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.

TThere aren't too many people out there that will consider visiting your church if you start telling them their beliefs are wrong. I would be a lot more likely to visit their church than one of someone that told me I was going to hell.

I agree completely. And anyone who tells you you are going to hell is way out of line. It is not the right or the purvue of any fellow human being to judge or determine anyone else's salvation. My apologies for those in your life who have presumed to do so.

Whatever floats your boat.

If they're nice, I'm nice. I usually stick to the ol' nod-n-smile routine, but if they start trying to tell me what I believe in, or try and tell me lies about evolutionary theory, then I will start arguing.

"Breeder" can be used as a derogatory term, I guess, but not typically in the sense of Christian vs. non-Christian. Breeder is typically how homosexuals refer to heterosexuals, though certainly not always in a derogatory way. We get to call them gay, they get to call us breeders.

What's the difference between calling a fundamentalist a fundie (I didn't do it, I'm just wondering), and calling someone who is Jewish a Jew? Or a police officer a cop? Or a fraternity a frat?

Hmmm... i remember going to church when i was young.... they always talked about not messing with your temple (body) and that we are not to change it bc god made it that way...Something to that effect. Well it always made me laugh bc christians pierce their ears... but everyone had an excuse why that was ok

WELL! all of here got banded right.... a HUGE, VOLUNTARY procedure that altered our "temple"

GUESS ALL OF US ARE GOING TO HELL RIGHT??

I guess Wheetsin will have a lot of company :)

Isn't this the same crowd who proclaimed that no one should have the right to tell gay couples they couldn't marry? Yet now you're proposing that you should be able to tell people how many children they should or shouldn't have?

Well, I'm part of the "crowd" that believes gay couples should be able to marry, but I've not proposed that people should be told how many children they should have.

So I guess I'm not sure how to answer your question.

Unless you're making a generalization that the "crowd" that was for gay marriages is some kind of single entity, so if one of us says something about the number of children we should have, then we all must be saying it?

Isn't this the same crowd who proclaimed that no one should have the right to tell gay couples they couldn't marry? Yet now you're proposing that you should be able to tell people how many children they should or shouldn't have? When really what you want to stop is "breeders", "fundies", "idiots", and any other derogatory names you can come up with for Christians?

Hum, I do support gay marriage, and said so on that thread.

I don't believe I've said one word about family size. I haven't used the term "breeder", "fundie" or "idiot". I AM a Christian.

I think you are generalizing too much here.

I'm not sure I particularly like being referred to as a "breeder" just because I have given birth. Where I come from, you differentiate your "breeding" stock from your other animals. Although the ones selected for breeding are generally the cream of the crop, so maybe it's really an elitist distinction.

I don't think that higher education=fewer children, therefore having fewer children means you're smarter than the average person. I have one degree and four children. After their father died, I married a man with two children, and he adopted my brood, making him the father of six. For several years, they ALL lived with us, too. When I went to buy tickets at the local skating rink I was often asked if we were a birthday party. "This is no party, lady", was generally my reply - especially if I had had a rough week.

We got lots of attention because we had six kids. I can't imagine how many heads must turn when someone walks in with 12 or more. At restaurants...."Are these ALL yours?"

My husband thought it was really cute to answer, "Well...she says they are," or "No, my brother helped out with those last two." Anything to break the monotony. Why would they ask us that? Does it make any sense to suppose that we gathered up half the neighborhood and took them out for spaghetti on a whim?

We had three boys and three girls. I used to tell them to pretend they were the Brady Bunch. But we were missing one very important element: Alice. I wouldn't have minded nearly as much if we had had an Alice.

We took all six kids to Six Flags one summer. After we lined them up on the steps of the Opera House, my DH left me to guard them while he purchased hot dogs for the group. A man tapped him on the shoulder from behind. "Excuse me," he said, "Is that your family over there?" gesturing in our direction.

"Yes" admitted my husband, expecting yet another are-those-kids-all-yours question.

"Well," said the man, "I notice you have six. I only have five," and he indicated another family group nearby. "I just want to make sure that you don't try to sneak any of yours off on me. I know how many I came with, and that's how many I want to leave with, okay?" True story, I swear. We laughed about that for years.

has anyone noticed that the more education people have...the less they breed excessively?

This seems to be true. They also tend to marry later and to start their families later. I've periodically read statistics on this in the newspapers. This would make the Kennedy family one of the exceptions, Carlene.

This seems to be true. They also tend to marry later and to start their families later. I've periodically read statistics on this in the newspapers. This would make the Kennedy family one of the exceptions, Carlene.

Oh, they definitely are. They are also from a generation or two ago. I think the trend in general is to marry later and have fewer children - not just among the better educated.

I read another interesting statistic the other day. Almost half the children born now are to unwed parents. The trend is also, evidently, to have children without benefit of matrimony. I don't think that's so good for the children. I believe that marriage brings a certain stability to a relationship, and kids really need that.

Well, I'm part of the "crowd" that believes gay couples should be able to marry, but I've not proposed that people should be told how many children they should have.

So I guess I'm not sure how to answer your question.

Unless you're making a generalization that the "crowd" that was for gay marriages is some kind of single entity, so if one of us says something about the number of children we should have, then we all must be saying it?

I'm confused, too. The pro-quiver people have been referred to as both Liberals and Conservatives in this one thread.

Everyone needs to line up and put on one of those little sticky labels so we will know who you are and what you stand for. Grab a handful...you might need more than one label.

I'm a Christian, Democrat, Pro-Gay Rights, Feminist, Liberal. But I'm not a fundamentalist Christian - more mainstream. And I don't support the Democratic platform regarding abortion on demand (especially partial birth abortion). And I'm opposed to Affirmative Action.

Oh, my....seems like I don't fit into any of those tidy little compartments.

I'm sorry, wasn't it you who started this thread with

"Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.

Dumb, dumb, dumb."

Yes, that was me, and I do think that having that many children nowadays is idiotic.

I do.

My point was that I was not personally attacking any one person on this board specifically. Rather I was stating that in reference to having children, purposely overpopulating our earth is idiotic.

I would like to now take this opportunity to invite all those who disagree to become familiar with issues relating to overpopulation, since I don't think you could be, and still support people who have 20 children, because that would be very irresponsible as it comes to protecting the environment.

If a church believed that dumping toxic chemicals into the river brought them closer to God, I would think that was idiotic too. It's a matter of common sense. Every child stresses the environment, our water supply, our forests. Having 20 is adding 20 times the stress to our resources.

Do you think our grandparents had to wait three hours to see a doctor? No, they did not. Do you think people died in ER waiting rooms because they could not be seen fast enough? No, that was not a common occurence back when the population was not so out of control.

If the people who were having these large amounts of children would stop and think for a moment about the real issues that affect us all, maybe they would have a different perspective.

has anyone noticed that the more education people have...the less they breed excessively?

I believe it. It's certainly true in my family. Of all the cousins, there are two of us who don't have kids yet. We're also the two with the highest level of education. That leaves 4 cousins. 3 of which had children in highschool and never went farther, one of which had a child in highschool, attended some college, and dropped out.

But you also have to consider what the correlation is. Ice cream sales go up in the summer, crime goes up in the summer, does that mean ice cream makes people commit crimes? Logical fallacies are easy to make.

Would it be like throwing oil on a fire to question the accuracy of the claims of dwindling natural resources? I am not an expert in this field, but I have flown over many parts of the US that appear to be totally un-populated.

I stand on the side of thinking of children as gifts from God, not burdens. I believe most people give more to society than they take. I am not comfortable with the idea that I should tell others how many children they should have (China?), but I sometimes find myself wanting to tell people they, in particular, shouldn't have children. I know that's wrong, but I'm being honest about that. When I was younger, I did not believe I would ever want to have children, and I said things about having children much like those who do not want children are saying here. I changed my mind. It is possible to change one's point of view, even when you are really old, like me, at 51. I, too, once believed that I was so much more educated and aware of the world than the "others" and it was easy to be condescending and look down my nose at "them." I understand the inter-connection and overlap between pagan rituals and history and parts of Christianity, and it doesn't screw with my head. What Christianity has that makes the difference is the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, and the message of forgiveness inherent in its doctrine. This is more powerful, to me, than the length of the days in summer and winter.

Whether you want no children or a dozen, matters not. I doubt our grandparents had to wait in ERs because there simply weren't very many. The answer to that problem has many other causes, besides a growth in population. Perhaps we could just force people to move out of the urban centers? There is plenty of open land available in the world. We could quit developing cures for diseases,and that would cut down on population growth. Or, we could stop improving food production and more people could starve, which again would reduce population growth. I think a fascination with the, in my opinion, non-problem of over-population, is a symptom of something else. It is interesting that the "problem" of a few couples having many children is so upsetting, but the "problem" of many couples choosing not to have any, and choosing not to adopt the ones without parents, and choosing to abort the babies conceived who are unwanted, is not upsetting at all.

Very interesting.

I don't necessarily think that people who are more educated are necessarily smarter, therefore have less children! Ok, so they have less children, not becuase they are smarter than us "idiotic" christians who believe that having children is one of the reasons we are on Earth, it's because they have made education their number one priority, not having a family. I have 2 children and 1 year of college, I had a full scholarship to any public college in florida, i was just as smart, graduated at the top of my class. I chose not to finish, i hated it. Most of the selfmade millionaires do not have a college degree. I am more business minded than paying 80k to go to college to get a piece of paper that may or may not get me a job building someone elses dream. I prefer to build my own dream, my own asset. I will have more than 2 children, not sure how many, but we will continue to have them until we feel like there aren't anymore for us.

Would it be like throwing oil on a fire to question the accuracy of the claims of dwindling natural resources? I am not an expert in this field, but I have flown over many parts of the US that appear to be totally un-populated.

Let me try to explain:

Coal, gas, all those "fossil fuels" we all learned about in school are not being renewed. Once we use them, they're gone. Period. When we talk about dwindling natural resources, it doesn't just mean land available for people to live on. It means land for growing crops, land for oxygen-producing plants, land for growing timber for houses and heat, land for cattle and other animals, etc. And as a biology graduate student who has to learn about this stuff to get a degree, I can tell you that all land is not equal. One acre of scrub pine forest in Florida doesn't even come close to equaling an acre of rain forest in Brazil, in terms of diversity of animals, diversity of plants, or in terms of the opportunity to find new medicines.

Just because you can see something every day doesn't mean that it isn't disappearing. For example: We all know what African violets look like and many of us have tried to grow them or know people who have. That species is extinct in the wild. The only place you will ever see it is in cultivation.

And speaking of China (I know someone mentioned it, not sure who), if you lined up every person in that country and had them file past you in a single line, it would never end. They are multiplying that quickly. They could probably send their 12 year-olds over here and conquer us by sheer numbers.