When the Second Child is Only the Beginning…

That….is….disgusting…

And the thing is, that family will be sucking from the public teat vis-a-vis food assistance and other subsidies. It is foul how they shit out crotch-turds like human Pez dispensers with no real thought as to where the money to feed that brood is going to come from. 

Not to mention that those kids are going to get home-schooled/programmed as well as be neglected – albeit not directly – indirectly as a result of having so goddamn many of the little bible-swingers. 

Gross. Foul. And wrong.

Makes “Octomom” seem sane….

Slip’n’Slide Vagina. Available everywhere Quiverfulls are born.

Sucking on the public teat? Crotch-turds? human Pez dispensers? 

Yes, you and the language you use to refer to human beings are indeed “Gross. Foul. And wrong.” And yes, you make a lot of people seem sane.

At what number does my child become a crotch-turd? Was it the first one? The second? Would I have to have 3?

I think it is more to the point to stop asking rude questions of people. “Are you done,” and “Do you know what causes that,” are some of the ruder questions you can ask a mother of multiple children. What makes us think it is okay to be rude just because we don’t agree with someone’s ideal?

JWH – I don’t see the fundamental nature of the right to reproduce, but I’d like to understand where you’re coming from.  I believe in the right to birth control, but I see families like this as socially irresponsible because we don’t live on a planet with infinite resources. 

What’s the difference between driving a Humvee for recreation during how ever many wars are going on now, and deliberately contributing to overpopulation?  Keeping in mind that Americans consume a lot more than other people in the world – does this family have a responsibility to limit the number of people who will be a drain on limited resources? 

He seems overly condemnatory of the decision to have multiple children.  

Take a look at some of the sterilization cases from the 20th century.  

As much as I disagree with the religious dogma of this family (the Duggars) and much of the way they bring up their children, I will give them credit where credit is due. They have no debit. They are not on welfare. The father is actually a pretty slick businessman and leases his land out for cell phone towers. Honestly, their kids don’t affect my bottom line – they aren’t even in public school so I can’t complain about the tax burden. It’s just as much their right to drink the Jesus Juice as it is mine to utterly reject it.

As for the women in the quiverfull movement, I value their reproductive freedoms as much as I value my own. I how could I possibly call myself pro-choice if that choice didn’t include the decision to have twenty kids? I only wish they respected my rights as much.

With no “call to action” for restriction… so its not a big deal.

It’s not about the fact that they have so many children, but the ideology behind it and the reprehensible way they are raised – especially the daughters

Sadly, that’s the whole point of this Quiverfull thing, I’d say: fill the planet with more people indoctrinated into the cult. Am I wrong about that?

Fortunately they’ll never get there. You just can’t keep all those kids on board with that nonsense for that many generations in the face of modern technological society.

Theer decision to breed ad nauseum is contributing to the rampant overpopulation our species already has on the planet…

They aren’t that backwards. Quiverfull is about patriarchy, gender roles and obedience, not faith healing.

As far as child rearing goes, the older children are taught to take care of the younger ones. After all that’s just preparation for their future life

Exactly…this isn’t just about having a large family, it’s also about an ideology (a disgusting and reprehensible one too).  An ideology that defines women only as daughters, wives and breeders.  Some of these families see no need to educate their daughters since they want to keep them from venturing out into the world.

I’ve wondered about that with the Duggars. With so many kids, at least one of them is likely to be either gay, doubt their parents beliefs, or do something else that they would disapprove of (maybe kissing before marriage! gasp!) Being in the public eye will make things very interesting for them.

Oh geez, I forgot about the child tax credit.  That’s a $1,000 CREDIT, not deduction, for each child under 17.  However, that is income dependent.  It starts to phase out at an income of $110,000 (married filing jointly). 

How is that an argument? How in the word is that an argument in any shape or form?

As an only child who married an only child, I look at that family and feel envy at the extended family their next generation will enjoy. I know that’s naive. I know that’s simplistic. Yes, their religious beliefs are nutzilla. But I read Cheaper By The Dozen as a kid and it sounded pretty good then and they were not religious at all!

Oy, where to start….I will type slow so you get it.  First, ever taken a biology class?  That would help you comprehension this problem I think.

“Breeders”, huh? I’m assuming you’re one of those people who supports
voluntary human extinction. If true, that’s quite the reasonable
position. *cough*”

Nooooooooooo, I would rather humans NOT go extinct.  If I cared not for the fate of the species, I would say breed away.  However, biological populations WILL have their numbers controlled one way or another.  We as a species either need to control ourselves by responsible reproduction choices, or good ol mother nature will do it for us in a much less pleasant way, involving famine, disease, or other good times!

“And overcrowding, really? There are vast parts
of the Earth that are unpopulated. People like the Duggars are having
children in low-populated areas, so they’re not contributing to
overcrowding. Maybe you mean overpopulation? If that’s the case… no, I
wont go there.”

I said the planet was overcrowded, and YES by overpopulation.  See above.  Each new person put onto the earth not only required mere physical space (which you seem to be hinting at in all of its simplicity), but also a certain amount of productive land in which to make food for the new arrival.  Even if they live in the sticks, they still require food, and it tends to come from the same areas for all of the country, regardless of where the breeder lives.

And yes, I advice you NOT to go there, you clearly have no understanding of the problems involving logarithmic growth.

Actually no you don’t have some magical fundamental to reproduce like rodents. It doesn’t benefit an already overpopulated planet.  I’m guessing you must be religious and figure we’re going to be saved and taken to some magical place and don’t have to be stewards to this planet that we inhabit

As a matter of fact, I do sit here in the United States.  And unlike you, I have some awareness of government intrusion into reproductive freedoms.

Or have you forgotten that US states in the early to mid twentieth century enacted mandatory sterilization programs?  Of course you haven’t.  

Perhaps I should direct your attention to Skinner v. Oklahoma, where the US Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to a program of mandatory sterilization for certain classes of felons.  Justice Douglas wrote:

 
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. 

Or do you prefer the world of Buck v. Bell, where Justice Holmes wrote:

 It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. 

Does that sound like a desirable world to you?   Hmmm?

If the right to procreate (and, by extension, the right not to procreate) is  treated as fundamental, then the state must overcome significant hurdles to impede that right.  If the right to procreate, on the other hand, is treated as a non-fundamental right, then you open the floodgates to all manner of nastiness.  

So treat carefully.

I don’t know where you are, but in the US, there are now daily occurrences when people have their children taken away from them because they simply cannot care for them. So I ask you, do they still have the fundamental right to go out and squeeze out more that they cannot care for? 

Indeed, under the law they have that right … and if they prove to be unfit parents (again), the state may remove their issue.   In your world, on the other hand, the state would have the right to sterilize this couple to prevent them from reproducing again.

As for the argument that the family looks pretty happy based on ONE photo, well, do I really have to point out the flaws in that argument?

It’s something of a rhetorical flourish … but at the same time, there are any number of large families that exist just as any other family does … with ups, downs, good times, and bad.  But if they function well and are happy overall, again, who are you to shit on them?

I agree! It’s like saying that because some people rape that all sex must be bad. Forced sterilization is SO not what the discussion is about.

This stuff always scares me.

My best friend growing up was the oldest of 8 kids, who discovered significantly later in life that mom and dad apparently subscribed to the delightful dogma that “you can’t rape your wife”. So, without having any form of BC at her disposal (bearing in mind that these kind of relationships just pile on the guilt and shame, burying you in it – it would take a very special sort of women to somehow purchase and administer BC on her own in this kind of environment) she had 8 child. Two with autism, one diagnosed, the other undiagnosed.

All of the children were homeschooled by my friend growing up, since both parents had to work FT jobs to even come close to financially supporting such a large family, and when she left for college (because she was a “stubborn” girl who thought that college would be a good idea), her next-youngest sister took over (she was 15 at the time).

For her, this was a household occupied and run by individuals who’d been drinking nothing BUT kool-aid their entire lives. They didn’t know how to cook or clean or organize or even bathe properly. My friend made an absolutely courageous effort, at the risk of permanently being ostracized from her family and restricted access to her siblings, one summer to attempt to re-educate themselves or face the threat of CPS. She was prepared, at the ripe old age of 22, to take in her FOUR YOUNGEST SIBLINGS and raise them.

CPS never got involved (negligence in insanely hard to prove, especially in cases with committed, hetero, Christian marriages), but at the very least the kids stopped using the microwave like a refrigerator and the girls learned how to wash their long hair and use deodorant and all of the mouse droppings got cleaned out of kitchen cabinets.

your ignorance is amusing. “breeder” is a term best known from its use in the gay community, in which it is a derogatory term to refer to people who don’t live Fabulous lives because they’re too busy shopping at Wal Mart buying diapers for their 1345 kids. and you miss the most important point, which is not about the total number of human beings on the planet, but the amount of resources we consume. do some reading. people who live in first or second world countries consume so much their mere existence results in the slaughter or starvation of people in third world countries, who often also lack access to reliable birth control. women also benefit from ZPG, and are (proven by many studies and statistics) more able to have independence, education and financial success when they aren’t burdened with a clown car of kids. 

and you are the first person i have ever read to use the term “voluntary human extinction movement.” what nutbag newsletters are you subscribing to? the red capes from the catholic church? get real. 

How about every child is a FUCKING HUMAN BEING and it’s wrong to dehumanize people.

Emily asked from whence I draw my view of reproductive freedom as a fundamental right.  If you go back and actually read the cases and commentary, you’ll find some choice language about reproduction as a fundamental freedom.  

I wonder if the fact that all the girls are wearing something similiar to prairie dresses (no ankles showing except on the eight year old).

Are they also teaching creationism and  young earth b.s.? If so, the country is suffering for the ignorance of their offspring.

On the other hand, there has got to be an atheist or two coming out of that litter dontcha think?

Aha!  Wikipedia to the rescue.   For those wondering why I hold the right to procreate as a fundamental right, take a look at this:

While having power to neither grant nor remove an individual right, the Supreme Court has legally recognized some fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including:
The right to interstate travelThe right to intrastate travelThe right to voteThe right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriageb. The right to procreationc. The right to an abortiond. The right to private education (homeschooling one’s children)e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)
The Right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms for protection (Heller vs DC see also: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025)

In your world, on the other hand, the state would have the right to sterilize this couple to prevent them from reproducing again.

That is one GIGANTIC straw-man you’re building right there. Stop arguing against claims that you made up in your head.

Personally, I can’t wait for the first gay or atheist Drugar.  The odds are stacked pretty heavily in favor of at least one of each.

Settle down Bono.

Wow, leave for a bit, and a lot of replies!  With your data, WHY is the population decreasing?  Is it because people…..start taking charge of their breeding?  Like I am suggesting??? 

Surely you must see that breeder families (and yes, Rosalarian hit the nail on the head with my use of the term, and YES it is as contemptous as I can make it….to have ones’ sole purpose on earth to be a brood sow is worthy of as much contempt as I can throw upon it), reproducing as the Quiverfull movement instructs them too, this will not be the case.  Even after a couple of generations (as was pointed out by another poster), one original QF family can spawn an ENORMOUS amount of progeny, infecting the children with their dangerous meme of ignorance.  This requires no studies to prove, its simple math and common sense! 

When the human race has to resort to canibalism to survive, we will have these people to thank.

They don’t act like humans, they act like brood animals….de-humanize away.

Here’s my stance on the quiverfull:

– if you can afford them, don’t expect any of the children you have to follow in your footsteps and don’t use public of government assistance, then besides how odd I find it, it’s your decision.

– if it’s religious in nature, I tend to slant towards the brainwashing side of the argument. It’s rare that these large families are not created without some serious religious beliefs embedded.

– the cost to feed a family of this size, the father must be pulling down some serious ass money.  There’s no way the Duggars are bringing in anything less than $120k a year.

– the built-in babysitter/older raise the younger scenario is not a healthy upbringing for any of these kids, with all of the increased expectations being lumped onto them while they are still growing up themselves. 

An analysis of your language is interesting.  You complain about “breeders” being a pejorative, but it’s being used to describe people who value reproducing as much as they possibly can. I suspect it’s problematic because it makes humans seem like animals, but it’s an accurate shorthand designation for their value system.

Then you proceed to refer to people who support “voluntary human extinction”.  This is, of course, totally inaccurate.

Do you not care about the accuracy of what you’re saying? Do you think complaining about (accurate, supposed) pejoratives and throwing out your own (totally inaccurate, obvious) pejoratives does something to further discussion?

Doesn’t it just make you feel like a fraud?

To each their own so long as I’m not subsidizing this idiocy.

My wife and I are firm believers in “Start at 30; stop at 2”

Working well for us.

Individual case studies do not mean much, but the one and only Quiverful kid I have known was a fellow airman when I was in the service, and he was about as big a train wreck as I have ever known.  Unable to function without people giving him express direction at all times.  Acting out when he went home to get some hint of attention (ie made a pass at his brother’s girlfriend).  

Ending up getting busted down in rank and then kicked out of the service.

What a can of worms!

I used to view all procreation as contributing to over-population and environmental deterioration.  I guess I can’t argue against those points, but after having a surprise of my own, those views softened.

I now think that loving, thoughtful parents have a lot to contribute to this world.  Parents who raise children who are skeptical and question the world around them will add value to society in the decades to come.  Parents like these will raise the next generation of scientists!   If only Creationists procreated, our future would be pretty pathetic.

Of course, there is the option of adoption.  For some people, though, that route is scary or too costly.  

Doesn’t it make you sound silly to respond to this post of mine without reading all of the discussion that has been going on from myself and others involving this original post? I guess it does further discussion after all!

*rolls eyes*

Lol, not BITCH control…uhhh…birth control!  What a typo!!

Oh yeah, where? When? What was your LSAT score? What is your bar number? What state? 

It’s more that they are FORCED to have all those children.

Nothing like the application of hollow rhetoric and obtuse dimwittery to become a self-professed douchebag and fuckwit.

Ironically, if you were to stop talking permanently I would not be sad.

Hmm, perhaps you are correct, but if so, that would be because of the new-posts-at-the top format of this comments section. Makes things hard to follow …

Assuming that they come out about it. I don’t *know*, but I imagine there’s a lot of pressure to keep a happy face and fit in. And who wants to be the first one to break with their parents and siblings like that?

Have you heard about the spate of deaths relating to parents who follow Pearl’s methods on child-rearing? (His “method” is largely “beat your kid until morale improves, and a few more times for good measure”.) If I recall correctly, a very disproportionate number of those deaths were adopted children.

Adopted children often react even more badly than non-adopted children to that sort of “discipline”, due to previous trauma and attachment issues.

There is a huge overlap between Quiverfull families and those who follow Pearl’s teachings with regard to punishment. Frankly, I don’t want to encourage them to adopt.

Lauren,
Since the children are suffering obvious trauma from such a crowded family on a crowded planet, can you tell me a little bit of the symptons the children are suffering? You’ve already given me the diagnosis, but what about the symptons! You oddly skip over that part. Why? Because you would have to make them up. The Duggards seem like a completely functional and happy family. You got no dirt on them, so buzz off.

This door swings both ways, kind of like some of the people you wish to discriminate against – this is fun isn’t it!

Prove the kids are well adjusted or aware that they are NOT brainwashed or that they have chosen this life without coercion from the parents or other entities. You opened this door, now you must deal with the fact that it swings both ways.

Yes. They are based in Oregon and have killed dozens of their children. And of course they’re also patriarchal

Fortunately, the laws were changed in recent years and several of the parents have been punished for neglecting their kids

You are actually asking me to expand on the children’s introspectional thoughts, if any at all? You’re joking, right?

That’s an interesting report, but it doesn’t address the conflict between you and Lauren. The report projects up to 2050, and offers extremely tentative projections beyond that. This is a report that focuses on demographics, asking others to find answers about social/environmental consequences.

For example, the explanation given to explain chances in population growth is “fertility.” This isn’t the same as what we casually use it to mean, “fecundity.” This is demographics jargon for the net number of children born per woman in a given area. So it is not really a “cause” of population grown changes, just one part of the equation used in projections like these. It’s a way to gloss over all the real influences on the number of children born, and lump that into one big statistic.

We can’t just say “it’s all good, let’s have as many babies as we want” and wave our hands because the fertility fairy will fix everything in the future. These reports are extrapolated from past trends, and don’t tell us anything about specific causes. They can’t do so because past trends provide many equivalent causes for the reduction in population growth. What the report is providing a foundation for, and what we need to do, is to consider the specific problems involved in these changes.

The real influences behind drops in “fertility” are what Lauren is referring to earlier. Limited resources, social activities, etc. What I’d specifically like to point out is that resources like food and water are much more scarce than land. It’s easy to point to an empty mountain and say “Room for thousands over there!” You might as well be pointing at the moon.

Not at all. You made assumptions to the other side with just as little evidence as what you attacked the other poster on. You opened this door. You are operating on the assumption that the family nis well adjusted and in halcyonic delirium, so prove it. You used this as argumentation, now it bites you on the xian buttocks. Prove your case.

I’m sorry but I’m just creeped out by women who have conveyor belts coming out of their vaginas… and that includes being creeped out by the religious brainwashing that makes them that way and totally degrades them as human beings.

The right to have control of your fertility is a fundamental right. All rights must be used responsibly.

It’s called “Vertical propogation.” The last resort for ideologies that can’t stand the trials of open discussion.

 My compliments to the chef.

Don’t set such an easy goal for JWH. Even laws should require periodic review. Don’t let anyone justify something because “It’s the LAW.” or “It’s a right!” Justify why it’s a law or a right.

Regarding welfare and the quivering movement. I don’t know these people in any way, but this friendly atheist website  lead me into the No Longering Quivering blog, http://nolongerquivering.com/,  and the author and guest authors do seem to have seen nothing but these people rejecting all forms of government aid – sometimes even when they are in desperate need of it. 

The word “Quiverfull” gives me the creeps. 

“any surgical procedure carries potential risks”

Yes, but remember – carrying a fetus to term and giving birth is a LOT riskier for the woman’s health than an early abortion in a medical clinic .

I see what you did there.

That’s the default, but you can change it for yourself. There’s a little drop-d0wn menu at the top.

I understand the limitations of projections like these. I also am extremely supportive of women being allowed to take charge of their own fertility. This includes countries where women are not allowed to have an abortion and/or have no access to birth control. That is completely independent of some families deciding to have many children. Most women would NOT choose to have a lot of kids, and many do around the world because they have not or cannot take charge of their own fertility. About 3 million pregnancies each year in America ALONE are unplanned. That’s an entirely different issue and one I am very much in favor of correcting.

Also, when I made the reference to vast amounts of the Earth being unpopulated, I was trying to understand if the issue we were discussing was overcrowding or overpopulation. They can (and often do) coincide, but that is not necessarily the case. Many cities suffer from overcrowding, which causes all kinds of issues, but does not mean that the Earth cannot hold more people.

That “Modest Proposal” has been made before.

Right!? 

I mean, I have seen smaller straw-men at Burning Man….

Christ must have placed an embargo on them. So bad for you. Pray that they come back and let’s all see what happens.

He must have hid them with your innate sense of graciousness.

That has some compelling aspects to the argument. The notion rests not in the abortions themselves, but the intent?

No problem. My anecdotal evidence (3 for 3) is better than anything you’ve presented. All you have provided is opinionated garbage with nothing to back it up with. Logic would say that if you have zero evidence to prove something then you can’t come to a rational conclusion. You somehow missed that or else just haven’t shared your evidence for some reason. Hmmm….

Well, I am sure you believe that your god works in mysterious ways. And hell, you are a christian, so forgive me.

I have a 12″ penis. And that would be a real 12″, not a man’s measurement.

By your own admission, then, you’re just a big dick.

Well, if He finds the graciousness of which I spoke, that would be mysterious indeed.

Forgiveness without repentance is meaningless, even in a purely material cosmos of the atheist’s convicitons.

That’s been tried.  Not pretty and doesn’t work too well.

Except that he was responding to a demand to prove that having children was a right.  Now you demand that he justify why it’s a law or a right.
 
I find it chilling that somone demand justification for a fundamental right that has only been denied by barbaric and despotic means.
 
Do you think the state should be able to prevent people from having children?  What limits, if any, would you put on the methods to ensure that prevention?
 
Certainly there are people that should not have children.  But I trust no government with the power to prevent people creating their own children.
 
To borrow from C.S. Lewis:
 
Aristotle held that some men were fit only to be slaves, and I don’t contradict him.  But I reject slavery because I find no men fit to be masters.

 I find it interesting that abortions are paid for by taxpayers. Wouldn’t abortions be cheaper than say educating a human being for 18 (or more years), providing health care for that person, etc.

It rests on which choice you made.

Most of the time, the choice made was between having a child under circumstances that make that a bad idea, or having an abortion. I have no objections to having an abortion to (for example) avoid having to break off an education. To ensure that a child has two parents in a comitted relationship. To ensure that your financial foundation is solid enough etc.

In the case of abortion as BC (which I believe to be exceedingly rare, by the way) a *different* choice is made.

Here the choice is: will I eat a contraceptive pill at $20/month, or use condoms at $1/each, (or any number of other bc-methods) or will I just skip all of that, and instead have an abortion when I get pregnant.

I think abortion rather-than pregnancy-and-child is a morally different from abortion rather-than condom.

I consider the debate fairly academic though, because I think a tiny fraction of abortions are “by choice” in this sense.

Just read the complete blog of LovejoyFeminism.blogspot.com or nolongerquivering.com and then you can decide if there aren’t any bad side effects. There are tons of bad side effects for the children adn the people who have escaped that mentality are scarred. Even the Duggard family kids who are just a tiny bit different are probably going to be scarred (also the brain washing, the little time their parents can spend with them, the outsourcing of discipline, the “training” of toddlers, …). I could spend all day talking about bad side effects of the quiverufl movement.

I agree with almost everything you say here.

And if I may, I would like to send my props and sympathies to you guys in Norway. I express grief for the horrid occurrence (the shootings) that took place, but I give Norway nothing but praise for the dignity which they handled the collective grief and outrage.

You showed decorum and grace under pressure. My country (USA) could take a lesson from Norway.

Aphex Twin? LOL

First of all, my point above had nothing to do with what JWH was arguing for, only the way he was doing it. Thank you for making the case here that JWH has danced around so much.

Yes, I’m aware of examples of eugenic atrocities. I’m not calling for the state to take any action.

We already have a default scenario for restricting fertility. It involves overpopulation, overcrowding, lack of physical resources, and their impact on population health. Kat Basken was discussing this elsewhere in the comments.

This scenario doesn’t affect everyone equally. When resources are more restricted, health care is more expensive and living conditions deteriorate. This has a very obvious effect on both the fertility rate and standard of living in the area involved.

Compare demographic regions in local fertility projections: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.

We have options other than government programs. My current favorite is the brood-shaming we see displayed a bit here. I think we need new ideas, though. This is a health care issue more important than political-social policies. We should do better than continue the current laissez-faire free market approach to who will live comfortably and who will struggle just to survive.

Apparently your reading comprehension is as poor as your deliberate-upper- case-spelling-each-letter-out-to-be-dramatic texting.

I didn’t say there were prerequisites before Christians can forgive, I said it was meaningless without repentance.  (Also, I made the important point that this was about human nature, not faith or dogma.)

Having said that, forgiveness is not entirely meaningless of course.  It does prevent the one doing the forgiving from developing a type of toxic bile in the heart (you may want to pay particular attention to that point).

But it is meaningless regarding the state of the relationship with the one being forgiven.

Exempli gratia, I forgive you for being such a hate filled obscene tool, but I would be suprised if such forgiveness is accepted, or even appreciated.

Put another way, forgiveness without repentance is like making a phone call but getting a busy signal.  As far as being a real phone call is concerned the exercise was meaningless beyond the caller doing his part.

You line is always busy.

I’m sorry that you have had negative experiences with Christians. I have had negative experiences with atheists, but having not met you or not knowing your tendencies I give you the benefit of the doubt until you give me a reason to not believe you or prove that you are not credible. 

I simply am looking for a reason for your opinion on large families and how you formed them. My experiences have been overall positive. 

Also, I NEVER said that logic said that you didn’t have evidence. I said that without evidence, one cannot come to a rational conclusion. Are you telling me that your “opinions” are without reason? That’s fine if that is true. Most atheists on this board speak highly of “reason” and “morality” and right now I haven’t seen either one out of you. I’m not saying that you have to fit the mold. I just had a stereotype I guess and it has been broken. This I do thank you for, this time without the sarcasm.

Not to mention, it’s the unpopular groups that would be restricted from childbearing. If the current Republican regime had its way, my own conception wouldn’t have been allowed to happen.

I was referring to those who oppose same-sex parenting. Many of them would like to stop gay and lesbian people from having children. They already seek to stop gay adoption. Do you really believe that right-wing Christian dominionists would, if left to their own devices, not use their power to enact laws that prevent lesbians and gay men from conceiving children?

Luckily, they don’t have that power, and unless we devolve into a theocracy, they’ll never have it. But I don’t underestimate them. They already try to make life as difficult as possible for LGBT families. If they were truly in charge, I have no doubt we’d see a push for laws against same-sex conception much as we see laws against same-sex adoption.

I was raised by two lesbian mothers. I look at the current right-wing of the GOP and see many people who would have had no problem trying to stop my conception, or trying to stop my parents from raising me. They don’t go that far because they can’t, legally, but if they could, I believe they would. I say that based on what I’ve heard them say about families like mine.

By the way, I was agreeing with you that the government (whether conservative or liberal) should not get to decide whether people are allowed to have children. I was pointing out that when that happens, it is always the unpopular groups that are targeted. And I could easily see atheists and sexual minorities being on the losing end of that equation.

I wasn’t actually thinking of IVF, although you make a fair point that some conservatives are against it. However, given how many married heterosexual Republicans have surely conceived through IVF, it’s hardly prudent for them to go after it the same way that they do same-sex families.

It’s much easier for lesbians to do simple donor insemination, which doesn’t require advanced technology or even a trip to the doctor. I could see (in a hypothetical future theocracy) a right-wing government taking steps to prevent single women or lesbian couples from accessing sperm. They could do that by restricting sperm banks to married heterosexuals. They couldn’t do much about “underground” insemination, but they could certainly take away children once they were born. 

While the circumstances may be slightly different for same-sex couples, my general point was it doesn’t end well when the government gets in the business of policing reproduction, whether it’s preventing access to technology, forcing sterilization or abortions, or taking children away from their parents because they belong to an unpopular minority group.

I don’t think conservative Catholics such as yourself are generally on board with that type of thing. But I do see a great deal of intolerance in the GOP. I don’t think the average conservative Republican would take things to that extreme, but as the party swings further and further to the right, any pretense of moderation seems to be flying out the window. If the Republican frontrunners feel comfortable rejecting evolution and opposing birth control, then how much worse could it get if a serious dominionist got into power?

Oops, having said that, there are some technologies I do oppose and think can be limited licitly by government.  Not that that will ever happen.

IVF? Doubt it will ever happen. Conservatives have too much invested in it. They won’t win any elections by denying their infertile friends and family members the only chance they might ever have to conceive a biological child.

Are you not aware that several of the Republican candidates have denied evolution?

Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann certainly have. Rick Santorum has made conflicting statements, and Newt Gingrich says that “intelligent design” should be taught as well.

In their own words:

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/07/140071973/in-their-own-words-gop-candidates-and-science

As far as I know, Jon Huntsman was the only candidate willing to unequivocally support evolution.

But my point was not that the Republican candidates wish to prevent evolution from being taught in public schools or allowing people access to birth control (although I’m sure some do). My point was that it is indicative of the loss of moderation within the Republican party. That’s what’s shocking to the rest of the world, that these prominent men and women would stand up in public and say such things and that they had a good chance of becoming the leader of one of the most powerful countries on earth.

The political atmosphere is what worries me. No, Romney and Gingrich aren’t dominionists. We’re lucky that they’re not. But when Republican candidates have to swing that far right just to be considered in the running, it sets the stage for even more extreme politicians to rise in the future. Santorum already loathes the idea of gay parenting. If he gets into the White House, perhaps he couldn’t do much harm by himself, but if more and more Republicans adopt his views, there’s no telling what could happen 20 years down the road.

 What about the 18 year old who is forced by her parents or lover to abort? Where is the choice?  (PS Most of these are Christians.)