In this case, even supposing that the procreation is done without regard for their own children (or even that it's a bad thing in and of itself), it's not a selfish act if it's done as a Godly mandate, because that implies it's not being done for themselves, which is a fundamental part of selfishness.
"Selfish" means you're doing something because it benefits you. Doing it because God says so is not selfish, because you're doing it for someone else - specifically, God.
...Except that the Duggars are only procreating for God because there's something in it for them. Specifically, adherence to God's law that helps them ensure entry into Heaven later, or something to that effect.
Here's what wouldn't be selfish, re: childbirth:
- offering to be a surrogate for a woman who couldn't carry a pregnancy to term;
- offering to adopt the children of parents who died or otherwise couldn't parent;
...because these reasons are closer to altruism than satisfying one's personal religious beliefs.
I'd respond, but then I'd quote myself quoting you quoting me, then we're all fucked when the forum explodes.
I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Emphasis on "wants." Population growth is a huge problem for the majority of humans that don't live in a first-world country, and those governments definitely need to encourage more/better family planning (if they aren't already).
That, and they need our (USA's, Europe's) help instead of hindrance, i.e. no more "faith-based" policies and Christian abstinence-only/anti-contraception proselytizing.
I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Emphasis on "wants." Population growth is a huge problem for the majority of humans that don't live in a first-world country, and those governments definitely need to encourage more/better family planning (if they aren't already).
That, and they need our (USA's, Europe's) help instead of hindrance, i.e. no more "faith-based" policies and Christian abstinence-only/anti-contraception proselytizing.
Jim Bob might live in Arkansas but that isn't a third world country yet.
I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Emphasis on "wants." Population growth is a huge problem for the majority of humans that don't live in a first-world country, and those governments definitely need to encourage more/better family planning (if they aren't already).
That, and they need our (USA's, Europe's) help instead of hindrance, i.e. no more "faith-based" policies and Christian abstinence-only/anti-contraception proselytizing.
Yeah, I agree. And how does this apply to what I'm talking about?
I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Yeah really, my grandparents were both 1 of 11.
This country actually needs less mexicans sneaking across the border and more people born and raised here looking out for our future.
There's a really simple solution to this you know.
Don't give extra welfare to people who have more than 4 biological kids. You can have the welfare you usually would for 4 kids, but you don't get extra. The whole movement would fall apart like a house of cards.
Still though, right now these people aren't statistically driving up the birthrate. There are tens of thousands? Good, that means theres 299,900,000 of the rest of us, at least. The population explosion has much more to do with China's lack of a social safety net then a bunch of fundies. The last time America had a true population boom was when the values these people held were the values of the majority, and unless we let them go rabbit for about 10 generations it will stay that way.
And I do agree that much of the anger from this thread is the equivalent of "Hulk SMASH FUNDIES!" A simple solution to this would be taking away the right to homeschool. It worked for destroying the mormon fundamentalist movement, why not the quiverfulls?
Except of course that your assertion that he's wrong is wrong. You say that "eing selfish is to do something without regard for others", but that's not true. There are many things I can do without regard for others that aren't inherently selfish acts. I can eat my lunch. I can sit perfectly still for the next minute. I can sratch my ass. These aren't selfish acts, they are acts without selfishness or altruism.
I bet you were a debater. So that we can clear this up, let's get a working definition of selfishness - to act in a manner that impacts others negatively WITHOUT consideration of that impact. I would have thought that all this was clear, but I guess not.
In this case, even supposing that the procreation is done without regard for their own children (or even that it's a bad thing in and of itself), it's not a selfish act if it's done as a Godly mandate, because that implies it's not being done for themselves, which is a fundamental part of selfishness.
Just because I'm following a mandate doesn't mean I can't do so in a selfish manner. Corruption is a pretty good case study for that point - if I gave you a mandate to collect a fee from the forum population (assuming I had the power to do so in the first place), you could still act selfishly - say, charge extra and skim off the top.
RE: Andrea Yates. Her situation is a sad one, and in her case, it was wrong. Roping her situation (which was WAY different) to this one by making the weak link of both believing procreation to be part of their religion is a stretch. I don't think anyone has asserted or suggested that Mrs. Duggers is a post-partum candidate (I could be wrong, because I don't know her, but neither do you).
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Emphasis on "wants." Population growth is a huge problem for the majority of humans that don't live in a first-world country, and those governments definitely need to encourage more/better family planning (if they aren't already).
That, and they need our (USA's, Europe's) help instead of hindrance, i.e. no more "faith-based" policies and Christian abstinence-only/anti-contraception proselytizing.
Yeah, I agree. And how does this apply to what I'm talking about?
Well, in retrospect, not much. Except that it's not necessarily an either-or situation; just because we can handle increased population doesn't mean that we should increase it.
There's a really simple solution to this you know.
Don't give extra welfare to people who have more than 4 biological kids. You can have the welfare you usually would for 4 kids, but you don't get extra. The whole movement would fall apart like a house of cards.
...Except it's not kid 5+'s fault that their parents can't afford to take care of them.
I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Yeah really, my grandparents were both 1 of 11.
This country actually needs less mexicans sneaking across the border and more people born and raised here looking out for our future.
Wow, blatant off topic.
Also, we've realized that raising 2 kids well is better for society then pumping out 11 and letting them raise themselves.
I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Yeah really, my grandparents were both 1 of 11.
This country actually needs less mexicans sneaking across the border and more people born and raised here looking out for our future.
damn immigrants!
wait...what?
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Yeah really, my grandparents were both 1 of 11.
This country actually needs less mexicans sneaking across the border and more people born and raised here looking out for our future.
Wow, blatant off topic.
Also, we've realized that raising 2 kids well is better for society then pumping out 11 and letting them raise themselves.
My father most definitely did not raise himself.
You have apparently never heard of Irish Catholics.
Wow, blatant off topic.
Also, we've realized that raising 2 kids well is better for society then pumping out 11 and letting them raise themselves.
Right. To go along with that, let's not kid ourselves by assuming that our grandparents had even remotely similar family planning options compared to the modern day.
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
I think systematically drowning your kids is a pretty huge difference. Tons of women claim to have postpartum depression, it isn't really an omg crazy fundie thing.
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
I think systematically drowning your kids is a pretty huge difference. Tons of women claim to have postpartum depression, it isn't really an omg crazy fundie thing.
Right, that's true, but the point is that the fundies are so "OMG BAYBEEZ" that women don't have nearly as much say in family planning, and are put at increased risk of PPD due to their large families. Combine that with the patriarchal gender roles of the "traditional family," i.e. dad works and doesn't help with the kids, and quiverfull women (and young kids!) are left in a high-risk situation.
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
I think systematically drowning your kids is a pretty huge difference. Tons of women claim to have postpartum depression, it isn't really an omg crazy fundie thing.
Right, that's true, but the point is that the fundies are so "OMG BAYBEEZ" that women don't have nearly as much say in family planning, and are put at increased risk of PPD due to their large families. Combine that with the patriarchal gender roles of the "traditional family," i.e. dad works and doesn't help with the kids, and quiverfull women (and young kids!) are left in a high-risk situation.
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
I think systematically drowning your kids is a pretty huge difference. Tons of women claim to have postpartum depression, it isn't really an omg crazy fundie thing.
Right, that's true, but the point is that the fundies are so "OMG BAYBEEZ" that women don't have nearly as much say in family planning, and are put at increased risk of PPD due to their large families. Combine that with the patriarchal gender roles of the "traditional family," i.e. dad works and doesn't help with the kids, and quiverfull women (and young kids!) are left in a high-risk situation.
You really think you could prove that?
I'm not sure I understand your question. I think someone could prove it, by doing a study of mental health of, say, 100 self-identifying "quiverfull" women and comparing them to 100 women in similar circumstances with very different religious/family beliefs (equal sharing of parenting duties, equivalent career with spouse, etc.)
This country actually needs less mexicans sneaking across the border and more people born and raised here looking out for our future.
Hehe, awesome.
The developed world is currently in negative population growth (except for the U.S.). For one, they need more workers to support an ageing population of baby boomers.
However, the ideal thing would be for this dearth in population to be made up through immigration - with immigration from Mexico, for example, the U.S. gains the hard workers it needs to keep the economy going and supporting the elderly. At the same time, immigration relieves the over-population of poorer nations - where more people can be a burden, rather than an asset.
