Washington Votes

2004 House Bill 3111

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Maralyn Chase, (D-Shoreline) on January 28, 2004, to direct the secretary of health to develop and distribute a pamphlet or other educational material that emphasizes the benefits and importance of couples limiting themselves to two or fewer children to promote population sustainability.
    • Referred to the House Health Care Committee on January 28, 2004, but the bill did not receive a hearing by the cutoff date so it is a “dead bill” and will not be considered further.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Maralyn Chase, (D-Shoreline) on January 28, 2004. New Comment

1) I'm so sorry. [by Anonymous Citizen on October 12, 2005]
Reading all of the comments assure me that there is so much anger and unhappiness in our world. No wonder we are doomed. On another note, I agree with educating "people" about population sustainability. If you want to have 5 kids have two or three of your own and then adopt!! The orphanages are full of kids that would love to have a mommy and a daddy!! Be kind and have hope.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Australian Citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on February 17, 2005]
At the end of the day, contraception and selfishness are the cause. Here we have leftist, Unionst, Academic, Feminist and Student organisations promoting contraception and abortion. When will it be when they wake to themselves and realise that we are screwing ourselves? How pieces do they have to be chopped in to? How many sledge hammers have to be hit on their heads? WHEN WILL THEY FUCKING WAKE UP?
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Ironic [by randis on February 17, 2005]
Australia is experiencing birthrates it can't possibly hope to sustain, and you're complaining about someone proposing that people be thoughtful and responsible about reproduction? Your roots as a dumping ground for European offal are showing.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) I agree with her [by Anonymous Citizen on January 27, 2005]
The real question is...should you have children if you can't provide for them and make all the taxpayers pay for your screw up?

It's your problem if you spread your legs and it's your problem to care for your own kids. Why should it be anyone else's burden?


Reply New Comment

Line

5) I wonder [by DCF on January 21, 2005]
if we need to spend tax dollars on a pamphlet that sets forth the ideal family size? Why not use that money, as little as it may be, for our education system.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Washington state DCF destroys families. [by wolflady on January 9, 2005]
Washington State DCF is one of the most corrupt systems in the nation. That and their court system.
They take children from good families and adopt them out to strangers and use the Federal Adoption bonuses to fill the state coffers. This is trafficing in children for profit.
Nanc
Foundation for Children's Rights
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Are you kidding? [by randis on January 11, 2005]
Children are removed from families, immediate and extended, when abusive parenting is detected because family members are far more likely to return the child to the abusers than strangers are. If children were given to relatives and the relatives either returned the children to the abusive parents or abused the children themselves, you'd be railing against DCF and the courts for being so stupid as to give the kids right back to the abusive people the state is supposed to be protecting them from.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) The best kept secret! [by Suzy on January 9, 2005]
You have just let the Best Kept Secret in the state out of the bag...Maybe people will wake up and listen to the hundreds of relatives of foster children that are watching these children be adopted to non-related foster families...Are we truly a state so deficient that we are the only state in the nation with a zero relative adoption percentile?....or is there a little bit of sabotage going on? Suzy
Reply New Comment

Line

9) she needs to retire, domocrats, geez [by Anonymous Citizen on December 19, 2004]
yes
Reply New Comment

Line

10) A couple corrections. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2004]
1: Democrats.
2: What?
Reply New Comment

Line

11) No More Children [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2004]
I had children. I did a good job. They are successful citizens. They also hurt me, lied to me, caused 24 years of trouble between me and my husband. My daughter got herself pregnant as a joke 2 months before a $50,000 wedding and got thrown into bedrest with Twins, then another within a year after the Twins. I got hit with three grandchildren and the vicious cycle started once more with my own right to my living and my husband's living.
Now, I dislike children. For those who want to sacrifice their existence for children do the rest of the world a favor. Keep your troubles to yourselves. When they start to cause you health problems, please don't call me or my husband to bail you out.

There are people that are very happy WITHOUT CHILDREN. I was there, I sacrificed, I was betrayed. My financial security was affected.

I am with the people that just Don't Like Children. It is not a crime. It is lawful not to like children.

Perhaps it really isn't the children we dislike. Perhaps it is the generation of no good parents that cause the dislike of their children.
Children disturb Peace.

As I understand the Law. It is against the Law To Disturb Peace.

So. Leave me alone with your no good children.



Reply New Comment

Line

12) Children causing problems [by Mick on December 20, 2004]
We were all children once . The children of today will be paying < or not paying> for our social security. Our generation screwed up , and the best we can do is blame political parties and leaders for it . I believe the best hope we have is our kids , and they are a gift.
The problem is making it harder to get public support for not working in our culture , yet easier to get training and skills for opportunities. The problem is not parents having two children , one child , or five children . Its the reasons parents have kids , or unfortunately today why only one parent has a child . Some parents should have five kids , some should have none .
Reply New Comment

Line

13) rx site [by Anonymous Citizen on January 18, 2005]
Hey guys,
Here is the links to that online pharmacy you wanted. No prior prescription needed.
I found this online pharmacy and resource site actually very usefull.
Very fast delivery. and great customer support.
http://www.capquella.com
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=Ultram
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=meridia
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=cialis
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=viagra
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=soma
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=valium
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=ambien
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=zanaflex
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?product=celebrex
http://www.capquella.com/main.php?page=directory
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Oh dear... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 21, 2004]
I'm not going to nitpick on the grammatical catastrophe below, but rather on the idea therein.

"We were all children once ."

Well, this is what we call a non sequitur. It is entirely unrelated to anything and everything. Know what else? Chocolate ice cream goes in the freezer.

"The children of today will be paying < or not paying> for our social security."

Again with the non sequiturs. Any time you want to have a genuine point based on a relevant idea, feel free to drop it on us.

"Our generation screwed up , and the best we can do is blame political parties and leaders for it ."

Non sequitur.

"I believe the best hope we have is our kids , and they are a gift."

Actually, the best hope we have is OURSELVES. If we set the proper example, the rest takes care of itself. Hoping that the next generation will just miraculously figure out all the problems the past generations haven't taken the time or effort to solve is irresponsible and just plain foolish.

"The problem is making it harder to get public support for not working in our culture , yet easier to get training and skills for opportunities."

Public schools provide the mechanism for getting training and skills that will turn into opportunities in the future. Parents are responsible for inspiring their kids to excel in school. If parents abdicate that responsibility, it's not the rest of the country's fault that the child(ren) fail. It's the parents' fault and nobody else's. Failing to set the proper example is the fault of the parents. If your parents didn't do their job, take it upon yourself to do yours, but don't act as though you're not directly responsible for the success or failure of your children, or, for that matter, your own success or failure.

"The problem is not parents having two children , one child , or five children ."

Well, if people have many children, get tax breaks for having them, consume far more resources than those with fewer or no kids, and demand more services than those with fewer or no kids, then the problems we face will be exacerbated, if not caused, by having more kids rather than fewer. Not enough money for schools? Well, if a family of six gets bigger tax breaks than a family of four or two, and if everyone had four kids and got all those tax breaks, who'd cover the costs of school? The elderly? People with kids rely on those with fewer kids than they, or no kids at all, to cover the costs of their wants and needs. That's how it works. If you don't believe me, look at health insurance costs, taxes, and the government resources used by parents or per kid via their parents versus those used by people without kids. It's basic math.

"Its the reasons parents have kids , or unfortunately today why only one parent has a child ."

Most people don't have real reasons for having kids. In fact, often it's nothing greater than "let's have kids" that's behind the decision to reproduce. Most people don't even think about why they're having kids. Ask them why they did, and there's little more than defensiveness and rationalization.

"Some parents should have five kids , some should have none ."

I can't think of anyone who SHOULD have five kids. There are surely some who shouldn't have had any, but I wouldn't tell anyone worthwhile how many kids they should or shouldn't have. And neither would this pamphlet have done that.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Oh Dear [by Mick on January 7, 2005]
"I can't think of anyone who SHOULD have five kids. There are surely some who shouldn't have had any, but I wouldn't tell anyone worthwhile how many kids they should or shouldn't have. And neither would this pamphlet have done that."

The ending comment gave your opinion . I suppose you can judge who is worthwhile?
Must be your education and the outstanding example you set forth .

I can't think of anyone who should not have five kids if they want them , adoption or natural .
.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Really? REALLY? [by randis on January 11, 2005]
"The ending comment gave your opinion . I suppose you can judge who is worthwhile?
Must be your education and the outstanding example you set forth ."

So, you see no problem with a teen having multiple children out of wedlock with no job, or an alcoholic having lots of kids, or an abuser having a nice big brood? Seriously, if I have to tell you that there are people out there who have no business having any children, much less a handful, it's not I whose education is of questionable quality.

"I can't think of anyone who should not have five kids if they want them , adoption or natural ."

So, homeless people who want to have lots of kids should have lots of kids? How about people on welfare? Should they have lots of kids even though they can't afford to do so? What about people who raise children to be hateful and bigoted? Do you think they SHOULD have a bunch of kids just because they want them? What about child molesters? If they want to have lots of kids, do you think that's worthwhile? Do I really have to explain to you how some people are patently not worthwhile parent material?

Reply New Comment

Line

17) HB3111 [by wolflady on January 9, 2005]
You can't think of anyone who should have 5 kids? HHMMMM when did God die and leave you in charge?
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Words mean things. [by randis on January 11, 2005]
I said "should," not "must." One is an opinion, the other is a decree. Please, pay attention to the words used, and stop thinking in a purely emotional way. It's clouding your ability to speak intelligently.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Right on! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2005]
The Constitution was built on the premise of the American Family, and it states quite clearly...the family is what the People say it is...we do not need the "Village Idiots" telling us how many children we should have, or how to raise them...Suzy
Reply New Comment

Line

20) Then... [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
"and it states quite clearly...the family is what the People say it is..."

Then why can't family be a same sex couple?
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Why do I have to tell alleged educated adults how to make a coherent point? [by randis on January 11, 2005]
"The Constitution was built on the premise of the American Family,"

It was? Really? Could you find the the place in the Constitution where the word "family" appears? Because, for the life of me, I can't find it.

"and it states quite clearly...the family is what the People say it is..."

Again, I searched and searched through the US Constitution for this statement, and I didn't see it anywhere. Could you please help me find this?

And I don't remember this pamphlet ever having anything to say about what is and isn't a family, nor do I recall myself saying that. Here's an idea: base your comments on reality next time.

"we do not need the 'Village Idiots' telling us how many children we should have, or how to raise them...Suzy"

Funny, but I always thought idiots were unable to make arguments based on reality or make meaningful statements of fact. And I don't see anyone telling anyone who may or may not have any, or many, children, much less how to raise them.

See, here's how a debate works: two or more participants make statements expressing different opinions of the same matter, and all participants base their statements of opinion on facts relating to the matter in question. The side with the most compelling argument wins. So far, your argument is based on nothing but distortions of the facts and nonsensical blathering. If you could please manage to base your statements on facts as they relate to the pamphlet in question, or on comments made about it, it would be much appreciated.


Reply New Comment

Line

22) Good Grief [by Anonymous Citizen on January 7, 2005]

Lets see , children and the importance of have no importance in this debate . You call it a non sequitur . Anytime you wish to have a debate on children and taxes , please try to say something that has a relationship to the subject . Do you want tax deductions for home mortages ? Or this a non sequitur , homeownership having no importance to our civilization and way of life . You must learn to listen to a thought that is not directly agreeable to yours .

The children of today will have a choice to pay your way . The system bases its contribution to your retirement fund by the kids of today . So hot shot , fix the problem ... Do it without these kids paying your way , the ones you feel have no importance and no need to allow parents the ability to keep more of their money for their good . Its not the government's money , and parents can do a better job then any government program .





"

"I believe the best hope we have is our kids , and they are a gift."

Actually, the best hope we have is OURSELVES. If we set the proper example, the rest takes care of itself.

Oh really , and Mr. Proper example when did this proper example start ? Oh it started with you .. Good Grief The word you use is non sequitur




"The problem is making it harder to get public support for not working in our culture , yet easier to get training and skills for opportunities."

Public schools provide the mechanism for getting training and skills that will turn into opportunities in the future.

hahahahahahahahaha


Parents are responsible for inspiring their kids to excel in school. If parents abdicate that responsibility, it's not the rest of the country's fault that the child(ren) fail.

The word you use is non sequitur



It's the parents' fault and nobody else's. Failing to set the proper example is the fault of the parents. If your parents didn't do their job, take it upon yourself to do yours, but don't act as though you're not directly responsible for the success or failure of your children, or, for that matter, your own success or failure.

The word you use is non sequitur


"The problem is not parents having two children , one child , or five children ."

Well, if people have many children, get tax breaks for having them, consume far more resources than those with fewer or no kids, and demand more services than those with fewer or no kids, then the problems we face will be exacerbated, if not caused, by having more kids rather than fewer. Not enough money for schools? Well, if a family of six gets bigger tax breaks than a family of four or two, and if everyone had four kids and got all those tax breaks, who'd cover the costs of school?

And if you have a heart attack and need surgery , a tranplant , etc and the best medical care in the world to survive , you going to pay for it ? Or do we all pay for it , through insurance , taxes , and charities .

The elderly? People with kids rely on those with fewer kids than they, or no kids at all, to cover the costs of their wants and needs. That's how it works. If you don't believe me, look at health insurance costs, taxes, and the government resources used by parents or per kid via their parents versus those used by people without kids. It's basic math.

The math you learned in public school I suppose .

"Its the reasons parents have kids , or unfortunately today why only one parent has a child ."

Most people don't have real reasons for having kids.

Oh , Thank you , obviously some more public school debating skills.



In fact, often it's nothing greater than "let's have kids" that's behind the decision to reproduce. Most people don't even think about why they're having kids. Ask them why they did, and there's little more than defensiveness and rationalization.

You hang out with some people that appear to be on your same level of understanding

"Some parents should have five kids , some should have none ."

I can't think of anyone who SHOULD have five kids. There are surely some who shouldn't have had any, but I wouldn't tell anyone worthwhile how many kids they should or shouldn't have. And neither would this pamphlet have done that.

The word you use is non sequitur


Reply New Comment

Reply New Comment

Line

23) I so wish people would learn what the words they use mean. [by randis on January 11, 2005]
"Lets see , children and the importance of have no importance in this debate ."

I didn't say that. What I said was that the things you were saying were non sequiturs. That said, it IS a non sequitur. You were throwing out platitudes and thoughtless one-liners like "children are important" and "someone has to pay taxes." Neither of those statements has anything to do with the advantages of having smaller families, any more than having lots of kids accentuates their importance or creates more tax dollars per citizen.

"You call it a non sequitur . Anytime you wish to have a debate on children and taxes , please try to say something that has a relationship to the subject ."

Believe me, I have (I'm about half of the responses in this thread as an Anonymous Citizen). Most of the people against this pamphlet can't honestly say the same thing.

"Do you want tax deductions for home mortages ? Or this a non sequitur , homeownership having no importance to our civilization and way of life . You must learn to listen to a thought that is not directly agreeable to yours ."

No, I don't want tax deductions for home mortgages. I don't want tax deductions for anything, honestly. Homeownership is great, but if you remove all the tax deductions people get, do you know what you get? Lower taxes across the board. Yes, that's right. Everyone has a lower tax rate when everyone pays the same percentage of their income (except the very poor, who currently pay nothing in income taxes). And yes, that is a non sequitur as well.

"The children of today will have a choice to pay your way ."

Wrong. The children of today, according to the law, have no choice as to whether they pay into Social Security, just as you don't have a choice to pay into it either. Maybe you're assuming Bush's Social Security changes will be enacted. Fine, but the most you can say is they MIGHT have that choice. Careful with the words you use; they all have specific meanings. I try to be as specific as possible in my arguments, and it would be nice if others did so as well. It makes for much better discussion.

"The system bases its contribution to your retirement fund by the kids of today . So hot shot , fix the problem ... Do it without these kids paying your way , the ones you feel have no importance and no need to allow parents the ability to keep more of their money for their good . Its not the government's money , and parents can do a better job then any government program ."

Here's the solution to the problem: Social Security is a pyramid scheme. If citizens tried to do the same thing, they'd be arrested. If it's illegal for us to use that kind of system, why is it legal for the government to do the same thing? And I don't know what parents have to do with Social Security. Last I checked, we all pay into SS, and we all receive it when we reach a certain age. You don't have to be a parent to pay into or receive SS, and I'm quite sure being a parent doesn't make one more knowledgeable about money management. Please, explain your premise.

"Oh really , and Mr. Proper example when did this proper example start ? Oh it started with you .. Good Grief The word you use is non sequitur"

My point, friend, was that everyone has to be the example which others should follow. That means everyone, be they singles, couples, married couples, parents...everyone. It doesn't mean that you have to have kids to set the proper example to others (children AND adults). The example, if not given to you by your parents, is your responsibility alone. If you don't choose to behave properly, that's your choice, not that of your parents. Ultimately, our behavior is of our own device. Our parents influence our decisions, but we make the decisions, and if we act as though problems must be solved by the next generation, then that's the example the next generation will follow as well. Funny how ideas get passed on, isn't it?

Oh, and all the other things you refer to as "non sequiturs" are my responses to things you had said. If I'm responding directly to your ideas, it's not a non sequitur. Your statements didn't respond directly to the issue at hand, and thus were non sequiturs. Like I said, words have specific meanings. Please, learn them and use them properly. It does you no service to do otherwise.

"And if you have a heart attack and need surgery , a tranplant , etc and the best medical care in the world to survive , you going to pay for it ? Or do we all pay for it , through insurance , taxes , and charities ."

None of those things address the advantages of having small families. Do you see why I refer to them as non sequiturs now? A pamphlet that shows the advantages of having small families is wrong, but a tax code that rewards having large families is right. Social conditioning in the poly-natal bent is good, social conditioning in the duo-natal bent is bad. Insurance, taxes, and charities are in no way improved by having lots of kids. In fact, if the population leveled off, it would reduce infrastructure costs, insurance use, and would mean more predictable expenditures for charities. Having eternally more people than we had before doesn't make more money per person who needs it (other than through inflation). It's nonsensical half-ideas like "more kids means more tax dollars!" that short circuit intelligent discourse in this country.

"The math you learned in public school I suppose ."

You fail to respond to the actual point, and fail to make an actual point. Congratulations on going 0 for 2.

"Oh , Thank you , obviously some more public school debating skills."

