Obama's pastoral alliance

Yesterday, Barack Obama met with church leaders - in the Chicago highrise office building where my husband works, incidentally - to perhaps discuss the wonderment that lightning doesn't strike whenever he invokes the name of Christ in the same breath he condones abortion.

Ok, I doubt that but do admire his chutzpah for continually taking the risk. According to the Associated Press:

As one clergyman put it, when Barack Obama met with Christian leaders in Chicago today, the discussion "went absolutely everywhere."

The presumed Democratic presidential nominee met privately with the group [of ~30], which included conservatives, and discussed Darfur, the Iraq war, gay rights and abortion.

t. d. jakes.jpg

Bishop T.D. Jakes, who heads a Dallas megachurch, tells the AP that Obama discussed his "personal journey of faith." And he says some of the participants clearly have political differences with Obama. Jakes, who does not endorse candidates, says he would also like to meet with John McCain.

Obama's campaign says the event included "prominent evangelicals and other faith leaders" and there will be more such meetings in the months to come....

The senator's support for abortion rights and gay rights, among other issues, draws opposition from religious conservatives.

Ah, Jakes. I parted company with this man I now know is a "health and wealth" preacher in 2000 when he handed pro-abort presidential contender Al Gore his pulpit to pander to 30,000 congregants.

Jakes had an odd way of not endorsing Obama, writing in a CNN op ed of getting "goose bumps" watching Obama as a fellow black (in reality half-white) accept the nomination, and:

I congratulate Sen. Obama on this historic accomplishment. I thank him for accepting the torch that was lit by our forefathers and proudly carrying it through the darkness of our struggles, trials and tribulations, bringing light and hope to a new generation, and for facing all those who said "No" and "You can't win," or "It will never happen," and firmly, proudly, defiantly saying, "Yes I can!"...

[T]his is not just a victory for African Americans, it is a victory for democracy....

obama black baby.jpgI don't know what victory there is in supporting a candidate who supports an abortion industry that purposefully targets minority neighborhoods, that aborts 1,500 black babies a day, that is the single greatest cause of African-American deaths, and that has brought blacks from #1 minority status to #2 behind Hispanics.

But there you go.

Newsweek reported June 9 up to 100 pastors call in for a weekly prayer for Obama. In addition, "there are separate weekly prayer-and-strategy calls for the campaign's Roman Catholic, Jewish, evangelical and African-American faith-group leaders," reported Newsweek.

Lest Bible believing Christians despair at the apparent collective loss of pastoral moral compass, GetReligion.org showcased the Newsweek journalist as 1 of those "in the bag" for Obama.

obama lisa miller.jpg

[Lisa] Miller leaves out a key element of the story: None of the pastors mentioned are Catholic priests or white evangelical pastors.... [T]hey were either black Protestants... or white mainline [liberal] Protestants.... This is an oversight. Were Catholic clerics or white evangelical pastors not invited? Did they decline the campaign's offer to pray for the candidate?...

Newsweek should have mentioned that most were United Methodists, from the United Church of Christ, or black Protestants. By reporting that pastors are praying for Obama, is it not relevant which denominations they represent?

The Obama campaign definitely wants us to think pastors everywhere are jumping on his bandwagon. From another AP article on yesterday's pastors' meeting:

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the gathering included evangelicals, Protestants and Catholics from across the country.

But as GetReligion.org noted, the only names released who attended yesterday's Obama pastor event were either black or mainline:

  • Rich Cizik, renegade spokesman for the National Association of Evangelicals, whose ouster James Dobson attempted last year

  • Bishop Phillip Robert Cousin Sr., of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, former NAACP board member

  • T. D. Jakes

  • Rev. T. Dewitt Smith, black pastor, president of the Progressive National Baptist Convention

  • Rev. Stephen Thurston, black Chicago pastor, head of the African-American National Baptist Convention of America

    [Photo of T. D. Jakes courtesy of BagOfNothing.com; photo of Obama and baby courtesy of CBS News]


  • Comments:

    Newsweek practically works for Obama/Democrats.

    Posted by: Jasper at June 11, 2008 8:49 AM


    Amanda,

    per the shower: I'd tell her. If something does go wrong (which it won't) it could haunt you two for the rest of your life. I don't think the "surpise" factor is worth the risk...

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 8:54 AM


    Catholics pray for Obama, too. But not for the reasons his campaign is pushing.

    Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 11, 2008 9:19 AM


    JIll wrote:
    "I don't know what victory there is in supporting a candidate who supports an abortion industry that purposefully targets minority neighborhoods, that aborts 1,500 black babies a day, that is the single greatest cause of African-American deaths, and that has brought blacks from #1 minority status to #2 behind Hispanics."

    This obsession with keeping a racial scorecard is archaic, racist and ridiculous (not to mention insulting to people like Elizabeth and Garbriella) would G get counted as 1/2 a point for blacks and 1/2 for whites? Not to mention that the concept of race is now seen as cultural as well as biological.

    A small, stable, sustainable population is much more likely to survive and grow than one too large for the carrying capacity of its environment.

    Posted by: phylosopher at June 11, 2008 9:25 AM


    @ Elizabeth, Gabriella's mom

    First, sorry for the typo in your daughter's name in above post.

    Second, no offense is meant to you or your daughter, I just find this obsession of Jill's insensitive at best, insulting at worst, especially when it affects one of her "side's" most ardent posters on her blog.

    Posted by: phylosopher at June 11, 2008 9:28 AM


    If you pray for failure and ill will for other people I'm pretty sure God has the right to come down and smack you in the face with a 2x4. It's certainly not very Christian.

    Posted by: JKeller at June 11, 2008 9:30 AM


    This obsession with keeping a racial scorecard is archaic, racist and ridiculous (not to mention insulting to people like Elizabeth and Garbriella) would G get counted as 1/2 a point for blacks and 1/2 for whites? Not to mention that the concept of race is now seen as cultural as well as biological.

    I'm pretty sure that wasn't her intention, Phylosopher, and I think you miss her point.

    I saw her point as being to express (in an effective way) how high the number of black babies being aborted in America is, in comparison to the rest of the US, which clearly shows that the black minority is indeed being targeted by the abortion industry.

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 9:39 AM


    If you pray for failure and ill will for other people I'm pretty sure God has the right to come down and smack you in the face with a 2x4. It's certainly not very Christian.

    Failure for Obama would mean success for the United States.
    I pray for success for the USA.

    By the way, hi JK ! Haven't seen you around in a while!

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 9:42 AM


    "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
    Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

    "Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
    Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

    "Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
    [no source available at this time...]

    "The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
    Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

    As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation....
    On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
    Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5

    "Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
    Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.

    Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the Population Congress with the aim, "...to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization."

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 9:45 AM


    Ho hum. Another of Jill's racist smears against Obama. He only associates with colored folks! He is one uppity _____!

    Clever, posting the picture of pastor Jakes, otherwise someone might think he was white!

    Sort of like her recent 3-part racist smear against Michelle Obama (the non-existent "I hate whitey" tape), that of course turned out to have no truth to it whatsoever.

    What is amazing, and discouraging, is how few on this site object to Jill's continuing racist rants.

    Posted by: Anonymous at June 11, 2008 9:47 AM


    Anonymous, posting as anonymous isn't allowed here as of recently. Please come up with a moniker so that I don't have to delete your posts.

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 9:49 AM


    Sorry, I posted before I signed in.

    Posted by: Bystander. at June 11, 2008 9:58 AM


    Thanks, Bystander!


    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 10:01 AM


    Suppose Jill had the Ku Klux Klan listed on her website as one of her supporters. Would you consider her a racist?

    Check this out and tell me what you think:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYJWFtwXs9g&eurl=http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2008/03/more_obama_racist_friends_the.html

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 10:03 AM


    P,
    A small, stable, sustainable population is much more likely to survive and grow than one too large for the carrying capacity of its environment.

    Our quality of life just continues to get better and better despite the population growth. Our water is cleaner, our air is cleaner, our medicine is better, we're living longer, science is better, education is better...


    Where is this evidence that proves the quality of life goes down as the number of people go up.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 10:03 AM


    "I'm pretty sure that wasn't her intention, Phylosopher, and I think you miss her point.

    I saw her point as being to express (in an effective way) how high the number of black babies being aborted in America is, in comparison to the rest of the US, which clearly shows that the black minority is indeed being targeted by the abortion industry. "

    Absolute nonsense. What it shows, Bethany, is that a) Jill is a racist or b) Jill i sa lcueless racist whose attitudes are so ingrained in her psyche, she can't even comprehend that it is racist to see population #'s as a competition between races/ethnicities - at a time when, as I pointed out, the ideas of race are being blurred.

    Posted by: phylosopher at June 11, 2008 10:11 AM


    "I'm pretty sure that wasn't her intention, Phylosopher, and I think you miss her point.

    I saw her point as being to express (in an effective way) how high the number of black babies being aborted in America is, in comparison to the rest of the US, which clearly shows that the black minority is indeed being targeted by the abortion industry. "

    Absolute nonsense. What it shows, Bethany, is that a) Jill is a racist or b) Jill is a clueless racist whose attitudes are so ingrained in her psyche, she can't even comprehend that it is racist to see population #'s as a competition between races/ethnicities - at a time when, as I pointed out, the ideas of race are being blurred.

    Posted by: phylosopher at June 11, 2008 10:11 AM


    JKeller, I wasn't suggesting we pray for Obama's failure, but for his conversion to embrace the Culture of Life.

    Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 11, 2008 10:14 AM


    mk:

    American quality of life may be going up, but it is built on the suffering of others whose way of life goes down. Our abundant cheap food and clothing for example, are built on the inadequate- for-subsistence wages accepted by desperate workers in other countries who have been driven off their land by American corporations in collusion with the ruling classes in those countries.

    Your comment, mk, shows a very narrow worldview, in which only American interests matter.

    Posted by: phylosopher at June 11, 2008 10:17 AM


    Phy: 10:17:
    American quality of life may be going up, but it is built on the suffering of others whose way of life goes down. Our abundant cheap food and clothing for example, are built on the inadequate- for-subsistence wages accepted by desperate workers in other countries who have been driven off their land by American corporations in collusion with the ruling classes in those countries.

    Your comment, mk, shows a very narrow worldview, in which only American interests matter.

    Would you prefer socialism?

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 10:21 AM


    Phylo, I'm the racist for keeping count of black babies killed by abortion - and not the ones promoting and doing the killing? Interesting viewpoint.

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 11, 2008 10:23 AM


    Last comment on this for now - the day is too beautiful to spend on the computer.

    Even if you want to use this racist competition idea, encouraging black women to wait until a stable marriage and/or financial readiness to have babies is an attack on the black race because it would have the same result - a lowering of the black population numbers. One reason is that up to 25% of black men will be incarcerated.

    I think it would be best to just drop the "racial population numbers" as a competition would be best, don't you?

    Posted by: phylosopher at June 11, 2008 10:25 AM


    Absolute nonsense. What it shows, Bethany, is that a) Jill is a racist or b) Jill i sa lcueless racist whose attitudes are so ingrained in her psyche, she can't even comprehend that it is racist to see population #'s as a competition between races/ethnicities - at a time when, as I pointed out, the ideas of race are being blurred.

    To be consistent then, you must also consider Obama a racist for making such comments as "Typical white woman". Do you?


    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 10:38 AM


    Oh and by the way, do you consider the CDC racist?

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 10:45 AM


    I am thoroughly disheartened that TD Jakes does not absolutely condemn the candidacy of Barack Obama simply for the pro-abort that he is.

    Yes the Gospel is all about health and wealth. The health of your eternal soul and riches in Christ Jesus.

    Unfortunatley, Mr. Jakes totally misses the boat on this one. This is extremely dissappointing as I used to have a great deal of respect for this man. Your success has tainted your call.

    Mr. Jakes, as a devout follower of Jesus Christ, I call on you to totally disavow yourself from anyone that does not support the santicty of life, all life. To do otherwise is simply the wrong thing to do.

    Posted by: HisMan at June 11, 2008 11:30 AM


    Yesterday, Barack Obama met with church leaders - in the Chicago highrise office building where my husband works, incidentally
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Would that be your white husband?

    (Not that I pay attention to that kind of thing...)

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 11:34 AM


    phylo:10:25:I think it would be best to just drop the "racial population numbers" as a competition would be best, don't you?

    What competition? Would you rather people didn't care about abortion?

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 11:42 AM


    Thank you Bethany 9:45 for posting this fresh 75 to 90 year old material, since anyone who read it contemporaneously is dead.

    In a related story, the Democrats have moved their convention from Denver to Keokuk, Iowa, since they found out that Denver city government was controlled by the Ku Klux Klan in 1921, when Sanger wrote these articles. Once a racist city, always a racist city, and 35 years of African-American and Hispanic mayors and city council members cannot possibly change that.

    Yes, all pro-choice people are racists, who recite the "eugenics" pledge every morning.

    Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket...

    Posted by: Bystander at June 11, 2008 11:42 AM


    Oh my. Race still riles people up, doesn't it?

    Personally, I don't see color.

    Posted by: Hal at June 11, 2008 11:47 AM


    "Even if you want to use this racist competition idea, encouraging black women to wait until a stable marriage and/or financial readiness to have babies is an attack on the black race because it would have the same result - a lowering of the black population numbers. One reason is that up to 25% of black men will be incarcerated."

    How about showing us the formula/equation for proof? Better yet, how about we ask our resident mathematician to come up with the same brilliant conclusion?

    What say you, oh Bambino One?

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 11:50 AM


    Bystander, Planned Parenthood celebrates Margaret Sanger's birthday, and has many pages set apart on their website honoring her. If I set apart a day every year to celebrate the Klan, and had articles on my website honoring them, would you consider me a racist and just possibly a tiny bit supportive of their views?


    P.S. You didn't answer all of my questions.

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 11:52 AM


    Oh did I mention that Planned Parenthood also has a program called the "Margaret Sanger Center International"? Google it.
    Margaret Sanger's views are still very much clung to today by those who support abortion.

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 11:55 AM


    Phylo,

    If Jill were the raving racist that you claim she is, she would be thrilled at the thought of so many potential blacks being vacated from the womb. She would be all in favor of putting up more abortion facilities in predominantly black neighborhoods.


    She would be appalled at the number of white embryos/fetuses making their way to the pathology labs, if they make it there at all.

    I don't see her doing either.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 11:56 AM


    Bethany 10;03 the U tube video is a fake, like the "I hate whitey" tape that Jill was promoting recently.

    I would recommend some thought and research before publishing the next racist smear.

    Posted by: Bystander at June 11, 2008 11:57 AM


    I remember watching my first T.D. Jakes program. All I can remember is how much he sweat. Alot.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 11:59 AM


    carder,
    Did you read my post on the Sarasota thread a week ago where I said I don't have anything against Florida! (I love Florida!) I hope there are no hard feelings! :)

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 11:59 AM


    http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=59398

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 12:01 PM


    Phylosopher: Even if you want to use this racist competition idea, encouraging black women to wait until a stable marriage and/or financial readiness to have babies is an attack on the black race because it would have the same result - a lowering of the black population numbers. One reason is that up to 25% of black men will be incarcerated.

    I think it would be best to just drop the "racial population numbers" as a competition would be best, don't you?


    It's ridiculous to think that the current birth rate for American blacks is "an attack on the black race" in the first place. Heck, it's higher than that for whites.

    Moreover, why in the world would anybody think that a black woman with an unwanted pregnancy is going to be "worried" about the black birth rate, which (again) is already higher than that for whites (if it made any difference).

    Maybe the question would be best put to her. "Hey, you know the black birth rate is 2.1, versus 1.6 or 1.7 for whites, and aren't you worried that it's only that much higher....?"

    Plenty of room for rolling eyes in and around this topic, and I'd imagine that's the least of what she'd do.

    Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 12:03 PM


    Name one catholic priest who's in there praying with Obama, and see if said priest doesn't end up sizzling after his bishop gets a hold of him.

    Speaking of priests, Fr. Pavone has emailed me regarding an upcoming conference all. Check it out:

    Please join me for a national teleconference on Wednesday night, June 25, from 9 to 10pm Eastern Time.

    You can sign up at www.priestsforlife.org/conferencecall/index.aspx. You will be able to listen by phone or by internet, and follow along on our website!

    My pastoral team and I, along with some special guests, will discuss how to make the pro-life message heard in Elections 2008.

    We will equip you with practical tools you can use on a local level.

    In particular, we will discuss and launch the “Is This What You Mean?” project. It is simple. In town hall meetings, on blogs, or in private meetings, pro-life people quote the words of the abortionists and then ask pro-abortion politicians, “When you say the word abortion, is this what you mean?”

    You will learn on this teleconference why this is a winning approach and how you can utilize it.

    We will give you all the tools you need.

    We will also provide other practical ways to educate and mobilize voters for this year’s elections.

    Please join us and spread the word! Register at www.priestsforlife.org/conferencecall/index.aspx.

    Talk to you in two weeks!

    Blessings and prayers,

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 12:05 PM


    Hey, LOOK!
    http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm

    The Klan is a Christian organization.

    That must mean that if you're a Christian, you support the Klan.

    It's just like that Planned Parenthood/Klan connection!

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 12:06 PM


    Janet,

    Absolutely no hard feelings at all!!

    Like mk said, you're cool people.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 12:07 PM


    Right Laura.

    And since Jill is a racist (@@) her name is up in lights on that website, right?

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 12:10 PM



    Laura : 12:06:The Klan is a Christian organization.
    That must mean that if you're a Christian, you support the Klan.It's just like that Planned Parenthood/Klan connection!

    No, you might say there are "misguided Christians" in the Klan, just as there are misguided Christians at Planned Parenthood.

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 12:28 PM


    Hey, LOOK!
    http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm
    The Klan is a Christian organization.
    That must mean that if you're a Christian, you support the Klan.
    It's just like that Planned Parenthood/Klan connection!

    Laura, it would only be analogous if it wasn't on the Klan's own site, but was on a site that I support.

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 12:30 PM


    carder: 12:05:Speaking of priests, Fr. Pavone has emailed me regarding an upcoming conference all. Check it out:

    "Please join me for a national teleconference on Wednesday night, June 25, from 9 to 10pm Eastern Time."
    "In particular, we will discuss and launch the “Is This What You Mean?” project. It is simple. In town hall meetings, on blogs, or in private meetings, pro-life people quote the words of the abortionists and then ask pro-abortion politicians, “When you say the word abortion, is this what you mean?”

    Thanks for the info on the upcoming pro-life teleconference. Father Pavone doesn't miss a thing. I love his short sound bites they broadcast each day on Relevant Radio.

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 12:33 PM


    Check it out!
    Henry Ford was a rabid anti-semite!:
    http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm

    This means that everyone who drives a Ford wants to gas Jews.

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 12:44 PM


    The way Barack Hussein Obama is looking at the baby really creeps me out.

    Posted by: Carla at June 11, 2008 1:09 PM


    Hal, you said: "Personally, I don't see color."

    By chance, do you belive in afirmative action?

    Posted by: Charles at June 11, 2008 1:23 PM


    Henry Ford was a rabid anti-semite!:
    http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/intern_jew.htm
    This means that everyone who drives a Ford wants to gas Jews.

    Still not analogous. Come on, Laura...you're smart. You can probably find something better if you try reallllly hard. But maybe not.

    I'm not a big ford fan anyway.

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 1:39 PM


    Charles, sorry, I was quoting Colbert.

    Regarding affirmative action, I'm generally okay with it.

    Posted by: Hal at June 11, 2008 1:40 PM


    Laura,

    Nice try, but Henry Ford didn't invent a car that was specifically created to gas Jews. There is no antijewmobile that I know of.

    Margaret Sanger DID however created Planned Parenthood to PROMOTE her racist views...because of her racist views.

    If Henry Ford DID invent an antijewmobile and it was still around today, you might have a point. Otherwise, not so much...lol.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 1:41 PM


    Actually, Henry Ford was a lot more influential than that, MK. He wrote antisemitic tracts, many of which were circulated around Germany around the 1920s and encouraged the destruction of Jews, just as Hitler was gaining power.

    In fact, parts of Mein Kampf appear to have been lifted from the Dearborn Independent, the weekly newspaper Ford published.

    Ford and Hitler appeared to be close friends. Hitler hung a photo of Ford in his office, and later presented Ford with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle on Ford's 75th birthday in 1938... four months after the start of his reign of terror. The golden cross had swastikas on it.

    Ford also encouraged antisemitism in the United States. He supported antisemites financially and philosophically, and the Henry Ford Hospital barred Jewish doctors from working there.

    Some have sad that Ford alone paid for and started the evolution of antisemitism in America.

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 1:57 PM


    Oh, and you brought up abortion...

    Well, Ford, being an international company, had several plants in Germany, some of which were used to build weapons and armed cars for the Nazis. He also provided funding for the budding Hitlerite revolutionary movement.

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 2:05 PM


    Can anyone remember who said this?:

    "I do not approve of abortion." She called it "sordid," "abhorrent," "terrible," "barbaric," a "horror." She called abortionists "blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so." She called the results of abortion "an outrageous slaughter," "infanticide," "foeticide," and "the killing of babies."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The same woman - who knew a thing or two about contraception - said that birth control "has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place." Birth control stands alone: "It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation." ....

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 2:10 PM


    MK, since the other post went off the radar and all, there was a article in the New York Times about gay couples responding better to conflict than heterosexual couples.

    After Vermont legalized same-sex civil unions in 2000, researchers surveyed nearly 1,000 couples, including same-sex couples and their heterosexual married siblings. The focus was on how the relationships were affected by common causes of marital strife like housework, sex and money.

    Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.

    While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

    ....

    The findings suggest that heterosexual couples need to work harder to seek perspective. The ability to see the other person’s point of view appears to be more automatic in same-sex couples, but research shows that heterosexuals who can relate to their partner’s concerns and who are skilled at defusing arguments also have stronger relationships.

    One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 2:34 PM


    Laura,

    Sanger?

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 2:42 PM


    Laura,

    Sanger?

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 2:42 PM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Bingo.

    She was all about responsible contraception.

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 2:50 PM


    Ironic.

    She loathed abortion, yet her baby, PP, performs it, defends it, and promotes it.

    Something got screwed up along the way.

    I DEFY any PP big wig to quote that little gem.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 2:59 PM


    Yesterday, Barack Obama met with church leaders - in the Chicago highrise office building where my husband works, incidentally - to perhaps discuss the wonderment that lightning doesn't strike whenever he invokes the name of Christ in the same breath he condones abortion.

    But Jesus Christ loves legal abortion.

    I don't know what victory there is in supporting a candidate who supports an abortion industry that purposefully targets minority neighborhoods, that aborts 1,500 black babies a day, that is the single greatest cause of African-American deaths, and that has brought blacks from #1 minority status to #2 behind Hispanics.

    Black people are not interested in attaining #1 minority status, Jill. Like the rest of us, poor black people care about climbing out of poverty and living normal lives. If you don't want poor black women to have abortions, tell Republicans to stop trying to restrict birth control and welfare for poor mothers. Make it so they don't have to have abortions to climb out of poverty and live normal lives.

    Also, Jesus Christ loves legal abortion.

    Posted by: reality at June 11, 2008 3:02 PM


    Ironic.

    She loathed abortion, yet her baby, PP, performs it, defends it, and promotes it.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 2:59 PM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Someone asked Faye Waddleton - former President of Planned Parenthood - how many abortions Planned Parenthood wanted to perform over the next 12 months.

    Her answer? "Zero."

    Most Planned Parenthood clinics don't even offer abortion services, and the clinics that do see 25 "other" patients for each abortion patient.

    There is no other entity in America doing more to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 3:07 PM


    "She was all about responsible contraception.

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 2:50 PM"
    ---------------------------------

    Now, that's an Oxymoron right there...

    Posted by: RSD at June 11, 2008 3:15 PM


    There is no other entity in America doing more to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 3:07 PM

    Oh, Laura, you forgot about K-mart!

    Posted by: hal at June 11, 2008 3:22 PM


    There was nothing inaccurate in my statement.

    In spite of them "wishing" they could perform zero abortions, they still perform them, still defend them and still promote them.

    As for Faye, I still haven't figured out why she was in charge of an organization whose founder was blatantly bigoted.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 3:29 PM


    MK, 1:41, exactly my point. Thanks!

    Posted by: Bethany at June 11, 2008 4:43 PM


    Edyt,

    Re: Ford. Well that sucks! I mean he still didn't invent the car specifically to eliminate Jews, so that argument still stands...but YIKES! The other difference tho between him and PP is that PP still embraces the philosophy of eliminating children based on their wantedness.

    Ford does not push antisemitic views...or do they?
    I know you think it's an exaggeration, but I do think that intentionally or unintentionally, the black/hispanic population is being targeted. Perhaps it's the women, perhaps it's PP, but it is a fact that the number of black women having abortions far outwieghs the number of white women having them.

    As to gay couples having fewer relationship troubles. What's that causation/correlation thing you guys always use?

    I'm not discounting it, but I bet it has more to do with the bond that is formed simply by living a livestyle that goes against the mainstream. They have had to fight every inch of the way to have the right to have the relationship, and adversity can sometimes form strong alliances. If that makes any sense.

    Whatever the reason, I sure don't want their relationships to fail. Any more than I want my sons to fail, just cuz he's sleeping with his girlfriend. In a perfect world, things might be different, but it's not a perfect world. I don't wish unhappiness on anyone. It's gotta be hard enough being gay in this world without me adding to their woes.

    Do I wish they would forgo the sexual end of the relationship? Sure. Do I wish they had NO relationships? Absolutely not. We all need companionship and intimacy. Even the Catholic Church has no problem with that. It's only when it enters the sexual realm that the morality comes into question. But again, that's between them and God.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 4:43 PM


    Bethany,

    Thank you. Although after hearing what Edyt said, I think I'll be sticking to my Chrysler!

    AND DON'T ANYONE DARE TELL ME ANY HORROR STORIES ABOUT CHRYSLER...I can't afford to keep changing cars;)

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 4:46 PM


    "She was all about responsible contraception.

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 2:50 PM"
    ---------------------------------

    Now, that's an Oxymoron right there...

    Posted by: RSD at June 11, 2008 3:15 PM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Why is that an oxymoron?

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 4:46 PM


    Someone asked Faye Waddleton - former President of Planned Parenthood - how many abortions Planned Parenthood wanted to perform over the next 12 months.

    Her answer? "Zero."

    You honestly believe Fay Waddleton?!! She's the most extremist hard-core proabort that America has ever had. This has NEVER been Fay Waddleton's goal.
    During her tenure as PP prez, it went from a respected org to one considered to have sinister motives. She believed that abortion is a woman's decision exclusively with absolutely no input from the father.

    For others interested in feminist history as it once was:
    I direct you to the following website: it is Catholic but the woman interviewed in 2000 was president for feminists for life.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0048.html

    Please note how Larry Lader told Ms Friedan women would have to become like men.
    You might also note the effect the elite radical liberal education is having on young women today.

    www.feministsforlife.org is also worth checking into.

    Posted by: Patricia at June 11, 2008 4:51 PM


    Janet just sent me this article.

    Wow!

    It's what I've been trying say since I began moderating here. And it's pretty much what Edyt and I talked about a couple days ago. And it definitely deals with what went on in February. And it most certainly sums up what this here site is all about...

    EVERYONE should read it...

    http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6742

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 4:53 PM


    THeres two things I like from the above article:

    "Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat them."

    my second:

    Most of what passes for tolerance today is intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult—“you intolerant bigot”—than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.

    I think that many of the liberal elite are very good at doing this as they push their agenda forward in society, our universities and through the media.
    It's why the Canadian Federation of Students won't allow prolife groups on university campuses anymore.
    In fact, in Canada we now have our Human Rights Tribunals that enforce the above quote to the dotting of the i's and crossing of the "t's".

    Posted by: Patricia at June 11, 2008 5:02 PM


    RACE, RACE, RACE. Get use to it. This is just the beginning. It Obama wins, it is because of race. If he loses, it is because of race. The fact he is the presumptive nominee is because of race. If someone comments about the racial make-up of a particular gathering it is because of race...and on and on it goes.

    Posted by: Jerry at June 11, 2008 5:11 PM


    Ford does not push antisemitic views...or do they?

    I'm not sure, MK. I would hope not! But since I grew up in the Detroit area, there was lots of talk about Ford's antisemitism every time someone brought up how amazing he was. I even worked at the Henry Ford Museum as a teenager, so there's a lot of information there (not for display) about Ford's poor ideals. Apparently he felt really threatened by the Jews' "ability to earn money" and was determined to not let them beat him out. Weird, but I guess that goes hand-in-hand with the witch hunts, red scare, and all that.

    I know you think it's an exaggeration, but I do think that intentionally or unintentionally, the black/hispanic population is being targeted. Perhaps it's the women, perhaps it's PP, but it is a fact that the number of black women having abortions far outweighs the number of white women having them.

    I think it's important to look at this in context. Yes, more black/hispanic women are having abortions, but they are also having more children. That could speak more to a lack of contraceptive use in those communities, but I can't be sure. The other thing is that those communities are usually poorer communities, so in my mind, it makes sense that PP would target them, as PP is trying to target low-income families and individuals. Every time I visited a PP though, I'd see people of all races in the waiting room. So I'm not entirely sure that it's specifically race-targeted as much as it is income-targeted. Unfortunately, hispanics and blacks are often in the lower-income spectrum of our culture, which is sad.

    As to gay couples having fewer relationship troubles. What's that causation/correlation thing you guys always use?

    Correlation does not imply causation. And you're exactly right. I don't think the article was saying that being gay is more likely to lead to good relationships, as much as it was saying that gay couples, since they already exist outside of gender norms, are likely to have more egalitarian relationships. In our culture, we have defined gender roles, such as women do housework, men go to work. Because gay couples are existing outside that traditional role, they have to work out those compromises in their own way.

    Although I'm not going to claim all homosexual relationships are better than hetero ones, it does make an interesting observation about gender roles.

    But the same could be said for things like economic status - in some relationships where one person is making a lot more money than the partner, there is a level of inequity within their personal relationship. I wouldn't be surprised if it mirrored the way we treat people of other classes in everyday society.

    I'm not discounting it, but I bet it has more to do with the bond that is formed simply by living a livestyle that goes against the mainstream. They have had to fight every inch of the way to have the right to have the relationship, and adversity can sometimes form strong alliances. If that makes any sense.

    It does. I've heard similar claims about people who have met during a tragedy. They have stronger relationships because of it's a shared experience that others cannot relate to.

    I just brought it up because I thought it was interesting, what with us talking about gender differences in the other thread.

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 5:18 PM


    Patricia,

    Right?

    And I love this one:

    " The irony is that according to the classical notion of tolerance, you can’t tolerate someone unless you disagree with him. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to “put up” with. Tolerance is reserved for those who we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat them decently and with respect."

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 5:21 PM


    mk @ 4:53 PM

    MK - do you know Steve Wagner (from STR?)

    Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 11, 2008 5:23 PM


    Edyt,

    It was interesting. It made me think. I love being made to think. Makes this know it all come down off the horse every once in awhile!

    I agree about the income/vs/race thing. And I think it's sad too. I also realize that you see PP as doing a service to these women, but I don't hold them that high in regard. I don't hold any business that high in regard. If there is money to made, then I think 99.9% that is the object of the business.

    My son and I were just talking about welfare and why it doesn't work. I told him that if I ran the world, it would be done a lot differently, with very little government involvement. It might take a generation or two to completely eliminate the welfare program as we know it, but it's the only way to give poor women a fighting chance.

    Getting pregnant, having an abortion, gettin pregnant again, having another abortion...and on and on.

    How is this helping poor women?

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 5:28 PM


    Chris,

    No. I never even heard of STR til Janet sent me that link...but I did notice that he took some of his idea from Peter Kreeft...Now HIM I know. of.

    Why?

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 5:30 PM


    carder: 3:29: As for Faye, I still haven't figured out why she was in charge of an organization whose founder was blatantly bigoted.

    Maybe it was the best paying job/at the top of the corporate ladder she could get in 1978? I can't find her salary, but I bet it was good.

    From: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0546,hunter,70024,6.html

    Q. You've been vilified by a vocal minority of African American anti-abortion preachers. Why is it that black women make up only 6 percent of the nation's population but account for nearly a third of the nation's abortions?

    A We also account for a disproportionate share of the country's poverty and lack of opportunities. There is a larger proportion of unintended pregnancies; the reasons for a woman making that decision are complex. The contribution I've made and continue to make to this movement is to give voice to the women who have few choices in their lives—not to have this choice lost. Poor women will suffer the most if this choice is lost.


    From Wkipedia:

    Faye Wattleton (born Alyce Faye Wattleton on July 8, 1943) is the first African-American and youngest President ever elected to Planned Parenthood (1978 - 1992). Currently, she serves as the President of the Center for the Advancement of Women, and also serves on the board of trustees at Columbia University. She is best known for her contributions to the family planning and reproductive health, as well as the pro-choice movement.

    Wattleton was born in St. Louis, Missouri in 1943, the only child of a factory worker father and a mother who was a seamstress and a Church of God minister. Entering Ohio State University at age 17, she was awarded a bachelor's degree in nursing in 1964, and went on to teach at a nursing school in Dayton, Ohio for two years. She earned her Master of Science degree in maternal and infant care, with certification as a nurse-midwife from Columbia University in 1967. She has received 13 honorary doctoral degrees.

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 5:32 PM


    AND DON'T ANYONE DARE TELL ME ANY HORROR STORIES ABOUT CHRYSLER...I can't afford to keep changing cars;)

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 4:46 PM

    Sweetheart, you should be going with Toyota! I LOVE my corolla esp since it gets good gas mileage!

    Posted by: Patricia at June 11, 2008 5:37 PM


    Actually Patricia,

    The Chrysler is a mini van and is like 11 years old.

    My REAL car is a Honda CRV. I LOVE it. It doesn't have that goofy hump in the floor of the back seat so it fits 5 really nicely. And it's great for camping. Works like an SUV, drives like a small car.

    We bought it used...so it's like 4 years old. I don't like the new ones so much. We were actually looking for a new one, and I saw this used one on the lot and said I'd rather have that one!

    My husband has called me a cheap date more than once. lol.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 5:40 PM


    I also realize that you see PP as doing a service to these women, but I don't hold them that high in regard. I don't hold any business that high in regard. If there is money to made, then I think 99.9% that is the object of the business.

    Well, I defend PP here, but I do believe they could be spending their money on more programs that actually help women. And I do understand they are a business. I'm also starting to look at government as a business. I guess I don't really know what to do about that whole thing, but it does seem very cold to me.

    My son and I were just talking about welfare and why it doesn't work. I told him that if I ran the world, it would be done a lot differently, with very little government involvement. It might take a generation or two to completely eliminate the welfare program as we know it, but it's the only way to give poor women a fighting chance.

    Getting pregnant, having an abortion, gettin pregnant again, having another abortion...and on and on.

    How is this helping poor women?

    It's not, and you raise a great point there. Abortions are not the end of a problem, nor are they the beginning to a solution. I just mentioned in another thread (the 2-front war or something like that?) that there are lots of ways to reduce and prevent abortions besides throwing contraceptions at people.

    Two of my biggest ideas are -

    Counseling services, provided to every woman who wants an abortion, just so that she is absolutely certain she wants one and that it is her decision and she wasn't pressured one way or another. If distance is a problem, I'd be in favor of over-the-phone counseling.

    5-year-plans for pregnant mothers. The welfare system is just horrible and does very little for most people. What I'd like to see is a structured financial plan for young mothers, the ability to work in a baby-flexible job, and other connections to mothers and babysitters who can help out.

    I think with that kind of passion and community effort, less women will enter into pregnancy with fear and trepidation and be more willing to follow a success plan.

    Welfare, abortions, and other quick-fixes don't do anything for anyone. People today can hardly do their own taxes, let alone handle financial planning. That's something we need to work on.

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 5:44 PM


    One of my married friends just bought a Honda CRV but they find it doesn't get good mileage. Of course they are comparing it to the Echo.

    They really like their CRV though!

    Posted by: Patricia at June 11, 2008 5:46 PM


    Well, Janet, Faye didn't answer the interviewer's question. Which still doesn't answer mine.

    But I suppose if one can have a heavy influence over a particular segment of American women, PP President would be a good place to start.

    It almost seems like she's willing to overlook Sanger's bigotry for the sake of abortion on demand.

    She was a certified midwife. How scary.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 5:54 PM


    Amanda, per the shower: I'd tell her. If something does go wrong (which it won't) it could haunt you two for the rest of your life. I don't think the "surpise" factor is worth the risk...

    MK, didn't see what prompted your reply, but I think it hits home in a gut-basic way.

    Much better to be really "sure" versus wishful thinking, no doubt. Things are tough enough anyway, as far as getting married and having kids, even if the people involved are in favor of it.

    So, yeah, get rid of those doubts, at the least, or don't do it.

    Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 6:00 PM


    "People today can hardly do their own taxes, let alone handle financial planning."

    A friend of mine, who's had an abortion and is staunchly pro choice, once told me that high schools should require two major subjects for graduation: finances and relationships.

    She has a point. For the life of me I still haven't figured out what purpose algebra has served in my day-to-day living.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 6:05 PM


    She has a point. For the life of me I still haven't figured out what purpose algebra has served in my day-to-day living.

    Carder,

    Oh so true. :)

    Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 11, 2008 6:13 PM


    MK: AND DON'T ANYONE DARE TELL ME ANY HORROR STORIES ABOUT CHRYSLER...I can't afford to keep changing cars;)/i>

    1997 Dodge Diesel (Cummins engine) pickup truck, a back seat but only one door on the driver's and passanger's side, have driven the livin' crap out of this beast, named "Leroy" after an immortal Dachsund/Bassett Hound cross my dad had, now deceased but still affecting the world through his memory.

    Almost 130,000 miles and really all that's gone wrong is the air conditioner losing the coolant

    It's been a hell of a truck.

    Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 6:13 PM


    Elizabeth and Carder:
    if you compare prices per weight of an item then you use algebra in your day to day living! :-D

    Posted by: Patricia at June 11, 2008 6:15 PM


    carder: 6:05: A friend of mine, who's had an abortion and is staunchly pro choice, once told me that high schools should require two major subjects for graduation: finances and relationships.

    When I was in high school, we had to find a realtor, and pretend to "buy a house", getting a loan, calculating mortgage payments, etc. It was a very good lesson. In religion class, no less.

    Now I think studying relationships could be a problem. Political correctness says we can't teach morality in schools. (sarcasm alert).

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 6:19 PM


    Our quality of life just continues to get better and better despite the population growth. Our water is cleaner, our air is cleaner, our medicine is better, we're living longer, science is better, education is better...

    Holy Moly, MK, no it doesn't. Water and air are HUGE concerns going forward, and health care IMO is the #1 immediate topic of concern for Americans because so many aren't really covered if they need care. Check prices there any time recently? YIKES.

    Yes, "Science is better" if people would quit objecting to it on dogmatic grounds.

    Education: get Bush Jr's policies out of there, a big job all in all, and we'll see what improvement can be had, hopefully.

    Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 6:21 PM


    Oops, correction:6:19:
    "When I was in high school..." shouldn't be in italics!

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 6:22 PM


    Edyt,

    Exactly, but I want to take it a step further.

    Many of these women have no clue how to even survive let alone progress in our world. They know nothing about nutrition, finances, shopping...

    I'd like to see welfare only given out for services.
    Nothing should be for free. It doesn't solve anything.

    Churches are more than willing to help. So say you've got 25 women with 40 children between them. What's the first thing they are gonna say when you ask them why they aren't working? That they can't they have kids.

    So you take 4 of those moms and you put them into an intensive training program to be daycare workers. You could use empty convents, churches, etc as classrooms for teaching, and many of the same for continuing daycare centers. Now you've not only solved the problem of what to do with kids but you've taught the 4 moms a skill.

    The other moms? Well, they would need to attend classes that teach them simple living skills and perform community services. They don't show up, hey don't get welfare. They could volunteer at nursing homes, go to real school, Patrol playgrounds, endless possibilities.

    Men could pick up garbage, fill pot holes, paint tenements, teach soccer, basketball etc at after school programs, drive the elderly and on and on...

    Everyone gets regular drug testing. I realize it sounds like it would cost a lot of money, but we're paying out the welfare now anyway. This would help these men and women develop skills, both occupational and life, and get them OFF welfare!

    And you want to eat at a soup kitchen? Then guess who's doing the dishes AND the cooking?

    No more food stamps. They just sell them for half price at the nearest pawn shop. And I can't tell you how many kids would walk around with HUGE bags of chips and liters of pop. You want food? C'mon down to the nearest food shelter.

    Tax breaks for churches (or any organization) that sponsors these programs as well as for any businesses that donate food etc...

    Plus you have the added bonus of creating temporary jobs for americans that are qualified to teach the men how to coach/job hunt/take care of their families, and the women how to take care of their children and themselves...

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 6:25 PM


    Great ideas, mk!

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 6:32 PM


    Patricia,

    One of my married friends just bought a Honda CRV but they find it doesn't get good mileage

    About the only thing that gets good mileage these days can be found at the end of your legs!

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 6:32 PM


    MK,

    Forty children among 4 mothers? Let's try 8 mothers! And let's make sure they don't have criminal records.

    Patricia,

    So I DO use algebra! I just don't walk into the supermarket thinking, "Goody, I can't WAIT to use my algebra today."
    It's more like, "I hope I can afford all this!"

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 6:34 PM


    Doug,

    Holy Moly is right! A hundred years ago most kids didn't go to school, let alone be almost guaranteed a college education.

    Are you gonna tell me that water quality was better 20 years ago? Think Lake Erie. Think the Des Plaines River.

    30 years ago kids were getting poisoned by lead in the parks being emitted from car fumes.

    I didn't say it was perfect, I said it was steadily improving.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 6:35 PM


    Carder,
    Those ideas can't be too bad if you're already tweaking them. lol.

    Many of those kids would be in regular school. They can't all have kids under the age of 5! At least I hope not. And yes, criminal checks would be in order.

    The point is that everyone is valuable, everyone can contribute something no matter how small...and that should be the ONLY way they are handed money...imho.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 6:38 PM


    well, carder, you SHOULD be thinking "Goody, I can't wait to use my algebra today!"
    my point was that we just don't realize how much math we use everyday.
    Have you ever tried to add up your grocery bill ahead of time just to see how close to the total you can come?

    MK: I'd get a horse if I could afford the initial downpayment. At least that way I wouldn't have to cut my grass!

    Posted by: Patricia at June 11, 2008 6:40 PM


    MK,

    The MK program sounds promising.

    Here in Florida, food stamps are issued on the condition that the recipient actively seeks employment and provides proof that they are doing so. This assumes, of course, if one is unemployed.

    As for the childcare issue, there's Four C (Community Cordinated Child Care). Basically the state pays for daycare at participating child care centers so that mom/dad can work or go to school.

    Maybe they have the same thing in Illinois but under different titles.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 6:40 PM


    Patricia,

    "Have you ever tried to add up your grocery bill ahead of time just to see how close to the total you can come?"

    I do. I just don't think in terms of A plus B equals the square root of XYZ. Or whatever I learned in algebra.

    Posted by: carder at June 11, 2008 6:44 PM


    mk @ 5:30 PM

    Re:STR

    Stand to Reason has a great course called Making Abortion Unthinkable. Great for bringing groups up to speed on pro-life persuasion.

    We had Steve Wagner come to our PRC banquet in 2006, and he gave a short training session the next day. I'd have to say it was perspective changing in terms of how to go about discussing the pro-life position.

    He currently has a book out called Common Ground without Compromise which I just heard the promo on the Stand to Reason podcast on Monday.

    Steve does the training for Focus on the Family student groups on Justice for All exhibits - bringing college students up to speed on how to reach common ground on the issue and eventually persuade them to rethink their ideas about what we consider valuable.

    If you found the article by Greg Koukl decent, you'd probably enjoy STR's approach to this issue, and I can vouch that Steve really knows his stuff.

    Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 11, 2008 6:46 PM


    About the only thing that gets good mileage these days can be found at the end of your legs!

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 6:32 PM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Which end?

    Posted by: Laura at June 11, 2008 6:47 PM


    Carder,

    Maybe they have the same thing in Illinois but under different titles.

    I don't know if they do, but they should! I like the idea of the moms watching each others kids, tho, cuz there is such a need for daycare...and if all goes well and these moms get off welfare, the need will continue.

    I think the more they do for themselves the better. Why should I cook at the soup kitchen while 100 able bodied men and women sit and wait to be served. I don't mean that harshly, but really. If they were taking nutrition classes and incorporating them into the menus (which they would have to plan) they'd be learning yet another life skill...who knows, you might even get the next Emeril out of the bunch! ;)

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 7:08 PM


    Laura,

    The end that doesn't need birth control...;)

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 7:10 PM


    Chris,

    I've bookmarked the page. I read a few of the other commentaries and they were all good. Thanks. You say he's/they're are on the radio?

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 7:11 PM


    mk: "you might even get the next Emeril out of the bunch!"

    Ha ha! Season Finale of "Top Chef' is on tonight! I love that show!!

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 7:12 PM


    Actually Carder and Patricia,

    I kind of think as debating and reasoning as right brained algebra. Algebra with words...I mean really your taking two abstract ideas and forming new thoughts with them. We catch each others logic flaws here all the time...

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 7:14 PM


    Janet,

    Really tho, think about it. How much hidden talent is probably going to waste? Organizers, singers, dancers, writers, teachers, people with extraordinar compassion, pastors, politicians (who know the system)...it boggles the mind that it's all just being ignored.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 7:16 PM


    MK for President?

    Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 11, 2008 7:41 PM


    mk @ 7:11 PM

    Greg Koukl does a radio show on Sunday afternoons in LA, on, I believe, an AM radio station, however the show is also broadcast over the internet, and is available as a podcast..

    The format is usually a guest for the first segment, then open caller's questions on just about everything ethical or apologetic. I usually just grab the podcast so I catch the guest segment, then scan through on the various callers, (which often seems like this forum, except in talk-radio.) Usually it's very good.

    I've got to get this preview functionality working...

    Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 11, 2008 7:55 PM


    mk:7:16:

    Janet, Really tho, think about it. How much hidden talent is probably going to waste? Organizers, singers, dancers, writers, teachers, people with extraordinar compassion, pastors, politicians (who know the system)...it boggles the mind that it's all just being ignored.

    it would take a lot of work to change the system, but in time I think it could be done, especially the welfare and food stamps part. But there's the problem of gangs which scare people from leaving their homes.(Drives me nuts that gangs have so much control over neighborhoods! Did you hear about the guy who was shot because he walked over to the wrong side of the street to console a man who had just lost a relative? Crazy!)

    Most people want to work, want to feel like they are contributing members of society, want to feel a connection to other people. There's a lot of mentoring to children of all ages that can be done. Connecting an older person with a first time mother who doesn't have a clue (which is most of us!). How to organize it all is the question. I suppose it could start at a welfare office, finding out peoples' skills. The next step is harder. No matter what someone wants to do, there will be someone else who tries to fight it. Not an easy task even for the politicians.

    ++++++++++++++
    Elizabeth: 7:41: MK for President?

    I'll second that - mk for President. She has nothing else going on! Lol!

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 8:12 PM


    Janet,
    I love Top Chef!! I want Stephanie to win! :)

    Oh, and I want MK to win too!! She rocks!

    Posted by: Carla at June 11, 2008 8:26 PM


    MK, I like the way you think.

    I know you mentioned churches, but I think there are a lot of community centers that are more secular that could also be employed for this kind of work. I know that I'd personally be uncomfortable going to a church for help, the same way a Muslim might not want to go to a Catholic church. Difference of beliefs. But we could definitely create more places for people to work while caring for their kids, like the daycare center you mentioned.

    Another thing that should be mentioned is that in the 60s or 70s, a bunch of psychiatric institutions were shut down. A lot of people who are unfit to live on their own became homeless, and those are many of the people you see on the streets today. So I wouldn't mind putting government money back into psychiatric institutions and prescribing drugs at a low price for people who cannot function without them.

    One of my friends is bipolar and she doesn't have health insurance right now, so she hasn't been getting her medication. It's made her overly emotional and depressed and she's having a lot of trouble working because of it.

    While I don't like our country's policy of doling out pills for everyone who gets upset sometimes, I do think some people need them to regulate imbalanced chemicals, and that would help out a lot of families too.

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 8:26 PM


    carder: i don't think of it like that either.
    Probably only Mr. Bambino does
    My daughter read a juvenile fiction novel this week filled with fibonacci sequences which apparently are EVERYWHERE. She had just been studying these sequences in math.

    If I could vote for Prez, I'd vote MK!

    Posted by: Patricia at June 11, 2008 8:33 PM


    Edyt,

    Another thing that should be mentioned is that in the 60s or 70s, a bunch of psychiatric institutions were shut down. A lot of people who are unfit to live on their own became homeless, and those are many of the people you see on the streets today. So I wouldn't mind putting government money back into psychiatric institutions and prescribing drugs at a low price for people who cannot function without them.

    I could NOT agree more on this one. My son too has bi polar. Thank God he has insurance. It means the difference between being a productive human being and being trapped in a personal hell.

    As it is, because he is a drug addict, he can't take a lot of the ADD meds that are out there. There is a drug that works great, and allows him to function in a job, but it is meant for Narcolepsy and hasn't been approved for ADD. So the insurance won't cover it and it's expensive.


    So many of these people could turn their lives around if they only had the right meds.

    I mentioned churches because the government wouldn't be as involved, but sure anyplace would do. I specifically mentioned convents because since there aren't so many new nuns, the convents just sit empty and it infuriates me. Think of all the pregnant moms that could be staying there...They have bedrooms and kitchens and living rooms....

    With the right minds and the right opportunities, so much could be done.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 9:00 PM


    Janet, Patricia, Elizabeth and Carla,

    lol...me president? I can't remember which day it is half the time!

    But I do know that we all have something to offer and the welfare program as it is, is like telling people that they are useless, so here, take this check and don't worry about it.

    The poor will, unfortunately, always be with us. But poor in spirit is much worse then poor in the pocketbook. If a man has dignity, there is nothing that he can't do.

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 9:03 PM


    MK,

    We should team up and overthrow the government. Make some use of these good ideas!

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 9:11 PM


    Edyt,

    Name the time and place (Of course, I'll probably forget)...you're a left brain thinker. You do all the hard core stuff and I'll clean the toilets!

    Look out world, here we come!

    Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 9:35 PM


    tehehe, Can I join the rebellion?

    Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 11, 2008 9:55 PM


    Oh of course! Bring ideas, we're going to use them to rebuild the world!

    "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.”

    - Abraham Lincoln

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 10:10 PM


    THeres two things I like from the above article:

    "Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat them."

    my second:

    Most of what passes for tolerance today is intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult—“you intolerant bigot”—than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.

    I think that many of the liberal elite are very good at doing this as they push their agenda forward in society, our universities and through the media.
    It's why the Canadian Federation of Students won't allow prolife groups on university campuses anymore.
    In fact, in Canada we now have our Human Rights Tribunals that enforce the above quote to the dotting of the i's and crossing of the "t's".

    Posted by: Patricia at June 11, 2008 5:02 PM
    ...................................................

    Patricia,
    Why don't you move to the 'Bible belt' of the US and report how you get along.

    Posted by: Anonymous at June 11, 2008 10:12 PM


    mk: lol...me president? I can't remember which day it is half the time!

    You'll have people for that.

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 10:24 PM


    The discussion about welfare and options to help unwed or poverty-stricken mothers is a moot point unless you consider the real source. If you can't afford a child--don't have sex and create one; it's called personal responsibility, people. Get your free government education; work hard to graduate and maintain a pretty good gpa--no goofing off, doing stupid things to get expelled, or getting pregnant. Go to work (novel concept), even if it's at a low-paying job; live smartly with character and save money. Learn a skill (I'm a public high school teacher and know that most American high schools offer a career/technical pathway that teaches skills for certain occupations). The most important thing is to not be irresponsible with sex and get pregnant in the first place. The discussion in this forum sounds as if women spontaneously become pregnant. And by the way, don't argue that abstinence is impossible; It's just hard and requires character and maturity--two things that we do not insist that people have any more because we are too busy making excuses for their poor, irresponsible choices and trying to figure out how we can compensate for the innocent people that their stupid choices hurt.

    Posted by: j at June 11, 2008 10:41 PM


    Right right. When you don't want to come up with working solutions for a better community, blame people for having sex.

    Great idea, J, but I think that one's been used before, and it's not really getting us anywhere.

    Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 11:28 PM


    Anonymous at June 11, 2008 10:12 PM

    Anon: You need a name, any name, to post here. Thanks.

    Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 11:53 PM


    MK,

    Your son...is he bipolar because of the addiction, or is he addicted because he's bipolar?

    My bro-in-law is bipolar. Talk about walking on eggshells!

    Posted by: carder at June 12, 2008 6:38 AM


    J,

    Personal responsibility is exactly what we are talking about. But there is a lack of personal responsibility across the board, not just in the sexual area.

    There are generations of people that have been enabled to continue living irresponsible lives. They don't have the skills to do anything else. And I don't mean skills like plumbers. I mean, their whole lives, they have lived off of other people. And they have no "life" skills.

    We have stolen their self worth. It's really insidious. Give them back their dignity and they won't need to use sex to fill in the gaps.

    Having child after child is a symptom, not a cause. We have to address the first problem.

    And of course I don't mean to generalize and say that everyone that has ever needed a hand, is incapable of doing it on their own. But we all know that there are generations of families that don't know how to live any other way.

    When you take away a mans ability to stand on his own, you take away his honor. This is what leads to gangs. In their own twisted way, these gangs give that "honor" back to their members.

    The worst thing you can do to a person is to tell them that they need your help. That they can't do it on their own. It's really like slavery all over. These families are not really free men and women. And many of them probably don't even understand why. Having multiple children is about the only "freedom" they have.

    Drug addiction, alcoholism, broken families, child abuse...these are all symptoms. And I believe that for the most part, they come from people be emasculated. (Edyt, like how I use that masculine image to describe both men and women). They aren't empowered. A trapped animal will behave very differently than a free one. Give them life skills, and you give them their independence. Give them independence and you create dignity. People with dignity, and independence will naturally begin to act responsibly. Because they now have something to lose.

    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 6:46 AM


    Are you gonna tell me that water quality was better 20 years ago? Think Lake Erie. Think the Des Plaines River.

    MK, true that some areas have improved. Heck, in the late 60's in Ohio the Cuyahoga River caught on fire.... (Actually, it happened more than once.)

    Water, though, is a big concern for many Americans - the supply of it and the increasing price, and this will worsen going forward in time, as it is for the world in general.


    30 years ago kids were getting poisoned by lead in the parks being emitted from car fumes. I didn't say it was perfect, I said it was steadily improving.

    I don't know that that balances the decline in air quality from human activity worldwide, with China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc., starting or re-engaging their own "industrial revolutions." We shall see.

    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 6:55 AM



    MK: lol...me president? I can't remember which day it is half the time!

    Janet: You'll have people for that.


    Ha! Good one, Janet. I'm afraid she'd put lemmings on the Endangered Species List, though.

    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 6:58 AM


    Doug,

    Water, though, is a big concern for many Americans - the supply of it and the increasing price, and this will worsen going forward in time, as it is for the world in general.


    Please. We sell bottled tap water for a buck fifty a pop. No one in the US is thirsty. And if it ever comes to that, it will not be because there are too many of us. It will be because it isn't being distributed properly.

    In places where water is in short supply, there are too many people for that particular area...there is enough water in the world. But if you live in the desert, complaining of a lack of water seems a bit silly. It would be like living in the tundra and saying "We have too many people in world! I can prove it! I'm cold! and there isn't enough warmth to go around!" It isn't that there's too many people. It's that they need to move to Florida!

    I don't know that that balances the decline in air quality from human activity worldwide, with China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc., starting or re-engaging their own "industrial revolutions." We shall see.

    These problems are NOT due to overpopulation. They are due to irresponsible behavior. We have plenty of people in the US, but we have regulations on how we run our industries. We could double the amount of people, triple it, and we'd still have regulations.

    If China had one quarter of the people, it wouldn't change the air quality until it changed it's policies.

    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 7:12 AM


    Doug,

    Ha! Good one, Janet. I'm afraid she'd put lemmings on the Endangered Species List, though.

    A LEMMING IN EVERY POT!

    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 7:14 AM


    Edyt,
    Did you read anything I posted? I am not blaming people for having sex, but for being IRRESPONSIBLE. Individual's being personally responsible for his/her own actions is the BASIS for a happy, working society. How can you gloss over such common sense in such a way as to say that it is "just blaming people for having sex"? And by the way, personal responsibility has NOT "been tried before." For some reason, as our society becomes more and more politically correct, we have lost our common sense and are afraid to champion personal responsiblity and treat as taboo not taking personal responsibility.

    As I said, I am a public school teacher, and the lack of personal responsibility that is insisted upon is appalling. If you don't feel like studying and fail a core subject, we'll send you to summer school at absolutely no cost and feed you breakfast and lunch for free. If you misbehave on the bus and get kicked off, we'll have taxpayers pay for a taxi to come pick you up so that your parent does not have to bring you. If you fail a test that you've known about for ages or miss a deadline, we'll retest you or extend the deadline indefinitely. If you become pregnant, when you are too tired to come to school, we will have taxpayers pay for a homebound teacher to come out to your house and tutor you. Please understand that I am not angry with these kids, but with a system that teaches them "learned helplessness" and throws them out into the real world with no idea that their personal actions often will have consequences.

    My husband and I are expecting our first child in January. We're excited and scared. But the one thing we were NOT is irresponsible. When we were dating, we did not have sex, not because we did not want to. Our decision was based partly on religious beliefs, but to be truthful, mainly we were scared to death that we would become pregnant at a time when we did not have the proverbial "pot to pee in"!

    Personal responsibility and character are the two foundations of a prosperous society, and glossing over those with the weak argument of "it's been tried before" or the completely fallacious accusation that that is "blaming people for having sex" is ludicrous and ignores the real solution: no amount of government programs will fix society, only when society's individuals govern themselves in a prudent way will society ever be "fixed".

    Posted by: j at June 12, 2008 8:49 AM


    J,

    Please understand that I am not angry with these kids, but with a system that teaches them "learned helplessness" and throws them out into the real world with no idea that their personal actions often will have consequences.

    Exactly! On this we agree!

    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 8:55 AM


    Please. We sell bottled tap water for a buck fifty a pop. No one in the US is thirsty. And if it ever comes to that, it will not be because there are too many of us. It will be because it isn't being distributed properly.

    MK, even in the US, water is becoming more and more of an issue. It's a worldwide deal. Our aquifers are being drawn down... Think of the thirsty lemmings...


    "When most U.S. citizens think about water shortages — if they think about them at all — they think about a local problem, possibly in their town or city, maybe their state or region."

    http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/dec99/Feature2.htm

    The US "imports" vast amounts of water via our imported meat, produce, manufactured goods, etc., as well.

    As with global warming, I think the coming years will reduce skepticism, and finally most people will be saying, "Yeah, this is really bad..."


    These problems are NOT due to overpopulation. They are due to irresponsible behavior. We have plenty of people in the US, but we have regulations on how we run our industries. We could double the amount of people, triple it, and we'd still have regulations. If China had one quarter of the people, it wouldn't change the air quality until it changed it's policies.

    Was it "irresponsible" when the US, England, etc., had their industrial revolutions? Yes, we now have regulations, but if we doubled the amount of people in the US our emissions would go up greatly, too, and we're already by the far the biggest per-capita emitters on the planet. If China had less people they'd put out less emissions. In the long run it's a global deal.

    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 9:50 AM


    Patricia: My daughter read a juvenile fiction novel this week filled with Fibonacci sequences which apparently are EVERYWHERE.

    They're quite prevalent.

    This one continues to be sweet:


    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 10:02 AM


    .6180339887498948482045868343....

    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 10:18 AM


    Ooooh J!! Excellent!!

    Posted by: Carla at June 12, 2008 10:26 AM


    Doug,

    The emissions would go higher because we would choose to live irresponsibly.

    What you are saying is that overpopulation would mean that you couldn't have everything that you want, which is very different than saying there wouldn't be enough.

    Yeah, we'll have to figure out how to travel without poisoning the air. We'll have to figure out how to use the glaciers for fresh water, or how to neutralize sea water.

    But how you go from "I can't drive my big ol' car if there are more people, so lets eliminate them, is beyond me.

    The solutions do not lie in less people. They rely on however many people there are, those people live responsibly.

    Maybe we should just nuke China? Then we wouldn't have to worry that they aren't cooperating.

    Here is an objective moral. We all have to share this planet. Which means we must all behave responsibly. To do otherwise, is objectively, a moral wrong. It might still happen. Can't control the world. But it IS objectively wrong.

    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 10:32 AM


    Doug,

    Who's to say that Global Warming isn't the earths way of compensating for more people...perhaps more fresh water will become available as those ice caps melt. Perhaps more soil will become fertile as regions warm up. Sure maybe we'll lose some stuff, but how do you know that in the end we won't gain more of what we really need??? Maybe everyone is fighting the very thing that will allow us to keep living.

    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 10:37 AM


    Here is an objective moral. We all have to share this planet. Which means we must all behave responsibly. To do otherwise, is objectively, a moral wrong. It might still happen. Can't control the world. But it IS objectively wrong.
    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 10:32 AM

    Who's to say that Global Warming isn't the earths way of compensating for more people...perhaps more fresh water will become available as those ice caps melt. Perhaps more soil will become fertile as regions warm up. Sure maybe we'll lose some stuff, but how do you know that in the end we won't gain more of what we really need??? Maybe everyone is fighting the very thing that will allow us to keep living.
    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 10:37 AM

    VERY GOOD, mk! Consider all that water raining down on the Midwest, too. (It would be nice if we could divert it to California somehow.)

    Posted by: Janet at June 12, 2008 12:11 PM


    Patricia: My daughter read a juvenile fiction novel this week filled with Fibonacci sequences which apparently are EVERYWHERE.

    What is the name of the novel?

    Posted by: Janet at June 12, 2008 12:14 PM


    J,

    Did you read anything I posted? I am not blaming people for having sex, but for being IRRESPONSIBLE.

    Right, it comes down to the same song and dance though. Preach and when people don't listen, get mad at them for acting out on basic human instincts.

    Individual's being personally responsible for his/her own actions is the BASIS for a happy, working society. How can you gloss over such common sense in such a way as to say that it is "just blaming people for having sex"?

    Look, I agree about personal responsibility. But I do not think it is necessarily common sense for everyone. When I went off to college, I had no idea how to take out a loan, do my taxes, manage my finances. But I'm fairly bright, and figured it out on my own. One of my friends, who is 23, still has his parents file his taxes for him. Should he be personally responsible? Absolutely. But he has never learned how. Same with a LOT of people. That's what MK and I are talking about here ... not just preaching at people about what they should and should not do, but equipping them with the tools and skills to lead successful, personally independent lives.

    And by the way, personal responsibility has NOT "been tried before." For some reason, as our society becomes more and more politically correct, we have lost our common sense and are afraid to champion personal responsiblity and treat as taboo not taking personal responsibility.

    Eh... I disagree. Plenty of people are responsible. But the only ones who make the news are the irresponsible ones.

    By the way, just because someone is having sex outside of marriage, doesn't mean they're not still being responsible.

    As I said, I am a public school teacher, and the lack of personal responsibility that is insisted upon is appalling. If you don't feel like studying and fail a core subject, we'll send you to summer school at absolutely no cost and feed you breakfast and lunch for free.

    Great! I think kids should go to school year-round.

    If you misbehave on the bus and get kicked off, we'll have taxpayers pay for a taxi to come pick you up so that your parent does not have to bring you. If you fail a test that you've known about for ages or miss a deadline, we'll retest you or extend the deadline indefinitely.

    Hi, I wrote a few articles about homeless youth in Illinois, and things like failing tests and missing deadlines are common. I would really look into those students to be sure they are in a stable home life before making assumptions about their level of responsibility. One student I spoke with was only 16 but supporting her two little brothers. Her grades weren't that great, but she was doing the best she could.

    If you become pregnant, when you are too tired to come to school, we will have taxpayers pay for a homebound teacher to come out to your house and tutor you.

    Fantastic! Don't you realize that a lot of women drop out of school because of the baby and are unable to finish their education? It's great that your school provides tutoring.

    Please understand that I am not angry with these kids, but with a system that teaches them "learned helplessness" and throws them out into the real world with no idea that their personal actions often will have consequences.

    I do agree, a lot of people do have a bit of learned helplessness. That's why MK and I are suggesting these ideas to get people back on their feet. Rather than look at these people and shake our heads at their "irresponsibility," we'd rather find solutions to help get people up on their feet again and learning to make good decisions for their lives. And like MK said, "Give them life skills, and you give them their independence. Give them independence and you create dignity. People with dignity, and independence will naturally begin to act responsibly. Because they now have something to lose."

    She's exactly right.

    My husband and I are expecting our first child in January. We're excited and scared. But the one thing we were NOT is irresponsible. When we were dating, we did not have sex, not because we did not want to. Our decision was based partly on religious beliefs, but to be truthful, mainly we were scared to death that we would become pregnant at a time when we did not have the proverbial "pot to pee in"!

    Congrats! I'm glad to hear you're proud of the decision you made. Understand though, not everyone is like you. And preaching at them won't make them be like you either.

    Personal responsibility and character are the two foundations of a prosperous society, and glossing over those with the weak argument of "it's been tried before" or the completely fallacious accusation that that is "blaming people for having sex" is ludicrous and ignores the real solution: no amount of government programs will fix society, only when society's individuals govern themselves in a prudent way will society ever be "fixed".

    I guess that's one opinion, but a lot of the solutions we are proposing haven't been tried before, or have been tried and dropped even though they were successful, and I don't see why going back to them and trying new options is such a bad thing.

    When has anyone on welfare been given a 5-year-financial plan to help them move up with their life? When has welfare provided essential job training?

    Providing government programs for these people is not just another way of coddling them. It's understanding they are in this situation and disregarding all their previous bad mistakes, then teaching them how to make good decisions and live a more prosperous life.

    And you know what? Those people will pass down their knowledge to their children, who will pass it down to theirs, and that will lead to a prosperous society. Shoving the people who "fail" off into the corner just isn't a solution, I'm afraid.

    Posted by: Edyt at June 12, 2008 12:46 PM


    Fibonacci is everywhere.

    (Katherine Heigl of the TV show 'Grey's Anatomy')

    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 1:14 PM


    The emissions would go higher because we would choose to live irresponsibly.

    MK, what's "responsibly," there? Practically anybody can look at somebody else and say, "Gee, you're consuming too much."
    .....


    What you are saying is that overpopulation would mean that you couldn't have everything that you want, which is very different than saying there wouldn't be enough.,/i>

    There is no one "enough," as above. Lots of people one earth already are far from having everything they want. Heck, most people on earth get by on what would make us in the "developed world" feel massively deprived.
    .....

    Yeah, we'll have to figure out how to travel without poisoning the air. We'll have to figure out how to use the glaciers for fresh water, or how to neutralize sea water.

    We already know how, but it's too slow or too expensive for most people. As we're forced into more of such, people will have declining standards of living, and trouble will start.
    ......


    But how you go from "I can't drive my big ol' car if there are more people, so lets eliminate them, is beyond me.

    I didn't say that. The point I see with population pressure is not that we have to kill off a bunch of people, but rather that we certainly don't need to increase the rate of population growth beyond what it already is, by banning or further restricting abortion, especially against the will of pregnant women.
    ......


    The solutions do not lie in less people. They rely on however many people there are, those people live responsibly.

    Nobody said "less people." That the population would even stabilize in the new few decades would be evidence of massive shifts in psychology from what has been the case.
    ......


    Maybe we should just nuke China? Then we wouldn't have to worry that they aren't cooperating.

    Maybe Jill should do a poll on that.
    ......


    Here is an objective moral. We all have to share this planet. Which means we must all behave responsibly. To do otherwise, is objectively, a moral wrong. It might still happen. Can't control the world. But it IS objectively wrong.

    I think it's just physical fact that we all have to share the earth. One person's "responsibly" is another's heinous over-consumption, and another would scoff at the idea of living on so little. Idealism depends on what is wanted, like so much in this area.

    What I think will happen is more conflicts, even wars, over energy and water. Declining standards of living, shortages and/or higher prices for goods - if anything I think the birth rate will go down because of it, due to people not wanting kids as much if it's harder to support them. The flip side are those places where people often have about as many kids as possible in the hope that one or more will support them in their old age.

    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 1:33 PM


    MK: Who's to say that Global Warming isn't the earths way of compensating for more people...perhaps more fresh water will become available as those ice caps melt. Perhaps more soil will become fertile as regions warm up. Sure maybe we'll lose some stuff, but how do you know that in the end we won't gain more of what we really need??? Maybe everyone is fighting the very thing that will allow us to keep living.

    Melting ice caps go into the ocean, and rising sea levels contaminate fresh water and reduce the land area of the earth, so it ain't a good deal for people.

    Global warming would mean that some hitherto too-cold places will be able to grow crops, while some currently-producing areas become too hot and/or dry. I don't know if we'd gain or lose on a net basis, there.

    It sounds sort of in line with the "Gaea hypothesis" - seeing the earth as an organism, to speak of the earth "having ways.." Who knows?

    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 1:41 PM


    Doug,
    We already know how, but it's too slow or too expensive for most people. As we're forced into more of such, people will have declining standards of living, and trouble will start.

    Well, then I guess that's the choice that people are making. But it is a choice. They could just as viably choose not to consume so much.

    You don't like when I say we need less people? You prefer I say we don't need more people? Need has nothing to do with it. More people/less people, makes no difference. It's not for you to say that we're better off if people choose to have less people. Any more than you think it's right for me to say I thinks it better if they have more children.

    The issue with abortion is not an abstract one. The ship has already left port and these people are here. You want to allow folks to eliminate them. I don't.

    Need does not enter into it. What people think they need should not dictate whether some of us live or not.

    You're right, it's all relative. We all use/have too much. When you find yourself pregnant, perhaps you should look at how much you have and realize that there is no NEED to kill your child. You already have plenty by someone's standards.

    Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 2:16 PM


    J, good posts, I agree completely.

    Posted by: Bethany at June 12, 2008 3:02 PM


    You're right, it's all relative. We all use/have too much. When you find yourself pregnant, perhaps you should look at how much you have and realize that there is no NEED to kill your child. You already have plenty by someone's standards.

    **applause**

    Posted by: Bethany at June 12, 2008 3:12 PM


    You're right, it's all relative. We all use/have too much. When you find yourself pregnant, perhaps you should look at how much you have and realize that there is no NEED to kill your child. You already have plenty by someone's standards.

    MK, yes - relative, and just as you can say "too much" from some standpoints, there are those who would say almost all of us live in a horribly deprived state.

    Whether a given person needs to end a pregnancy is up to them, not to you, me, or poorer or richer people than the woman who is pregnant.

    Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 9:14 PM