Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[Wheetsin 714]

ZI saw a show about them a few weeks ago. They were living in their new house and taking a motorhome to Disneyland for a family vacation. Seemed like nice kids, but you could definitely tell they were out of their element in any type of social setting.

[green 6]

Because I have never been a maternal person - it is for this reason that I have never had children of my own - what I look at in those who do choose to have children is whether they can take care of them both physically and emotionally. It is clear from the review that I have made of the material available of the Duggar family that these kids are doing well. They are healthy and they are as happy as anyone has the right to be. The remaining issue is the desire that these children not be raised as bigots. This is a big concern.

What is not a big concern as far as I am concerned is something that a number of you have mentioned and this is this issue of play time. Play time is a very recent concept. Until the mid-20th century and even then this was only prevalent in the most affluent countries children were expected to take part in family life, to learn, and to be as productive as was possible. This current concept of the sanctity of childhood and of playtime is very much a recent and arguably artificial construct.

I would further argue that the reason that so many teenagers now run into sexual trouble is that they were, historically speaking, already wed and breeding at this time.

We may wish to carefully examine our middle class style values and style of living and then contrast this with the biological imperitives of our species. It strikes me that the issue that we are so often fighting is that of our own biological time table.

The trick is not to give in to this but to acknowledge its existence and to figure out some way to work around it.

[Carlene 12]

I just think it's fair to state that again, wording can make a difference...

Boy, ain't it the truth. My fifth grade teacher pointed this out to me very effectively. In some hotly contested olympic event between the US and Russia, the US finished first. The Russian headlines read "Russia takes 2nd place, USA finishes next-to-last" - a technically accurate, though misleading, statement.

[Sunta 5]

There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994

How many out of those 1,700 people had their quality of life permanently altered, even though only 5 were killed?

The effects of a violent attack can cause not only permanent physical problems, but also permanent mental problems.

I'm shocked that the number is this high, actually...

[gadgetlady 4]

My guess is that they're including things in this number that the average person wouldn't normally classify as "violence" (such as pamphlets on the car, picketing that results in arrest, etc.). Don't get me wrong; I absolutely do not condone any violence against abortionists or clinics. But just like the statistics on rape can be artifically inflated by including statutory rape in the numbers, so also is this number inflated (I suspect).

[flabuless 18]

i am a proud single mother of two gorgeous kids...i would love to have more if the right 'man' came along...i don't believe in contraception... However, I wouldn't go so far as to have any more than 4 kids... I know my body pretty well so although I don't believe in contraception I know when and when not to do the 'deed' depending on risk...

Becky

[chocolate_snaps 3]

to accept and respect those who are different from them - Jews, Muslims, atheists, people of colour, and other foreigners

*pokes head out from lurking position*

Not to nit pick but in the US (where the Duggars are from), MOST Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and people of color arent foreigners. Im a couple of those and Im definately not a foreigner.

Forgive this post if thats not what you meant.

*bye*

[Carlene 12]

I know my body pretty well so although I don't believe in contraception I know when and when not to do the 'deed' depending on risk...

Becky

They have a name for women like that. They call them "mothers".

[green 6]

*pokes head out from lurking position*

Not to nit pick but in the US (where the Duggars are from), MOST Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and people of color arent foreigners. Im a couple of those and Im definately not a foreigner.

Forgive this post if thats not what you meant.

*bye*

My bad, chocolate, and thanx for pointing this out. :embarassed: This was clumsy writing on my part and not at all what I meant to say.

[gadgetlady 4]

There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994

. . .

I'm shocked that the number is this high, actually...

I'm revisiting my earlier post about the potential that this information was skewed, because now I've done some research. For a full report (long), go to http://www.geocities.com/kekogut/miscellaneous/Jan1995.pdf. I will cut and paste some excerpts here. While this article was written by a pro-lifer, it is very well documented and therefore should not be dismissed simply because one disagrees with her stand on the issues.

Firstly, not all violence can be blamed on pro-lifers. There are many verified examples; here are two (I have replaced a few words because I know they will offend some):

Los Angeles, California, 1988: Pro-abortion activist Frank Mendiola pleaded guilty to charges of telephoning a series of bomb threats to local abortion [clinics], abortion-rights organizations, and his own home. Mendiola said he made the calls to arouse public sympathy for abortion rights. and to

motivate the media to "come down with a harder line on [pro-lifers] who [were] harassing the clinics."

Concord, California, 1990: After a Planned Parenthood abortion [clinic] was severely damaged by arson, the [clinic] immediately pinned the blame on "anti-abortion terrorists." A month later, police arrested David Martin, who lived across the street from the [clinic]. Martin told the "Contra Costa Times" he was "p__d off" by the pro-life protesters who he hoped would be blamed for the fire.

Second, the instances of violence against pro-lifers is much higher than by pro-lifers; statistically, this includes the conviction rates as well.

(this grid doesn't copy well; the first number is reported incidents; the second number is convictions)

Incidents by pro-life against pro-abortion 164 12

Incidents by pro-abortion against pro-life 218 15

Incidents by police against pro-abortion 0 0

Incidents by police against pro-life 29 11

Total 411 38

Third, and I'll let these points speak for themselves:

• There have been more bombings of religious facilities than all types of medical facilities combined.

• Bombings and attempted bombings of any type of medical facility have been rare. There have been 230 times as many against other industries, homes, and other buildings.

• Only thirty-five one-thousandth of one percent of all U.S. arsons can be attributed to pro-life.

• Only one one-thousandth of one percent of all U.S. homicides can be attributed to pro-life.

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has never connected any act of violence to any pro-life organization.

• The Federal Bureau of Investigation does not list any pro-life organization as terrorist.

• There are many very significant reasons for the abortion industry to deceive the public.

• The abortion industry has been unwilling and/or unable to substantiate their accusations against pro-life.

• There are many reasons for violence against abortion facilities other than pro-life activism.

• The media rarely portrays violence by pro-abortion, but rarely doesn't portray violence by prolife.

One other thing that I found interesting was that was correct in my first surmisal of these numbers. If 100 people peacefully picket a clinic, the National Abortion Federation counts that as 102 incidences of violence: 1 for each person, 1 against the clinic, and 1 incident in and of itself. I have been involved personally with pro-life groups since the age of 16. I have never once witnessed violence by pro-lifers against anyone, but I have seen it the other way around -- numerous times. I have never heard a pro-lifer talk about violence against an abortionist or a clinic, nor have I ever heard anything but disgust and disdain when people who support violence are mentioned.

The formation of our opinions has a lot to do with the information we are provided. I would sumbit that because the media are sensationalist and need the news in exciting snippets, you don't often receive the whole story -- you receive a story that's not only easily-digestible, but also contains the bias of the people involved. I have personally witnessed local news reporters deliberately fabricating stories about what goes on at clinic pickets. I am not surprised people have the opinions they do.

The guy who stands out on the street with a sign saying "God hates fags" (which, by the way, is as offensive to most Christians as it is to other people) makes for a good story, a quick snapshot, an easy target. Notice, however, that he is generally alone or with a very small group. There's a reason for that. Anyone who reads the Bible knows he's flat-out wrong.

I attend a church that is considered a mega-church. The outreach there is voluminous and ongoing (if you're interested, go to www.rockharbor.org or http://www.rockharbor.org/content/contentpage.aspx?pageid=138).

Don't overlook the real, good work that churches do because you're watching the guy on the news who's standing alone with his sign.

[anonemouse 1]

As a biologist that frequently does research, the first things I look at when I find an article are the author, the organization the author is associated with, and what the article was published in. To put it bluntly, if I tried to cite an article from "Birds of Death" as one of the major sources for my breakthrough statistics on birds pecking people to death, my article would be torn apart and would never be published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, simply because my sources were not good. To put it even more bluntly, all sources are not created equal and something being published does not mean it isn't biased or that it is even correct.

There is no way that you can deny that is an incredibly biased report. Still, I am not going to come right out and say that it is wrong or that it is misstating the facts, but the fact is that they (or anyone writing a report like this) wrote that report for a reason and that reason was to spread their point of view. Can you find something from a source that is neither a pro-life or pro-choice organization that supports your opinion? Otherwise, I am going to take the report from the "Life Research Institute" that states on the first page, "This report was delivered to each member of Congress and to Attorney General Janet Reno

during her failed inquisition against pro-lifers for their alleged violence," and "abortion is the deliberate, painful, brutal murder of innocent, defenseless human life," with a grain of salt as to the accuracy of their statistics.

[gadgetlady 4]

As a biologist that frequently does research, the first things I look at when I find an article are the author, the organization the author is associated with, and what the article was published in. To put it bluntly, if I tried to cite an article from "Birds of Death" as one of the major sources for my breakthrough statistics on birds pecking people to death, my article would be torn apart and would never be published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, simply because my sources were not good. To put it even more bluntly, all sources are not created equal and something being published does not mean it isn't biased or that it is even correct.

There is no way that you can deny that is an incredibly biased report. Still, I am not going to come right out and say that it is wrong or that it is misstating the facts, but the fact is that they (or anyone writing a report like this) wrote that report for a reason and that reason was to spread their point of view. Can you find something from a source that is neither a pro-life or pro-choice organization that supports your opinion? Otherwise, I am going to take the report from the "Life Research Institute" that states on the first page, "This report was delivered to each member of Congress and to Attorney General Janet Reno

during her failed inquisition against pro-lifers for their alleged violence," and "abortion is the deliberate, painful, brutal murder of innocent, defenseless human life," with a grain of salt as to the accuracy of their statistics.

I stated at the beginning that a pro-life person wrote this report (specifically, I started my post with "While this article was written by a pro-lifer, it is very well documented and therefore should not be dismissed simply because one disagrees with her stand on the issues"). I agree that there is a purpose to the report and there is some verbiage in there that would be considered inflammatory by persons who are not pro-life. However, it is 180 pages long and extremely well documented, and despite the stated, clear position of the writer, there are facts in there that cannot be denied.

I think one would be very hard-pressed to find a neutral organization in this matter. And even if one were able to, it's likely that that organization used statistics that were skewed in one direction or another by someone with a bias.

As I've already stated, I have been a personal witness to violence perpetrated by abortion-rights advocates against pro-lifers. I have never, ever seen the reverse. And I've been involved for 24 years, at some periods of my life on a weekly basis.

[anonemouse 1]

One thing I learned in my Scientific Literature and Writing class is that lots of documentation doesn't automatically equal quality. The problem with doing research is weighing the pros of using a paper as a source and the cons of it. Yes, this paper probably does have some good sources. But is seems just as likely, judging from the language in the paper, that the information in the sources was twisted or that the information it the sources was biased in the first place. Good scientific research papers don't use inflammatory language like this one does. To be honest, as a scientist, it makes me wonder about the quality of the paper itself. This paper was clearly worded to appeal to a reader's emotions, not to their intelligence.

Like I said before, quantity of sources does not equal quality. This paper repeatedly cites sources that are seriously questionable, when it does cite sources for its statements. For example, it states:

Abortion seriously hurts nine out of ten women who have one.1 This fact was determined before

the connection of abortion to breast cancer was discovered. To date, more than thirty studies2

show this connection, and the number of additional breast cancer cases due to abortion is

approximately 50,000 per year.3

The papers source for these statistics were these:

1. "Abortion Hurts Women," Life Research Institute.

2. Life Dynamics, December 1994. Phone is 817 380 8800.

3. Conservatively, without abortion 1 in 10 women will contract breast cancer. A mother's first

abortion is most important, and there are about 1,000,000 of these annually. Thus, 100,000 of

these would get breast cancer without aborting. But abortion increases the risk by at least 50%.

100,000 x 50% = 50,000. This analysis provides a very conservative result.

First, both organizations are extremely pro-life. Second, they don't say where they got the third citation. Third, how did they do their analysis? Did they only talk to certain women? Clinics can't give up their patient lists. Did they only talk to women who came to them?

I think one would be very hard-pressed to find a neutral organization in this matter. And even if one were able to, it's likely that that organization used statistics that were skewed in one direction or another by someone with a bias.

So don't look to organizations. You're right, they are biased. You can probably find many scientific research papers out there that deal with these statistics. Those are peer-reviewed, to weed out "bad statistics."

[gadgetlady 4]

So don't look to organizations. You're right, they are biased. You can probably find many scientific research papers out there that deal with these statistics. Those are peer-reviewed, to weed out "bad statistics."

They simply don't exist, or not from what I've found. It's either documentation from NAF or NARAL or similar groups, or documentation from pro-life groups. And the news organizations that regurgitate statistics are informed by the former, not the latter.

I did, however, find documentation on a pro-abortion website clearly stating that they do include number of blockades, arrests made at blockades, and number of incidents of picketing in their statistics of violence -- all numbers, including the picketing "violence", were of course supplied by the NAF.

www.abortionviolence.com has some interesting information, including a video demonstrating the calmness of one side and the violence of the other. It was not staged. For those concerned, the documentation on this site is also extensive and the verbiage much less inflammatory.

[~Pam~ 0]

www.abortionviolence.com has some interesting information, including a video demonstrating the calmness of one side and the violence of the other. It was not staged. For those concerned, the documentation on this site is also extensive and the verbiage much less inflammatory.

Oh wow, I had no idea so much violence occured from the pro-choice side! :xena_banana: I had no idea!! It said that 2005 was the worst year with pro-choicers killing 77 people, including 28 pregnant women (AND THEIR 28 WANTED PRE-BORN BABIES!!!) and 8 CHILDREN!!! :cry That's so horrible! I really had no clue! I have heard of pro-choicers attacking pro-lifers during peaceful protests of course, but I had no clue the numbers were that high (especially just in one year!). How horribly sad! I had no idea that some attackers RAPED the pro-life women too! :girl_hug:

I really am stunned. Wow, I guess there is violence on both sides of the issue huh? :girl_hug: