It is vitally important that beautiful people have babies, because otherwise the human race would become progressively uglier with each succeeding generation.
Robert Stacy McCain, The Other McCain, commenting on the news of actress Natalie Portman’s pregnancy and engagement, December 27
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Robert Stacey McCain…and what do YOU look like? Who creates babies? Who makes the deaf and dumb. Is it not I sayeth the Lord? You ought to read “You are special” by Max Lucado and stop judging the physical characteristics of people. Man looks on the outside but God looks on the HEART. And some of the most “beautiful” people are some of the ugliest people emotionally and spiritually.
BTW, there was a rather ugly mom and dad (sorry but they def weren’t pretty) in my church and their children were the most BEAUTIFUL children and today as adults are pretty good looking! It was like just the right features were passed on and the ugly features weren’t. God is ultimately the designer and He makes no mistakes. He makes people just the way He wants them.
It is vitally important that PRO-LIFE people have babies, because otherwise the human race would become progressively SMALLER with each succeeding generation.
Yes because in 5 billion years when the sun burns out and the human race becomes extinct and the universe becomes cold and devoid of all life, what is important and what will have given our existence meaning is the fact that we as a human race become progressively more beautiful.
When the sun burns out and humans have successfully colonized other planets, we’ll hope they find beauty in each other.
I think that the quote, while seeming shallow, hits home a little. All of the healthy babies who’ve been aborted would have become beautiful toddlers, teens, and grown ups.
Erm…may we hope that his tongue was planted very firmly in his cheek when he wrote this? Because otherwise I agree with Sydney.
Alright, everyone, it’s time for an RS McCain tutorial:
He was being completely tongue in cheek. He has a way of making some snarky comments that point out some of the absurdity of the rich and famous. He even has a feature on his blog called “Famous for Being Famous”.
He describes himself as a “hellbound Democrat” who finally saw the conservative light. He has six, yes, six kids. Married to the same woman after all these years. As a regular reader of his blog, I can tell you he posts some of the most hysterical commentary.
Just your daily dose of Chill Pill.
Hi carder,
Chillin’ as we speak. :)
BTW…
Did anyone see the MTV Abortion episode last night?
I did. Am saving commentary for later.
Thoughts?
The catch here is that one cannot always predict how the DNA will align. Very attractive people can produce plain or unattractive children. Very unattractive people can produce very attractive children. Beautiful babies and children can grow into plain or unattractive adults, and homely babies and children can become attractive adults.
I remember the fuss over Brad and Angelina’s first baby, predictions as to what she would look like and of course she’ll have to be gorgeous.
While I think she is a pretty little girl I don’t think she is exceptional in her looks. She looks like any number of other little girls I see all the time.
“Every little girl should be told she’s beautiful…even if she isn’t.” -Marilyn Monroe
My mother’s cousin and his wife were very attractive people. Like I said you cannot always predict how the DNA will align and their first daughter resembled her grandfather, a man my mother described as “extremely homely”. As you might guess “Marnie” went through life as the homely sister. Her younger sister was a beauty, even though I was told she looked like a monkey when she was born. Not my description folks. However Marnie married, stayed married, and is a grandmother, and continues to resemble her grandfather. It shows that looks do not make a relationship and in themselves accomplish nothing.
As a dear friend of mine who spent years being abused by her husband told me, “I would much rather have had 10 happy years with the homeliest man on the planet than the 10 years of hell I had with a gorgeous one”.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think Natalie Portman is attractive, but not beautiful, unlike moi ;-)
“It is vitally important that PRO-LIFE people have babies, because otherwise the human race would become progressively SMALLER with each succeeding generation.”
You say that as if it’s a bad thing.
In the liberal, world-utopia view, fewer people means higher taxes for the living.
If what The Other McCain is saying is true, it’s bad news for me. :-\
Great quote from Marilyn Ninek
Cranky, that’s the thing that always gets me about pro-abortion/pseudo socialist combo pack. Their ideas LITERALLY do not even work in THEORY unless there are sufficient people in succeeding generations to pay for the benefits of the older generations.
CT and Cranky,
So agree. In a one-child-per-family world, each child would be responsible for 6 adults: his 2 parents plus his 4 grandparents. In what tax plan would that work out? The only child would be better off not working at all than paying 80% of his salary to the tax man. Libs have a little trouble with math. Maybe, as stated in that funny cartoon, it’s cuz they find math so boring. Lol!
Hilarious quote. It reminded me of Rush Limbaugh’s quote: Feminism was established “to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.”
“CT and Cranky,
So agree. In a one-child-per-family world, each child would be responsible for 6 adults: his 2 parents plus his 4 grandparents. In what tax plan would that work out? The only child would be better off not working at all than paying 80% of his salary to the tax man. Libs have a little trouble with math. Maybe, as stated in that funny cartoon, it’s cuz they find math so boring. Lol!”
Really? What do you suggest, keeping in mind that each child will then turn around and create more children, who in turn will themselves reproduce, and so on, all of whom will eventually rely on younger generations, if your shaky, unscientific calculations hold. Eventually a point of unsustainability is reached. Since you’re so keen at math, here’s some numbers for you: the world population in 1900 was just over 1.6 billion people. In 1950 it was just over 2.5 billion. Today it’s almost 7 billion, and in 40 years the world’s population is projected to be over 9 billion. Anyone who doesn’t see this exponential increase in population reaching a catastrophic point in the future simply is not paying attention.
Oh, Joan, I’m so convinced! I’m going to stop being pro-life this minute because oh my too many people. Lol!
We can produce food more efficiently than ever. We do need to get smarter about how we impact the environment, but genocide is not the answer. Unless you’re volunteering to go first? Didn’t think so.
My solution to the overpopulation myth is simple: colonize space. But I don’t believe in your myth. The human life span is getting gradually longer, but it’s not like suddenly everyone’s going to live to be 200 and there won’t be any room for the new kids. In fact, much of the world is already in population winter. France is a good example. Were it not for immigration, they would be in much more rapid decline.
“We can produce food more efficiently than ever. We do need to get smarter about how we impact the environment, but genocide is not the answer. Unless you’re volunteering to go first? Didn’t think so.”
Where did you get from my post that I support genocide as a means of curbing population size? The answer is responsible breeding. Genocide will only come as a last resort when scarcity of resources (including not just food but energy) clashes with population growth. We’re not at that point yet, but when we are, we’ll see just what human beings are capable of doing to other human beings in the fight for survival, and it won’t be pretty.
“My solution to the overpopulation myth is simple: colonize space.”
Really? And what habitable planet within our reach do you suggest? Oh, that’s right, there is no known planet hospitable to carbon-based life in our solar system besides Earth. It’s incredible (and stupid and arrogant) that someone who thinks “space colonization” is a viable endeavor can dismiss overpopulation as a “myth”.
Every time I fly across the country on a clear day I look down at the ground and try to see the billions and billions of people standing shoulder-to-shoulder. I guess I’m just too high up to see them.
In the meantime, enjoy another photoshopped image. See how I’ve masterfully removed the oceans of people to simulate a once remote landscape that existed in the days when disease, cancer, wars, and natural catastrophes kept the world’s population in check.
Right, because the only standard for measuring overpopulation and the ensuing scarcity of resources is whether we’re forced to stand shoulder-to-shoulder or not. After all, people only need a few square yards of space to live comfortably, and the entire surface of the planet is hospitable to human life; it’s not like most of the Earth is covered by water or anything. And because exponential population growth hasn’t harmed our standards of living yet, that means it never will.
Joan, that turnip truck that passed by you earlier? I didn’t fall off it.
You have been commenting on Jill’s blog for a while now. I think we all know what your ‘final solution’ to the world’s problems are.
There is water on Mars and water on one of Jupiter’s moons. Maybe hop over to Nasa’s website and see what cool stuff they’ve got going or just educate yourself in general. To say that we don’t have the means and will to colonize is the stuff of the-world-is-flat crowd. It may be possible to colonize other moons or planets, depending on how many people you’d expect to support. For example, a planet with little water but lots of other resources could be mined by a smaller crew, while a planet or moon with lots of water could accommodate a larger population. What the heck news outlets are you perusing? Why so moon-is-made-of-green cheese? Maybe you need to take a break from the Onion and read some real news stories.
Ok, I’ll admit, that last comment was snarky. But i do tease my friends about the Onion so you’re in good company. Perhaps it was rash of me to assume that abortion would be part of your plan to combat overpopulation. Maybe you’ve had a change of heart and I’m not giving the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I should just send Ted Turner a snarky email and ask him which of his five kids he plans to get rid of.
Anyway, this is almost 2011. I watched the first men walk on the moon and honestly I’m disappointed at how little physical progress we’ve made. We have the means but we lack the collective will. I wish the space program would become more popular, socially, like it used to be. A hundred years ago maybe you could have scoffed at the idea of space travel, but with all the information we’ve gained in the last decade, colonization is more possible than ever. (Poor Pluto, you’ll always be a planet to me). Maybe Padme Amidala’s kids will be astronauts, wouldn’t that be awesome?
(ninek): In a one-child-per-family world, each child would be responsible for 6 adults: his 2 parents plus his 4 grandparents.
But where, really, does this come from? The idea for Social Security was that each person’s contributions would pay for themself, no extra-generational stuff necessarily included. And if the parents are paying for the grandparents, why would the kid have to also pay for them?