The Malthusian paranoia of a coming population boom has nothing on the reality of a coming population implosion.
Frankly it kinda makes a girl want to procreate.
~ MSNBC contributor S.E. Cupp (pictured) commenting on Jonathan Last’s What To Expect When No One’s Expecting, via MSNBC’s Inside the Cycle, February 23
[HT: Jill]
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.
Oh, she had to say it, didn’t she? I can just envision all the sleezy men lining up offering to “help.” :\
This reminds me of conservative Maggie Gallagher’s column on a device called “Baby Think It Over.” This is a doll given to high school girls. It is programmed to make a very loud, annoying crying sound at irregular times in hopes that the girls will be less likely to get pregnant as unmarried teenagers if they have a good idea of what caring for a baby is really like. Gallagher says the goal of persuading unmarried teen girls to refrain from having babies is “noble” but the means are “yucky” because Baby Think It Over “amounts to baby aversion therapy.”
Indeed, the message of Baby Think It Over could be somewhat confusing. It doesn’t really say wait for adulthood and/or wait for marriage before having a baby since a baby is going to cry regardless of the mother’s age or marital status.
And yet Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton have traveled the world on our dime, especially to Africa to try and decimate their populations as well. Humans are in great need of healing and rejuvenation!
Besides, we’re gonna need more people :>)!
http://www.inspirationmars.org/
Alice, your comment was funny and too true. However, she said it could make a “girl want to procreate,” not “fornicate.” I think that distinction will keep the sleezy men away. I am sure the desire to procreate will keep the prochoice men away unless they are wanna be dead-beat dads.
In fact, this is a reminder for women on how procreation can be used as way to help discern future mates (one of the lessons that is not emphasized in sex ed classes).
My wife and I have procreating covered =) 2 down, at least 2 more to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200
It is a long story. I believe it dates back directly to the “Poor Laws” in England that emerged not too long after the Plague. England has had attempts to provide chairty for those in need, while recognizing that it was apparent that a fair portion could be better described as thieving, lazy vagabonds. The poor or needy could stay at workhouses, as long as they provided manual labor.
The more the poor were encouraged to congregate, the more problems they created in that locale. So, Christians had a tough time of addressing charity needs with disorderly, shiftless people. The females were recognized as being irresponsible in what we call “family planning:” the poor reproduced a lot, and made the wealth-creators nervous seeing all of those mouths to feed.
As science emeged in the 1800s, including Galton, the problem of this burden shifted from being a moral issue to being a scnetific issue: these people were biologically inferior. Galton coined the term “eugenics.” Psitive eugenics was defined as promoting the “favored” middle class people to reproduce at a rate to keep their “lines” from being out-numbered by the poor, and negative eugenics included discouraging less deserving people from reproducing, lest they water down the biological “stock.”
This is “classism,” with the biologic aspect being a sort of “racism.”
Darwin helped provide the mechanism for explaining how these problems would overtake us.
We educated elites have held these beliefs ever since.
Beginning in the 1940s, with our post-WWII mandate to keep the world safe for us, we in the US and also with some help from UK tied post-war development to a country’s commitment to population control.
Our US leading interest has been in keeping these countries from getting too powerful by their growing populations – too many of the wrong kind of people.
To see this in one of its most single, clear documentations, you can read about “NSSM 200.”
It pretty much says what I have said. This is Hilary Clinton’s, and Bill Gates,’ and the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s theme song.
They all try to put a pretty face on it. We sold “population control” to Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, India, etc. on the idea that pop control would lead to economic prosperity and international power. They bought it. Partly because we tied it to economic aid.
Look at the U.S. GDP from WWII onward – incredible burst of wealth. We had wealth to spred around.
The sentiments are the same from the 1600s on to Margaret Sanger’s frank admissions, and the side-bar of Hitler’s adoption of our eugenics beliefs.
In “the West,” where those of us with political influence are mostly white and educated, we have not needed the economic argument to control our population, and we don’t like the draconian methods of China or India. Instead, we have bought the “rights” line of thinking – we are entitled to have a sexual life, we are entitled to plan our families with abortion, women’s rights, etc.
Here, we are still bothered by the lower classes who we believe reproduce too much – too much because we resent having to provide the welfare / charity.
So, we try to convince the lower classes, which curiously happen to be more brown and black, that they can experience economic success if only they will refrain from having so many children. Same story we are selling overseas to the darker-skinned nations.
This works best if we provide these services for free.
So, our leading strategy for helping lower income people have better prospects is to push birth control and abortion. Not job training, not substance abuse treatment, not infrastructure development, local focused development zones, microbusiness loans, business training, personal financial management, or safety from thieves. Just population control.
Talked with a 30ish black man the other day. He had some college and spoke 3 languages. Told me that he had no children as he was looking for the ‘right’ woman.
I pointed out that if he became the ‘right’ man he would have his pick of a ‘right’ woman. Didn’t he think that the world needed another man like that?
TheLastDemocrat – I wish I could “like” your statement a hundred times over!
I actually like that a lot, too.
The Last Democrat – I must say that was the best (really long) post I have read in quite some time.
First comes love,
then comes marriage,
then comes the baby in the baby carriage.
We need to get things back into the right order.
Patty, I’m confused by your comment. How do you know he wasn’t already a good man looking for a good woman? What’s the point of mentioning his race? What kind of man are you referring to? What was the point of what you posted?
this whole thing kind of makes a girl want to puke.
We already have an exceedingly large population, that is predicted to keep growing. There are 7 billion+ people in this world. Many of those go hungry. how many more do you think we really need?
“How many more do you think we really need?”
However many get made. The hunger problems in the world right now are due to logistics of delivering provisions, not lack of provisions. The entire world population could fit quite comfortably in a space the size of the United States. We got this.
Right. So don’t you think we should solve those problems before we decide to jump on the “let’s have an even bigger population!” bandwagon? Also, procreating just for the sake of augmenting the population seems like a bad idea.