So, are you claiming that inferior intellects are the result of public schools? Not that I agree, but it seems you have serious doubts about the quality of the education given by tax-paid, government-sponsored public education institutions. You also seem to think we need to have lots and lots of kids to magically make more tax dollars to fund Social Security (the single largest domestic expenditure of the federal government) and education, when having lots of kids will also cause even greater demands of the education and Social Security programs. How do you solve that demand problem? By having even greater numbers of children per family? Do you understand what "pyramid scheme" even means, and understand why your arguments about Social Security are red herrings? Or do I have to explain everything to you, who have so much to say about the poverty of the public school education (by the way, I went to a private high school on a full scholarship...and you'll notice I'm able to punctuate and spell properly, unlike others who strut while unable to so much as correctly place a period).

"You hang out with some people that appear to be on your same level of understanding"

Intelligent response. Very thoughtful and creative. You forgot to mention "you smell like a monkey and fling feces." Maybe next time.

"The word you use is non sequitur"

Again, I responded directly to something you said. Therefore, it's not a non sequitur. Your original statement, in relation to the pamphlet, is a non sequitur. I'll say this one last time: words have specific meanings. If you refuse to recognize this (you, who have so much to say about my education), you do nothing but confirm the premise that you are intellectually unqualified to participate meaningfully in this discussion, much like the majority of people who have posted here.

Reply New Comment

Line

24) children [by Anonymous Citizen on December 19, 2004]
Or you can sit back and enjoy your grand children.
Be Blessed.and thank god their healthy.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Blessed? Please. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2004]
It's not a blessing when someone abdicates their financial, psychological, and time burdens to you. I'd like to see how blessed you'd think you were if someone forced their kids, pets, or other responsibilities upon you. Hey, I've got a bunch of debt...mind if I "bless" you with it?
Reply New Comment

Line

26) Thank you [by Anonymous Citizen on December 17, 2004]
THANK YOU for vowing to not reproduce any longer. Given how disturbed you undoubtedly are, perhaps it's best for the gene pool if you keep your chromosomes to yourself.

It's time to take another look at natural selection. There just might be some validity to that theory.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) And I guess you're AGAINST such a pamphlet, eh? [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2004]
"THANK YOU for vowing to not reproduce any longer. Given how disturbed you undoubtedly are, perhaps it's best for the gene pool if you keep your chromosomes to yourself."

Wow...that's easily one of the most heartless and mean-spirited things I've ever read. I didn't know that good people automatically had good kids, and that only disturbed people had kids that turned out less-than-great.

"It's time to take another look at natural selection. There just might be some validity to that theory."

Humanity has overridden natural selection, and now does its own privatized version, whereby all are selected to survive, and only the most utterly incapable of breeding are not allowed to do so.

Now, are you done harassing someone who was willing to say their kids didn't turn out as expected despite their best efforts?
Reply New Comment

Line

28) Should pincers be allowed in Canada? [by Anonymous Citizen on December 3, 2004]
I don't think that they should becausethey are a danger and a menace to society.

Reply New Comment

Line

29) Huh? [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2004]
What are you talking about? Pincers? Pincers are claws. Are you suggesting claws are a menace to society? Here's an idea: figure out what your point is, learn the words necessary to express it, and before posting, make sure your point is in any way relevant. Thank you.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Wow! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 11, 2004]
It's utterly amazing how fearful and angry people can get at the prospect of new information, ideas, or theories. If you're able to think for yourself, how can information or opinions harm you?
Reply New Comment

Line

31) And you are for Kerry...? [by Anonymous Citizen on November 4, 2004]
How a Partial Birth Abortion is done

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

...And Kerry opposes banning this.

Reply New Comment

Line

32) Dilation and Extraction [by Anonymous Citizen on November 9, 2004]
1: How scientific. Using your terms, I could make childbirth sound like a crime against humanity.

2: What you fail to mention is that D&E is almost exclusively performed on fetuses that are either already dead or with deformities that will prevent it from surviving in any way outside the womb (e.g. anecephalic).

3: I miss intelligent discourse and debate.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) D&C [by Anonymous Citizen on December 19, 2004]
i believe its D&C
Reply New Comment

Line

34) No... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2004]
It's D&E (Dilation and Evacuation), D&E (Dilation and Extraction), or D&X (Dilation and Extraction). What, pray tell, would you suggest D&C stands for?
Reply New Comment

Line

35) what ever happened with this proposal?? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 27, 2004]
i am so concerned that i missed the boat on this one. please email me with the results of this proposal.anyone... talkn4fun2@aol.com
this is such a crazy idea.
why and what is happening to our country??
cj
Reply New Comment

Line

36) What the...? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 1, 2004]
First off, noone isn't telling anyone just to have two children or less. It is just a mere suggestion because of the fact that the world is becoming more and more quickly overpopulated. If we do not begin to watch ourselves we could end up like all the overpopulated countries, China, Indonesia, I'm not saying that we should make a law stating that each couple may not have any more than two children, but I believe that in some instances people should just keep it in their pants.
Reply New Comment

Line

37) Fiddling While Rome Burns! [by Freedom Lover in Olympia on February 17, 2004]
Rep. Chase's dumb bill to fund a pamphlet promoting two children per couple is DEAD. It will not rear its moronic head for the rest of this legislative session. For that I'm glad. It is time for the participants in this increasingly pointless discussion to turn their attention elsewhere.

While you've been busy flogging the dead horse of this bill, which never had any legal teeth to enforce its advocacy of two child per couple to begin with, the Washington State Senate just passed a bill with great potential to infringe on your liberties.

The dangerous bill just passed by the Senate is SB 5412, which will bring biometric identifiers (i.e., most likely fingerprints) to Washington State Driver's Licenses. True, the current version of the bill allows for your submission of a biometric identifier to be voluntary, but don't count on it staying voluntary once the Departmnent of Licensing gets in the biometric collection business.

California traveled this slippery slope, starting out with a voluntary thumbprint for its driver's licenses, which became mandatory five years later. If SB 5412 now passes the House and is signed into law, such an egregious violation of personal privacy and the Fourth Amendment will become a strong future possibility for Washington.

So, wake up and smell the roses. If you're going to get worked up about an anti-civil liberties bill, get worked up about one like SB 5412 that really opens the door to police state activity rather than worrying about a moronic bill that merely advocates for a position, but has no means to enforce it.

Quit wasting our time and this website's server space with your pointless, often illiterate posts on a bill that's dead anyway!
Reply New Comment

Line

38) Jamspte@aol.com [by Anonymous Citizen on February 15, 2004]
Isn't government, in these modernistic times, suppose to stay out of religion? The family is a very religious idea. Also, who is gooing to work in their factories in the future and support all of us retiring baby boomers?

Jim Petersen
Reply New Comment

Line

39) You make zero sense. [by Anonymous Citizen on November 9, 2004]
The family is a very religious idea? Wow...I didn't know. So, if a family attends no religious services, and subscribes to no religious dogmatic scheme, is it still a religious idea? Or, are you just connecting the words "family" and "religion" because religious organizations have hijacked the word "family?"
Reply New Comment

Line

40) From the WashingtonVotes Director [by melissa_milewski on February 14, 2004]
No profanity or abusive language is allowed on this site's chat room. By pressing the post comment, you have agreed to the terms of use for this site which prohibit profane or abusive comments. I will remove all comments containing such language. This site is designed for thoughtful comments on a variety of bills passing the legislature, not personal diatribes against other people. Please keep your comments to issues rather than personal attacks. If you do not, you will not be welcome on the website. Also, HB 3111 introduced by Rep. Maralyn Chase did not pass out of committee by the committee cutoff and is therefore a dead bill and will not be considered further this session in the legislature.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Figures. Silly me. I had hoped... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2004]
that people would finally be starting to *think* just a little teeny bit about the problem of human overbreeding, but again I was wrong. Amazing how the mere *mention* of a *pamphlet* sent the closed-minded masses into hysterics and hyperbole. Sad.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) reply [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2004]
Hopefully it will be reintroduced.
Reply New Comment

Line

43) yeah, Keep Talking!! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
babies in the womb, should be the most protected place in the world, but the vaccuming lil baby parts out, or given that saline shot, that delievers a dead BURNT baby-sometimes, still alive, but put in basket to die....
and the latest--
when they are TOO big for these--you can get a dr. to go in and cut into his skull and CRUSH his head, and suck the brains out, then vaccum, clean the remains.

Odd, scientists and such are wanting to USE these "Aborted BABIES" for research......why my goodness, if it is blob of tissue, etc., 'potential' human, WHY the WANT FOR THE BABY PARTS???????
*thank about that*

There are alternatives to that! *Agree* with Mothers to have baby, and use the placenta and unbiblical cord, full of FRESH HUMAN CELLS, for scientists to work on. IDEA, eh?

yeah.
Reply New Comment

Line

44) yeah, Keep Talking!! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
babies in the womb, should be the most protected place in the world, but the vaccuming lil baby parts out, or given that saline shot, that delievers a dead BURNT baby-sometimes, still alive, but put in basket to die....
and the latest--
when they are TOO big for these--you can get a dr. to go in and cut into his skull and CRUSH his head, and suck the brains out, then vaccum, clean the remains.

Odd, scientists and such are wanting to USE these "Aborted BABIES" for research......why my goodness, if it is blob of tissue, etc., 'potential' human, WHY the WANT FOR THE BABY PARTS???????
*thank about that*

There are alternatives to that! *Agree* with Mothers to have baby, and use the placenta and unbiblical cord, full of FRESH HUMAN CELLS, for scientists to work on. IDEA, eh?

yeah.
Reply New Comment

Line

45) A lesson in debate. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 13, 2004]
The following diatribe is a good example of the inability of some people to understand what's actually being discussed, and choosing to blab about their pet issue instead of the actual issue.

***
babies in the womb, should be the most protected place in the world, but the vaccuming lil baby parts out, or given that saline shot, that delievers a dead BURNT baby-sometimes, still alive, but put in basket to die....
and the latest--
when they are TOO big for these--you can get a dr. to go in and cut into his skull and CRUSH his head, and suck the brains out, then vaccum, clean the remains.

Odd, scientists and such are wanting to USE these "Aborted BABIES" for research......why my goodness, if it is blob of tissue, etc., 'potential' human, WHY the WANT FOR THE BABY PARTS???????
*thank about that*

There are alternatives to that! *Agree* with Mothers to have baby, and use the placenta and unbiblical cord, full of FRESH HUMAN CELLS, for scientists to work on. IDEA, eh?

yeah.
***

Now, tell me...what does any of that have to do with a pamphlet that discusses the positive aspects of having a small family? Before typing up a bunch of vitriol, try checking to make sure what you're saying actually has some relevance to the conversation. Otherwise, you just sound like a jackass.
Reply New Comment

Line

46) Sustainability ... HELLO!? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
Believe it or not but there are people who have spent many years of scholarship researching and doing the math on sustainability issues. The Earth is already beyond carrying capacity and we are raping the Earth of her natural resources! What do you think sustains our life as we know it? - and your children's children for that matter!? There is much ignorance and arrogance towards the environment. The unfortunate thing is that if we continue on the path that we are on and the government continues to turn a blind eye, we will all be a part of a long, sustained environmental disaster that unfortunately is already being felt in many parts of Earth. We need to listen to the experts and head the warnings. We need to take action now and not have to take drastic measures in the future – like China does now. Chase has obviously put a great deal of forethought into this legislation – she is doing the right thing even though she knows it is not popular and may create controversy when she comes up for reelection. It is just a pamplet!
Reply New Comment

Line

47) There are just TOO many people to sustain a healthy environment! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
Bigger families, bigger houses, bigger vehicles, larger resource depletion, larger amount of pollution, more destruction of the environment,larger number of uneducated people, larger amount of homelessness, larger disease epidemics, ....and much, much more! Get the picture?
Reply New Comment

Line

48) re [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
Bigger government takes care of all this anyway. We are taxed to death and broke. Bigger government wants the flood of illegals to get on the red carpet. In the last 10 years I now have a much smaller house. Make far less money at work and my taxes and insurence is going to put my family and I in the streets. By the way I have only one child cause we couldn't possibly afford another one ever no matter how much we want one.
This is about out of control Humongous government. They have already made it impossible to have many children. Chase just wants to rub salt in our wounds. Get It?
Reply New Comment

Line

49) Response [by Anonymous Citizen on February 13, 2004]
"Bigger government takes care of all this anyway. We are taxed to death and broke."

But what happened to all those tax deductions, credits, and refunds? And if you're paying LESS in income taxes than people with fewer or no kids, how can you be worse off? Oh yeah...I forgot...you probably don't manage your budget and credit effectively. And that's somehow the government's fault. You choose to live above your means, and the government made you do it. Nope, not your fault at all.

"Bigger government wants the flood of illegals to get on the red carpet."

And you'd think that the party that claims to want less government (while creating an ever-larger government with far more invasive powers) wouldn't also be the party that would be supporting illegal immigrants getting amnesty. Oh, wait...they are. In fact, first Reagan did it, and now Bush is doing it.

"In the last 10 years I now have a much smaller house. Make far less money at work and my taxes and insurence is going to put my family and I in the streets."

And I guess the reason for that is the government, right? It couldn't be that your skills aren't marketable (enough), or that you have poor budgeting skills...it's probably because of "big government." Sure.

"By the way I have only one child cause we couldn't possibly afford another one ever no matter how much we want one."

Well, at least you're smart enough to understand that if you can't afford another kid, you shouldn't have one until you can. If only more people were like you! It's so seemingly simple, yet so many people let their emotions overwhelm their sense of reason and just rush into having more kids while they're already nearly destitute. Good for you for being adult about such important things.

"This is about out of control Humongous government. They have already made it impossible to have many children. Chase just wants to rub salt in our wounds. Get It?"

I disagree. If more people had fewer kids, much less money would be spent on all those services that serve parents and kids, and that would be more money available for other services, and it could even result in lower taxes. But, I guess you didn't notice how that could be, because you're too busy lamenting not being able to afford another kid and blaming the mean ol' government for not having enough money to be able to tax you less. Well, decrease the demand, and the supply will stretch farther for more things.
Supply and demand? How could such things control life in a capitalistic society?
Reply New Comment

Line

50) agree! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
I agree, the impact of each individual goes far past the physical space they take up. And open spaces have great value, we need to preserve as much of the earth as we can. Having fewer children is a great start.
Reply New Comment

Line

51) It all boils down to FEAR. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
People who have chosen to have 3 or more children are deathly afraid of becoming a minority in this country.
Reply New Comment

Line

52) OMG-my head is spinning [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
Reading all of the above comments is enough to make someone go nuts! Well, let's put it out right now...I am a mother of three beautiful boys. Yes, I get a child tax credit on them every year. No, I don't think the government should tell me how many children I should have. Yes, I would give up my tax credit just to keep the government out of my business. ( it's just money and that is no where near as important as my babies.)

Ok...on to the one that is perplexing me. The comment above about the 5 people making 100K each and buying a home together. Now, I am not going to denying that 2 of those people got it a little easier because they got a big chunk of what they paid in money back. And, I agree that the other 3 have justifiable (sp?) cause to be upset about their lack of refund. BUT, if I was one of those three people I would be more concerned with where my money went, instead of back to me. This is what people should really be concerned with IMHO. What exactly is the government doing with all of this money that we pay in every year? Sure, you could say that it goes to support all those "LAZY" people on welfare and other government programs (BTW, Social Security is a program too and to get that you can't really be lazy). But, if all of the people on government programs were naturalized (meaning born on American soil) citizens, we wouldn't have near the problem we do know. Meaning there might be a little bit less to complain about, especially when it comes to your money. One of the biggest problems today is illegal immigration and the corporations who support it for cheaper labor. If you want to bitch about where your money goes, don't bitch at the people who get what they paid in back just because they have kids. Bitch at the representatives and congresspeople who don't make a bill to ship their illegal butts back where they came from. Don't start bitching because you don't get a refund since you don't have children, start asking questions of your elected officals. Where does my money go? What programs does it support? Do I really want my money there? (If no, then try to do something about it.) Believe me, if you got a tax break for anything you'd take it. (Every little bit helps out for when you might need it.) Anything to get back the money you pay each year to our government.

Now, I am done...hopping off the soapbox. I am sure that someone will come along and desecrate my rant, but remember this, nothing changes my point of view (unless it's stupidity and then I have to rethink my ideals about a person) and if you want what I believe about this government involvement issue scroll back up and read the beginning.....the government should not be involved in my personal decisions such as this and YES I would absolutely give up the tax credit to keep them out.

Thanks for letting me vent a little. :)
Reply New Comment

Line

53) Thanks for being thoughtful. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
I'm going to address the main point of your post:

"if I was one of those three people I would be more concerned with where my money went, instead of back to me."

There's this impression that many parents have that those not getting refunds, and saying others shouldn't be getting a refund, are just jealous and wish they were getting a refund, too. Such is not the case. Absolutely, where our tax dollars go is of paramount importance. However, one should not ignore one injustice to focus on another. Wouldn't you agree that it would be stupid to ignore the injustice of tax breaks for reproducing, or act as though it's not a problem, in order to be concerned about how tax dollars are being used?

Let me give you an example. I live in Massachusetts. We have the "Big Dig," which is a Boston highway/tunnel project that has taken over a decade, $15 billion (which is $10 billion over budget and 5 years past due), and has gone through several architect companies and building contractors (including Bechtel).

Do you think I don't care about how my tax dollars are being spent? Of course I do! First of all, why should the federal government pay for Boston's urban road system? Second, why should it have gone $10 billion over budget and taken 5 years longer than it should have? Third, why is it only now that the state has begun suing for the overcharges and wasted money?

Now, just because I'm concerned about the injustice of this debacle, does that mean that I should say "well, it's not really important that the government is doing this tax refund injustice over here, because look at the injustice it's doing over there?" Of course not! If I'm aware of both problems, and I think both problems should be solved, I will complain about both until something is done about them.

And, how my tax dollars are spent is directly related to tax refunds. After all, you do agree that if I'm paying more and you're paying less, and we both end up sharing the same product, then I'm paying you. Therefore, my tax dollars are being spent by the government on you for having kids. In other words, there is a reproduction bias (something with which I'm sure you disagree, because just like the government shouldn't tell you to have fewer kids, it also shouldn't tell you to have more) that is being funded with my taxes.

I'm not sure if you meant to, and it seems to have been subconscious, but what you did was basically try to divert attention to avoid looking like the bad guy. You're not the bad guy. You're not the problem. I know there's a sense of defensiveness that often accompanies telling parents they shouldn't get preference because there is no equality as long as there is preference on the part of the government toward any group, type, race, or kind of people.
Reply New Comment

Line

54) Then stop claiming it [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
If you're willing to give up your child tax deductions and credits then stop claiming them! Now! As it stands now someone else has to pay more so that you can pay less. Do your part and stop letting the taxpayers finance your personal lifestyle decisions now. What are you waiting for?

Hypocrite!
Reply New Comment

Line

55) Can't say I agree with that. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
I disagree. If something is offered, by all means, take it. However, it's important to make it known to the government at all levels that you disagree with the policy and want something done about it. I do agree that, if done en force, a strong message would be sent, but they would have to first let the government know that they're doing it and why. Otherwise, it will look like random people screwed up their taxes. I don't see hypocrisy in accepting what's offered, but I do see hypocrisy in expecting as a rightful entitlement what's offered and more when there is no legitimate reason to expect or demand such things.
Reply New Comment

Line

56) Moo-mies and Dud-dies [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
Although this bill only advocates providing knowledge about family planning in the form of a pamphlet; I can see why the parents of multiple chidlren feel threatened.

You see, when parents see other adults who are perfectly happy without children or who only have one child, it raises cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a sharp contrast between what someone believes and the reality of their own life. Having children is an irreversible action. Once you have children, you can't go back without committing murder. Therefore, parents must always remain convinced that they made the right choice.

When parents encounter perfectly happy childless/childfree people it can trigger insidious, subconscious doubts. Advocating for smaller families, as Rep Chase is doing can also trigger these little doubts. The doubts, in turn, can trigger cognitive dissonance which is very discomforting and causes people to lash out at the perceived source of the dissonance. Perhaps this is why the people against this bill turn to insults and crass comments so easily. Of course as breeding increases, intelligence decreases so the insults and crass comments may also be due to small vocabularies.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) psycho-babble [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2004]
And then there are people who spend some time reading a dictionary and thumbing through medical journals looking for the latest psycho-babble theory, only to latch on to that theory and proclaim it as gospel truth! Then another theory comes along, and they grab that one. Such folks are as fickle as my dog, who roves from place to place, unable to decide where to lift his leg. Ultimately, the results are the same.
Reply New Comment

Line

58) You know not from whence you speak. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 8, 2004]
Actually, cognitive dissonance isn't a psycho-babble theory. It's a documented psychological fact of life. Read a book.
Reply New Comment

Line

59) You showed me [by Anonymous Citizen on December 8, 2004]
Please forgive me for daring to argue with such high-minded ideas as those you posed. Surely it is foolish of me to challenge something written in a book somewhere, as I had forgotten that once something is placed in print it becomes Truth.

Let's just forget that for every theory advanced by one research psychologist there are other theories contradicting them, with "evidence" abounding for both. Let's call a spade a spade here: psycho-babble written in a book somewhere is still psycho-babble.

Yes, indeed I must ask pardon for my decidedly plebeian outlook, which prohibits me from taking seriously a field that is obsessed with ADD and ADHD (despite a tremendous gray area with both "disorders" and a lack of scientific consesus on their validity) but does not give a second thought to, say, countless documented cases of women who suffer a lifetime of severe depression after aborting a child.

If ever there was a field dominated by political correctness, this is it.

But, as I said, a thousand pardons.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Psycho-babble it is not. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 8, 2004]
"Please forgive me for daring to argue with such high-minded ideas as those you posed. Surely it is foolish of me to challenge something written in a book somewhere, as I had forgotten that once something is placed in print it becomes Truth."

Never said that, but there are decades upon decades of psychological research, sociological research, behavioral research, and social psychological research that all agree that cognitive dissonance is a real and documentable thing. It's not "written in a book somewhere," it's a fact.

"Let's just forget that for every theory advanced by one research psychologist there are other theories contradicting them, with 'evidence' abounding for both. Let's call a spade a spade here: psycho-babble written in a book somewhere is still psycho-babble."

Cognitive dissonance is not a "theory." It is a psychological reality and is understood to be so by every psychological society and organization in the world. It's not the theory of some psychologist who wants to explain someone's behavior; it's the explanation for behavior based upon decades of research. I suppose you think gravity is just a conspiracy theory, too?

"Yes, indeed I must ask pardon for my decidedly plebeian outlook, which prohibits me from taking seriously a field that is obsessed with ADD and ADHD (despite a tremendous gray area with both "disorders" and a lack of scientific consesus on their validity) but does not give a second thought to, say, countless documented cases of women who suffer a lifetime of severe depression after aborting a child."

1: Over-diagnosis of a condition does not mean the condition does not exist. How often do people get diagnosed with the flu, even when they don't actually have the flu?
2: How can you not take the field of psychology seriously? I suppose biology, chemistry, and pathology are also just bunk?
3: Post-partum depression, be it post-abortion or post-birth, is a clinically-recognized condition. The glut of attention for ADD/ADHD is because of its prevalence among children and the over-diagnosis of the condition by parents, teachers, and psychological professionals.

"If ever there was a field dominated by political correctness, this is it."

It's not dominated by political correctness, but people use psychology to enforce political correctness. Nice try.

"But, as I said, a thousand pardons.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa."

The only thing of which you're guilty is treating the field of psychology as though it were a flash in the pan fad and not a legitimate field of scientific study.

Reply New Comment

Line

61) re [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
It’s a two-way street. In other words it goes both ways and Rep Chase is in a position of power to lash out her inadequacies.
Reply New Comment

Line

62) test [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
hello.
Reply New Comment

Line

63) US Senator with 13 Children [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
Doubt this man would be for this bill! He needs to be encouraged!

http://www.quiverfull.com/articles.php/id20/
Reply New Comment

Line

64) Yikes! Mom of 10 Here [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
I am a mom of 10 children - all from just one marriage. If you do research on large families of the past, you will find some of the well-known inventors were some of the "babies" of the family. This is none of government's business. We need more Christian families having large families to bring back the moral values.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) Christian families? [by Abra on February 12, 2004]
Why do you people insist on dragging Jesus into this at the drop of a hat?

Jesus, you may recall, had NO children. NONE. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, he was an only child or perhaps had a single sibling.

Sure, it's quite Christian to have huge families. Jesus only loves people who breed like rabbits!
Reply New Comment

Line

66) Smart! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
1: In what place in the birth order were Pol Pot, Hitler and the rest of the Nazi Party, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Mao, all the members of the Klan, and every other evil monster humanity has known? People having fewer kids would in no way produce more horrible people or more great people.

2: We need more Christian people having kids to bring back morals? I guess all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and everyone else cause all the evil in the world, right? It's nice to know you're not a religious supremacist.
Reply New Comment

Line

67) Here's a compromise. [by Abra on February 11, 2004]
Okay, so the pamphlet goes. No more pamphlet.

To be fair, then, in order to discourage people from having children that they are not prepared to effectively parent, let's stop giving out tax credits per child, and instead, offer a massive exemption to those without children.

This would reward the people who are refraining from adding to an over-abundant populace, and allow those who wish to procreate perfect freedom in which to do so.

I breathlessly await your profound and intellectually stimulating responses.
Reply New Comment

Line

68) ITS BRILLIANT. YES DEMOCRATS SHOULD ONLY HAVE TWO KIDS : ) [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
And then they should intermarry and so on. I foresee a decline in the democratic population in the future :)

And honey, whoever you are, before you reply take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself" why am I so angry?"
Reply New Comment

Line

69) ITS BRILLIANT. YES DEMOCRATS SHOULD ONLY HAVE TWO KIDS : ) [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
And then they should intermarry and so on. I foresee a decline in the democratic population in the future :)

And honey, whoever you are, before you reply take a good look in the mirror and ask yourself" why am I so angry?"
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Hmmm, so why's the UN worried about population decline? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/03020402.html

UN REPORT TO SHOW FERTILITY RATES WORLDWIDE TO DROP TO BELOW REPLACEMENT

NEW YORK, February 4, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A United Nations report due to be released later this month warns that the world will soon be in a dangerous situation of overall population decline. Far from the population controllers predictions that the world will be completely overpopulated, the UN demographers warn that the decline in fertility rate shows no indication of stopping at 2.1 - the replacement rate.
Reply New Comment

Line

71) Status quo != The right way. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
The UN is worried about declining populations because most countries (including America) have socialistic domestic economic policies, like Ponzi pyramid pensions (or Social Security), welfare (corporate and civilian), and tax schemes that charge people without kids heavily and people with kids lightly (when people without kids use the fewest resources and parents/kids use the most, which means those who pay the least get the most, and those who pay the most get the least).

These economic policies demand one thing: ever-increasing populations. They're inherently flawed, because no more than you can tell people to have fewer kids can you tell people to have more (though, for some reason, people think paying people to have kids is ok, and paying them, or even suggesting that they have fewer is evil, wrong, etc.).

The fact is, there are enough people to do everything that needs to be done, and there always shall. As long as there is unemployment and homelessness, there is no such thing as "too few people." The problem isn't that we need more people; the problem is that we need to reassess our economic policies and adjust them so they don't depend on an unrealistic condition (ever-increasing populations, which I think we can all agree would end up creating so many people, and so little potable water, food, air, and other resources as to create overpopulation and collapse).

Far be it from me to say that people are willing and ready to change, much less to say that governments, that have billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs invested in the status quo, are ready and willing to change. Remember, kids, the status quo is more important than anything else. Long live the status quo.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) Unbelievable [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
I think what State Rep. Maralyn Chase is proposing is just unbelievable!!! I am a mother of 10 (SoFar:) and feel that her proposal is an insult. This should be between the husband, wife, and God, NOT the government.
Reply New Comment

Line

73) I hope you're not a hypocrite, too... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
If you disagree with the government suggesting people have fewer kids, you should also disagree with the government suggesting people have more kids. Therefore, you should agree that tax benefits for parents (and increased benefits for having more kids) should be repealed, because it's not the government's business how many kids anyone has. You don't want to be a hypocrite, do you? You know that God doesn't like hypocrisy, don't you?
Reply New Comment

Line

74) Hypocrite- nope [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
No I'm not a hypocrite. I think everyone should be treated the same whether 1 or 10 children. I don't have the number of children I have because of the incentives the government gives, I have them because I love them and love having a large family. Just an fyi for some of you out there, just because we have a large family doesn't mean we automatically get huge tax credits. While my friends with 2 to 4 children were getting their checks in the mail for 400 a child, we got ours for a TOTAL of less than 300.00. Not per child, total! My husband didn't make enough to get the full credit. So, now where is the laws of equality?
Reply New Comment

Line

75) Population Vs. Sustainability [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
Two children, ten children. More taxes, less taxes. Corporations running amuck, charters revoking them. Imperial nations, emerging economies.

How about this, 80% of the grain in this country feeds the animals we consume. Mainly cows who shouldn't eat grain - but it makes 'em fat and farmers are paid by the pound! That grain could feed the world instead of a handful of animals we want to eat in rich countries like America. Statistics show that countries who consume animals have the highest rates of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.

You sustain yourself and your kids by eating food. It is the basis of life. Its all consumption and food.

Corporations suck, goverments suck. The idea of population control is irrelevant unless Ms. Chase also adresses why we give the biggest tax payer subsidies to businesses like the beef industry. Our food pyramid shows that we should only eat a small portion of meats and dairy products. Even less chips and junk food. Yet we subsidize these industrys with billions more than we provide those who farm whole grains, fruits & vegetables. Its all about MONEY. Nothing else.

We're all irrelevant in the name of the all mighty Masonic dollar. One kid or a million, population control is the agenda of the New World Order. Societies are dispensable worker bees for the elite. They control the populations already by dictating what we eat, by what they subsidize and promote with their corporate buddies. Its called capitalism folks and its around your necks, and your kids.

Welcome to the New World Order.
Reply New Comment

Line

76) Keep politicians out of our bedrooms! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
This is beyond nonsense.

If the US government ever came to the point of attempting to police the sex life of married couples, I would resign my citizenship and move elsewhere. Like Europe! Their population is currently collapsing like a deck of cards, and they are desperately trying to PAY couples to have more children.

This is nothing more than discrimination against large families. People with more than 2 children deal with rude comments and ugly attitudes from the public on a daily basis. We don't need more! Where is the voice in Washington for people who choose to have large families?

Clearly, the misinformed disciples of Paul Erlich are still spouting his nonsense about overpopulation.

There is no such thing! People need to educate themselves in the truth instead of swallowing popular teaching just because it is popular. Learn to question! Find out for yourself!
Reply New Comment

Line

77) This is truly laughable. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
"This is beyond nonsense."

No kidding, but not for the reason you think it is.

"If the US government ever came to the point of attempting to police the sex life of married couples, I would resign my citizenship and move elsewhere. Like Europe! Their population is currently collapsing like a deck of cards, and they are desperately trying to PAY couples to have more children."

Wait...so you're saying that the US doesn't pay couples to have more children? Last I checked, people save on taxes when they have kids. What's the difference between saving on taxes and paying the same amount in taxes and being paid a few hundred bucks? Is that not the same thing? If you end up with more money than someone who earned the same amount because you had kids, aren't you essentially being paid to have kids? Darn, I'm sorry...I just shot down what you thought was your argument. I'll try not to do that next time.

"This is nothing more than discrimination against large families."

So, let's get this straight: giving people tax breaks for having kids isn't discrimination, right? Because that's just discriminating against people who don't have kids, and they're probably not contributing anything anyway. Therefore, we SHOULD tax them more heavily. They're probably all rich anyway, right? Hypocrite.

"People with more than 2 children deal with rude comments and ugly attitudes from the public on a daily basis. We don't need more! Where is the voice in Washington for people who choose to have large families?"

Um, if your tax breaks increase based on having more children, your voice already exists. What you should be asking is, "where is the voice in Washington for the people who choose not to have children or can't have children?" They're the ones who get screwed in taxes, then have far fewer resources available to them. But, I guess discrimination is ok as long as it doesn't affect you directly.

"Clearly, the misinformed disciples of Paul Erlich are still spouting his nonsense about overpopulation.

There is no such thing!"

Maybe not right now, but does that mean we should wait until it's undeniable that there IS overpopulation? Which is better: reproducing ourselves into famine, disease, and mass deaths, or never getting to that point in the first place? You know, we "control" the populations of every other creature on the planet except ourselves. Don't you find that rather...I don't know...hypocritical?

"People need to educate themselves in the truth instead of swallowing popular teaching just because it is popular. Learn to question! Find out for yourself!"

I suggest you start taking your own medicine.
Reply New Comment

Line

78) No more handouts then.... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
You want the government to stay out of your bedroom? Fine! Get your hands out of the wallets of the taxpayers.

Learn personal responsibility! Support yourself and your children WITHOUT help from tax dollars!
Reply New Comment

Line

79) Mom of Eight [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
This is total lunacy. Have we not learned a lesson from the counties in Europe who are literally dying out due to so few children being born? I am raising eight children who, I assure you, will be a great asset to society. I am livid that such a thing has ever been proposed.
Reply New Comment

Line

80) Look at you, all worried. Fear not, friend. I'm here. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
Those countries aren't "dying out." Birth rates fluctuate, and as the only signficant decreases in populations have been due to famine, war, and disease, it doesn't sound to me like "not having enough babies" is the problem.

Also, the problems the countries are having aren't that there aren't people to do the jobs needed; the problems are mostly rooted in one of two things: nationalistic pride (they view fertility as a sign of national virility); pension systems (just like Social Security), which are pyramid schemes.

In the former case, nationalistic pride is no reason to demand people to have (more) children. In the latter, the problem isn't that people don't have enough kids; the problem is that pyramid schemes are unrealistic and unsustainable systems. That's why they're illegal for the public to use. They're scams.

So, tell me, what's the real problem? Not enough babies, or misguided beliefs and economic policies?
Reply New Comment

Line

81) Mom of Eight [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
You write:

So, tell me, what's the real problem? Not enough babies, or misguided beliefs and economic policies?


I'd like to rephrase that question...

So, tell me, what's the real problem? TOO MANY BABIES, or misguided beliefs and economic policies???
Reply New Comment

Line

82) Here's your answer, but you probably won't like it. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
I'll answer your question, though probably not in a way you'll like, because it won't prove you right, and it won't prove me wrong:

The problem is that the government has gotten involved, in any way, with how many kids people are having, and has set up economic policies that depend on people behaving in a certain way, and that collapse if people choose to behave in a different way.

The problem is that people have the misconception that being plentiful is the same thing as being successful. If you look at third world countries, it's when people start practicing birth control, educating women, giving women rights, and the population growth slows (or even decreases slightly for a little while) that health, lifespan, and quality of life increase, and economies grow.

The fact is, if you're depending on people to reproduce at a certain rate for your system of government or economy to flourish, you're putting all your eggs in the basket of people following the script you've created for them.

The fact is, the American government has, until about 1965, been influenced heavily by agricultural and manufacturing industries. The same can be said for many other first world countries. As technology advanced, those industries became cheaper and required fewer workers. Those industries then moved to other countries, or are worked by foreigners who are paid far less than citizens would have to be. Now that first world countries are service and business based, instead of agriculture and manufacturing based, the economic systems should reflect those fundamental changes. They have not.

Things like Social Security were started with a specific purpose at a time when there were massive numbers of workers and a small number of people to receive the benefits. To demand that such a ratio always exist is unrealistic, because it would require the government to basically order people to reproduce at a given rate and control the reproductive behavior of the populace. I know you wouldn't agree with doing that.

So, I think we both agree that the problem isn't how many kids anyone is having, it's that economic policies and unenlightened senses of pride have led governments like ours and others to require or demand something it has no right to demand, and if anyone says anything to the contrary of the government's accepted (and heavily popularized though stealthily disguised) message, that person is singled out as a demon and likened to monsters like Hitler and Mao.

What people forget is that Hitler didn't ask people to reproduce less, he told them to reproduce more, and offered them monetary benefits for doing so...JUST LIKE OUR GOVERNMENT DOES. The only difference is we're not killing Jews at the same time, and the money has been disguised as "helping parents for doing the 'most important job in the world.'"
Reply New Comment

Line

83) I have eight children [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
So I really don't have time to read all that you wrote!!! LOL Seriously, there are two world views that affect all of our outlooks on more than just children. We're not going to convince one another about this. How about you have no children, I'll have eight and we'll all be happy!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

84) I have eight children [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
How about you have no children, I'll have eight and we'll all be happy!!!
==========================
Werks fer me:-)
Reply New Comment

Line

85) This is what we call "agreement." [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
That's what I'm saying! And the government shouldn't be saying any one reproductive choice is right (or more right) than any other, much less using tax dollars to espouse that opinion. We're actually in agreement, you know.
Reply New Comment

Line

86) Well golly!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
Glad we agree. Now I really MUST get back to my mundane life of wiping butts and cleaning of my children's artwork off the walls. Nice to chit chat. Have a great day!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

87) Stop using hysterical claims... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
No countries are "dying out." Any given country might be having a net decrease in population (and what is so wrong about that?), but with world population at SIX BILLION and CLIMBING, we are a long, LONG way from anyone "dying out." I don't know why I even bother responding in the first place to someone who's so irrational. I suppose you are using this lame excuse as a reason for your own personal overbreeding and contribution to human overpopulation, resource demands, and environmental damage. Nice.
Reply New Comment

Line

88) Mom of Eight [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
I think you responded because, for whatever reason, you have been hurt in the past and feel that it's too many people, not too many selfish, irresponsible people, that is the problem. The world could be a beautiful place, if we could all learn to love each other the way Jesus loves each one of us. I would rather live in my little house with our family of ten than in a mansion with just one ememy. If we care for the earth and each other we could continue to have children for many years with very little, if any, negative impact.
Reply New Comment

Line

89) Once again, keep Jesus out of it [by Abra on February 11, 2004]
This is politics, not religion.
Reply New Comment

Line

90) OK, no Jesus [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
OK, OK, lets just create a world devoid of any mortality. Just don't tell me I'm "wrong" to have eight children. Heck, if there's no God, then I can do what I want. If I want to have 20 children, destroy the planet, create global warming, be intolerant of gays, or whatever else you might call "sin" I can because that's my truth, that's my reality so tolerate it. This being politics, I believe it is polically correct, for me, to have eight children. SO THERE!!! It's my choice, so says Roe v. Wade, to decide NOT just when I DON'T want a child, but when I do. Political enough for you?
Reply New Comment

Line

91) Response. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
"OK, OK, lets just create a world devoid of any mortality."

One need not be Christian, or religious, to have morals. You're implying that people who aren't religious, or your kind of religious, are immoral or amoral. How ridiculous does that sound? Do you really believe that people who believe differently than you inherently have no morality? That people can't be good without religion, be it yours or any? Is that what you believe? Because Jesus would disagree.

"Just don't tell me I'm 'wrong' to have eight children."

Who's doing that?

"Heck, if there's no God, then I can do what I want. If I want to have 20 children, destroy the planet, create global warming, be intolerant of gays, or whatever else you might call 'sin' I can because that's my truth, that's my reality so tolerate it."

Plenty of "good Christians" already do those things, and say that you're a "bad Christian" if you don't.

"This being politics, I believe it is polically correct, for me, to have eight children. SO THERE!!! It's my choice, so says Roe v. Wade, to decide NOT just when I DON'T want a child, but when I do. Political enough for you?"

Have as many or as few kids as you want. Who cares? Just as long as you don't expect anyone else to subsidize your choices, and nobody else expects you to subsidize their choices, everyone should be able to live in peace. It's only because people have been told to expect to be subsidized for having kids, and that it's right to do so, and that it's wrong to say otherwise, that such unrest exists.
Reply New Comment

Line

92) Cool Then [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
OK, then, I owe you an apology. I thought you were in agreement with limiting my children to two. And, yes, you can have morals without Jesus. EVERYONE has a moral base. Mine is Christianity, and it just seems like when people say things like "keep Jesus out of it," it makes me feel like my morals are somehow substandard just because they are patterened after the teachings of Christ. My relationship with Jesus affects everything in my life so I really can't keep Him out of my political beliefs.

But listen, in all seriousness, I DO have eight children so I need to get back to my regularly scheduled life here. I don't have all day to check this board. I really never expected to get into any debates with anyone!!! LOL

Have a great day! :)
Reply New Comment

Line

93) Welcome back. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
"OK, then, I owe you an apology."

Accepted.

"I thought you were in agreement with limiting my children to two."

And here's the problem yet again. Listen closely: NOBODY IS LIMITING ANYONE'S FAMILY SIZE! Stop perpetuating this mistruth!

"And, yes, you can have morals without Jesus. EVERYONE has a moral base. Mine is Christianity, and it just seems like when people say things like "keep Jesus out of it," it makes me feel like my morals are somehow substandard just because they are patterened after the teachings of Christ."

That's not what people mean. What people mean is if you're going to argue about political issues, you have to leave your religion out of it, because our laws are not based on religion. Nobody cares about your religion in this conversation, nor should you care about anyone else's. It's entirely irrelevant in this context. And it isn't a discussion about someone being immoral; it's a discussion about someone being reasonable. It's about someone wanting to distribute facts to people who are often ignorant of some of them. Nobody can ever say "I think small families are great" without being attacked as enemies of big families. It's not the same thing, and that's the problem. People are so busy trying to be defensive that they don't realize they're fighting against something for no good reason.

"My relationship with Jesus affects everything in my life so I really can't keep Him out of my political beliefs."

Yes, you can. If you're going to tell someone why they should do something politically, your religious beliefs have nothing to do with it, because that's saying that your religion should be the basis of the laws of the land. That would mean that your religion is superior to everyone else's, that would be state establishment of religion, and that would eliminate freedom of religion. So, while it requires a certain degree of intellectual sophistication, it's certainly not impossible to separate one's religion from the political process.

"But listen, in all seriousness, I DO have eight children so I need to get back to my regularly scheduled life here. I don't have all day to check this board. I really never expected to get into any debates with anyone!!!"

You should always expect debate. What fun is life if everyone agrees about everything?

"Have a great day! :)"

That's my plan.
Reply New Comment

Line

94) KUDOS! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
This is the most reasonable piece of legislation introduced - EVER. To those of you who complain about overcrowded schools and highways and the lack of affordable housing, here's your answer -- stop adding to the overpopulation!
Reply New Comment

Line

95) It is so ironic when.... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
" This is the most reasonable piece of legislation introduced - EVER. To those of you who complain about overcrowded schools and highways and the lack of affordable housing, here's your answer -- stop adding to the overpopulation! "

The most vocal complainers about traffic in my town are many of the people who have four or more kids. They are just too dense to see the connection between their chosen lifestyle and traffic, crime and other overcrowding issues.
Reply New Comment

Line

96) Crazy! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
Traffic?! That's a legitimate reason used to determine family size? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone! If traffic is truly a concern- MOVE TO THE COUNTRY! Otherwise, get on board with public transportation. Some people amaze me with their selfishness.

Traffic is so annoying....I know! Let's kill everyone with brown eyes and that will really cut back on traffic. When you get down to the heart of this attitude, it's no different than the selfishness that powered Hitler. Limiting family size to improve traffic!?!!!!!

To really find out about the misery created by family planning policies and enforcement, read Mother's Ordeal: One Woman's Fight Against China's One-Child Policy by Steven Mosher. Take away personal choice and allow government to decide on what's best for everyone, and we will be another China.
Reply New Comment

Line

97) DING! GODWIN'S LAW! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 11, 2004]
Hitler? I thought this was about Communist China? Well, you've just invoked Godwin's law. Congratulations.
Reply New Comment

Line

98) WHY ARE WE SHOCKED? [by CATHOLIC on February 10, 2004]
HOW FAR WILL GOD ALLOW US TO GO BEFORE HE NO LONGER WAITS FOR US TO PUT AN END TO THIS CULTURE OF DEATH AND HE BEGINS TO DESTROY THE EVIL WE HAVE ALLOWED TO GROW. LET US ALL LOOK UP, KNEEL DOWN AND PRAY TO GOD FOR HELP.
Reply New Comment

Line

99) Keep your rosaries off of my ovaries [by Abra on February 11, 2004]
And kindly refrain from interjecting irrelevant religious propaganda into a political debate. I do not recall anyone inviting the Pope or one of his million minions to come and proselytize in this forum.
Reply New Comment

Line

100) blah blah blah [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
Well, there's nothing like an irrational bunch of tract-speak to waste space. It would be nice if you could keep cliches and silly slogans out of your posts. It would make you sound smarter and people might actually take you seriously. Without making a point and backing it up, you're just another talking head with nothing to say.
Reply New Comment

Line

101) "Benefits and importance of limiting children"? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
The benefit to whom? The country, the parents? Who is really to decide that this is a benefit? What life changing, world changing person would be a 3rd, 4th, or 10th child?

It is OK to discuss, or even pass out "fruit for thought", but to say that there is a benefit to limiting children? That is a personal bias to which there is no right answer.

To the family that decides to have no children, their way is right, but to the family that is thrilled with five, then who should challenge them? I know plenty of people that will take the two that you do not want.
Reply New Comment

Line

102) You're about half-right, but... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
"It is OK to discuss, or even pass out 'fruit for thought', but to say that there is a benefit to limiting children? That is a personal bias to which there is no right answer."

But there ARE benefits and drawbacks to both ways. With fewer kids, there's more available income (because that's less food, less clothes, less sports, etc. that have to be paid for), more time to spend with your spouse, less driving, less stress. With more kids, there's always someone around (which can also be a drawback), there are extra hands to help with chores, and for people who like to always be around kids, it's fun for them. To deny that each side has benefits is stupid. You can't discuss the issue of family size without talking about benefits and drawbacks. Otherwise the discussion is exactly as follows:

I have one kid.
I have two kids.
I have no kids.
I have three kids.
I have five kids.

Wow...sparkling and interesting!
Reply New Comment

Line

103) Oh, and the statement "You're about half right" [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
implies that YOU know what "right " is, and I am stating half of what you know to be right. Let's not make judgements on who is right. A logical discussion states opinion, facts and information without judgement. You do not want to be judge unless you are elready perfect and full of all of the answers.

I'm not perfect, and I am stating things the way I see them. Name calling is stooping very low, and even if I do not agree, I refuse to place myself on a pedestal as more in the right than others.

Yes, there are drawbacks to limitations, five kids, two kids, no kids. Less kids, more finances? I doubt that, as plenty of people I know with no kids are in much debt. Boats, vacations, cars, a big house....I know people in NO debt with 4,5 or 6 kids. So, it is really a matter of personal choice, priorities and responsibility.
Reply New Comment

Line

104) What names? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
I'm not calling you names. If I call you a hypocrite, it's because you're being hypocritical. You're making statements that contradict themselves, and saying you believe in both. For instance:

I don't want the government to tell me what I can do with my body. I also don't want women to be able to get abortions legally. If I want the government to leave my body alone, the government can't step in when I want to do something to my body. See how that's hypocritical? I would be a hypocrite if that's what I thought. It's not insulting; it's true. If you are insulted by being called a hypocrite, then perhaps you should stop being one. :)
Reply New Comment

Line

105) I am remarking about the proposed [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
leaflet stating the benefits of limiting family size. If the government sponsors this, then their bias is on limitation. If they want to simply provide information to families on how family size affects dynamics, finances, marriage etc., I can see how that is pro family, but to only pass out info on how "limitation is important" is a bias upon which I can not agree.

In the same respect, if a pregnant woman is offered only info on abortion, and not info on healthy pregnancy, adoption etc. then there is the bias towards abortion.
Reply New Comment

Line

106) I know what you're talking about... [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
"I am remarking about the proposed leaflet stating the benefits of limiting family size."

I know, but if you're against the government telling people that the government is biased about family size, then you have to be against tax breaks that are obviously biased toward having more kids (or any at all). Don't you agree? If you don't want the government saying it is biased toward smaller families, you also don't want the government saying it's biased toward larger families. Otherwise, you're being hypocritical. It's like saying, "I don't want the government discriminating against black people, but I'm ok with the government discriminating against Chinese people." You can't say it's wrong against you, and then say that the same activity is right when it's done to someone else. Hypocrisy, friend, is the problem du jour.

"If the government sponsors this, then their bias is on limitation."

And if the government gives money to people for having kids, and more for having more kids, then their bias is toward larger families. Why is a bias one way good, but a bias the other way bad? You have yet to explain how this isn't hypocritical. If it's a personal decision, and you don't want the government to be involved with people's reproductive decisions, then you can't be in favor of the government rewarding people for having kids.

"If they want to simply provide information to families on how family size affects dynamics, finances, marriage etc., I can see how that is pro family, but to only pass out info on how "limitation is important" is a bias upon which I can not agree."

What the hell is "pro family?" And in general I agree. The government shouldn't tell people limitation is important, any more than it should tell people that having more kids is important. If it's personal, it's personal, and the government shouldn't be telling me whether to do it and to what degree I should do it. Agreed? If so, then you agree that paying people for having kids is wrong.

"In the same respect, if a pregnant woman is offered only info on abortion, and not info on healthy pregnancy, adoption etc. then there is the bias towards abortion."

I agree. All options should be discussed. The pamphlet should discuss the good and bad points of large families, just like pregnant women should have equally available accurate and unbiased information about abortion, adoption, and so on.
Reply New Comment

Line

107) reply [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
"To the family that decides to have no children, their way is right, but to the family that is thrilled with five, then who should challenge them? I know plenty of people that will take the two that you do not want."

Good point. It all balances out.
Reply New Comment

Line

108) A Brave New World? [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
So much for a concept of freedom & liberty for all in a place called America.
This woman no doubt NEEDS to have at least four of five kids herself.
I believe she would be lucky enough to get laid from the looks of her.
Perhaps that's way she's so pissed off at the rest of us.
Reply New Comment

Line

109) Have you even READ "Brave New World?" [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
"So much for a concept of freedom & liberty for all in a place called America.
This woman no doubt NEEDS to have at least four of five kids herself."

Ah, yes...children are blessings and miracles, except when they're punishment. Gotcha.

"I believe she would be lucky enough to get laid from the looks of her."

There's nothing like calling someone "ugly" as an argument against that person's ideas. You win, smarty.

"Perhaps that's way she's so pissed off at the rest of us."

Perhaps it's because of the mentality of people like you, who think kids are great AND they should be used to punish people, and think parenthood is the only way to be a legitimate person in America, and the ignorance of parents who deny that having lots of kids increases consumption (1 person uses X resources; 10 people use 10X resources) that has this person upset.

And if you want to talk about Brave New World, let's talk about all the very BNWesque means that people use to have kids, like IVF, artificial insemination, surrogacy, sperm banks, and so on. If you actually read the book, you'd realize the irony of your choice of words. Go, now, and read it. You'll realize just what I'm talking about, and realize how silly you sound, as if parenthood were soma.
Reply New Comment

Line

110) Reply ,Reply to Brave New World [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
Oh yes ,I have read that book by "Huxley".
And you haven't caught anyone as of yet sparky/boy/girl wonder. The reason that this woman should have five children is that so she may experiance the magic and beauty of a large family of her own. That statement could easily be misinterperted as an verbal "attack".
Listen closley to my words America.
America is starting to walk down that crossroad towards the avenue of "blind tolerance",& "human secularism". And there will be NO EASY WAY BACK as Lady Liberty is smashed to rubble for attempting to block the path out of our own selfish all-knowing vitures. Truly then darkness will desend upon this country,and madness will surely then reign.
As for the comment about her getting laid,well;damn that woman is still ugly.
Scott
Reply New Comment

Line

111) Wow...way to show the world your dumbth. [by Anonymous Citizen on February 12, 2004]
"Oh yes ,I have read that book by 'Huxley'."

Why is "Huxley" in quotes? That's his real last name. Would you write "Mark Twain" or "William Shakespeare?" That's just a grammar question. Unrelated to your point.

"And you haven't caught anyone as of yet sparky/boy/girl wonder. The reason that this woman should have five children is that so she may experiance the magic and beauty of a large family of her own."

So, how would you interpret me telling someone who has five kids that they should have had no kids, so he or she could experience the magic and beauty of having free time, money to spend on oneself and one's spouse, being able to develop an intense relationship with one's spouse, and not have other people distracting from that relationship? The point is, telling people they should have kids is just as offensive as saying someone shouldn't. Sure, there are people who actually shouldn't have kids (like crack whores and the like), but it's still considered offensive. If it's offensive for the one, it is equally offensive for the other.


"That statement could easily be misinterperted as an verbal 'attack'."

Well, I'd call being verbally offensive a form of verbal attack. Maybe you didn't understand why it's offensive, but now that you do, perhaps you'll not make the same kind of mistake in the future, and tell others how wrong such attitudes are.

"Listen closley to my words America.
America is starting to walk down that crossroad towards the avenue of 'blind tolerance',& 'human secularism'."

Funny, similar rhetoric was used to argue against giving black people rights, giving women rights, and giving homosexuals rights. Odd, but I always thought the main reason people loved America was because of freedom. You seem to be saying that letting people different than you have the same kind of freedom you have is somehow dangerous. The only dangerous thing is denying anyone that same freedom because they are different than you are.

"And there will be NO EASY WAY BACK as Lady Liberty is smashed to rubble for attempting to block the path out of our own selfish all-knowing vitures."

Those "selfish all-knowing virtues" are those virtues outlined and specified by the Constitution of the United States of America. So, it sounds like you must not like the Constitution, and since the Constitution is the basis of America's freedoms, and you don't want those freedoms extended to people who aren't like you, you must not like America, and you must therefore not like freedom (freedom for some at the expense or exclusion of others is not freedom but tyranny). It's unfortunate that this seems to be your stance, but you're entitled to it, because we have freedom of opinion in America. And I have the freedom to think that your opinion is wrong-headed and foolish.

"Truly then darkness will desend upon this country,and madness will surely then reign.
As for the comment about her getting laid,well;damn that woman is still ugly."

And nothing makes a stronger argument than "you're ugly and need to get laid." Well, I guess you could have added "you smell and your mom dresses you funny." Maybe next time?
Reply New Comment

Line

112) Another thing from BNW [by Abra on February 11, 2004]
As I recall, anyone who deviated from the popular opinion was frowned upon, mocked, ridiculed, insulted, and threatened with exile.

Irony so thick, you can spread it with a trowel. Aren't they great, folks? Let's give them a hand!
Reply New Comment

Line

113) Reality Check [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
I was concerned about this bill after I read some of the above comments, but after looking at it there's nothing that is binding or penalizing about it. Purely informational...
The earth cannot hold an infinite number of people. Given that there is a limit, I would prefer that people voluntarily have fewer children rather than the alternative. If we don't limit ourselves, we will be limited by war, famine, or disease. Clearly this issue needs to be discussed. Hopefully we can discuss it calmly and rationally.
Reply New Comment

Line

114) Let's try this limit [by Anonymous Citizen on February 10, 2004]
If we