Of course, this isn't perfect because you're likely to be attracting some of the best and brightest away from the developing world - a brain-drain of engineers, nurses, doctors and others who could be making huge contributions in their native countries.
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
I think systematically drowning your kids is a pretty huge difference. Tons of women claim to have postpartum depression, it isn't really an omg crazy fundie thing.
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
I think systematically drowning your kids is a pretty huge difference. Tons of women claim to have postpartum depression, it isn't really an omg crazy fundie thing.
Right, that's true, but the point is that the fundies are so "OMG BAYBEEZ" that women don't have nearly as much say in family planning, and are put at increased risk of PPD due to their large families. Combine that with the patriarchal gender roles of the "traditional family," i.e. dad works and doesn't help with the kids, and quiverfull women (and young kids!) are left in a high-risk situation.
Right - basically, the woman is going to have kids, regardless of whether it's medically risky for her to do so o not.
I bet you were a debater. So that we can clear this up, let's get a working definition of selfishness - to act in a manner that impacts others negatively WITHOUT consideration of that impact. I would have thought that all this was clear, but I guess not.
Fine, let's take that as our official working definition. Going with that:
- It doesn't matter whether they wanted that many kids, or God told them to, or Crazy Hobo Bob down by the deli told them to. It's all beside the point.
- There actually need to be negative consequences for all those kids. And given that they're fed and clothed and loved, the "negative consequences" seem to be that they're being instilled with icky fundie values, which is hardly an objectively negative thing.
It still fails to be a terribly selfish thing. Are they relying on charity? Maybe, but these people are willingly giving stuff to them, so it still doesn't strike me as really awful. Their community seems to be effectively supporting their endeavor, so why not?
They are raising a large number of happy and healthy children, by all accounts. At the end of the day, the only argument against them that doesn't pretty much evaporate on examination is "ew, fundies".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
My main issue is that this kind of movement, if taken to its logical conclusion, could be a way to influence electoral politics. One of the more basic ways to influence the outcome of democratic elections is to stack the voting population in your favor. You can achieve this through gerry-mandering (already done by Republicans during the first Bush administration) or you can do it by simply outbreeding the opposition and indoctrinating your children to toe the party line (already happening, btw; population is shifting to the South and West in the US).
The Quiverfull movement is one that has thousands of followers. Given that margins can be pretty thin in battleground states (thousands to tens of thousands in some areas), you could see how in a generation or two, their numbers could become statistically significant.
The only real counter to that strategy is to attempt to outbreed the competition. Thanks to the power of indoctrination, it is highly unlikely that any kind of discourse would change their minds. So any opposing party would have to use similar tactics to try to balance the voting pool. That is certainly a bad strategy for the nation, long-term.
I know this all is sort of slippery-slopey. But it's a significant issue, long-term, because we are seeing demographic shifts in the US that could threaten to drag the country farther into fundie-land simply due to raw numbers.
PS Wanted to respond to the idea that drug abuse problems are a huge issue when adopting: Not really, especially if you go through reputable adoption agencies. They will let you know if the baby has any significant developmental issues since they are required by law to disclose such information. For example, my parents adopted me and my brother through Spence-Chapin. They did not want children with developmental problems so they were given an album of only children that fit their specifications.
Except of course that your assertion that he's wrong is wrong. You say that "eing selfish is to do something without regard for others", but that's not true. There are many things I can do without regard for others that aren't inherently selfish acts. I can eat my lunch. I can sit perfectly still for the next minute. I can sratch my ass. These aren't selfish acts, they are acts without selfishness or altruism.
I bet you were a debater. So that we can clear this up, let's get a working definition of selfishness - to act in a manner that impacts others negatively WITHOUT consideration of that impact. I would have thought that all this was clear, but I guess not.
Actually, I wasn't. But if you are going to argue that someone's definition is wrong, then offer your own, you should be specific to make your point. I still think your definition is wrong, because I can have consideration for the negative impact, but, well, I want to do my thing anyway.
In this case, even supposing that the procreation is done without regard for their own children (or even that it's a bad thing in and of itself), it's not a selfish act if it's done as a Godly mandate, because that implies it's not being done for themselves, which is a fundamental part of selfishness.
Just because I'm following a mandate doesn't mean I can't do so in a selfish manner. Corruption is a pretty good case study for that point - if I gave you a mandate to collect a fee from the forum population (assuming I had the power to do so in the first place), you could still act selfishly - say, charge extra and skim off the top.
And consequently, just because you are following it doesn't mean it is selfish. The original comment was made without such qualifications. Your point here is correct though, you can do something by mandate AND be selfish in your pursuit of it, but one does not, by definition, imply the other. That was my point.
RE: Andrea Yates. Her situation is a sad one, and in her case, it was wrong. Roping her situation (which was WAY different) to this one by making the weak link of both believing procreation to be part of their religion is a stretch. I don't think anyone has asserted or suggested that Mrs. Duggers is a post-partum candidate (I could be wrong, because I don't know her, but neither do you).
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
That's like saying the only difference between you and Dahmer is that you aren't suffering from a desire to murder people and eat them. Her post partum was the crux of her issue, and it's a huge part of her issues, if not the sole piece. Apples and oranges. The catalyst to her issue was her psychological depression.
ryuprecht on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
My girlfriend's sister is the same way. Their family won't use contraceptives because Jesus hates wasted sperm. Something like that. Anyways her doctor has her on some kind of sex schedule now that has been working so far. I don't really trust it, but at least they are doing something.
This country actually needs less mexicans sneaking across the border and more people born and raised here looking out for our future.
Hehe, awesome.
The developed world is currently in negative population growth (except for the U.S.). For one, they need more workers to support an ageing population of baby boomers.
However, the ideal thing would be for this dearth in population to be made up through immigration - with immigration from Mexico, for example, the U.S. gains the hard workers it needs to keep the economy going and supporting the elderly. At the same time, immigration relieves the over-population of poorer nations - where more people can be a burden, rather than an asset.
Of course, this isn't perfect because you're likely to be attracting some of the best and brightest away from the developing world - a brain-drain of engineers, nurses, doctors and others who could be making huge contributions in their native countries.
But the Mexicans! They won't look out for your future.
My girlfriend's sister is the same way. Their family won't use contraceptives because Jesus hates wasted sperm. Something like that. Anyways her doctor has her on some kind of sex schedule now that has been working so far. I don't really trust it, but at least they are doing something.
The Quiverfulls think that any sort of birth control is sinful. They think we are here specifically to make as many of us as possible, and if you're not doing that, you're wrong. The Catholics don't like wasted sperm, the Quiverfulls don't like wasted oocytes.
Jesus how can anyone be narcissistic and selfish enough to think that the only reason we exist is to completely cram the planet full of little copies of our wasteful, destructive selves? Crazy. It's well within their rights, but I fucking hate them.
My girlfriend's sister is the same way. Their family won't use contraceptives because Jesus hates wasted sperm. Something like that. Anyways her doctor has her on some kind of sex schedule now that has been working so far. I don't really trust it, but at least they are doing something.
Hilarious thing about that - the rhythm method, when it fails and a pregnancy occurs apparently has a much higher chance of resulting in less healthy fetus because it's more likely that it'll be a chance fertilization by a fairly old sperm/ovum combination.
My girlfriend's sister is the same way. Their family won't use contraceptives because Jesus hates wasted sperm. Something like that. Anyways her doctor has her on some kind of sex schedule now that has been working so far. I don't really trust it, but at least they are doing something.
Hilarious thing about that - the rhythm method, when it fails and a pregnancy occurs apparently has a much higher chance of resulting in less healthy fetus because it's more likely that it'll be a chance fertilization by a fairly old sperm/ovum combination.
I'm late here, but they're not sending their daughters to college? Just the boys? That's disgusting.
What have you got against traditional male/female roles?!
Since Ryu is still doing his deliberately-dense act, here's a restatement: It is irresponsible and selfish to treat the children you bring forth primarily as points you've scored on the heaven/hell tally. They're people, not trophies. If you're going to have a kid, the only legitimate reasons are that you want to and can care for it. For its own sake. Treating people as objects is evil.
RE: Andrea Yates. Her situation is a sad one, and in her case, it was wrong. Roping her situation (which was WAY different) to this one by making the weak link of both believing procreation to be part of their religion is a stretch. I don't think anyone has asserted or suggested that Mrs. Duggers is a post-partum candidate (I could be wrong, because I don't know her, but neither do you).
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
That's like saying the only difference between you and Dahmer is that you aren't suffering from a desire to murder people and eat them. Her post partum was the crux of her issue, and it's a huge part of her issues, if not the sole piece. Apples and oranges. The catalyst to her issue was her psychological depression.
No, the catalyst to her issues was the fact that when the doctor told her and her husband that she'd snap if she had another kid, her husband blew him off. Period.
So, is there any evidence that this whole "breed as many as you can" cults is based around getting as many voters as possible?
I could honestly see states like Utah being completely thrown into the Dark Ages once these breeder groups have sufficient numbers to completely change local laws. Kinda like Idiocracy, but Old Testament ideals and such.
Too much tin-foil hat paranoia?
EDIT: After thinking about it for a minute, the problem should invariably rectify itself when it comes to overpopulation of a certain sect. Very, very few people can afford to feed and shelter 10+ kids, and once a city's or state's welfare/social services is drained by a geographically small clan of families breeding as fast as possible, the money to support such a beast will be withdrawn or dissolved.
Or are welfare-type funds drawn from a federal allotment without discrimination as to population/geography ratio?
Jesus how can anyone be narcissistic and selfish enough to think that the only reason we exist is to completely cram the planet full of little copies of our wasteful, destructive selves? Crazy. It's well within their rights, but I fucking hate them.
Well, that's pretty much the ultimate purpose of existence. Continued existence for the human species equals survival which is propagated through procreation. And so it is for all living species. Whether or not that's the "only" reason, I cannot say, but it certainly is a very prominent and important one.
That said, I think that even if that is the ultimate reason, there are plenty of other artificial reasons we've constructed as a species that are just as good. Living life (survival) and actually enjoying life are equally important. I don't think we should procreate and propagate at turbo-speed for no other reason than to multiply. That just causes a fuckload of problems and is very irresponsible and people absolutely have misguided reasons for doing so. I do think procreation is one of the most important, uh, things that human beings do, though; just wanted to say that.
RE: Andrea Yates. Her situation is a sad one, and in her case, it was wrong. Roping her situation (which was WAY different) to this one by making the weak link of both believing procreation to be part of their religion is a stretch. I don't think anyone has asserted or suggested that Mrs. Duggers is a post-partum candidate (I could be wrong, because I don't know her, but neither do you).
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
That's like saying the only difference between you and Dahmer is that you aren't suffering from a desire to murder people and eat them. Her post partum was the crux of her issue, and it's a huge part of her issues, if not the sole piece. Apples and oranges. The catalyst to her issue was her psychological depression.
No, the catalyst to her issues was the fact that when the doctor told her and her husband that she'd snap if she had another kid, her husband blew him off. Period.
Seriously.
Post-partum psychosis is an entirely manageable disorder. The results of their actions, maybe more so the husband's actions, are exactly the same as a psych patient who doesn't take his meds and kills a few people. They chose not only to not manage the disorder, but instead take part in the action that is the cause of the disorder.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I'm late here, but they're not sending their daughters to college? Just the boys? That's disgusting.
That's pretty fucked up. Sort of tangential to the fact that they're trying to breed both sides of a football team, but still fucke dup.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
I'd respond, but then I'd quote myself quoting you quoting me, then we're all fucked when the forum explodes.
Emphasis on "wants." Population growth is a huge problem for the majority of humans that don't live in a first-world country, and those governments definitely need to encourage more/better family planning (if they aren't already).
That, and they need our (USA's, Europe's) help instead of hindrance, i.e. no more "faith-based" policies and Christian abstinence-only/anti-contraception proselytizing.
Jim Bob might live in Arkansas but that isn't a third world country yet.
Yeah, I agree. And how does this apply to what I'm talking about?
Yeah really, my grandparents were both 1 of 11.
This country actually needs less mexicans sneaking across the border and more people born and raised here looking out for our future.
Don't give extra welfare to people who have more than 4 biological kids. You can have the welfare you usually would for 4 kids, but you don't get extra. The whole movement would fall apart like a house of cards.
Still though, right now these people aren't statistically driving up the birthrate. There are tens of thousands? Good, that means theres 299,900,000 of the rest of us, at least. The population explosion has much more to do with China's lack of a social safety net then a bunch of fundies. The last time America had a true population boom was when the values these people held were the values of the majority, and unless we let them go rabbit for about 10 generations it will stay that way.
And I do agree that much of the anger from this thread is the equivalent of "Hulk SMASH FUNDIES!" A simple solution to this would be taking away the right to homeschool. It worked for destroying the mormon fundamentalist movement, why not the quiverfulls?
I bet you were a debater. So that we can clear this up, let's get a working definition of selfishness - to act in a manner that impacts others negatively WITHOUT consideration of that impact. I would have thought that all this was clear, but I guess not.
Just because I'm following a mandate doesn't mean I can't do so in a selfish manner. Corruption is a pretty good case study for that point - if I gave you a mandate to collect a fee from the forum population (assuming I had the power to do so in the first place), you could still act selfishly - say, charge extra and skim off the top.
So, have you read about Yates? The only difference between her and Mrs. Duggar is that the latter seems to not have an issue with postpartum depression, whereas for the former, it was a severe enough issue that doctors informed her and her husband that any further children would have been risky prior to the conception of their last child. Yet there was no precautions taken for birth control.
Well, in retrospect, not much. Except that it's not necessarily an either-or situation; just because we can handle increased population doesn't mean that we should increase it.
...Except it's not kid 5+'s fault that their parents can't afford to take care of them.
Wow, blatant off topic.
Also, we've realized that raising 2 kids well is better for society then pumping out 11 and letting them raise themselves.
damn immigrants!
wait...what?
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
My father most definitely did not raise himself.
You have apparently never heard of Irish Catholics.
Right. To go along with that, let's not kid ourselves by assuming that our grandparents had even remotely similar family planning options compared to the modern day.
I think systematically drowning your kids is a pretty huge difference. Tons of women claim to have postpartum depression, it isn't really an omg crazy fundie thing.
Right, that's true, but the point is that the fundies are so "OMG BAYBEEZ" that women don't have nearly as much say in family planning, and are put at increased risk of PPD due to their large families. Combine that with the patriarchal gender roles of the "traditional family," i.e. dad works and doesn't help with the kids, and quiverfull women (and young kids!) are left in a high-risk situation.
You really think you could prove that?
I'm not sure I understand your question. I think someone could prove it, by doing a study of mental health of, say, 100 self-identifying "quiverfull" women and comparing them to 100 women in similar circumstances with very different religious/family beliefs (equal sharing of parenting duties, equivalent career with spouse, etc.)
The developed world is currently in negative population growth (except for the U.S.). For one, they need more workers to support an ageing population of baby boomers.
However, the ideal thing would be for this dearth in population to be made up through immigration - with immigration from Mexico, for example, the U.S. gains the hard workers it needs to keep the economy going and supporting the elderly. At the same time, immigration relieves the over-population of poorer nations - where more people can be a burden, rather than an asset.
Of course, this isn't perfect because you're likely to be attracting some of the best and brightest away from the developing world - a brain-drain of engineers, nurses, doctors and others who could be making huge contributions in their native countries.
So, are you misogynistic, or just dumb?
Right - basically, the woman is going to have kids, regardless of whether it's medically risky for her to do so o not.
Fine, let's take that as our official working definition. Going with that:
- It doesn't matter whether they wanted that many kids, or God told them to, or Crazy Hobo Bob down by the deli told them to. It's all beside the point.
- There actually need to be negative consequences for all those kids. And given that they're fed and clothed and loved, the "negative consequences" seem to be that they're being instilled with icky fundie values, which is hardly an objectively negative thing.
It still fails to be a terribly selfish thing. Are they relying on charity? Maybe, but these people are willingly giving stuff to them, so it still doesn't strike me as really awful. Their community seems to be effectively supporting their endeavor, so why not?
They are raising a large number of happy and healthy children, by all accounts. At the end of the day, the only argument against them that doesn't pretty much evaporate on examination is "ew, fundies".
The Quiverfull movement is one that has thousands of followers. Given that margins can be pretty thin in battleground states (thousands to tens of thousands in some areas), you could see how in a generation or two, their numbers could become statistically significant.
The only real counter to that strategy is to attempt to outbreed the competition. Thanks to the power of indoctrination, it is highly unlikely that any kind of discourse would change their minds. So any opposing party would have to use similar tactics to try to balance the voting pool. That is certainly a bad strategy for the nation, long-term.
I know this all is sort of slippery-slopey. But it's a significant issue, long-term, because we are seeing demographic shifts in the US that could threaten to drag the country farther into fundie-land simply due to raw numbers.
PS Wanted to respond to the idea that drug abuse problems are a huge issue when adopting: Not really, especially if you go through reputable adoption agencies. They will let you know if the baby has any significant developmental issues since they are required by law to disclose such information. For example, my parents adopted me and my brother through Spence-Chapin. They did not want children with developmental problems so they were given an album of only children that fit their specifications.
Actually, I wasn't. But if you are going to argue that someone's definition is wrong, then offer your own, you should be specific to make your point. I still think your definition is wrong, because I can have consideration for the negative impact, but, well, I want to do my thing anyway.
And consequently, just because you are following it doesn't mean it is selfish. The original comment was made without such qualifications. Your point here is correct though, you can do something by mandate AND be selfish in your pursuit of it, but one does not, by definition, imply the other. That was my point.
That's like saying the only difference between you and Dahmer is that you aren't suffering from a desire to murder people and eat them. Her post partum was the crux of her issue, and it's a huge part of her issues, if not the sole piece. Apples and oranges. The catalyst to her issue was her psychological depression.
Yes, and Kilaminjaro is sort of a hill.
But the Mexicans! They won't look out for your future.
The Quiverfulls think that any sort of birth control is sinful. They think we are here specifically to make as many of us as possible, and if you're not doing that, you're wrong. The Catholics don't like wasted sperm, the Quiverfulls don't like wasted oocytes.
That explains a hell of a lot, actually.
What have you got against traditional male/female roles?!
Since Ryu is still doing his deliberately-dense act, here's a restatement: It is irresponsible and selfish to treat the children you bring forth primarily as points you've scored on the heaven/hell tally. They're people, not trophies. If you're going to have a kid, the only legitimate reasons are that you want to and can care for it. For its own sake. Treating people as objects is evil.
No, the catalyst to her issues was the fact that when the doctor told her and her husband that she'd snap if she had another kid, her husband blew him off. Period.
I could honestly see states like Utah being completely thrown into the Dark Ages once these breeder groups have sufficient numbers to completely change local laws. Kinda like Idiocracy, but Old Testament ideals and such.
Too much tin-foil hat paranoia?
EDIT: After thinking about it for a minute, the problem should invariably rectify itself when it comes to overpopulation of a certain sect. Very, very few people can afford to feed and shelter 10+ kids, and once a city's or state's welfare/social services is drained by a geographically small clan of families breeding as fast as possible, the money to support such a beast will be withdrawn or dissolved.
Or are welfare-type funds drawn from a federal allotment without discrimination as to population/geography ratio?
I swear I'm not trying to sound like a dick.
Well, that's pretty much the ultimate purpose of existence. Continued existence for the human species equals survival which is propagated through procreation. And so it is for all living species. Whether or not that's the "only" reason, I cannot say, but it certainly is a very prominent and important one.
That said, I think that even if that is the ultimate reason, there are plenty of other artificial reasons we've constructed as a species that are just as good. Living life (survival) and actually enjoying life are equally important. I don't think we should procreate and propagate at turbo-speed for no other reason than to multiply. That just causes a fuckload of problems and is very irresponsible and people absolutely have misguided reasons for doing so. I do think procreation is one of the most important, uh, things that human beings do, though; just wanted to say that.
Seriously.
Post-partum psychosis is an entirely manageable disorder. The results of their actions, maybe more so the husband's actions, are exactly the same as a psych patient who doesn't take his meds and kills a few people. They chose not only to not manage the disorder, but instead take part in the action that is the cause of the disorder.
That's pretty fucked up. Sort of tangential to the fact that they're trying to breed both sides of a football team, but still fucke dup.
But it's very effective at increasing your ancestry's allele frequency.
Fundamentalism: supporting evolution through the back door.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.