continues to drop. We used to give dairy products to the poor and institutions. That has almost totally stoped due to lack of products to meet demand. Sure we have enough now.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), December 04, 2000.

Nick, the reasons for the decreases in surplus are because of the governmental destruction of the agricultural base of this country. Giving more power to the ones who would love to see your destruction in the name of solving the problems that they have created even has a name. It is called the Hegellian principle. Create a problem, watch the reaction, offer the solution, get more power. Please don't buy into Ted Turner's solution.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), December 04, 2000.

By the way, for a really good discussion of letting God plan your families, read Rick and Jan Hess' book "A Full Quiver."

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), December 04, 2000.

My answer is not to be taken in any religious context, but it's moral and ethical content, please. Religions, none in particular is pointed out, can justify ANYTHING if their practitioners try hard enough. That said, I want to remind folks of the big debate about overpopulation we all had back in the 1970's, the general public, the majority of the developed countries in this world, if you will, more or less agreed that it was morally selfish to produce more than two children. If the desire to raise more than two children was overpowering due to increased maternal reasons or instincts, that adoption of additional children would fulfill that need.

However, this concept can only be taught, not enforced, to force it's use would be unconstitutional and unethical. This concept works best when people take the time to look at the total impact their life decisions have on this planet, not simply fulfilling ones immediate desires and egos of the moment. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), December 05, 2000.


-- bwilliams (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), December 05, 2000.

bwilliams, Aren't you glad?

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 05, 2000.

When you start to talk surpluses lets remember the goverment pays some farmers not to grow a crop .

-- Patty (fodfarms@slic.com), December 05, 2000.

I don't have an answer to the guestion, just a thought. Most of the "experts" who call for population control agree that two children per couple is too much. You would quadrupel the population in 4 generations. The acceptable number of children to them is one. This is Chinas policy. Now I certainly don't agree with this but I post it to show how radical that way of thinking really is. (Imagine, no brothers or sisters unless your parents are morally selfish!!)

-- Mark M in NC (magicmark@aol.com), December 05, 2000.

Doreen The gross amount of farm supplies goes UP each year with record crops as a rule. The per capita amount keeps going down on a regular basis. The farmers are doing fine. We are simply outproducing people wise.

-- Nick (wildheart@ekyol.com), December 05, 2000.

Kathleen said "I, too, noticed that the same people who support abortion and limiting family size are also supporting euthanasia. And those same people almost without exception probably believe in evolution. "

And liberals are atheist...... why can not someone just plainly disagree with you without making such broad stroked insulting statements like that? To say I am any less a child of God simply because I don't believe it is my place to shove my views and legislate morlaity and believe in compassion and freedoms of all people to have choice? And then because my views are so very different than yours I am somehow less Christian, and certainly must believe in some sort of nonscensical theory of our origins, as a liberal thinking women I certainly couldn't be just like you? This is the type of thinking that keeps folks from embracing the Christian faith, I find it very embarassing, especially coming from a woman. In our commandments to Love One Another, I think compassion is probably one of the most important things, pretty hard to be judgemental when you are compassionate. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), December 05, 2000.

Vicki, I am in complete agreement with you. Well said.

-- Leslie A. (lesliea@home.com), December 05, 2000.

Vicki, I am sorry but I don't remember Kathleen saying anything about whether you are a good Christian or not. In fact, maybe your problem is your own conviction, because Kathleen didn't make that kind of statement at all. I am sorry if you choose not to believe what the Bible says with regard to creation. That is fine and I respect your right to believe it, but I choose to believe God's word and whether I do or not doesn't say anything about whether you are a Christian or not. I am just as embarrassed by your beliefs as you are of mine. God loved every person in sodom and gomorah and yet he destroyed them for their sin. I can love you, but I certainly don't have to change my beliefs over to suit you. I also don't have to weaken mine out of compassion. I am compassionate by the way. I feel terrible about all those who are headed for Hell and I am doing and saying everything I can to prevent them from going to eternal damnation.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 05, 2000.

Little Bit I think you need to reread my post. I do not believe in evolution. Scientifically or religiously it is a theory at best. I believe the bible is the word of God, and the Quotes I put in my post came right from Kathleens post. Not quite sure what you are going on about?

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), December 06, 2000.

