- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joel Berger is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
What's Wrong with Being Nobody's Mother?
Women without children deserve a good word.
Lorna Crozier: books are not her children.
- Nobody's Mother: Life Without Kids
- TouchWood Editions (2006)
- Bookstore Finder
[Editor's note: Nobody's Mother features a poem, a foreword by the CBC's Shelagh Rogers, and 20 essays -- including this one -- on what it's like to be a woman without children. Some authors clearly declare they made the right choice for themselves; others are less sure. All of the essays, edited by University of Victoria creative writing department associate professor Lynne Van Luven, make it evident how much social pressure is placed on women to make a choice that may not be their own.]
The first thing to notice about the condition is that the words used to describe it are negative and denote a lessening or loss. The most common is "childless," followed by the thin-lipped phrase "a woman without children." That bears a disconcerting resemblance to a woman without a man, a woman without an ounce of common sense, a woman without a penny to her name. For years, I've tried to come up with an alternative. "Child-free" just doesn't cut it. The phrase sounds too much like "smoke-free" and might lead to the misconception that I find children toxic or at least bad for your health. It's as if on my front door I've posted a photo of a child's head inside a red circle, a red diagonal slash superimposed across the face.
Fearing that I may be overstating the language issue, I look up childless in my handy Roget's. Surely I'm missing a synonym that I wouldn't mind wearing. In the index, there's only one number for childless, 166.4. The main heading under which the word falls is "unproductiveness." So far, not so good. I still hold out some hope, however, because Roget and his learned lexicographers list 43 synonyms. A quick glance shows they all have one thing in common: they're about as negative as you can get. "Barren, arid, gaunt, dry, dried-up, exhausted, drained, leached, sucked dry, wasted, fruitless, teemless..." the list goes on. One word that's new to me, "acarpous," sparks a moment of optimism until I check it out in Webster's -- it's from the Greek and means "bearing no fruit, sterile."
Now, I come from farming country, where words like these are not taken lightly. I have to remind myself that I'm not researching the Dirty Thirties or flipping through descriptions of the prairies during the last several years of drought. I'm checking out the word childless. Suddenly I see myself as a vast stretch of land that's never felt a rainfall; the sloughs are dry, and alkali draws a thick circle of chalk where the water should be. The few scrub bushes are leafless, brittle and stunted. There's a grey farmhouse in the distance like the one in Andrew Wyeth's famous painting, windows boarded up, the roof caved in. Beside a tilting shed sits an old tractor, half-buried in a dome of dust. The wind blows over the broken field, sucking any colour from the earth, any hope from the human heart. This is the landscape of my body. This is the woman without.
Is it any wonder most people look at me with awkwardness and pity when they ask me about children and discover I am childless? A word brings a whole history with it, an alphabet of attitudes, a cultural reading that translates its dictionary definition into what it really means. Several of the other synonyms in the thesaurus's childless section begin with "un," the prefix that turns something into its opposite and usually affixes "the lack of" to the root word's meaning. "Unfertile, unprolific, unplowed, uncultivated." It doesn't seem to be stretching it to add "unloving" and "unloved."
Language becomes the most interesting at its points of fracture, those moments of tension and failure when all we mean to say can't be said. If you ask me, I'll tell you I am a woman who has no children, but I am not without, I am not less. Should I list, instead, all that I have and then decide if there's something missing? The available vocabulary calls me unproductive, wasted and dry-wombed, and I can't find one fit, fearless word to throw a punch and knock these bullies off the corner. There's no pleasing substitute for "childless" working its way from silence to the tip of my tongue.
Living outside of what we usually mean by "a family of one's own" is a complex state that evokes every emotion, including sadness and relief, so mixed together that any attempt at description reduces me to a sigh. Maybe that's because when we speak of a woman without children we're speaking of The Other, one of those who lives on the edge of what our language and culture feel comfortable with. If mother is one of the most powerful words in our mother tongue, what is its antonym? How do I speak of what is not-mother in the scanty vocabulary we have? How can I describe the day I stepped through the door marked "Those Without Children," and no alarm went off?
Choice and circumstance
In some ways I chose not to have children; in other ways, I didn't make that choice as much as it made me. Throughout my young adulthood, unlike many of my friends, I didn't go soft-eyed and giddy at the idea of holding a sweet-smelling bundle swathed in pastel woollens. There may be several reasons for that, including ones I'm not consciously aware of, but except for a few years in my mid-30s, I didn't long for a baby. I didn't feel any need to extend my genes into the future; there were enough humans in the world without my red-faced resemblances squalling into the light. Children were not a way of ensuring happiness or endowing my days with meaning. That hard task was mine alone.
I am, of course, my mother's daughter. She's proud of her two children and she takes the time to say so, but, good daughter that I tried to be when I lived at home, I could not erase her parents' cruelty; I could not protect her from my father's selfishness and drinking; I couldn't move her from the ratty little rented house where I grew up or pay her higher wages for the cleaning jobs she took on to make ends meet. I couldn't raise her self-esteem. And today, I can't make her less lonely as she spends another holiday by herself with a turkey and all the bounty that goes with it on a prairie table over a thousand kilometres away from where I now live on the west coast.
From the time I hit high school, I was a wound-up fury heading out the door, in love with words, with the plays we put on in the school gym, with the passion I was learning about in the back seat of a car. And though I did my best not to act like a "brain" in school, I was determined to get educated enough to break away from my small town and lead a self-sufficient female life free of my parents' poverty and my mother's dependence on my father, who was mean with money and with love. At university and during my first teaching job, my arms didn't ache from the absence of a baby. They ached from a pile of books and the weight of all the other things I tried to carry to make up for the cultural dearth of my childhood -- Rilke's advice to a younger poet, Germaine Greer, good shoes, Bertolt Brecht, Cabernet Sauvignon, avocados and tall jars of olives, Bob Dylan, Yeats and Akhmatova, curries and rare roast beef, Ibsen and Bergman, freesia in the house in a milk-glass vase. My life without children did not feel empty. Nor does it now.
Questioning the question
Admitting this sometimes makes me feel like a stranger among others of my gender. Recently at a dinner with six women, I was asked, as I often am, if I wished that I'd had children. From experience, I know the expected answer is "yes," or at least, "sometimes," but I responded with a question, "Do you wish you hadn't?" The woman I addressed said no. But she went on to say that a positive answer would have meant that she'd be wishing her present children out of existence. