Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, the vast majority of the world's growth/birth rate is coming from the developing world. I'm not saying its a good idea for every family here to have six kids, but to act like a family who wants 4+ kids is draining the world of its resources is so incorrect it's funny.

In what way? Are families with 4+ kids not somehow subject to basic mathematics? If each of those four kids has four of their own, and each of those decides to have four.... That's a lot more kids than if two each had two and so on. To say that the problem of overpopulation is solely that of the developing world is incredibly ignorant. For one thing your average American uses far more resources, on just about every level than does someone in the developing world - even if you live on a totally self-sufficient farm (you dig your own well, septic field, and build your own roads, phone and cable lines? You grow your own flax and spin it into yarn and weave your own cloth?....) , there's zero guarantee that your children will choose the same, low impact lifestyle.

To pretend that the reproductive choices and health care available to women in the US at all relates to those available to women in developing nations is offensive. They're frequently denied the ability to use birth control, when it's even available, and due to a lack of available medical care, they're far more likely to lose children to all sorts of diseases. Your decision large family has every bit as much impact as does large families elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, the vast majority of the world's growth/birth rate is coming from the developing world. I'm not saying its a good idea for every family here to have six kids, but to act like a family who wants 4+ kids is draining the world of its resources is so incorrect it's funny.

In what way? Are families with 4+ kids not somehow subject to basic mathematics? If each of those four kids has four of their own, and each of those decides to have four.... That's a lot more kids than if two each had two and so on. To say that the problem of overpopulation is solely that of the developing world is incredibly ignorant. For one thing your average American uses far more resources, on just about every level than does someone in the developing world - even if you live on a totally self-sufficient farm (you dig your own well, septic field, and build your own roads, phone and cable lines? You grow your own flax and spin it into yarn and weave your own cloth?....) , there's zero guarantee that your children will choose the same, low impact lifestyle.

To pretend that the reproductive choices and health care available to women in the US at all relates to those available to women in developing nations is offensive. They're frequently denied the ability to use birth control, when it's even available, and due to a lack of available medical care, they're far more likely to lose children to all sorts of diseases. Your decision large family has every bit as much impact as does large families elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, the vast majority of the world's growth/birth rate is coming from the developing world. I'm not saying its a good idea for every family here to have six kids, but to act like a family who wants 4+ kids is draining the world of its resources is so incorrect it's funny.

In what way? Are families with 4+ kids not somehow subject to basic mathematics? If each of those four kids has four of their own, and each of those decides to have four.... That's a lot more kids than if two each had two and so on. To say that the problem of overpopulation is solely that of the developing world is incredibly ignorant. For one thing your average American uses far more resources, on just about every level than does someone in the developing world - even if you live on a totally self-sufficient farm (you dig your own well, septic field, and build your own roads, phone and cable lines? You grow your own flax and spin it into yarn and weave your own cloth?....) , there's zero guarantee that your children will choose the same, low impact lifestyle.

To pretend that the reproductive choices and health care available to women in the US at all relates to those available to women in developing nations is offensive. They're frequently denied the ability to use birth control, when it's even available, and due to a lack of available medical care, they're far more likely to lose children to all sorts of diseases. Your decision large family has every bit as much impact as does large families elsewhere.

But by your logic this isnt a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, the vast majority of the world's growth/birth rate is coming from the developing world. I'm not saying its a good idea for every family here to have six kids, but to act like a family who wants 4+ kids is draining the world of its resources is so incorrect it's funny.

In what way? Are families with 4+ kids not somehow subject to basic mathematics? If each of those four kids has four of their own, and each of those decides to have four.... That's a lot more kids than if two each had two and so on. To say that the problem of overpopulation is solely that of the developing world is incredibly ignorant. For one thing your average American uses far more resources, on just about every level than does someone in the developing world - even if you live on a totally self-sufficient farm (you dig your own well, septic field, and build your own roads, phone and cable lines? You grow your own flax and spin it into yarn and weave your own cloth?....) , there's zero guarantee that your children will choose the same, low impact lifestyle.

To pretend that the reproductive choices and health care available to women in the US at all relates to those available to women in developing nations is offensive. They're frequently denied the ability to use birth control, when it's even available, and due to a lack of available medical care, they're far more likely to lose children to all sorts of diseases. Your decision large family has every bit as much impact as does large families elsewhere.

But by your logic this isnt a bad thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, the vast majority of the world's growth/birth rate is coming from the developing world. I'm not saying its a good idea for every family here to have six kids, but to act like a family who wants 4+ kids is draining the world of its resources is so incorrect it's funny.

In what way? Are families with 4+ kids not somehow subject to basic mathematics? If each of those four kids has four of their own, and each of those decides to have four.... That's a lot more kids than if two each had two and so on. To say that the problem of overpopulation is solely that of the developing world is incredibly ignorant. For one thing your average American uses far more resources, on just about every level than does someone in the developing world - even if you live on a totally self-sufficient farm (you dig your own well, septic field, and build your own roads, phone and cable lines? You grow your own flax and spin it into yarn and weave your own cloth?....) , there's zero guarantee that your children will choose the same, low impact lifestyle.

To pretend that the reproductive choices and health care available to women in the US at all relates to those available to women in developing nations is offensive. They're frequently denied the ability to use birth control, when it's even available, and due to a lack of available medical care, they're far more likely to lose children to all sorts of diseases. Your decision large family has every bit as much impact as does large families elsewhere.

But by your logic this isnt a bad thing.

I'm not the PP you are responding to. but the problem is that the only reason it doesn't make a difference when some American woman has 6 kids is because MOST American women DON'T have that many kids. Because, if most American women did have that many kids, our resources would be strained and we'd have to bully other places into giving us theirs. And we wouldn't have the leveling of numbers that disease contributes to. It's not that disease is a "good" thing, but it does follow that it counters the large numbers of children women have in those regions. But usually, when sanitation improves, quality of life improves, availability of medical resources (which simultaneously means reduced fatalities to disease but ALSO increased access to birth control), then women do actually start having fewer children.

It is a bad thing when young children suffer and die in large numbers. The far better thing is to improve the conditions and reduce the birthrate. Access to medical services usually achieves both because it improves conditions but also gives women choices.

Anonymous wrote:well China instituted a two child policy, They saw the difficulties of feeding a billion + people and finding them all employment. (Now they are coming to America in droves, and also those from the other overpopulated county, India, but that is another topic).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well China instituted a two child policy, They saw the difficulties of feeding a billion + people and finding them all employment. (Now they are coming to America in droves, and also those from the other overpopulated county, India, but that is another topic).

It's a one child policy, Einstein.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poors in the third world are the ones having too many kids, not Jack and Jill in Minnesota.

Nice try asshole. A family of 8 in a developing or undeveloped country Uses far fewer resources than a family of 4 in the America.

But then they walk across our southern border and stay...

The first of your ancestors to arrive in America - do you have a scanned copy of their immigration papers per chance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poors in the third world are the ones having too many kids, not Jack and Jill in Minnesota.

Nice try asshole. A family of 8 in a developing or undeveloped country Uses far fewer resources than a family of 4 in the America.

But then they walk across our southern border and stay...

The first of your ancestors to arrive in America - do you have a scanned copy of their immigration papers per chance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poors in the third world are the ones having too many kids, not Jack and Jill in Minnesota.

Nice try asshole. A family of 8 in a developing or undeveloped country Uses far fewer resources than a family of 4 in the America.

But then they walk across our southern border and stay...

The first of your ancestors to arrive in America - do you have a scanned copy of their immigration papers per chance?

Yep. From Ancestry.com

Next question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The poors in the third world are the ones having too many kids, not Jack and Jill in Minnesota.

Nice try asshole. A family of 8 in a developing or undeveloped country Uses far fewer resources than a family of 4 in the America.

But then they walk across our southern border and stay...

The first of your ancestors to arrive in America - do you have a scanned copy of their immigration papers per chance?

Actually we do. Came through Ellis Island. Dad (now deceased) has enlistment papers for Army in 1942. He was part of D-Day invasion in Normandy in '44. Yours?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family was small so I have 3 kids and we our shooting for a 4th.

Please, please stop breeding now. You are only bringing down the average intelligence of the human gene pool.