Why We Should FEAR The RIGHT
On October 6, 2018, Brett Kavanaugh, a staunch believer in no reproductive rights for women have been confirmed as Supreme Court Judge. America is going to the right. Women have a lot to fear; also so do Blacks, Latinos, Asians, the LGBT community, & others outside of the new American purview. Sadly, Trump has established a NEW ORDER in America. This "confirmation" reminds us Liberals that we have an uphill battle to protect our human rights. The RIGHT is ascending & it ISN'T PRETTY at all! Your thoughts? I am sickened by this "confirmation" of Kavanaugh. Aren't you?GM, I'm really surprised at you .......................
No , ..........really , welcome to the whiners club .
Take a few moments and listen to Susan Collins from Maine , I have thought of her for a couple of years as a Democrat in Republican clothing BUT , she is right about Kavanaugh .Can you support your claim that Judge Kavanaugh ... is a staunch believer in no reproductive rights for women?
Can you support any of your diatribe?
GAKavanaugh indicated that he doesn't believe in abortion. He maintained that he was pro-life. Kavanaugh is the prime example of America becoming more conservative socio-politically. When I state something, there is a LOGICAL, CONCLUSIVE reason. I don't indulge in idle speculation. That isn't my style.
Then that LOGICAL, CONCLUSIVE reason is a very gross exaggeration.
While Kavanaugh may be pro-life, that says nothing about his stance on birth control, for instance, and birth control is a very large part of "reproductive rights for women. Far larger than abortion issues, for more women use birth control than gets an abortion.
Women are free to have as many children as they wish - more "reproductive rights" Kavanaugh does not oppose. They can choose the father - yet more unopposed rights.
Women have a whole host of "reproductive rights" that Kavanaugh has never mentioned, and he cannot change even abortion laws himself.
Your statement, then, is neither logical nor conclusive; it is almost completely false and the insinuation that Kavanaugh would, or even could, remove the right to an abortion is false as well.Wilderness, when I mean reproductive rights, I mean women's ability to CONTROL their fertility via birth control or abortion, if necessary. I didn't mean women who AIMLESSLY reproduce children. I mean the ability of women to control the number of children they elect to have!
I can accept concern from anyone in regards to Abortion, the termination of a pregnancy, and where the legalities may shift to.
This is a valid point, and for a percentage of voters, it is a top concern each and every time they go to the voting booth.
I cannot argue a counter point that would be based on a sound foundation of facts. Your fears may be proven well founded.
But I do take exception to bringing in race, and trying to tie it in. If anything, I could make a well founded argument that it is the Democratic Party and the policies they push that have done more to disenfranchise and impoverish 'minorities' than anything the Republicans have supported or proposed.
The better one understands economic realities of supply and demand in the workforce, the impact of tariffs to create jobs within the country because it becomes more cost effective for companies to produce products (employ people) here in America rather than elsewhere, the more one understands that the trade agreements and policies being pursued by Trump (and a portion of Republicans) are the best things possible for ALL Americans, regardless of race.
Unless you want to consider controlling the border and enforcing the laws so that corporations have to hire Americans rather than illegal aliens as racist. That is another issue, and that too impacts the lives of Americans for the better, whether they realize it or not.
My advice to anyone is ignore the mass hysteria the media is pushing down your throats and do your best to educate yourself on what is really occurring. The Wall Street Journal is a good source of information, the Public Library, the Internet hasn't been totally censored yet (but it has taken huge steps to being censored). In fact… try a search on Google or Bing, and then try a search on DuckDuckgo and see how big a difference there is in what is censored and what is not.Yes, Grace, very much so. Remember how even now people complain how Bill Clinton "lied under oath?" Many don't even realize it was about a consensual sex act. I don't condone his behavior, but don't condone hypocrisy either. Some on this thread and others are already asking for proof of why we believe BK has his positions, but you would have to be living under a rock for a long time not to know, and they never offer proof of their ideas, trying to insult your considerable intelligence by referencing old library books and such. It's absurd. We are both intelligent, well researched, well educated, and well read women.
Did you hear the interview where Chuck Grassley thought there were no women lawyers? He thought it was "because it's hard work and they have a meeting on Thursday nights." OMG, I'm getting the vapors!
BK lied under oath. The FBI investigation was a sham. I've heard former FBI people on the news all weekend, and they say even when a person walks in or calls to say they have Martians in their back yard, it gets investigated. Yet people who were present at these parties (in college, R pundits keep trying to get the public to think this was only HS) were turned away, at least over 30 of them. Trump pretended to give the FBI permission to conduct a full investigation, and then actually told them not to do anything. This is not the normal procedure.
As you say, BK has been known to not support any reproductive rights for women. That he considers Roe v Wade not "established" law. He thinks a sitting President has the right to pardon himself. He was chosen for these reasons.
As far as the women's accusations, I'm on the fence.
But I am concerned about this conservative move to the far right. Our Constitution states this is a SECULAR country. I think all this Bible thumping is getting out of control. This country has many people of other religions, and atheists as well.
All marginalized people are in for a world of hurt. I'm sure BK wants to overturn gay marriage rights. Just because gay people marry doesn't mean other marriages are under attack, or people should be so fearful of those different from them. It's about human rights. Everyone is entitled to them. This requires a small adjustment to the Civil Rights Act of 1965.
I think the belligerent behavior BK exhibited towards the Judiciary Committee was to the point of acting unbalanced. His partisan rant about how he was victimized because D's were angry about Trump, Hillary, and something about George Soros, shows the man is way too partisan to serve on the court. We both know anyone else who said that would have been disqualified immediately.
It's a sad time for America.It certainly is a VERY SAD time for America. Of course, Kavanaugh LIED under oath. Notice that he became belligerent when responding to questions. What was he trying to HIDE?
BK made a comment that he believes the pill is a sort of abortion type pill too, he wasn't talking about the morning after pill either. I wonder how he managed to only have two children. More hypocrisy.
We are supposed to cheer about how the fact we as women can have as many children as we wish, but it's not that easy. I know you didn't want children and I have a condition which is hereditary. We decided what was meant to be, was meant to be, and had one child. Thankfully he was fine. But we were a couple in our early 30s who had been together for almost 13 yrs. I was that afraid our child would suffer as I did. And some couples or singles want a child so badly, and the woman can't get pregnant. If they try other means, it's really expensive.
I wonder what a raped woman who gets pregnant will do if she can't get an abortion or take the morning after pill? She can have the child and decide to let it be adopted, but in the culture where the child later wants to look for the real mother, this usually causes more issues. Plus once a woman carries the child, she has trouble giving it away, as she is human.
Men can be so dense. Maybe because they have such a limited role in pregnancy, childcare, and all that comes after. The woman's life is forever changed--his, not so much. She may not ever work again, even if she really wanted a career. If she has little family, she can't have a social life. You can't trust daycare and don't want your kid with strangers all day. Talking to toddlers all day takes a toll on any adult.
I am worried about the LGBTQ folk as well.Hold on Jean, if you are going to support an opinion, at least use the truth to do it.
Kavanaugh did not say, " ... that he believes the pill is a sort of abortion type pill too..." That is nothing more than a Democrat anti-Kavanaugh talking point, and to form your opinion on that is lazy and biased. One of the labellers here would put a name to it - confirmation bias.
What Kavanaugh actually said was that that logic, that statement, was the opinion and rational of a lawsuit by a church organization against the ACA's mandate to provide insurance plans that included birth-control coverage.
Geez Louise. Look it up for yourself. Really, don't just get upset with me for calling you on it, go look it up. See if you still feel comfortable with that perception. You are forming and justifying your opinion on a lie. And it is a lie that has been prominently debunked.
And you even upped the ante with a snarky crack about wondering how he "only managed to have two children. Geesh!
I have seen you lament feeling 'attacked' for your opinion, but, if this is the type of support you use to form your opinion - it deserves being attacked'. I am not intending to attack you, but I will always attack such baloney as your statement relative to 'what Kavanaugh said...' - when he didn't really say it at all!
And you say men can be so dense...
GAKavanaugh on the third day of the confirmation hearings referred to birth control pills as abortion inducing drugs. Yes, HE SAID IT! Women have plenty to fear regarding reproductive freedoms now that Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court Judge. Kavanaugh has a history of being against women's reproductive freedom. Jean is correct in stating that Kavanaugh is a hypocrite, noting that he has two children although he is against any form of contraception. He did voice his anti-birth control views during confirmation hearings.
No, men aren't dense. It is called denial. Men want to be in control. They are threatened by women. This is why men have gone to draconian means to control women through religious & political censure. They are afraid of intelligent, educated, & powerful women. Men(excluding you & some on HubPages) prefer women that they can control. Sorry but the truth hurts.GA,
During BK's confirmation hearings, Ted Cruise asked him questions about birth control and BK used the term I never heard before, calling birth control, abortifacient. Even Ted Cruise looked at BK like, "You weren't supposed to admit that." I don't have to look it up, I watched the testimony and heard it with my own ears. I am neither lazy nor biased, just telling the truth as I see, hear and read it. Also, I don't call you names, it's not allowed on the forums. You are keeping bad company and getting like them. So stop your baloney. He did indeed say this. It's language or "code" rabid R's usually keep to themselves.Pretty harsh attack.
Actually, Kavanaugh did refer to some forms of birth control as "abortion-inducing drugs".
The question was about a lawsuit attacking "abortion-inducing products, contraceptives, and sterilization". Kavanaugh took the anti-abortion side.
https://www.businessinsider.com/kavanau … rks-2018-9He certainly did. Kavanaugh is staunchly pro-life. He is extremely dangerous regarding women's reproductive freedoms i.e. their access to birth control & abortion. He shouldn't have been confirmed to the Supreme Court based upon his pro-life position. Pro-life people are dangerous; however, Kavanaugh is a hypocritical pro-lifer because he has two children & is an only child.
Only children typically aren't pro-life but pro-choice. Only children are also pro-birth control. It is those from large families who are pro-life. Being pro-life is defined as being anti-abortion, even anti-birth control unless it is through natural means.It was. It was late. Wish I could take it back.
But ... he referred to it in his testimony as a description paraphrasing what the church was saying in its lawsuit. Not as his own perspective.
From your link; "But it's also unclear if Kavanaugh was referencing all birth control in his statement on Thursday or was just pointing to the specific views of the Catholic organization."
Here is another perspective;
"What Kavanaugh actually said is complicated. He was paraphrasing an argument made by the Catholic group Priests for Life in their suit against the Obama administration over the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Speaking of the form necessary to get a religious exemption from the mandate, Kavanaugh said, “they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.”
Source Vox article: Kavanaugh’s description of birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs,” explained
I will touch base with Jean.
GAThank you Promisem,
Lazy and biased was mean spirited as well. Then Ken assumed he was an authority on my marriage too, when I am still grieving the loss of a wonderful man who died suddenly at 58. I don't know Ken personally, and never would have made such nasty assumptions regarding his marriage or lack thereof. That was the height of rudeness.
You've been on many of these forums. I speak my mind, and I am intelligent and informed. As I brought up before, they never offer sources, yet I am held to a higher standard. It's amazing how some men still feel so superior to women and try to make them feel bad about themselves. I appreciate your sense of fairness. It's always the same people, with far right conservative views. Yet I never call them names or insult them. The comment about BK having two kids was not snarky. That's hard to do in a marriage where you don't approve of birth control, unless sex is only for procreation. I appreciate your views and your kindness.It is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT for pro-life people to have small families. Pro-life people typically have large to very large families. Brett Kavanaugh is perhaps a hypocrite who uses contraception. Brett presents two sides- a conservative religious public persona & a private persona who doesn't believe what he says. Brett subconsciously believe in birth control but doesn't say to maintain his conservative image.
Jean, my apologies. that was way to harsh for the point I intended to make.
I would offer the excuse that it was late, but that doesn't really cut it. Sorry.
Here's all that was really needed - just a bit of clarification:
"What Kavanaugh actually said is complicated. He was paraphrasing an argument made by the Catholic group Priests for Life in their suit against the Obama administration over the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Speaking of the form necessary to get a religious exemption from the mandate, Kavanaugh said, “they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.”
Source Vox article: Kavanaugh’s description of birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs,” explained
GAGA,
Of course I accept, that post didn't sound like you at all. I still heard the exchange I described between BK and Ted Cruz, but may have walked into the room at a different point. We are all bombarded with news from so many sources in the course of a day. But at least give me credit for knowing what I see, read, and hear. What you said wasn't as nasty as the attack on my marriage. That really hurt, I'm still grieving after a 39 yr. relationship.
Some women are young when they have babies and later the husband gets abusive. I've seen it so many times, close and personal. I was just discussing a situation with my son. My best friend got pregnant at 18, thought she was in love. By the time she was pregnant the 2nd time, I went to visit, as usual.
She was lying on her hallway floor, hubby kicking her in the stomach. I ran home, and thankfully my Father was a Sheriff's Officer, who immediately locked up her husband. He never touched her like that again, and the baby was fine.
Men like Ken don't want to hear that this kind of thing goes on all the time. And this was long ago, I was also her age. But abuse grows as responsibility grows. She was a good Mom and never expected her husband to turn into a monster. I saw signs it was going to be that way, but young people in love rarely listen.
She never would have considered an abortion, and is no longer alive, but I am in touch with both kids and thanks to grandparents who lived close, and all the time they spent with me and my husband, they turned out fine. We took them everywhere we could. And "Aunt Jean and Uncle Louie" had the "birds and bees" and "birth control talks" with everyone's kids. It's amazing how parents don't want to discuss such a serious issue.
I still think as it's a secular country, religion should get out of our decisions. Birth control and abortion should be available, and those with religious issues simply don't have to use them.+1000000000000, religion has no business in this country's affairs. Jean, did you know that the Roman Catholic Church was highly influential in the decision that abortion should be illegal before the advent of Roe vs. Wade. The Roman Catholic Church was in the forefront of the protest against women's reproductive freedoms. The premise of this country is the SEPARATION of church and state. Sadly, some feel that religion & the state should be meshed regarding sociopolitical decisions.
Yes, I believe in reproductive freedoms-birth control/ sterilization & abortion. Women need reproductive choices. Too many women have children that they didn't want nor were unprepared for w/disastrous consequences.-child abuse & neglect. Sadly, it is women from the lower socioeconomic ranks who had children too young. These women are trapped. Women from the lower socioeconomic ranks-lower, working, & lower middle income tend to marry young & have babies immediately because they have little or no alternatives. These women are oftentimes the least educated.
Women who are educated & solidly middle, upper middle, &/or upper class have more educational & socioeconomic opportunities. They usually don't marry nor have children until they are established educationally & socioeconomically. I have observed that mothers of large families tend to be abused by their husbands because they are overwhelmed by the growing number of children their wives continue to have. Fathers of large families are oftentimes THE SOLE support of their families. This puts undue pressure on them which results in their resentment of their wives. Since they resent their wives for continuing to have children, they take out such resentment on their wives. Most men don't want large families. They want normal size families of 1-2 children. It is quite commonplace in large families for the husband to abuse their wives.Grace,
My Mother in law came from a family of 9 children, all born during the Depression. As I got to know them better, the jealousies, anger, hoarding and everything else got so insane. As you say, the older kids were totally responsible for the younger ones and held he same grudges forever.
My husband had 54 cousins. He and his sister were the only college educated ones, but in a family of two kids.. The next generation had less kids, usually 2 or 3. Out of all those families, only one cousin and my son had a college education. Most of them are in their 30s and have low paying jobs, and still live at home. My son lives at home too, but came back to help me after a failed relationship when his Dad passed on. He's an elementary school teacher and runs a martial arts school, so I rarely see him anyway! We see a movie and have dinner out once a week to catch up!Jean, I am going to tell you my family history. I am an only child; however, my parents came from anaconda sized families. My mother was one of ten while my father was one of eleven. Their earlier lives were harsh. There was no love lost between my father and his siblings. The only sibling my father was close to was his sister, Curlina. My mother was the oldest of ten. She became educated beyond the secondary level which was very, very rare for an oldest child, particularly girl, from a large family. Out of the ten siblings, only three were highly educated & middle class, my mother, one uncle, & my youngest aunt. The rest remained poor & less educated. Two aunts had children out of wedlock. Those two aunts became bitter women because they were impoverished. One of the aunts was hostile towards me because I was affluent. My mother carried the family, much to the disdain of my father who called them parasites which I concurred with.
I have 27 cousins, out of the 27 cousins, 5 cousins including me had good educations & good jobs. The rest of the cousins were less educated & poor. 4 cousins either came from very small or medium sized families; 1 cousin came from a large family. Out of the ten uncles & aunts, only one uncle had eight children, only one cousin became educated while the others were less educated. In the maternal side of the family, the majority are poor to impoverished while a small minority can be classified as either solidly middle &/or upper middle class. Even in succeeding generations, large family pathologies were passed down. They are happy being poor, don't want to improve themselves, & want others to support them.
On my paternal side of the family, most of them became middle class & the succeeding generations either became upper middle or lower upper class. Most of the succedent generations in my paternal side of the family became highly educated. Each are independent & were not parasitical like my maternal side of the family. Also, my mother & her siblings received outside assistance; if they didn't, they would be even worse off. This assistance gave my maternal side a parasitical outlook, it made many of them more dependent except for the 3 successful siblings.
My paternal side received no assistance. They learned from their poverty & became middle class. My paternal side doesn't have a dependent, parasitical mentality. I am against large families because it leads to impoverishment & no opportunities. Children in large families catch hell. I have seen it firsthand from my extended family. I have also witnessed large families from some of my classmates. They were the most disadvantaged. They had nothing or very little. They didn't even have money for necessities.
Children from large families are doomed, even damned. Studies show that those from large families are the LEAST-least educated, lowest earners, least happy. Children from large families hate their parents for what they have to endure. Children from large families are considered & treated as pariahs. My late father stated that children from large families are oftentimes despised & looked down upon. Children from large families are feral i.e. they have to raise themselves. They have no cultural nor intellectual stimulation. They are uncultured through the fault of their parents. As I have said before, children from large families don't end up well. I have SEEN it!
Children from small families fare so much better. As an only child, I had so many opportunities. I travelled, I went to museums, & dancing school. I attended college. Children from large families DON'T attend college. They are LUCKY if they finish high school. I have written numerous articles on the evils of large families. Oh God Jean, you have inspired me to write yet another article on the evils & dysfunctions of large families.
Large families are so unnecessary today. Educated people don't have large families. It is the unintelligent & uneducated people who have large families. There has to be something seriously wrong w/people who insist on having a lot of children. They have a high level of immaturity.
Children from large families are different from normal children. There is much infighting in large families despite the propaganda that children from large families get along- such BS. They see each other as competition. They have to constantly fight for parental affection & resources. You are right Jean in that they hoard. This hoarding is a result of growing up with nothing.
I have noticed that women from large families love to collect dolls. One of my great aunts have an EXTENSIVE doll collection. What is it with women from large families & dolls. Also people from large families grow up seeking attention. Have you noticed that some of the most attention seeking people come from large families e.g. Madonna, the late Ava Gardner, Martha Stewart, & Janet Jackson. Large families are a DISEASE! I would never be friends with people from large families. I also wouldn't date one because their lifestyle is one of poverty & want. I only associate w/other only children because there is SO MUCH IN COMMON. I find people from large families to have a poverty mentality-they aren't used to anything at all. My only child associates including family are cultured & used to the finer things in life. People from large families are happy with nothing!OMG Grace,
You truly shine bright after seeing so much so young. I got to learn how crazy my husband's side of the family was, he was ashamed of them and saw them as little as possible. They envied anyone who achieved anything. When we bought our first home at 27 (we were the same age), most of the cousins were jealous of us, yet we both worked hard. The backbiting and nasty gossip between them all was hard to endure. I am normally a peace maker (you'd never know it from these forums--but they are people who only have room for their own view and no other). So I was fairly well liked and tried to humor them. I even tried really hard to get my husband to try to be closer to his parents, who really weren't as bad as the others, I thought they were the best of the bunch. I still talk to my sister in law.
But all you say is right. They never travel, get educated, they don't have any resources to celebrate birthdays or treat them as special days, so the child never even has one day to call "their" special one. These children never feel loved or cherished. Nobody reads to them. A sister two years older gives them their weekly bath. There is never enough food to eat.
I can recall his relatives leaving my son's birthday parties because I wouldn't cut the cake as soon as they arrived. They just wanted free food, ate like pigs, even stuffing their purses, and left. Birthday parties for kids are fun but hectic, and usually cutting the cake is the signal the party is coming to an end. One of the cousin's Mothers cut him out of her will because his wife would not submit to this craziness. Not that she had more than what she hoarded to leave. As they died, we had to hire companies to throw everything in dumpsters, all they saved was garbage.
My husband's Grandmother wanted him to be a Priest of the Russian Orthodox Church. Large Russian families like this as large Irish ones do. And Russian Orthodox Priests can marry. But she passed before I met him, and it wasn't really his goal.
As for my friend, she was in love with the guy when she got pregnant. The 2nd time I guess the responsibility was too much for him, he came from a huge, welfare family as well. The father often beat the mother, and my friend had little to do with that part of the family.She finally left him when the kids were about 8 and 10, though she never married again.
But I made the point to Ken and he wanted to miss it--people don't stay next door to their parents anymore and have to move further and further from the suburbs to be able to afford homes. So they have no support system and can't have more than one or two kids. I loathe that type of man who says, "I raised 5 kids!" While he may have supported them, I'd bet my bottom dollar he never spent a whole day with all 5 of them, except for when the wife was in the hospital having another one. I am not a betting woman.
And having one child is a norm I see more and more now. When I was 32 and had our son, the OBGYN was urging me to "get going" because I was getting "old." I didn't want any more kids, I almost died from eclampsia having him, and then for some reason the Dr. decided I was unprotected from German measles. He gave me a shot and I was deathly ill for weeks, high fever, couldn't open my mouth because of cold sores, and great pain due to scoliosis.. Birth control and abortion need to be an option. Thanks for sharing a difficult story, but great for coming out on top!I also disassociated myself from my uncles, aunts, & cousins. They are unambitious & lazy. I only associate myself with those who are ambitious & want to improve themselves. The former have no desire to improve themselves. My maternal aunts, except for my youngest aunt, are jealous & backbiting. They are also against education & improvement, jealous of those who are more affluent. This is quite common in large families. Those in large families are quite jealous of those who improve themselves educationally & socioeconomically. That is why I stay away from people from large families. I detest people from large families because they have a poverty & struggle mentality. People from large families AREN'T normal, they are ABNORMAL in their perspective, Jean.
People from large families are anti-intellectual. Reading is a foreign concept to them. I have never met a person from a large family who is intellectual. They are functionally smart but don't have a deep, analytical intellect. Books are foreign to those in large families. Large families households don't have books nor any form of intellectual stimulation. Large family life is what one would classify as primitive. People from large families grew up in very abject conditions. There is NO SUCH thing as a middle class or better large family. Large families are poor to impoverished, even penurious. Large families always have to be assisted by outside agencies whether it is from relatives, charities, or the government. They are THE BOTTOM of THE BOTTOM of society.
I believe that there should be birth control & abortion. I will even go further, I feel that birth control should be MANDATORY w/large families being penalized. 1-2 children are enough for any couple! Anymore than that is totally unnecessary. With the increased social networks, siblings are becoming ……...UNNECESSARY. In reality, 1 child is more than enough. Children need individualized parental attention & need intellectual, cultural, & socioeconomic opportunities to thrive. Children should have THE VERY BEST opportunities possible & larger families are antithetical to these things. Jean, some people are civilized while others have a primitive mindset. As a result of being an only child, I believe in the finer things of life & being cultivated. I feel sorry for any child in a large family- h/she will never be cultivated, just being mired in poverty & want.
People from large families have a primitive purview. They can be classified as backwards-culturally, intellectually, & psychologically. Dr. Zajonc, a social psychologist indicated that the more children in a household, the more intellectually backwards & immature a child is. Children from large families are more immature than children from small families. They are backwards in many ways because they weren't exposed to cultural & intellectual things. I have noticed this about people from large families. They are as backwards as they come. They are also very insular-very distrustful of those outside the immediate family circle. People from small families are quite adept at socializing w/those outside the family circle but not those from large families. There is an insularity in large families that isn't present in small families. I have seen this firsthand from extended family members & associates.
People from large families are toxic. They are happy w/being poor. Poverty is second nature to them; one can say that poverty is normative to people from large families. They are happy being uneducated, uncultured, & struggling. They don't mind living in the worst, most abominable conditions, on top of each other. They don't want anything & are happy w/nothing or next to nothing."1-2 children are enough for any couple! Anymore than that is totally unnecessary."
Hmm. Same thing could be said for any wealth over $10,000 or so (for emergencies), or income over $4,000 per month. For any house over 400 sq ft. per person, and for any boats, RV's or other toys. For any TV over 32" and for any car over 3,000 pounds unless used in earning an income. Totally unnecessary - BAN IT ALL!
Thanks for the understanding Jean. Your closing point was one I completely agree with.
GA
Jean, +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Reproductive freedom is important. Access to birth control & abortion is important to women's quality of life. Children, especially unplanned children, can seriously imperil women's lives. It is so important to have wanted children. Having unwanted children is deleterious to women's emotional & psychological health & well-being.
Women have been liberated through birth control. No right thinking person wants to return to the days where there was very limited reproductive access. Reproduction isn't destiny, it can & should be CONTROLLED.I am curious, is that paraphrased from some feminist doctrine you have read recently?
Is that an attempt to forward the cause, and find some 'echo-chamber' support from other like minded contributors here?
Or are you really that out of touch with how families in general work?
Whatever the case, these statements you made make me feel bad for you, I don't believe you could come to such conclusions if you had been in a positive relationship with someone who helped you raise children and support a family.
Yes, our culture (the Democratic Party's contributions in particular) have made it easier than ever for men not to be involved fathers, and the 'welfare state' has made it beneficial for under-privileged women to remain single so they can receive the maximum benefits... this reality is now into the 3rd and 4th generations for many women who have come up in fatherless homes with the state providing fully for them, and passing on this way of life to the next generation.
But there are just as many Americans, despite the decades of attacks on family and fatherhood, that are raised in stable, supportive family environments where the man does more than his fair share to raise the children and support them.Ken,
Apparently you didn't read my whole post before you rushed in with your dissertation.
I had a great marriage, of 39 yrs., with a brilliant man who loved me, and I loved him very much, until his untimely death. He was loving and supportive. As I explained, I had a medical, hereditary condition which caused me to have several surgeries as a child, and didn't want to put a child of mine through that pain. But having been in such a positive and stable relationship, where both of us had good jobs and lot to offer a child, we had a change of heart. And I am so happy we did! I am not speaking from my personal experience regarding birth control. I have this problem, I care about other people whose experiences may be different than mine.
I speak for girlfriends I had who were abused and impregnated by guys who didn't like birth control, usually they complained it "didn't feel right." I watched my friends have kids too young, never finish an education, never work, or never get to have a social life by being tied down too young by a big family--which admittedly they could have prevented at the time due to birth control. But they didn't have husbands who helped or did their fair share.
But once a woman starts a family, she normally wants her children to be only a few years apart, so she can have the number of kids she and her husband want, and then her child bearing years will be over. You presume a lot about my life.
And as Grace brings up, in this generation, families who have too many children can't afford to give them enough time, as relatives often live far away as they didn't in prior generations. Many of us had to move farther away to be able to afford our first home.So there are no "built in babysitters", as I was for my younger brother.
Big families can't afford vacations, they don't go to museums, the parents don't have time to spend one on one time with them. There's no money for college. We had a good 401k and our son graduated college summa cum laude, owing no college debt, as it paid itself back. But I couldn't have another child after him. It was and still is an amazing experience for any woman and her husband (old fashioned I am, people don't marry so much anymore) and I wouldn't trade being a Mom for the world.
But everyone doesn't have a good husband who also enjoys the role of a care giver. And some have husbands they need to be protected from. So I still want birth control and abortion and the morning after pill on the table for those who need it.
Read a whole post before you reply, as you missed much of what I said, and only took a small piece out of context to say what you wanted--which was to malign my marriage and experiences with Motherhood, which you know nothing about.
I presume very little, unlike your general characterization of all men in your statement:
I will refer again to this, below, in response to another part of your reply.
It has little to do with generations, and a lot to do with personal choices of the parents and grand-parents. Personal responsibility, I know that is not an overly popular concept these days... but your friends who you mention that you feel were treated so badly, that had children, had bad relationships... bad choices on their part are not cause to unjustly rail against all men.
OK, lets review that post then.
Sorry, I don't see how I took it 'out of context at all'. I did respond to a particular portion of it, that has nothing to do at all with taking it out of context... the paragraph as it stands, stated the same thing, whether or not the entire post is included.Jean,
Totally agree w/your logically spot-on statement. Women should have children that are wanted. Unwanted children have deleterious effects on the family, particularly the mother. Unwanted children cause a haphazard household. Such children are abused, even scapegoated. They are also throwaway children. I read an article called throwaway children in which the home environment was so toxic that children had NO CHOICE but to LEAVE home.
Large families of 5-6 or more children are abusive, impoverished environments. Children from such families are impoverished. Jean & I concur that children from large families don't have a life beyond the rudiments. They oftentimes have to depend upon outside aid to stay socioeconomically afloat. Yes, I STAUNCHLY believe in birth control & in abortion, if necessary. Yes, small families of 1-2 children are FAR BETTER than large families of 5-6 children & more.
Of course, parents of large families can't spend individualized time w/their children. Children from large families SUFFER in all ways- socioeconomically, emotionally, intellectually, & psychologically, even psychically. Children from large families are deprived & disadvantaged. It is IRRESPONSIBLE to have large families. However, I disagree w/Jean w/one aspect-although there are men who want women to be barefoot & pregnant, there are women who have large families because they don't have constructive outlets in their lives. They are less educated so they don't have the intellectual wherewithal to find a fulfilling outlet so they have children to fill the void in their lives. Yes, there are women who are addicted to pregnancy(but I digress).
To return to the subject at hand, access to birth control is HIGHLY IMPORTANT. All families should be planned & children wanted. A planned family is a happy & prosperous family. Birth control enables families to live better lives. We also need abortion because accidents do occur & women shouldn't be forced into an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is an necessary emergency. Girls who have unplanned/unwanted pregnancies DON'T finish their education & end up IMPOVERISHED for the reminder of their lives. Yes, I SUPPORT abortion 100% as I do birth control. I have seen what happened to my extended family when the two AREN'T used. Although I am an only child, my mother's family was anaconda sized. Large families have DYSFUNCTIONS & PATHOLOGIES that small families DON'T have. Two of my aunts became pregnant because they didn't receive enough parental attention. Girls from large families tend to have teenage & even earlier pregnancies because they didn't receive parental attention; also, they came from homes where birth control wasn't taught.
Girls from large families don't end up well. They end up pregnant, less educated/even uneducated, & in dead end jobs. Girls from small families never end up pregnant. If they do, they are smart enough to have abortions. Typically, girls from small families use birth control as they are taught the importance of birth control in their homes. Parents of small families are more educated & affluent while parents of large families are typically less educated, even uneducated & impoverished. I can cite stories how girls from large families routinely become pregnant at young ages because they never received parental attention nor were taught birth control.
His supposed stand on abortion is a valid reason to oppose Kavanaugh. Not sure I understand what minorities would have to fear. But, of course. To the left a Kavanaugh confirmation would be no reason to cheer.
However, after the circus recently I trust the right to understand and protect human rights much better than the left.Yet, even with that personal belief, he also stated that he gives weight to precedent, has spoken to the debate of legal scholars regarding the subject, and hasn't taken a contrary predetermined position - except to your thinking.
Contrary to your declaration, although it may not be idle, it is speculation. And it is only logical to your thinking. It is not logical to mine, and I am pro-choice. By your logic I would more likely agree with you than him. But I don't.
It seems the support you offer is just because that is the way you see it, so it is right.
Would it help either of us to present rebuttal sources? I recall seeing Kavanaugh papers, (or statements), that could support your contention that he does not view Roe v Wade as settled law - 'untouchable' but I have also seem Kavanaugh sources that rebut that view.
Perhaps that speculation could be settled by Kavanaugh's most recent statement; " ...Roe v. Wade's right to abortion as settled law is an important precedent"
GA- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
0These bias flavored opinions are a perfect example that some voters belong to the lazier part of the democratic party obstruction , those who are willing to forgo any sense of morality in deciding who IS on the courts.
I would not want to belong to a culture of people , a party who when their sense of decency , morality even their children and family are attacked like your news media did to Kavanaugh's , don't show any anger in responding to the senate panel questions put to him .
While the lazy people who call themselves democrats let socialist anarchists do the dirty work for them , our normal system of procedural governing is weaponized with immoral tricksters, , porn lawyers , hypocrite socialist hollywood activists who throw false personal charges and a US Pravda media who delivers them .
Just like in the Trump presidential win and his unending success' time to get over your phony outrage and move on . Those like you no longer support your grandfather's democratic party , you stand by lazily while today's American socialists hijack it , congratulations.
You will not win . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
GM williams , Jean Bakula , Maybe you can get George Soros to expand his support to assist you all in quelling the size of family , you know ?Let's call it the "Take the Pill " campaign . When women have had their 2.5 kids each they are then forced to take a pill that permanently prevents them from having not only the other half of # 3 but ANY children from that point on .
That way there would be not such thing as large family backbiting , hunger , pain and suffering from crowded thanksgiving dinners . No longer any welfare , food stamps ,......................etc.
Be more like China ya know ?ODG, typical LFL strikes yet again! The LFB STRIKES...……….
Remain at your level.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Like in China what's next , let's sell the daughters into the human trafficking market ? Anything to promote that new # Mefirst movement , that way if there are only one or maybe two kids in a family they then get all of the attention from mommy and daddy ?
I have never seen such a selfish attitude to the American family in my life , we've all seen the downfalls of poverty and how it treats all people , those of us who have been around awhile that is , you have set up the parameters explaining today's fully representative selfishness in our society . What is it , growing up in a large family you didn't allow enough emotional attention ?
I'll tell you this as a fact , growing up in large families teaches individual people how to get along in the larger society. You learn better how to relate in a civil atmosphere , how to vote , to compromise , to settle and" wait your turn in line ". We have all seen your "only child " families , the one where the child kicks and screams on the floor in a public tantrum because they cannot have
all of life " their way" .
Please , please, please stop this incessant whining about large families and distorted bias of their existences , it's obvious some people can't have their way in life and suffer greatly for that , stop blaming it on those around you and accept your fair share of blame for the misery that you apparently feel about life .What you are saying is pure BS. Small families are BETTER. Large families teach children that they DON'T matter, not to expect much in life, not to aspire beyond the poverty level, teaches one to seek attention elsewhere, & to have NO or LOW self-esteem. Also it teaches one to be on the outside looking in. It teaches one to accept a poverty lifestyle where struggle is normative. Boy, you people from large families have a TOXIC philosophy of life. They exist at the lowest common denominator.
People from large families are disadvantaged in dealing with the larger society. First of all, they have NO self-esteem. They have no boundaries nor self-respect like people from small families have. They will always be at the bottom of society because they don't know how to voice their wants because they were taught as children that they didn't matter as individuals but as a COLLECTIVE. Children from small families like me FARE MUCH, MUCH BETTER. We are the most educated as we had books & other forms of cultural & intellectual stimulation as children. We travelled, went to museums, & participated in cultural/educational activities. All you people in large families did was look at each other as you all didn't have the money to participate in things. Give me a break, cut the crap w/your large family bs. Large families are TOXIC -impoverishment, living in the most primitive conditions like lower life forms, not having the basic necessities, need I GO ON. I have seen this in large families. I wouldn't wish large families on Satan or my worst, hated enemy. Small families like mine ARE THE BEST. You must be JEALOUS...….Well, it is quite typical of those from humongous families to be envious of those from normal families. Well instead of being mad at me for telling THE TRUTH about humongous, anaconda sized families, be mad at your parents for having more children than they could take care of. My parents provided me w/a wonderful childhood. I wish that ALL CHILDREN could have my childhood w/myriad cultural, intellectual, & socioeconomic opportunities. It is SO SAD that you had an impoverished childhood w/no opportunities. Be mad at YOUR PARENTS...….
You speak derisively about parental attention. Well, there is nothing wrong w/individualized parental attention, that is how children thrive. I detect some jealousy here. You never received parental attention being from a large family-that's a shame. Children from large families are needy because they didn't receive such attention. They oftentimes seek attention elsewhere -mostly negative. That is why girls from large families have teen pregnancies-they didn't receive love from their parents- they feel for the first person who shows them love. I have seen this firsthand. As an only child, I received love & encouragement from my parents who taught me the perils of large family life. I am educated & had a very successful career before retirement. I am living a comfortable life. Sadly, children from large families are the LEAST educated & the LEAST successful. Like Ms. Bakula stated which I concur with- children from large families end up on the SOCIOECONOMIC BOTTOM of society. They are uneducated thus they didn't have the skills to succeed. Sorry, your arguments is beyond illogical & into the fantastically preposterous. Don't be in denial about large families- they are pathologically toxic- just ADMIT IT HUH!
I THANK GOD everyday that I came from a small, solidly middle class family. Being an only child made me sure of myself & the ability to make friends & deal w/adult figures from an early age. I was never lonely because I had hobbies & read books. I had plenty of friends. I also participated in many cultural activities where I met friends from different backgrounds. I am also cultivated & am used to the finer things of life. If I had my way, couples who wanted children would have 1-2 children, 3 at the maximum so that children can have the MOST cultural, intellectual, & socioeconomic opportunities possible. I would also make birth control & sterilization MANDATORY. Intelligent, highly educated, & progressive people don't have large families, they have small families. It is the uneducated, unintelligent & backward people who have large to very large families. Large families are TOTALLY UNNECESSARY in the 21st century. If you don't care about your children & want to reduce their childhoods to struggle, want, & poverty, by all means, BREED to your heart's content. Oh I forgot, large families receive OUTSIDE HELP/ASSISTANCE/ AID in one form or other. The large families I knew received aid. As a child, I aided many children from large families because their parents were too stupid to use birth control so they produced children that they couldn't take care of, even in the most basic sense. So please stop the bs about large families, I have TOLD YOU THE TRUTH about the evils & toxicity of large families from firsthand observations of my extended family, childhood friends, & by working w/children from large families. Large families are nothing but cesspools of poverty, primitive conditions, & poor future outcomes. They also have VERY LITTLE or NO sense of self as you have aptly demonstrated. Be gone.
I am happy w/my life. I feel it quite unsettling for people to act backwards when they should know better. It is NO EXCUSE to have large families, reducing precious children to live in animal-like conditions when birth control was available for 5 decades & even before. People have large families because they are either stupid, lazy, or just plain don't care. That I find enraging. I am a staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood & small families. When people know better, they act better. I feel that large families are backwards & unnecessary. No one in his/her right mind would have such toxic families.
I studied large families & its ill effects extensively in college. Beyond study, I also read books on large families. SO I KNOW WTF I AM TALKING ABOUT. I had experience in dealing w/large families from extended family members, childhood friends, & other associates & children that I worked with. I also have BOOKS(I know you didn't have books) on the subject. Small families are infinitely better than large families. People from small families are better- better educated, better socially, more successful, more cultured, & are more cosmopolitan i.e. having friends outside the family circle. They are also more forward thinking.
People from large families-insular, even parochial. Don't have associations outside the immediate family. Distrustful of outsiders. CLANNISH. Have an anti-achievement, poverty mentality. Don't want much in life. Content to live at the most primitive level. No concept of self. Hates self. Feel as if they are nothing. Yes, I have met people from large family who didn't possess an ounce of self-awareness. They felt that they were nothing & deserved nothing. People from large families aren't normal. I can see this in my interfacings with them. They exist in a bizarre, inverse universe.Your constant rants against the benefits of family are indicative of something far far deeper wrong with our culture today , selfishness ,SELFISHNESS . Pure and simple . All familial relations have to be about self or they're just wrong somehow ? Me , me , me , me .........Is exactly what those rants sound like to reasonable people , where there's as much to gain and learn in a large family as in an only child family .
Do you even have a clue as to just how biased against medium or even large families rthat you sound ? America is becoming a ....no THE culture of selfishness right across the board , and these constant thread rants are perfectly indicative of just how much so that some of us are .There are NO benefits in large families. NONE. However, there are benefits in small families of 1-2 children, maybe 3. Society has become better since the advent of small families. Societies have become more affluent & progressive since the advent of small families. It is apparent that you can't read & use inductive & deductive logic. Since you LOVE large families & poverty so much, leave the United States & go to a third world, impoverished country-YOU WILL FIT RIGHT IN. There is NO PLACE in America for you. Go to a third world country please. Better yet, go back to the 19th century where your ideas will fit in.
There is NO PLACE for large families in the postmodern, 21st century. People are using birth control & opting for small families. Even educated people in third world countries are opting for small families. Are you even educated? NO. I am wasting my time educating you as you are HARD to learn. People DON'T want large families, they WANT small ones. Why are you PUSHING large families on people?! Large families are poverty producers & other negative producers. Large families produce crime, gangs, & other pathologies. I suggest that you become educated & read a book. Oops, did I mention something FOREIGN to you- read a book, oh well! You also need a better command of the English language.Large families DEHUMANIZE children. Children in large families aren't seen nor treated as human beings. They aren't individuals but mechanized. They are akin to concentration camp prisoners, not a name nor person but merely numbers. It is sad for children to grow up like that. It has adverse effects on children's self-esteem. They were treated as nothing in their formative environment so they expect nothing. They feel worthless. As I said before, children reared in large families feel that they DON'T deserve anything in life. They feel themselves to be nobodies- what is SAD. Because children from large families are dehumanized, they have NO SELF-ESTEEM & ARE ABUSED by others. It is common for children from large families to let other walk all over them.
No, ED has THE LOW MORAL GROUND. I have THE HIGH MORAL GROUND as......ALWAYS...……..
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
I have seen just as much and likely MORE selfish entitlement in one or two children families than I have in larger ones , Single or two and three children families produce just as much negative familial characteristics as large families do .
Look at today's American family , 2.5 kids , more money , affluency of social standings , educational attentions , What do these small families produce? Look at our cultural issues today . drug and alcohol addictions , early ensuing deaths , an incredible opioid addiction ,the 27 club , increased suicides , coke , meth , prescription addictions , new and yet to be identified diseases , STD's , new strains of old STD's ,increased poverty , unending welfare , spoiled and unattached extended families , career students , lower education grades and standards , record familial debts , ..........................all because of 2.5 kids per family or in spite of them ?Like hell they do. The people I know who came from small families are loving, giving people. They interface well w/others. They don't practice one upmanship with each other. They respect each other. They are educated & highly successful. They aren't self-entitled. If they wanted something, they work & earned it. So stop the crap, Ed, okay.
On the contrary, people I knew from large families were self-entitled. In elementary school, there was a girl from a large family who constantly asked people for money because her parents didn't have the money. I know a woman who supported her siblings although her siblings were able-bodied & could do better. However, the siblings chose not to work. There are more pathologies in large families than there are in small families. THE TRUTH HURTS, DOESN'T IT- DON'T BE IN DENIAL, BABY. Girls in large families have teenage pregnancies-girls in small families DON'T. I know this firsthand. You are WRONG YET AGAIN! GIVE IT UP, BABY, GIVE IT UP! Your argument is MOOT. There are no pathologies in small families. Don't hate, playa, DON'T HATE!GM , look around you , right outside of your window , increasing crime, increasing mass murders ,manifest mental health issues , poor grade testing by students, increased violent crimes , inner city breakdowns , an ideological world war going on , bias in media , every cultural problem known to modern man right before your eyes . political and social leaders out for themSELVES The breaking down of a once great nation , " the fall of rome" is right at your selfish and entitled doorstep , and why........ ?
Because of the self delivered personal entitlements of emotionally spoiled , responsibility lacking , unmotivated , rotten immorally raised only child families . Pure and simple.I saw & see it- CAUSED BY LARGE families. Seldom, if ever, by small families. Yes, I SAID IT & I AM NOT ABOUT TO BACKDOWN...……….Large families cause delinquency, gangs, crime, & other pathologies. Some of the most famous criminals come from LARGE families. Seldom, if ever, from SMALL FAMILIES.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Small families should come with a warning label adding in fine print.
Beware , safety hazard , only child , expect multiple tantrums at odd hours , constant jealousy of large and loving family connections , workplace backstabbing , community disorganizer,
pampered personality , toy box hogger , lifetime whiner , afterlife whiner , whiner before God even ...............Ignore the ignorant post. Only children are fine. Ed is a LOST cause. His rants are incoherent. Ed needs to be educated on the perils of the large family & the benefits of smaller families of 1-2 children. He needs to attend college & read books on the benefits of family planning & progressive thinking. Ed is becoming a total embarrassment, not only in this forum but in all forums. Ed is losing his credibility...……….FAST. This is SO SAD INDEED...………...People are losing respect for Ed as we speak! Ed wants attention but from the context of his postings, people are bemused by him, even laughing at him behind his back. It is sad that Ed isn't respected-Ed is LAUGHED AT! Ed is a source of AMUSEMENT......just look at other's reactions to his statements in the forums...……..
I am an only child. I had leadership positions since childhood. I was considered very advanced & mature by my parents, teachers, & peers. I was always the class room monitor. I am very creative, love to sketch, & read. It was children from large families who came to my house to escape their crowded environment. It was them who turned to my parents because their parents were UNINVOLVED in their lives. None of the people from large families that I knew had loving family connections. They had FRACTURED family connections, including my parents' original family. By the way, the only children that I knew & know were high academic achievers, highly educated, & highly successful. All are very responsible, don't look for handouts, cultivated, cultured, & have class. They know what they want & go out & achieve it. On the contrary, those from large families that I knew & know didn't end up well. Most are uneducated, in dead end jobs, living in poverty or near poverty, always looking for handouts, having kid after kid when they can't afford it. You see small families ALWAYS FARE BETTER than large ones. You are SO WRONG, ED. You have a record of being wrong so many times. When will you learn? You are no match for me! I can always verbally demolish you.
You have aptly demonstrated what Dr. Zajonc stated, the more children in a household, the more intellectually immature a child is. Your rants & raves about the hatred of small families don't phase me in the least. You are JEALOUS of small families because we are what YOU WISH YOU WERE. We small families aren't jealous of large families, I PITY LARGE FAMILIES- unloved, deprived, dehumanized children, uninvolved parents who keep popping out children ad infinitum w/o concern about the welfare of the already existing children. I helped people from large families all my life through books, clothing, & food because of irresponsible parents who were too unaware to use family planning. Don't be mad at me for your predicament, blame your parents for putting you in a dire situation in childhood. I am just stating the facts about large families. Don't be mad-THE TRUTH HURTS, DOESN'T IT...…………
My late/blessed father taught me that small families are happier & have more educational & socioeconomic opportunities. He was totally against large families, stating that children from large families are unsupervised, have no home training, have to raise themselves because their parents are uninvolved, & aren't used to anything. He even stated that people DESPISE large families because it shows the stupidity & selfishness of the parents involved. He believed in 1-child families, maybe 2-child families. He came from a family of 11. My mother, 1 of 10, believed the same thing. I knew children from large families- unruly to the core, no class/no manners, just feral. As a child, I was always invited to events because I was a well-behaved only child. Those who came from large families were never invited to events because people fear that the children would be unmannerly rambunctious. So Ed, slow your roll when addressing me. I have been known to verbally demolish people & make them cry. You don't want to get me angry. I am not a person to be trifled with. You are not on a par w/me neither educationally nor intellectually-SO STOP WHILE YOU ARE AHEAD...……...It can BE DANGEROUS!
I knew a person from a large family just like you who hated people from small families. I confronted her one day, asking why she hated people from small families. She burst out crying, stating that she had to grow up in extreme poverty, not even having the basic necessities. She revealed that she hated those from small families because they had the things that she didn't have. She furthermore stated that she HATED her parents for putting her in dire straits. She finally revealed that the hatred she expressed for small families was a misplaced or displaced hatred for her parents. I understand Ed that your hatred of small families is a misplaced hatred of your parents for not using family planning, having more children than they could adequately afford. I understand YOUR PAIN. I'll give you a NICE HUG. DON'T CRY NOW...……..I HEAR YOUR PAIN...….
Ed, go back to school PLEASE. You have embarrassed yourself, not only in this forum but in other forums. People are laughing at you. They are or have lost respect for you...…….Please read & become more logically knowledgeable. Your attacks on liberals, small families, & other progressive aspects are becoming tired. You are the subject of amusement for many in the forums. People think you are funny & humorous, no one is taking you seriously, don't you know that..
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
I'll make a deal with you , I'll go back to school if you'll go and have an expert check out your fixation of the size of the average American family dynamics , Why you keep repeating the very same useless points over and over and over and over and over and over again in dozens of repeated forum threads .
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The above lines are for your 255th forum thread on family sizes.
Have at it .You came from an affluent family. I expect you to know better. Affluent people believe in family planning & the benefits of small families. Don't give audience to Ed. Ed is a different sort; he doesn't know any better. One has to pity him. It is the less educated who thinks the way Ed does. Ed's reasoning is faulty as always. He isn't respected in the forums. He says something & people either are nonplussed or laugh at his folly...……….NEXT. If one wants amusement or befuddlement, have Ed participate in the forums. That is good for a quick laugh...………...
You must be mistaking me for someone else. My family was not affluent. Working class. My dad was a carpenter and my mother a laundry worker. I have four siblings.
Don't think that I am bothered by your fixation. Everyone has a fixation or two. My fixations are pretty weird as well. Probably weirder than yours.What is your fixation? As long as the fixation is legal or respectable, that's cool. I got you confused with LivetoLearn. I always get you two confused...…… It isn't a fixation. I contribute to Planned Parenthood. I believe that every child should be planned & wanted. I furthermore staunchly believe in small families. Always have & always will. I have seen the detriments of large families firsthand through my parents' stories, extended family, childhood classmates, & others who were from large families. Frankly, I wouldn't wish a large family on the proverbial Satan or my most hated enemy. I want those who elect to have children to have small families as to provide their children w/myriad educational, cultural, & socioeconomic opportunities. I don't expect you to understand this. Only a person from a small family would understand what I am saying. It is impossible for people from large families to understand this because their environment was far different from those from small families. I can tell you stories of large families who were poor to impoverished & had to depend upon outside aid. The majority of large families(6-more children per household w/married parents) must depend upon outside aid to stay afloat. I have written numerous articles on large families which detail this. There are also books on large families which details the perils & disadvantages of large families. It is the less educated & poorer people who have the largest families while it is the most educated & more affluent people who have the smallest families. Poor & less educated people either don't believe in family planning or don't know about family planning. They aren't educated enough to know the benefits of family planning & having a small family. Family size is oftentimes related to education & socioeconomic class.
I am fixated on several things.
what is God?
are we living in a simulation?
is the solar system created?That is so New Age-y, that is cool beyond compare.
lol it is cool as long as it doesn't consume you
I love the fixation. It isn't really a fixation. This shows that you are a DEEP, ANALYTICAL thinker who thinks outside traditional paradigms.
I think that one is done to death, for all of us lol
I shall always mention...…..FAMILY SIZE Ed. As a feminist, human being, & educated woman, I believe in the importance of contraception, birth control, & small families. As a middle class person, I believe in these things. I know through research that poor people don't believe in nor practice family planning nor do they believe in small families. I am a pro-choice advocate also. I am a strong woman. I like asserting my points. You will come to my side sooner or later. Don't you believe in family planning, birth control, & small families? For now, I am done w/the subject at hand. I am also interested in history, both ancient & modern, governmental processes, the issue of entitlement in America, etc.
Also, some of the most whining people I knew were from large families. At my first job, there was a woman who was the oldest of 8. She constantly complained about never receiving parental love nor attention. She did this on a constant basis. She hated her life & wished that she was dead. My oldest aunt, the third of 10, complained how she was the family mascot. She was a bitter woman who hated life because she was given so much responsibility at an early age. She was envious of the youngest child. She hated those who were better socioeconomically & those who were from small families. People from large families typically hate those from small families- that is a FACT. The most unhappiest people I encountered were those from large families while the happiest and most loving people I know are either from small families or only children. They are also the strongest, most assertive people I know. No whiners here. I never whined, I am too happy to whine. My life is GREAT. If I want something, I go out & get it. I have no regrets at all! Studies show that only children are the happiest, most successful, & the most adjusted. Can't argue with verified studies. Oh Ed, it was SUCH A PLEASURE to talk to YOU...….Shall WE TALK...…….AGAIN...…..
Not a fixation, just stating facts. The truth hurts Ed, doesn't it. Intelligent people know that small families are best. Parents and children have better, more individualized relationships. There are more resources in small families than in large. In large families, parents and children don't have relationships, children raise each other, & there is very little monies for the necessities. Poverty & doing w/o is constant. Large families have to depend upon outside assistance to stay afloat. DON'T YOU KNOW THIS? I have seen & knew this from a child. I have donated monies & resources to large families who had nothing. My parents were from large, anaconda sized families who had nothing & had to depend upon outside sources to stay afloat. I am very anti-large family because of its correlation to poverty, neglect, & other negative behaviors. Were you taught this by your parents & school?! I was. If you notice that nations with a large percentage of large families are the most impoverished nations. I have to school you yet again. My teaching you about the subject is analogous to a Roman teaching culture & civilization to a Hun. Let me continue. As natons become more educated & affluent, the number of children decrease because people want to provide a better life for their children w/more socioeconomic & educational opportunities. Ed, you are beyond hope. You can't be that unlearned, really now.
So you believe that everyone should be impoverished & have large families? What LFL! If I had my way, birth control & sterilization would be mandatory & family size would be limited from 1-3 children. In urbanized, cosmopolitan societies, large families are unnecessary. That is all I have to say. I have studied the large family extensively in college, read books on the subject, & had observations from my parents, extended relatives, friends, & children I interfaced while working at a summer job. My father hated large families. My mother bemoaned the fact that she & her family received outside assistance because her parents were too unintelligent to use family planning. My childhood friends hated their parents for having large families. I remember one classmate calling her mother stupid for having so many children.
Those of us who are from small families, loved & revered our parents. I thank my parents everyday(they are dead now) for giving me a great, fantastic childhood, full of educational & socioeconomic opportunities. I want children to have a life full of such opportunities & that is why I advocate for small families of 1-2, maybe 3 children. I abhor, detest & revile large families because it produces poverty, lack of opportunities, neglect, & want. Please don't respond to this post. I am RIGHT while you are so DEAD WRONG as usual. Please don't show yourself to be lacking in this argument. It is apparent that you aren't educated. I was taught the benefits of family planning & small families in high school. I first learned the lesson from my parents.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
But didn't you say you donated to family planning ,
Well apparently they didn't use your donation for the planning part .............?Yes, I did when I was working. Planned Parenthood is such a wonderful organization. Ed, you have to possess a logical, analytical approach to life. You have to stop conjecturing. You have to read books on politics, family, & other subjects that are discussed in the forums. You also have to read periodicals. Your conjecturing is causing others in the forums to lose respect for you. At least, I am patient enough to discuss things w/you. Others I see aren't as patient nor kind. Please be more logical when people who are knowledgeable about the subject are teaching you something. What I am telling you is THE TRUTH. I have observed large families through parents, relatives, friends, etc. I have studied the subject extensively in college & have read books on the subject. So listen & don't argue when I am talking to you.
Please use logic when having a discourse. Don't go into a rant. You do this, not only in this forum but in many forums. People are becoming uncomfortable discussing things with you. Some are even angry & make fun of you. Don't be the laughing boy. Read books & periodicals so you can become more well-rounded.My sister married a guy with 15 siblings. The family has really fun parties. great group of people.
You're kidding. Oh dear God! Sixteen kids...……..WTF! What does his parents do? No one has THAT MANY children unless they are religious fundamentalists, part of the Quiverfull movement. No NORMAL person has that many children! Is he & his parents part of a religious sect? Because no one & I mean no one has THAT MANY kids. Good God Almighty. What kind of family are they? I only knew one person with 19 siblings & the family were seen & classified as aberrations by everyone. I was the only person who befriended; the other children avoided her & her siblings like the plaque.
My investigator mode is ON now. Is he from Appalachia because until recently, Appalachians were known to have anaconda sized families. What region are you from? Are large families normative from where you are from?
I am from New York & live in a solidly middle class area. The normative size of families where I live range from 1 to 4 children. The average number of children are 2 & 4 is a rarity. In solidly middle & upper middle class areas of New York, small families are the norm. It is only among the lower, working, & lower middle classes where there are larger families of 4-more children.I don't know if they were quiverful. They are catholics. that's all i know. The ones i know seem well adjusted enough to me.
They are what one would call traditional Catholics. There are traditional Catholics who don't believe in any form of contraception whatsoever. Most Catholics don't follow the atavistic no contraception rule. They use contraception & have small families. Do they have children?
My sister and her husband don't have children, but only because they are unable.
What birth order is the young man your sister married? Is he the oldest? middle? youngest?
I'm not sure, but I think he is near the youngest of the siblings
Those are youngest or near the youngest in large families have a MUCH EASIER time than those who were the oldest or near the oldest. It is oftentimes the youngest or near the youngest of large families who relish large families e.g. Celine Dion while those who are the oldest or near the oldest HATED being in large families because their childhood & formative years were cut short, raising & parenting siblings & foregoing their educational & career goals. What type of work does your sister & husband do?
He is a chef and my sister does administrative work at hospitals.
What is his food specialty? What restaurant does he work? Does he intend to own a restaurant one day? What degree does your sister have? I am sorry to veer so of course; however, people are fascinating. After your last answer, tell me what should you fear the right? Do you fear the right? Or if the right are of no consequence to you? I am veering the post to the question at hand. We had quite an interesting discussion today. Ed is invited back to the fray.
He does mostly institutional cooking(hospital), although I think he would prefer to work at a restaurant. I think he stays for the pay and benefits. My sister has an associate degree.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
gm, Make no mistake , the very reason people here don't like engaging me is because of my unchanging beliefs , I CANNOT be persuaded to leftism and it's losing characteristics . I am a strong believer in America , American values and our traditional form of government and way of life .
While many here talk themselves in circles thus displaying mush for principles , I remain steadfast in the belief that America is still the shining example on the hill. Don't make this usual NY mistake that because you're intellectual that you're then intelligent beyond all others . In fact analytical , reasonable , great listener , well read are all characteristics of mine , don't make the mistake in assuming that degree's alone make you intelligent , for instance , Why do you keep repeating the same cycles and threads on family size and socio-economic dynamics ? We've heard them a thousand times . Who's the real laughing stock here , one who is unchanging in his beliefs or the one who repeats the same drivel again and again and again ?What do YOU want for America? What traditional values do you want for America? What do you consider the best for America? If you had YOUR way, what would America be? Do you FEAR or embrace the RIGHT?
What is it about Liberalism & the Left that you fear? Do you feel that Liberals & the Left will destroy America? If so, how? Do you want America to return to what it once was?
I am for America also. I want everyone, who has the capability, to have myriad educational & socioeconomic opportunities. That is why I so vocal on issues regarding family planning & socioeconomics. No one should be poor nor in want. Children are precious & deserve the very best educational & socioeconomic opportunities. I feel that parents should be intelligent & responsible enough to plan for their children so that children can have the very best educational & socioeconomic opportunities possible. America, to me, is the best country on earth.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
The one absolute constant on this very earth is poverty , poverty however is also the very best teacher there is on earth . Fact . How has it worked out to teach the entitled how to live on less ? How has it worked out to invent such social teaching blankets as ,credit management, family planning , planned parenthood , affordable housing , affirmative action , regulated rental housing ?
Have these programs reduced poverty ? No. They have increased their own usage by the poorer populace. Yes. Has planned parenthood ended fatherless homes ? NO Has it even slowed down the cycles of fatherless homes ? No. Has liberal ideologies ended violent crime ? Have they ended poor upon poor crimes ?
Yet , if you take poverty and study the dynamics , you will find more entrepreneurialism actually coming from and born of poverty than from the graduating classes of UCLA , Harvard or Georgetown . Do not condemn the poor to the dregs of socialist /democratic activism , they've had too much of that and that's what holds them IN poverty today . Food stamps , subsidized housing , low interest student loans ,etc. etc...........
Look at your democratic inner city strongholds , Chicago , Detroit , Trenton , Flint , L.A. New Orleans , the parts of Baltimore , NYC , St.Louis , Seatle , what do they all have in common ? They have entrapped , no , enslaved their masses of liberally classified poverty , those who will never get anywhere and who never want to get anywhere .
There is NO BETTER end of poverty than a thriving free market capitalist system , look at Trumps and yes Obama's manifest economy today , RECORD low unemployments across the board for sixty and seventy years , ...........It is ending poverty in America as we know it and to the point where the only poverty will be the poverty of the mind , the poverty of democratic activism , the poverty of the reduction of an enslaved lower / middle class .
There has always been a lower class in America , and thank God for that , It is those once deemed poor who change the world around you the most , Have you fixed your leaky faucet lately ? Mowed your own grass lately ? Unplugged your own toilet ? Gone to the kitchen to cook your own pizza ? Delivered your own furniture to that brand new condo ? Fixed your cable TV ? Rotate your own tires , Next time you see a "poor man " thank him for all he does for you .Man, you are beyond clueless. There should be no poverty in America period. Poverty is an evil. People should be socioeconomically comfortable however by their own efforts. DON'T YOU GET IT? You are the king of inverse logic. No wonder you are disrespected in the forums. You are illogical. People in America don't have to be socioeconomically poor. People must want to improve themselves educationally & socioeconomically. You are the only person I know who loves & believes in poverty! You are strange. I understand why others in the forums deride you. I am beginning to deride you also...…..
Yet you know what i'm saying true , there has always been and will always be poverty in this world and in America , yet those in poverty can be much happier than the stiff upper lipped affluent , look down your long noses all you want to , the poor often own something the "prozac" class never will have , sincerity , ambition , motivation and good character .
Look around you , you're surrounded and always will be .NO, it isn't. It is pure conjectural BS. No one wants to be in socioeconomic poverty. Anyone who loves poverty needs his/her head examined. Go to a good psychiatrist, your logic is inverse. Poor people don't have ambition, if they did, they wouldn't be poor. Where is YOUR INTELLECT? You are hopeless, get off my post! I am deriding you like the other intelligent posters in the forums. Why bother with you? You are ……………….
People like you who are happy w/poverty & who aren't ambitious, I abhor & detest. I would never associate with a person like you. My parents view people like you as happy w/nothing & never wanting to improve yourself educationally nor socioeconomically. Stay in your impoverished & uneducated condition. We are in DIFFERENT worlds. I believe in education & improving oneself socioeconomically while you are happy being uneducated & at the bottom! Good bye, Ed. You are beyond hopeless. You have the ghetto mentality, sad to say. You LOVE poverty while I abhor poverty & will work to end it!Jsst where has your party eliminated poverty ? Name one city ! One town, one state , one country ?
You can't , you haven't and you never will .
Mature up !You mature up & get educated! Don't adopt a passive mindset which is indicative of those who are socioeconomically poor. People don't have to be poor if they don't want to. It is their responsibility not to elect to be impoverished. People are poor because they WANT to & because of STUPID choices. You mentioned the government. It is the government that made poverty normative & easier. I am against governmental welfare programs.
I believe in the bootstrap philosophy. One lifts oneself out of poverty & chooses things that are conducive to an affluent lifestyle. Plan, strategize, be educated, & work smart & you won't be poor. Just because there was poverty doesn't mean that poverty must continue. Use your brain if you have one, Ed. Jeez, I am talking to an elementary minded person. Poverty can be easily eradicated if people made the right life choices, Einstein(saying this sarcastically). Poverty is a negative condition that can be eradicated if people acted intelligently. Oops, I know that what I have said is far beyond your comprehension level. God gave humans intellect to improve adverse conditions. One doesn't have to accept poverty as a normative lifestyle. Poverty is a sin.
Humankind was placed on this earth to be the best educationally & socioeconomically if they have the intelligence to do so. The fault of being poor & impoverished is the individual, affecting people themselves. I would never blame outside circumstances for poverty-I blame the poor/impoverished person or people! It is up to them to get out of poverty & being poor. People are poor in America because of their negative mindset, outlook, & purview of life. If people had a more intelligent & proactive mindset, they wouldn't be poor.
Related Discussions
- 561
It's NOT ONLY a Woman's Right to Choose that is Disappearing ...
by Scott Belford 4 weeks ago
If the leaked Supreme Court Decision on Roe v Wade becomes reality, then it won't be a Woman's Right to Choose and control her own body that goes by the way-side in Conservative States - it is any previous ruling that is based on the Right to Privacy which will vanish as well.That is what these...
- 59
Is there really a war on women in the USA or is it a politically motivated means
by Rhonda Lytle 9 years ago
Is there really a war on women in the USA or is it a politically motivated means of division?Do you believe there is a war on women in the United States of America? If so, what do you think it is? Do you identify with the feminist goals of old or the ones of today and how would you...
- 322
Every Dem Voted for Late Term Abortion Up to Nine Months?
by Jackie Lynnley 5 years ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
- 257
The Abortion Debate and Cotraception for Minors
by Chris Mills 11 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a pro-choice person on this point. I may not agree with this person on anything...
- 28
Is there ever ta time when abortion is acceptable?
by Patricia Scott 10 years ago
Is there ever ta time when abortion is acceptable?I thought I knew my answer to this question until I googled the word abortion and clicked images. Now....not so much.
- 45
What CONCERN it is of YOURS Whether A Woman Elects to Have an Abortion
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
Abortion is THE MOST CONTENTIOUS arena and subject of American politics. Abortion also generates the MOST VISCERAL reaction among people. However, what business and concern it is whether a woman elects to have an abortion. She knows the reason and the circumstances as to why she...