"Do not use harmful words, but only helpful words, the kind that build up and provide what is needed, so that what you say will do good to those who hear you." Ephesians 4:29 They will know we are Christians by our love.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), December 06, 2000.

Amanda, I agree that licensing is a crummy solution, although I understand where Soni is coming from. Soni, I like all your other ideas. I especially favor rewarding people for choosing to limit their family size, rather than giving people tax breaks for contributing to the problem, as is the case now. Of course, the "Powers that Be" WANT more and more little consumers--it makes them even richer!

Amanda, to say that overpopulation is a myth is no more than hiding your head in the sand! We can all argue over whether there are too many people on the planet at any particular point, but no one with more than half a brain can argue that we don't live on a finite planet, and that continued population growth won't cause overpopulation at SOME point, even if they can't agree that we are already having many, many population generated disasters.

Amanda, the fact is that we only have a couple of choices here. We can voluntarily limit our population to numbers that are sustainable on our finite planet, or we can continue deliberately or thoughtlessly cranking out the babies until someone else (yes, probably the government) steps in and places extremely unpopular, but seemingly necessary, controls on what we currently consider personal freedoms.

The argument that we need only educate people so that they won't have more children than they can afford is overlooking the most important facet of this issue: we are ALL

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.

Oops, I'm on a new keyboard, with smaller key spacing, and I hit a wrong key or something, I guess-

The argument that we need only educate people so that they won't have more children than they can afford is overlooking the most important facet of this issue: we are ALL affected by others' decisions to have more than two kids. We all share the resources of the same mother earth.

Two of my three kids are opting to have none or one kid, and adopting a couple. They know that they can love an adopted kid just as much as a biological one, as two of them are adopted, and nobody can tell the difference. I love them all just the same. Unconditionally. Unfortunately, my biological son and his wife are about to have number three. Not that I won't love my third grandkid, but I wish they would have adopted. My daughter in law, though, says she "could never love an adopted child like a "real" child". So self limiting.

Joy, thanks for a very thoughful post. You say, "And because I don't believe the majority of the population will see these measures as necessary, nor make the hard choices and sacrifices even if they do see the necessity, I don't think there is any way to prevent it.". I agree, except I think the result won't be a return to the stone age, but rather a gradual evolution to a China type "solution" to the problem. I also think it's extremely unfortunate that, in the US at least, those of us who are foolishly contributing to this won't be the ones to suffer the most serious consequences. Rather, it will be their children or their grandchildren. Many of us are too nearsighted to see the degraded planet that will be our gift to our progeny, though.

Joel, for once I don't feel the need to get into a large verbal sparring match with you; wow! You say, "Education, YES ! Birth Control, YES ! However, neither has put a dent in the problem". I agree, except that I'm happy to say that they have at least put a dent in the problem. Not a large enough dent, and certainly not a solution sized dent, but at least it's a start.

Cindy, I expect that the god(s) I believe in are not the same one(s) you do. Nevertheless, I suspect that there is a better conclusion to make regarding your statement about what your god allegedly said. You said, "And for those of us who are Christian or Jewish, we know that God said to multifly and replinish the earth. Since He said this we know that He will equip us and the earth with what it takes to populate the earth. "

I suggest that maybe God, if there is one, and if he really did say to multiply and replinish the earth, may not have realized how aggressively and anxiously we would take him up on it! I also suggest that rather than "equip us and the earth with what it takes to populate the earth" that maybe he already equipped us with what we need: an intellect capable of seeing that there is a limit to how many people can inhabit this finite planet, and a will to control our reproductive urges. What do you think?

Renee, you said, "Can we afford more? define afford. " I think the question should be "Can WE afford more". That is, all of us here on the forum, not just you and your hubby. And we ARE paying for your kids. We are paying in pollution, congestion, higher medical costs from breathing the air polluted by your excess kids. We're paying higher taxes to support the need for more infrastructure of all types to support the growing population. And as far as asking ourselves if those of us who are not a first or second child have the right to exist, get real!!--No one is suggesting retroactive abortion. We're merely suggesting a certain amount of personal responsibiltiy before someone else has to take responsibility FOR you!

Jay, would you say I'd been ''spayed", or have I been "neutered"? :)

Patty, you say, "I believe the real problem lyes in unwed and teenage mothers .There are plenty of woman on public assistance that have 6 or more children by differant fathers if they even know who the fathers are . " Patty, I think that the origin of the child has absolutely NO bearing on how much he impacts the earth, and the well being of all of us. Whether or not his mama and daddy are married, whether the parents or the government pay for the items the child consumes, the results are the same. Depletion of our heritage. I live in the country, and I can tell you that a very large percentage of the moms and dads out here push little keypads to buy their food at the market (the current version of food stamps, just like the citified folks on welfare do. As far as "teaching children right from wrong", there's nothing wrong with that at all. Just as there is nothing wrong with teaching adults right from wrong. Right: face the fact that we live on a finite planet. Wrong: ignore that fact at your peril.

Amanda, stopping the welfare to curb population growth would probably have the desired effect. I'm personally in favor of reforming welfare rather than eliminating it. I think welfare is great for some situations, such as when a mother is left a widow, and needs a helping hand to get by while she gets educated so she can get a job. But it needs to be a helping hand, not a way of life. How about if we stop increasing the pay to welfare families who have more than two kids? Would that be acceptable to you?

Gotta go; if I don't mix my mortar now, it won't be hard enough to finish off before nightfall, even though I'm using hot water in the mix, and extra cement. It's too darn cold. I'll return after I've gotten all the rocks set. See ya. JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.

He-He, giggle, giggle. I am envisioning my God who is capable of creating his creation, telling them to "multiply" and then his creation suggesting that He was not aware they might actually do so....

God " uh, well, gee guys, you know that part about "multiplying?" well, nevermind." !!!!! Oh, that is too funny.

Also, I think the difference may come down to mother-earth, vs God the FATHER. Mother-earth cannot. Father God can. God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), December 06, 2000.

JOJ , as usual I will deagree with you .Lets look at stats .Children with no father in there life are more likely to use drugs, be teenage mothers and go to jail .How many moms on welfare had moms on welfare ? Apparently you have never lived by a large city .I worked for a large grocery store and got to see the cream of the welfare crop .The bought every in junk food thing name brand and the finest cuts of meat .I also was so lucky to see how they treated there children ,my animals for slaughter get treated better .Every once in a while you would get one who truely needed help and was trying to better themselfs , but most of the time they thought you owed it to them .Have they ever gardened ,canned,cook from scratch on a daily bases ,recycled,?You can answer that one for yourself .My children impack the earth far less than many city children .My children will someday be adults and hopefully take our lifestyle with them to share with others .Without are homesteading children we are a dying breed .

-- Patty (fodfarms@slic.com), December 06, 2000.

Excellent Post, Joe! Oh, by the way,Wendy and Lil Bit; Goddess bless!!

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), December 06, 2000.

Patty, I know we generally disagree; so it goes. I do not, however, understand what we're disagreeing on this time. I think all I said was that there are plenty of rural people on welfare. Being a "homesteader" does not make us "Holier than Thou", does it? I suspect that, generally speaking, you are right that city kids are more impactive on the planet than country kids, but not always. We have plenty of "cochinos" out here in the country. In fact, there are plenty out here who not only are environmentally unconcious, but deny that there is any reason to respect the environment. All they want is to make money and be left alone to do whatever they want--to hell with everyone else.

Rebekah, in response to your concern, " I'm concerned and interested in knowing just how people think we should reduce the number of births without infringing on our freedoms", I don't think there is but one way to reduce the number of births without infringing on our freedoms. Voluntarily limiting our family size. If we don't, I believe we will eventually not even HAVE our freedoms. BTW, if you need more hands around the farm, why not have work parties with some of your neighbors? Why not admit that our current pyramid scam won't work, in the long run?

LBF; I'm sorry you think this thread is pointless. Did God make you post a message, then? God made me attempt to enlighten you and the others who are in such denial about the finite quality of our planet. You say, "God is in control of that just as he is in control of everything. If you believe otherwise it is a deception of your mind". If this is so, I guess God made me post my opinion, too. And made me support a woman's choice over her own body. And made me get "fixed", in order to limit the population on the planet that He created. Gimme a break. God doesn't make you crank out kids; nor does he make you have abortions. He supposedly gave you an intellect, and the ability to make choices. Some choices are good; some are bad. That's life. You may enslave yourself to whatever dogma you want; I don't choose to be enslaved. Sorry if that doesn't fit your meme.

Kathleen, it's exactly because I DO value human life that I'm conciencious enough to get a vasectomy, and to TRY to influence others to look to the future, rather than to the past, in order to make up their own minds about this issue. Y'all say you don't want anybody telling you how many children to have, yet your very fecundity is going to result in someone telling you exactly that.

Mark--NOT!! Two children per couple will not result in any long term population growth. China has reached a point where the powers that be believe their population is way too large, so they are calling for one child per couple in order to REDUCE the population. Simple math, Mark; think about it.

Wendy, actually God is NOT so conceited that he refuses to admit to a bit of an oversight. He's great believer in the 6 P's, I might add. (Prior planning prevents piss poor performance. But He admits he's not perfect, and since he created this planet several hundred years ago, he really can't be blamed for not looking far enough ahead to see what a mess we'd make of his garden of eden. Now he would surely want us to control ourselves, so we can stop fouling HIS nest!

I can see God saying "Hey, guys, about the multiplication, uh, aren't you taking my commandment just a LITTLE BIT too far, eh?"

Thanks for your kind words, earthmama! By the way, I agree with your post about there being a difference between going out and multiplying THEN vs. NOW. When He said go forth and multiply, nobody thinks he meant "go forth and multiply until you defile my creation". At least, I've never seen any evidence that he said that.


-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.

It don't take no rocket scientist here, learn how to keep your pants up!

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmaail.com), December 06, 2000.

I should stop while I'm ahead, but here goes.I beleive there is naturally accuring population reduction.There are now many working woman who choose not to have children or start late in life and cannot conceive.There seems to be more infertility and if all else fails we can always count on the middle east for reducing the population over there.

We as homesteaders are not perfect , most of us do a better job of teaching are children respect for living things and the planet .I also think we waste allot less.

As for adopting the costs are above allot of folks means.It is not cheap .There are age restrictions and I beleive some folks would not take kindly to are lifestyle.

-- Patty (fodfarms@slic.com), December 06, 2000.

In answer to your question Joe, I do believe that God is using you on this forum. I believe God is using you to his own glory. Now as to whether God agrees with you I can only determine that through his Word. God has however used many who had bent their will against Him, the Pharoh in Egypt for instance. Romans 1:28 says "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." So obviously God has used those who had no use for Him. I do want to clarify that God did not make me write what I wrote, but I believe he helped me clarify my thoughts and I wrote what I felt was right at the time. Everything I wrote was based on His word.

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 06, 2000.

Oh, to be so perfect.

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.

My Wife & I seriously looked into foster care a few years ago. The case worker at the state office threatened us. She found out we homeschooled and said "You know, if you have foster children, we can come to your home at any time and inspect". When I asked her why, or what rights I had she replied "You don't have any. We can do what ever we feel is in the best interest of the children. Those who are wards of state or yours". Needless to say we aren't helping to meet the needs of the kids in IN. John

-- John in S IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), December 06, 2000.

Just as a bit of info, did you all know that the Singapore is now paying women to have more children, to avert a population decline? And Germany is considering doing the same.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), December 06, 2000.

Actually the very act of asking Christ to be the Lord of your life is simply admitting how imperfect you really are. I am nothing next to God. He is perfect. I am just a saved mess. If I was pefect I would have no use for God. My heart is just as dark as everyone elses. I am so thankful to the Lord that he chose to redeem me. I am thankful he loved me enough to save me even though I truly don't deserve it.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 06, 2000.

The topic here, LBF is population control, not evangelsm. Thanks for your consideration.

For what it's worth, some of us who are also not perfect, still have no use for a crutch. I'm glad that you're happy with Him, though.

Christina, I didn't know that Germany or Singapore were considering this. Didn't Japan have a similar happening a few years ago? I realize that a population decline presents certain economic challenges. Some positive, some negative. It's why I've started posts on various forums asking if anyone has any ideas on how best to deal with a non expanding economy. Some of us here in parts of Oregon, are interested in addressing just HOW large a population we would like, sort of as a goal. So far, I don't have any great tools for dealing with the economic issues involved in having a static, or declining population. I did find some very interesting articles on the net; some were in the Seattle Times (?), describing efforts to follow the model used in Boulder Colorado. I also have a list (somewhere) of urls supplied by a kind woman who read the posting. It's an interesting situation, for sure.



-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.

I must be getting slap-happy, because this is just too funny to me. I'm sorry, really I am, but I have to respond to JOJ.

Concerning the 6 P's - (Prior planning prevents piss poor performance) - I agree!!!! I think where the disagreement comes into play, is that I trust that God the Father is the consumate "planner". The thought of God neglecting to "plan" for His creation, is hysterical to me. Not to mention His forgetting to "update" His word to His people concerning multiplying. Sorry, I think I even snorted there.

And concerning the part about "He admits he's not perfect". Care to reference that?

Really, JOJ, you are probably a perfectly fine person. And obviously I disagree strongly with you concerning overpopulation. But that stands to reason. And really, I support your right to make your choices. But I do suspect this is one of those issues that will be used against Christians, in a not too distant future. And in a not so nice way, but alas, this too has been planned for. Heads up Christians! And others! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), December 06, 2000.

Regarding welfare and women having child after child to receive more money;please consider adopting a waiting child. Many of these children have been taught that having babies is the way to live off the government. Out of the six children we have adopted, each has at least 3 siblings. Give a child a good home and break the cycle. By the way,we chose adoption because we wanted to make a difference not because of over population concerns.

-- Barbara Ternes (lbfarm@hit.net), December 06, 2000.

After re-reading my earlier post I realize that I might have in- advertanly implied that the "experts on population control" say that one couple will quadrepal in 4 generations. That was my own math using their "figures". I realize I didn't express myself well. The point I was trying to make was that "population control" leads to repression like JOJ pointed out with his statements regarding the nation of China, where the "Powers that be" don't think their citizens should have more than one child. I'm sure glad I don't live in a Socialist nation such as China.

-- Mark M in NC (magicmark@aol.com), December 07, 2000.

Nobody has a real answer to this problem. Personally, my husband and are are debating having children at all and people consider us "selfish" for it. People think there is something wrong with you if you choose to limit your reproduction! We do know that if we decide to have children it will be only one child. I do agree that welfare needs to go away. At most I think emergency food supplies for children should be provided (don't want starving babies while mom is out being a crack junky). Providing increasing monitary benefits for each birth only makes women into broodmares! Elle

-- elle (hotging@aol.com), December 08, 2000.

JO Joe -- I'm so glad to see you back on the boards. I was starting to wonder what had become of you because I always enjoy reading your posts, even the few minor points we don't agree on. Anyway, you came to the points that I was going to ultimately make and did it without rancor. Thanks.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), December 08, 2000.

JOJ, If you definitely don't believe in God, then you're not going to believe what He said, only what you've seen. If you don't know for sure if He exists then you might wonder if what He said is true. If you believe and let it mostly stay at that, then you know it's true but won't get too involed in Him or His Word. But if you really believe, if you truly know God and have a personal relaitonship with His Son, Jesus, then you know just not head knowledge but you know what He said is true. You know that he is onmipotent, and omnipresent. He knows how many people are in this world and how many have been and how many there will be. And He's not worried. He knows the end. We are to trust Him for this matter. We are to believe His word and trust in what it says. He said Be fruitful and multiply, He never unsaid it or added to it or took it away. It's not part of the law of the Old Testament that we're not under any more. When He gives you a commandment or responsibility He does equip you with the knowledge and strenght to complete it. It's in His time, which is the hardest part for us, but if we remain faithful we will see God's hand work.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 08, 2000.


-- bwilliams (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), December 08, 2000.

Cindy, a lovely post. God Bless you!

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 08, 2000.

Scary. You three make a perfect couple. Guess what? You only THINK you know everything, and THINK you have a "personal relationship" with Jesus.

I had a relationship with someone who SAID he was Jesus, quite a few years ago. I think he was on acid, though. He still thought he was Jesus many years later, according to my sister, whose friend he was. Do you suppose he really IS Jesus, and they're only holding him in the psychiatric ward he's in as some kind of antichrist PLOT?

Sheesh, you guys have about as much of a clue as he did...


-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 08, 2000.

JOJ, Did he have nail scars in his wrists and legs?

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 08, 2000.

Why is it that the reference to God seems like the desire for a cosmic parent of some kind? In control? If chaos is control! If the boom and bust natural laws of population cycles are control. We as humans may or may not have power over the world, but not to take responsibility for your own actions and to justify your own desires no matter the effect it will have on others is pathetic and lame! Snap out of that denial and deal with reality! I know what I have to say will have no effect on what you do and believe. But, when you what hits the fan I won't pay any attention to your whining! Because you know better NOW!

-- B.C. (caseyr@99main.com), December 09, 2000.

Do I have to be a "Right Wing Christian" to Homestead? Obviously I am new to the boards and now I find I am in trouble! Not only am I NOT a "Christian" per se but I also do not believe everyone has the RIGHT to do whatever they want. I think one should have only as many children as they can afford to send to college. You figure the rest out. For those who say it isn't costing me anything for you to have children.....climb out of the box. Their "footprints" travel far.


-- Laura Leek (LauraLeekis@home.com), December 09, 2000.

You don't have to be a Christian to be a homesteader. Why does everyone have to go to college?

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 09, 2000.

Cindy, society has led us to believe that everyone needs to go to college or you are somehow inferior, not. Some of the most educated people I know have not been to college. Most of the colleges now a days don't teach anything but all this liberal bull. I know, my husband works at one. They actually brain wash most of the students, the ones who can't think for themselves, and that is even getting down into high school and elementary school now. Oh the state this country is in. I know God is upset about it and I'm concerned about what might happen to this country.

-- bwilliams (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), December 09, 2000.

Not everyone HAS to go to college and I never said Everyone did. I do believe if your child chooses to go, you should have the means to make that poosible for them. This world is difficult enough as it is, without a college education, it is that much more difficult. I was simply using it as a measuring stick for those who think 6-10 children are fine and that they can afford it. I would like to how in the world they pay for medical insurance with that many.

-- Laura Leek (LauraLeekis@home.com), December 09, 2000.

It seems to me that working for your own educations has greater rewards than having it handed to you. Not everyone but most!

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 09, 2000.

Well, there've been a lot of original ideas, including some I'd never thought of, such as getting licensed before you can have a baby! How are you going to enforce that without infringing on people's freedoms? I have been relieved to discover that most of you are not in favor of handing over your reproductive rights to the government. The one for getting rid of welfare had not occurred to me- in Idaho you don't get paid more for extra children after 2. Also can't get welfare if you don't know, or refuse to divulge the father of the child. I think abstinence should be practiced by all unmarried people, but then,in some ways I'm narrow minded. But since abstinence has been suggested by more than one of you as a method for keeping the numbers down, I have to ask: Why in the world would anyone want to get married if they're not ever going to have sex or have children? Maybe I'm naive, I thought those were to two main reasons for getting married?

I kind of regret having started this thread now, but I guess I wanted to make a point of some kind. We can have big brother decide who gets to have children, and how many, and when, or we can retain the right to decide ourselves and take what comes if there are nmore people than some would like. After traveling through Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and Nebraska, the idea that there is not enough room for us all is hard for me to fathom.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), December 09, 2000.

Companionship/loneliness, money are other reasons people get married. I don't see any reason for you to regret posting this. We all have our own opinions, and it helps to see the other side, to understand what people think. We sure don't all agree, do we?:-} You never know who's reading this, what seeds are planted.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 09, 2000.

I married my husband for covenantal reasons. I took a vow which I take more seriously than even just the legal part. Of course, the legal part is important because I have certain rights (insurance, right of survivorship, joint property, etc.) because I am married. However, somewhat incidentally, we have different last names, which still, in this day and age, leads to some confusion. Why did I keep my maiden name (maiden seems so hilarious to me, b/c I have never been very "maiden-like." In fact my father sent me to Charm School (sic) so I could learn how to behave like a lady....but that is digressing too far!) Anyway, I kept my maiden name because I like it. And I think people can share their lives without children. Planned or not.

And I have enjoyed this discussion, so thanks for asking the question.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 09, 2000.

You are right Cindy. There is nothing quite as fulfilling as carrying a $50,000 debt on your back straight out of college. What a rewarding way to begin a new life on one's own. My bust

-- Laura (LauraLeekis@home.com), December 09, 2000.

Laura, there are plenty of non Christians here, we take ALL religious, or non religious believers here on the forum, us non Christians are normally less vocal about it, to avoid the constantly trying to be saved, or converted sermon from the Christians who think it is their duty to save us heathens ( their opinion , not mine).

Because I choose to follow the teachings of 5000+ year old form of religious expression that is totally nonviolent in nature, I am labeled a "heathen" that is damned to eternal damnation in their "hell", much like the native Americans were labeled, and subsequently exterminated, in this country in 1700's,1800's, and yes, even in the 1900's. Who, I ask you, is "the compassionate" one here?

Prejudice and racism exist to a terrible extreme, even today, in this country due to the closed minded religious beliefs of many who reside here. We should love, and care about one another, WITHOUT reservation, that is what I believe, and follow. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), December 10, 2000.

And Anne and Laura there are lots of us Christians here on the forums who find this continuous jamming of doctrin (and mostly man made doctrin, not biblical facts) down others throats to be just as sickening! The patting of the hand and saying that when you believe things their way, then you will be allowed into their heaven....condeming all others to hell when the bible clearly teaches us that Satan and only Satan is condemened to hell. There is only one unforgiveable sin and no one has committed this yet.

So please don't judge all Christians by the few squeaking wheels you hear on this forum. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (vickilonesomedoe@hotmail.com), December 10, 2000.

This country needs many more Christians who think, and care, like you do Vicki, bravo for you!!! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), December 10, 2000.

hey u guys u lot r prechers, ur all like PRAISE THE LORD~~~!

-- roisin rf (roisin~@frog.com), May 21, 2001.

Cindy, as a matter of fact, I believe he did have some funny scars. But it's been almost forty years since I have seen him, and my memory ain't what it used to be...


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), May 21, 2001.

I am wondering how social security is ever going to survive if the population doesnt continue to grow at a rather alarming rate?

If the politicians cant even fix the Ponzi Scheme (think: illegal) called Social Security, what makes any one think they would even touch population control?

And if they did, what genes would they want to favor? Concider that most people who voluntarily restrict the number of their offspring are those who carry the genes which favor the highest intelligence.... Is this one reason our schools' average test scores are going lower?

Personally, I want 6 kids. I feel I have a high enough intelligence and good enough looks and high enough values that I would like to contribute a good share to the next generation. Granted, it takes a lot of hard work and personal sacrifice to invest myself in producing GOOD kids, but I think that is the most worthwhile thing I could do with my life.

As for what you do... that is really up to you. Do what you think is right for the next generation. If refusing to contribute your genes, and sitting around griping about those who invest their lives in shaping the next generation is what you think you were meant to do, go for it. You probably are indeed doing mankind a favor.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), May 21, 2001.

Daffy, I see you are sharing even more of your brilliant genetic intuitiveness with us.

Your own statement, "I feel I have a high enough intelligence and good enough looks and high enough values that I would like to contribute a good share to the next generation." sounds like an oxymoron. Do you really think "good looks" is an important issue here? I could tell you quite a few "blond jokes" if you like...

I would also point out that YOU are promoting the very Ponzi scheme you decry! The idea that we need more and more kids to make social security function better is no more than a typical, self deluding pyramid scheme, as there is a limited amount of resources to provide for all the little baby daffies.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), May 22, 2001.

Another question on this subject- assuming that the ones practicing voluntary population control are middle to upper class, intelligent, and environmentally concious, maybe they would be shooting themselves in the foot by not having children?

Barring a strictly voluntary population reduction, I can't imagine a poplulation control that would not result in a eugenics program.

Maybe the problem is not as much in how many babies are born, but in the people who live. We've devised a lot of ways to sustain life and keep people alive that would have died 50 years ago. Now I see they ar working on an artificial womb, to help women who are not able to sustain a pregnancy. While I feel sympathy for these women, from a livestock breeders viewpoint, maybe this isn't a really smart idea. Nature has it's own built in eugenics program, survival of the fittest (fittest doesn't necessarily mean bigger and stronger, rather, more adapted to it's environmant). We have found a myriad of ways to circumvent this, and perhaps this, not normal reproduction, is the problem.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), February 10, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