Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joy Behar Sneers at 'Overpopulating' Moms, Guest Says Parents of Large Families are 'Littering'
Newsbusters ^ | 11/18/2010 | Matthew Belan

Posted on 11/19/2010 7:04:51 AM PST by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last
To: Westbrook

Amen!


51 posted on 11/19/2010 7:55:49 AM PST by Spudx7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I find it very humorous when people imply that I am selfish for having a large family and over-populating the planet.

There is nothing that requires more self sacrifice from a woman than having children. Of course, I have more moments of bliss in one day (it started with a huge gummy smile from my 3 month old at 4:30 am) than these women have in a year.

52 posted on 11/19/2010 8:10:13 AM PST by Spudx7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Well, you know, for billions of years, we ended up having one or two children per woman, and we're moving back to that now, one or two children per woman. LOL! Yeah, because the women died in child birth or of some other disease or accident. It certainly wasn't because they were so good at abstinence or preferred same sex relationships. My ggg-grandfather had three wives because the first two died in childbirth. Women might have had one or two children, but that didn't mean that the men only fathered one or two children.
53 posted on 11/19/2010 8:28:48 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

That depends on your reasons for doing so. If you did so in order to have more play time and more toys, I think it would apply.


54 posted on 11/19/2010 8:32:55 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Hey joyless bear, I BET you would never tell that to a muzzie or an illegal alien.


55 posted on 11/19/2010 8:36:35 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (De fund the TSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Augustinian monk

Those children are valuable in God’s eyes, too. However, making them contributing members of society would require being “judgmental” about their parents’ “choices,” and using incentives to promote better - yes, better! - ways of life. Fwiw, the children of Octomom or the Gosselins seem just as likely to turn out badly as those of TaShaQuanda in Detroit. Bad parenting is bad parenting, even when they’re on the cover of “People” magazine.


56 posted on 11/19/2010 8:53:59 AM PST by Tax-chick (Global Warming: the first faith preached exclusively by hypocrites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I was just pointing out the double standard in the media when comments like this are made. Whites are not “overpopulating” anything, they are depopulating, so who else can she be talking about? What if Palin had said it?


57 posted on 11/19/2010 9:12:44 AM PST by Augustinian monk (NAFTA/GATT- How 's that free trade thingy workin out, America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

She is just bitter that even a turkey baster wouldn’t want to get near that, at that a man.


58 posted on 11/19/2010 9:37:57 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Augustinian monk
Whites are not “overpopulating” anything, they are depopulating

You're correct about that, and it's true that leftists go ballistic over the handful of white citizens who have very large families, while ignoring the much more statistically relevant welfare cases.

"Overpopulation" is just another stupid line.

59 posted on 11/19/2010 9:43:07 AM PST by Tax-chick (Global Warming: the first faith preached exclusively by hypocrites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
I would also point out to her that for many years many women died during childbirth. Does she want to go back to that too?

That's one thing, but to gey the net 2 children/woman surving to maturity, you would also have to abolish the FDA, EPA, CDC (and otherletter combinations)

60 posted on 11/19/2010 9:44:47 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

> Hm...I wasn’t aware that my choice not to reproduce was a “curse”.

That’s what the Bible indicates, like it or not.


61 posted on 11/19/2010 10:05:53 AM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Goreknowshowtocheat

They’re already trying to convince us that marriage is useless and child-rearing in a stable, married family is much less fun than all the wild sex and meaningless relationships you could have without that eternal contract before God and man.

They can take their studies and toss them, along with all the minority families they split with welfare and the “sexual revolution.” Now they’re trying to convince our teenage daughters to get pregnant early because it’s sooo cool.

They will burn in hell.


62 posted on 11/19/2010 10:07:19 AM PST by struggle ((The struggle continues))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

My son and I spent the morning at the local museum with a homeschooling group. One of the moms was criticizing parents who only had one child - saying (very sarcastically) they must have it so easy...getting to sit around all day drinking lattes and not working hard like moms with several kids. She went on and on until she realized I’d heard every word.

So it goes both ways. We have 1 kid because we wanted 1 kid. It’s no one else’s business how many kids you have or don’t have. I admire parents of multiples, and I don’t criticize them.

That said, Joy Behar needs to get her facts straight before spouting her absurd opinions on national tv. And her guest was a moron.


63 posted on 11/19/2010 10:40:46 AM PST by coop71 (Being a redhead means never having to say you're sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
I've chosen not to have children. Does that mean that I am by definition selfish, lazy, and irresponsible?

That depends on your reasons for doing so. If you did so in order to have more play time and more toys, I think it would apply.

Well, let's see: I'm single (and likely to remain so). Given that, it would be rather irresponsible of me to have children, yes? What's more, I'm not fond of children; I find them annoying nuisances. As for play time and toys (interesting that you'd couch it in those terms instead of saying free time and spending resources on one's self), it's certainly a factor. I have no desire to invest tens of thousands of dollars and years of my time on a child...so why should I? It's my life to live, not that of an as-yet hypothetical offspring.

Does that make me selfish? Not as I use the word. Selfishness in this context would be forcing taxpayers to support other people's children. I won't say one word against the Duggars, but Octomom having 8 kids on public assistance? That's selfish.

Suppose a couple makes the perfectly rational choice to have children because they'd rather spend their resources and time on each other. How could that possibly be characterized as "irresponsible"? Who are they being irresponsible towards?

64 posted on 11/19/2010 9:52:11 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
That’s what the Bible indicates, like it or not.

Since I'm not a Christian, I'm rather indifferent. In any case, being in the Bible hardly makes something true, any more than for it does for myths such as Noah and the flood or people living for 900+ years.

65 posted on 11/19/2010 9:59:14 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
Missed typing a word...make that: "Suppose a couple makes the perfectly rational choice not to have children"
66 posted on 11/19/2010 10:20:30 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

> Since I’m not a Christian

I pray the Lord gets hold of your heart some day. I was an atheistic evolutionist until I was in my early 40s. Then I saw an undeniable miracle of Supernatural intervention by a loving God. Since then I have come to realize that my very existence, the very existence of this universe, even every breath I take, are all likewise stunning and astounding miracles.

> myths such as Noah

You know, if there were a catastrophic, world-wide flood, you might expect to find billions of creatures fossilized in lithified mud layers, laid down rapidly by water, all over the earth. You may also expect to find rapid extinctions of many of those creatures who may have been preserved through such a catastrophe, because of the unfavorable conditions existing for many years thereafter.

Nevertheless, none of us was there. We get to choose whose interpretation of the data, and whose account of how it got there.

I can’t change your mind, and you won’t change mine.


67 posted on 11/20/2010 4:26:30 AM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
I pray the Lord gets hold of your heart some day. I was an atheistic evolutionist until I was in my early 40s. Then I saw an undeniable miracle of Supernatural intervention by a loving God. Since then I have come to realize that my very existence, the very existence of this universe, even every breath I take, are all likewise stunning and astounding miracles.

I think you're using a different definition of "miracle" than me. Your existence and every breath you take are a function of biology, not the supernatural. As the the universe itself...you find a creation myth sufficient explanation. Well, to each their own. I don't know why the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, but the evidence is overwhelming that it did. Was it directed by an Intelligence, or was it simply a natural process a la vacuum decay occurring in the quantum foam of the Multiverse?

Beats me. Without sufficient data it's amusing to speculate, but not particularly informative.

You know, if there were a catastrophic, world-wide flood, you might expect to find billions of creatures fossilized in lithified mud layers, laid down rapidly by water, all over the earth. You may also expect to find rapid extinctions of many of those creatures who may have been preserved through such a catastrophe, because of the unfavorable conditions existing for many years thereafter.

If there was a catastrophic, world-wide flood only 6,000 years ago I would expect the fossils to
a) Actually be only 6,000 years old, whereas radiometric dating methods from radiocarbon dating to samarium-neodymium dating show that they're much older. I was recently in Carlsbad Caverns, and while I was taking a tour of Lower Cave (highly recommended, by the way) the ranger pointed out a bat that had died on a stalactite which then "grew" over it. You could see it by shining a light through it. He said it had been dated to about 50,000 years ago by radiometric dating.

Hey, speaking of Carlsbad...there are delicate formations there that are tens of thousands of years old. Don't you think a few billion gallons of water rushing through the caverns would have had a deleterious effect on soda straws that break if you so much as brush against them?

b) I would also expect the fossils to completely mixed up...you never see (for instance) a fossil from the Cambrian in the same layer as fossils from the Cenozoic. All it would take is a single instance of something like this to throw evolution biology into chaos. Why do you suppose this hasn't happened?

Those are just 2 examples off the top of my head. Noah and the flood is a story, the best attempt of a technologically primitive people to explain the world around them. There's no reason to take it any more seriously than we do the story of Athena springing fully-formed from the head of Zeus.

Nevertheless, none of us was there. We get to choose whose interpretation of the data, and whose account of how it got there.

Precisely so. Some choose to base their understanding of the universe on the authority (as they see it) of the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc. Others such as myself rely on science.

I can’t change your mind, and you won’t change mine.

I think I can honestly say that if I was presented with enough valid scientific evidence for the Biblical creation account I would change my mind. Mind you, it would take a lot, given how much evidence currently shows it to be wrong. Thought experiment: suppose an overwhelming amount of valid scientific evidence was shown to you that the Biblical flood never occurred. After all is said and done the only argument you're left with is "It must be true, because it's in the Bible".

Do you change your mind?

68 posted on 11/21/2010 9:01:50 AM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

> you find a creation myth sufficient explanation

Apparently, you find the “big bang” myth sufficient explanation.

If you want to believe that everything came out of nothing from nowhere for no apparent reason, that life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing and uncaring cosmos, that when you die you are just so much compost, and that the best you can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction, have at it. That’s your myth.


69 posted on 11/21/2010 9:22:58 PM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
Apparently, you find the “big bang” myth sufficient explanation.

The Big Bang isn't a myth, it's the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development, built upon a veritable mountain of evidence.

If you want to believe that everything came out of nothing from nowhere for no apparent reason, that life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing and uncaring cosmos, that when you die you are just so much compost, and that the best you can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction, have at it. That’s your myth.

Did you even read my last reply? In regards to cosmogony I stated "Without sufficient data it's amusing to speculate, but not particularly informative." The same applies to the cosmos "caring" about me, or the existence of an afterlife. I don't know why the universe exists. Of course, there are plenty of people who think they do know. It was made by Allah. Or Yahweh. Or Vishnu...

Etc.

And by the way, you didn't answer my question. Please allow me to repeat it for your convenience: Suppose an overwhelming amount of valid scientific evidence was shown to you that the Biblical flood never occurred. After all is said and done the only argument you're left with is "It must be true, because it's in the Bible". Do you change your mind?

70 posted on 11/21/2010 10:36:25 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

> I think I can honestly say that if I was presented with
> enough valid scientific evidence for the Biblical
> creation account I would change my mind.

I am an engineer. I have an engineer’s education and almost 40 years of experience in the field. I understand your point of view, as I was imbued with the same. Trust me when I say that, as an engineer, my new understanding of the world, that Design implies a Designer, and that Code implies an Author, has actually helped me with my career.

The more intimate you become with the nature of the Universe, the more miraculous its existence becomes. Consider the uncanny effects of nonlocality that imply exchanges of information at great distances among sub-atomic particles.

The more intimate you become with the nature of life itself, the more miraculous its existence seems. Consider unconscious molecules working together exchanging highly coded information for goals that transcend, by many orders, the existence of the molecules themselves.

These entities are either self-aware, or they are being directed and orchestrated.

I don’t believe that Noah’s flood happened just because it is in the Bible. I have seen what I consider to be compelling evidence. You may not consider it so, but I submit that is more likely a function of your world view, rather than your world view being a function of the evidence.

As for radiometric dating, there was a book published a few years ago, a scholarly work done by credentialed scientists, Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth.

There is also another work, Starlight and Time, written by another credentialed scientist.

You will probably prefer the Evolutionist reviews of the books rather than read the books themselves. But if you do read them, I’m certain questions will arise, as they would in any inquisitive mind.

I know when, as an ardent evolutionist, I consumed the works of the evolutionist apologists. But there were times when their stories seemed too “just so”, contrived.

I find some of the posits of the Creationists to be “just so” contrivances as well. We will likely never know all the answers on this plane of existence, because we were not there when the Universe was formed, nor were we there to see life emerge or be created, depending upon the paridigm you prefer.

You see, we both have the same data. We prefer differing interpretations of that data.

I am familiar with the smug, condescending posture of the Evolutionist. I used to be annoyed by that, but, looking back at my own attitudes when I was an evolutionist, I now find it a cause for prayer.

It’s like Socialism. It is wrong. It fails everywhere it’s tried. Yet, its adherents continue to believe the Lie, regardless of the evidence mounting against them, regardless of how many times they have to readjust their narrative to encompass or reconcile newly emerging facts. And they tend to be condescending and smug in their ideology, considering those who reject it to be rubes, or even evil.

It is their worldview that directs their interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence that directs the orientation of their world view.

I freely admit that my worldview directs my interpretation of the evidence. In fact, it always has. I believe that is the case with everybody who has seriously considered the interpretations of the evidence presented by both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate.

Certainly, greater minds than yours or mine have competed and struggled with these questions.

And just as certainly, relatively few minds have actually been changed in either direction.


71 posted on 11/21/2010 10:36:37 PM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

> Suppose an overwhelming amount of valid scientific
> evidence was shown to you that the Biblical flood never
> occurred.

This is a straw man designed to “expose” me as an irrational person, unless I go along with the “evidence” you purport to present, or unless I’m willing to forego the accuracy of the Bible .

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
:)

I submit that no such irrefutable evidence exists, but I’ll humor your straw man.

If it can be proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the world wide flood never occured, as a rational being I would be compelled to concur with the evidence.

There. Does that convince you that I’m rational?

However, no such evidence exists. And no such evidence can exist. We were not there in the distant past. We cannot observe it or experience it with our five senses. We can only intepret the data. You and I will interpret the data accourding to our respective worldviews.

The most significant aspect of my worldview is this. Let God be true and every man a liar. That includes man’s evidence, as well as his interpretations thereof.


72 posted on 11/21/2010 10:48:46 PM PST by Westbrook (Having children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson