I just read this article on the "Quiverfull" movement where the idea is to have as many kids as possible and that "God is the only one who can open or close the womb". Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.

On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!

It makes me so mad that people are so dumb.

Damn, dudes, I was going to visit ND and now I hear it isn't going to be like that?!?

Oh well, not all Canadians are as portrayed by the South Parkies. Some of us don't f*#! as much.:heh: (I hope this isn't going to affect the tourist industry....:phanvan ) :)

Ooh my goodness gracious sakes oh life. For heaven's sake! ROTFLM*soon-to-be-not-fat*AO.

I had a boyfriend years back who did use 'Fargo-isms', so did his entire family. They were all from Minnesota. I used to adore talking with his family. Not so crazy about him, though.

Interesting article from msnbc.com. I wonder if anyone who advocates for the Quiverfull movement would ever consider doing something like this:

MAMORONECK, N.Y. - What does the O'Rourke family have in common with The Dave Matthews Band, Timberland and Expedia.com?

They're all measuring their “carbon footprint,” calculating how much pollution their lifestyle causes. Carbon footprints are a way of representing the effect humans have on the climate in terms of the total amount of greenhouse gases produced.

“For a long time, it was easy to not be aware. Now, with so many things at your fingertips, it’s harder not to be conscious of it,” says Steve O’Rourke.

The family tallies yearly energy use on the Conservation Fund’s Web site. They measure everything, from electricity (4,000 kilowatt hours — down by using energy efficient light bulbs), oil heat (466 gallons for their two-bedroom apartment), to driving (one car that has about 12,000 miles, car pooling and biking to reduce their miles).

They’ve also decided not to travel by air. That’s big savings as one round trip cross country would mean three tons of carbon each.

The O’Rourke family’s carbon footprint is just 15.21 tons per year.

“We’re not neutral and until we are we feel like we have to pay it off,” says Steve O’Rourke.

So they're paying a carbon offset, an investment in a renewable energy project of about $65. This makes them “carbon neutral.” Carbon offsetting balance a unit of carbon dioxide emissions with a product that saves or stores an equivalent amount of CO2. Credits are typically bought and sold through a number of online retailers and trading platforms.

The average American generates about 20 tons of carbon each year, and the biggest cause of that is automobiles. A typical family’s footprint is about 45 tons. That offset is worth is about $675.

Click for related content

• Calculate your carbon offset
  
• Newsweek: Glossary of earth terms

Proponents of carbon offsetting say this doesn’t mean that somebody should pay to have a tree planted and then get in their SUV and go to the grocery store. And a recent study warns that while the offset industry is booming, it’s largely unregulated.

Meanwhile, the O’Rourkes try to reduce their footprint by unplugging appliances and recycling plastic bags.

“To us, it doesn’t seem extreme. I kind of think we should be doing more,” says Cathy O’Rourke.

With cloth napkins at dinner, they’re on a strict carbon diet.

I want to say I am one of 11 children. My father is still in the army and has supported us all of his life. He started having children when he was 15. My ldest brother died of AIDS in 1997 but if he were alive he would be 42 this year and my youngest brother is 5. I am proud to say that my parents loved a cared for all of us. I myself have four children and would have more if I could. I love all of my children and take care of them with the help of my husband. I have been on welfare to help me get through school so that I could take care of my children on my own if, God forbid, something should happen to my DH. I was well taken care of and never had hand me downs from my 4 older sisters and my 2 younger sisters never got mine. To say that a family with more than 2.5 kids is wrong is wrong and you are a person who never had the pleasure of being from a large family and feeling the love and bonding that comes from that. My mom iand dad are 59 years old and raising my 5 year old brother and my dead brothers 2 year old daughter, he died 8mo ago. Just because we are from a large family does not make us religious zelots either. I believe in God and grew up in the church. My parents just believed that they would have as many as they could provide for without any help and when they felt they could no longer do that they would stop until they could again. I thank my parents for being the kind good and loving parentd they were and for teaching me the true meaning of family.

you are a person who never had the pleasure of being from a large family and feeling the love and bonding that comes from that.

I thank my parents for being the kind good

and loving parentd they were and for teaching me the true meaning of family.

I do know the true meaning of family, thanks.

I'm grateful to my mom for educating me about my own ecological footprint, teaching me to reduce, reuse, and rycycle, and how to be a responsible citizen in our community while treating the planet with respect.

How nice it would be if instead of becoming defensive, people would stop a moment and learn something new.

How nice it would be if instead of becoming defensive, people would stop a moment and learn something new.

Yourself excluded, I'm sure....since you are the all-knowing source of infinite information. Congratulations on that by the way!!

Just because people happen to disagree with you, doesn't mean they need to "learn something new". How condescending.....

Yourself excluded, I'm sure....since you are the all-knowing source of infinite information. Congratulations on that by the way!!

Just because people happen to disagree with you, doesn't mean they need to "learn something new". How condescending.....

Missy, there is no need to be so sarcastic. I don't find it at all condescending to tell someone "hey you could learn something new."

In fact, I really enjoy learning new things and am not at all offended if someone says to me "Hey you know what? Let me educate you on..."

I really love learning new things and am constantly reading, researching, and learning, so no, I don't think I exclude myself from the classification of those who need to learn something new.

I am quite sure that the people who are arguing with me really do not know a whole lot about their impact on the environment, nor do they care to know.

Certainly you're not suggesting that everyone is an expert and knows everything they need to in order to be a good environmental citizen? Because I certainly don't and am learning new things every day about it. For example, I just learned that by carpooling even a few times a week, I could cut down my emissions from my car significantly. So now I'm trying to find a carpooling partner for work.

I am never adverse to learning new things, and I'm disappointed that you seem to think the mere suggestion of that is so offensive.

My post goes to all here that feel a woman has a right to choose , but should not have too many kids! I finally see that you do not belive in a womans right to choose (cause if you did you would not complain about their choice to have 15 kids. And I could care less about what you say about dwindling resources if you really belived that you And I would not be here, as larger than normal on a lapband site. (And I'm not making fun of our weight remember I'm fat also) so then what do you people really belive, womens rights or are you just on a political ramp about something you really know nothing more about than what your dorm roommate told you she belives. And if that is it then please tell me so I can put you on ignore list.

My post goes to all here that feel a woman has a right to choose , but should not have too many kids! I finally see that you do not belive in a womans right to choose (cause if you did you would not complain about their choice to have 15 kids. And I could care less about what you say about dwindling resources if you really belived that you And I would not be here, as larger than normal on a lapband site. (And I'm not making fun of our weight remember I'm fat also) so then what do you people really belive, womens rights or are you just on a political ramp about something you really know nothing more about than what your dorm roommate told you she belives. And if that is it then please tell me so I can put you on ignore list.

Though your - above quoted - post seems to be utterly incoherent the argument which I figure that you are attempting to make is that women cannot opt for the right to have access to the mechanisms of choice (birth control and abortion) and yet claim to also have the right to have as many children as they choose. If I have read your above post right it seems that your complaint, a justifiable one, is you feel that women want the pie to be sliced in their favour regardless of whether they choose to follow through with their pregnancies or not. If my reading of your above and entirely incoherent post is correct you have introduced an interesting point. Just as I have always viewed that the woman might, due to either a sentimental or a mechanical mistep, find herself suddenly hamstrung by an unwanted pregancy, you seem to see her as the Ur-mamma. I believe that many men do find women frightening for just this reason and it is true that if I were a man I would be very nervous about my sexual contacts with women.

I have spent the last 20 years of my life working with men for I have been building aircraft and working on the floor. The men with whom I worked cannot be considered as highly intellectual guys and I have no problem with this. What I have noticed with the younger kids is that they have a tendency to get knotted up with young women who will present them with unwanted pregnancies.

These young guys are seriously freaked. They claim that their girl friends have assured them that they were on the pill. They feel that they were suckered into something very scary and very serious. Most of these young guys already have a kid or two left over from an early marriage and these boys are already paying child support for these kids. Now they find themselves in the situation of being held hostage to their young girlfriends.

Of course the end result for these kids is that they find themselves on the hook. These are a bunch o kids which have found themselves liable for their careless behaviour. Where the waters have become muddied is here: some of these kids will opt for abortion as a solution and others will not. Some of those grrls who chose to opt out of abortion are the same grrls who will expect to corner their new mates/baby daddies into something in the way of a relationship.

We must be prepared to acknowledge that young men may behave badly. We must also be prepared that young women are also prone to behaving badly. I suspect that 396 power's latest communique may have had something to do with this very issue.

My post goes to all here that feel a woman has a right to choose , but should not have too many kids! I finally see that you do not belive in a womans right to choose (cause if you did you would not complain about their choice to have 15 kids. And I could care less about what you say about dwindling resources if you really belived that you And I would not be here, as larger than normal on a lapband site. (And I'm not making fun of our weight remember I'm fat also) so then what do you people really belive, womens rights or are you just on a political ramp about something you really know nothing more about than what your dorm roommate told you she belives. And if that is it then please tell me so I can put you on ignore list.

Dorm roommate? What are you talking about? Are you referring to me in your post?

As I've stated a million times, my only wish is that people would become better educated, period.

If you want to go toe to toe in terms of environmental education, I promise you I'll win.

If you want to put me on ignore, that's totally fine by me. Quite frankly, people who state they are Christian and then write such nasty posts really freak me out anyway.

We must be prepared to acknowledge that young men may behave badly. We must also be prepared that young women are also prone to behaving badly.

And sometimes, bad behavior causes a new little person to appear. In which case, baby-daddy needs to suck it up and pay his child support, without whining and whimpering about being "trapped", "tricked", etc.

It is pretty much common knowledge these days that every one of us is the result of a single act of intercourse. You pay your nickel (or unzip your pants, as the case may be) and take your chances.

Green's co-workers need to find a 12 step program to deal with their sex addiction, perhaps. Or invest in some very high quality condoms. Or they could postpone sex until they actually know a little bit about the young woman whose life is about to change forever - just until the two of them have had a chance to discuss things like environmental responsibility and maybe the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy.

Pro-choice means pro-choice. Not pro-abortion. And if the woman gets to choose, and her choice isn't "fair" to the man....oh, well. Sometimes it sucks to be a woman, and sometimes it sucks to be a guy. Deal with it, fellas.

Green agrees with Carlene on this one. Boys should wear condoms if they don't want to pay child support.

I have been talking to the carloads of boys that I drive around on a regular basis about how they're responsible for every sperm that leaves their body.

Embarrasses the hell out of my kid, but his friends think it's cool. I hope they all remember it when they become sexually active.

Well, one alternative is China's rule of one child per family...

they don't have a rule, they simply make life hard for the people who have more than one child. and the sad part is in the early stages of this people killed off, or abandoned baby girls becasue they want a boy child. It is not a good solution.