Liberals hate babies

[Lewkowski]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/story?id=6496127&page=1

Ah liberal fascism. Is it really a woman's choice that liberals clamor for? Or do they just hate babies? The vitriol expressed in the comments is shocking.

The planet is over-populated already. I don't care if they can afford them. This should be criminal.

What's the difference between hording pets and hording children? Hording children is more inhumane! Sew up her reproductive organs ASAP!

Actually, I think the rest of the world should follow China's example on this one but in your example you hypothetically set the limit at 5 which is way too high. What if everybody had 5? Not as bad as 18 but much more than the planet can sustain.

I think she is a human pez dispenser poping out these kids. There is NO reason to have so many.

If you do the math and add up generations, if these children have this many children you can have over a million people in just a couple of generations. Totally selfish and irresponsible, not only to the children but to every one of us on this planet trying to survive.

WE ARE IN A CRITICAL SITUATION HERE, PEOPLE - WE ARE SIMPLY WAY OVERPOPULATED AND WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF RESOURCES!I'm sorry to be harsh here, but the facts are facts. This family is being selfish and uncaring by doing this to the rest of us. I know this is a free country but there are some restraints that have to be put in place for the better of all of mankind and earth itself, meaning we need laws put in place to control the population. I propose that there be sterilization programs put in place to defertilize both man and woman aspect of the couple after the second child.Cold but it's for the good of the entire planet and our future generations - if it's not too late already.

If only these people wouldn't vote I could go :haha:

But in reality I go. :sour:

[Angel_Mapper]

God... the stench of ammonia from the huge mountains of crap filled diapers...

[Loki]

An an interesting note, I just read a study showing that Political Science/History departments are the second most left-wing in universities (after English departments). :noob:

[Nessus]

Pale, Marxist beasts
Roam through the streets,
and Church yard sales
In search of the babes
Not yet baton'd

There, but for the grace o'God go I,
conservative and humble,
protector of ye young,
keeper of right & wrong!

Shame on ye,
dirty lubrrrrll
my child ye'll never have!

So swear I,
American patriot,
conservative and nigh-divine.

[Steely Glint]

I am torn between the fact that A) Lewk is a moron B) ZOMG OVERPOPULATIONZ people are also morons.

[Ghost Enigma]

I am torn between the fact that A) Lewk is a moron B) ZOMG OVERPOPULATIONZ people are also morons.

Why? Idiocy is not a zero-sum game.

[Lewkowski]

An an interesting note, I just read a study showing that Political Science/History departments are the second most left-wing in universities (after English departments).

And what is the relevance of that in regards to liberals hating babies?

[Rageaholic]

"Hotdog down a hallway" doesn't even begin to do this justice... :bulb:

[Minx]

Judging from the above evidence, liberals hate adults too. I sort of understand... it's hard not to hate people who will name smaller people things like "Jordyn".

[oldmunchkin]

My only question is...why in the hell would any sane person want to have 18 children? :bulb:

[Widows Peak Oz]

Liberals also hate Lewk.

[Khendraja'aro]

Isn't it funny that Lewk just recently posted an article about how women shouldn't be allowed to be charged more for health insurance - and promptly denounced said article as liberal hogwash?

Newsflash, Lewk: Financial security is one of the reasons women decide to become pregnant.

[Flixy]

Must be confusing when getting mail, since all their names start with a J.

[BalticSailor]

The authors of those comments are actually all conservatives.

[DuSt0fF]

This is not even a subtle troll thread.

[Loki]

And what is the relevance of that in regards to liberals hating babies?

It's not quite as stupid as the question posed by you. :noob:

[GGT]

Just think of all those federal tax child deductions, hmm Lewk?

Is it true their house is designated a tax-exempt church? Or that they have a Samaritan GROUP health insurance policy (that won't cost-discriminate against the woman's previous C-sections or their multiple dependents)?


The Duggars have a book, a website, TLC and Discovery are among their corporate sponsors. And they're Quiverfull adherents.




The Pattern: start a thread to bash liburrls, with an extreme Christian Conservative thing involving money, or Freeeedom, just under the surface.

Troll much? :o

[Phobas]

My only question is...why in the hell would any sane person want to have 18 children? :bulb:

Would wouldn't want 18 minions to do your bidding?

[Loki]

Who would want to be pregnant for 20 consecutive years? :noob:

[GGT]

Would wouldn't want 18 minions to do your bidding?

The Quiverfull....



Am guessing this woman wears Poise Pads by now, or tries not to sneeze or cough much. ugh

[']['ear]

Wait a sec. Woman has 18th baby. In the comments section of the article, a bunch of people express horror, the sentiments varying from horror at a woman playing that role, horror at that number of new citizens and population of our country, world, horror at the ecological implications of unlimited exponential population growth, horror at the inability of any parent to provide guidance and nurture 18 children, etc. None of the comments say "babies are bad" or "I hate babies." Rather, they are all comments on the magnitude of the subject in question (babies) rather than comments on the subject itself (babies).

Lewk's conclusion: "Liberals hate babies"

Logical failures:
1) Ascribing any general meaning to the comment board on site. What's next, the comments at YouTube?
2) Conflating comments from sources where it is patently obvious that they come from across the spectrum of perspectives.
3) Concluding that the comments are from liberals, when obviously only some are.
4) Claiming the theme is "baby hate" when actually the comments don't address babies themselves, but rather address mass production of babies. In fact, a large fraction of the comments are clearly motivated by baby love, of the "oh, I'm worried about the well being of the little darlings" variety.
5) Generalizing from anecdotes.
6) Caricaturing a large segment of the American population as being monolithic and walking in lock step.

Anybody else want to add some logical failures? There are more, but I'm getting bored.

So really, this post begs the question: is Lewk merely a monumentally stupid and ignorant knee jerk zealot, who has been brain-washed to think a certain way, and is utterly incapable of logical thought? Or is he a crafty zealot who is "doing works" for his extremist religious and political perspectives in this unusual format?

Points for consideration:
1) It is very clearly stated in most evangelical credos (and, in fact, all fundamentalist religions that are successful) that massive reproduction is God's will. After all, what better to way to increase the size of your flock?
2) The role of women in such credos is, generally, baby machine.
3) Lewk subscribes to such a credo
4) This family is likely to be evangelical, based a) on their location (Middle Of Nowhere, Bible Belt, USA), b) their birthing of 18 children, c) their invoking of God's will, d) the father's name ("Jim Bob"), e) the new daughter's name ("Jordyn-Grace Makiya Duggar"). Doesn't take a genius to crunch that and arrive at "likely to be evangelicals."

Discuss.

Newsflash, Lewk: Financial security is one of the reasons women decide to become pregnant.

Actually, one of the reasons birth rates decrease as countries develop is that the opposite is true. As a family becomes financially secure, other securities are given, probably most relevant being the survival rate of children. Thus we have seen the same scenario played out over and over: as financial security increases, birth rates decrease.

The exception, of course, is religious fundies of any sort, because generally their religion specifies as many children as possible being in accord with God's will.

[EmperorNorton]

...and she refuses to stop until she produces parasite kid #25.

[Loki]

['ear;10929653"]Actually, one of the reasons birth rates decrease as countries develop is that the opposite is true. As a family becomes financially secure, other securities are given, probably most relevant being the survival rate of children. Thus we have seen the same scenario played out over and over: as financial security increases, birth rates decrease.

Not really true. And your exception actually proves the rule. As women become more educated and poverty (particularly for women) goes down, the birth rate falls. The fall is a function of women gaining rights and choosing to pursue a career or simply choosing not to have children (a choice women aren't allowed to make in traditional societies). Decreasing financial stability in such societies does reduce the birth rate. Just look at Eastern Europe.

[GGT]

Tear, this family is all over the news, just Google the name. Read their website, click the links. I won't pull a wikifist by linking to Quiverfull, but they have their own website, too.

(Some of them believe having multiple babies will eventually change the Liburrrrl demographics of politics, and voting base; a Conservative way to "Get Back to Christian Family Values". Those blog comments look like, "Liberals hate us having more children than the gays or environmentalists, and they're soon outnumbered, watch us make the laws, LOL...." etc)





The irony is Lewk's OP is from an article on Women's Health :sour:

[Khendraja'aro]

['ear;10929653"]Actually, one of the reasons birth rates decrease as countries develop is that the opposite is true. As a family becomes financially secure, other securities are given, probably most relevant being the survival rate of children. Thus we have seen the same scenario played out over and over: as financial security increases, birth rates decrease.

The exception, of course, is religious fundies of any sort, because generally their religion specifies as many children as possible being in accord with God's will.

Nope. Just look at what Sweden did to counteract this trend - they increased the opportunities for women to be able to work while having children.

[oldmunchkin]

Would wouldn't want 18 minions to do your bidding?

Hell, the 1 I have now doesn't do a damned thing I ask him to do. Why would having 17 more change that?

Who would want to be pregnant for 20 consecutive years?

Actually, the best I have ever felt in my life was when I was pregnant. :p

[GGT]

This woman will have a "moral dilemma" if she has to get a cervical pessary just to keep her uterus from falling out. And what happens as she ages and her chances of a Down Syndrome baby increase....

[Nessus]

This woman will have a "moral dilemma" if she has to get a cervical pessary just to keep her uterus from falling out. And what happens as she ages and her chances of a Down Syndrome baby increase....
Now now, all children are God's personal gifts, hand-delivered. Even the special ones.

[GGT]

Now now, all children are God's personal gifts, hand-delivered. Even the special ones.

I suppose that's their "argument", but if this couple continues to produce a baby each year or two, until she's menopausal.....imagine that.

The older kids will have to start a Special Ed Homeschooling Dept? Who gets designated to hang around home to raise the "challenged" kids?

oh yeah that's right.....the girls.

[Phobas]

Hell, the 1 I have now doesn't do a damned thing I ask him to do. Why would having 17 more change that?


You're clearly a bad parent.
Your kids should be cowering in fear in your presence, meakly obeying your every comand.

[Dreadnaught]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/story?id=6496127&page=1

Ah liberal fascism. Is it really a woman's choice that liberals clamor for? Or do they just hate babies? The vitriol expressed in the comments is shocking.













If only these people wouldn't vote I could go :haha:

But in reality I go. :sour:
Lewk, those comments are obviously the rants of Malthusian nuts, not liberals.

[Illusions]

Judging from the above evidence, liberals hate adults too. I sort of understand... it's hard not to hate people who will name smaller people things like "Jordyn".

Why? Why do they name all of their kids starting with a J...what is their issue? :bulb:

Oh, plus they're all homeschooled...I bet that works out swell. :up:

[Ziggy Stardust]

And what is the relevance of that in regards to liberals hating babies?I don't like you.

Hey! You have a point. :up:

[BJK]

I recommend: Be pro-life and buy some condoms. :up:

[Agamemnus]

This woman will have a "moral dilemma" if she has to get a cervical pessary just to keep her uterus from falling out. And what happens as she ages and her chances of a Down Syndrome baby increase....

I can't help but think of Sarah Palin's last baby. I'm sorry. :(

[']['ear]

I recommend: Be pro-life and buy some condoms. :up:

Immoral, according to Catholics and some Protestant sects. Of course, they base that on the usual liberal interpretations of scripture.

I can't help but think of Sarah Palin's last baby. I'm sorry. :(

Just one of God's children, and part of his mysterious plan blah blah blah. Look, when you have that glint of zealotry in your eye, you don't worry about the torture of life in a Down Syndrome body. {aside: good point to reiterate that the Down individuals we see in society are generally the top 10% in function--the really screwed up ones (ie the other 90%) are generally home-bound or institutionalized, at ginormous cost to both the families and society.}

[Lebanese Dragon]

It's not quite as stupid as the question posed by you

Stop being so rude... you're ridiculous.

----

As for lewk's claim, that liberals hate babies, one we probably should specify those liberals, since this isn't neccessarily a fundamental view of being liberal, secondly they don't hate babies, they are concerend about overpopulation which is not the same thing.

Lastly, I would not be surprised if in the future when this probelm becomes rampant the governement will play a role. And there will be a huge debate, personal rights, and just mere survival of us all.

This problem is giong to be thrust upon us, historical from what we've seen so far, goverment facing this problem, have enacted restriction on number of kids per family.

Personally if I think our culture changed back to a time where having kids before marriage was viewed more harshly upon, (which it stil is considered negative), and just not promoting sex as much, that this problem to a large degree would take care of itself.

Advocate sex being used for procreation and recreation, but that if you do have sex, say before marriage, that protection be used to minimize risks.


Personally I believe pre-marital sex is wrong, but I do agree with teaching the kids about their options, as ultimately there are some who will do it. And I don't believe teaching that content is all of a sudden going to make it seem okay to everyone, and create a rampant increase in the numbers doing it.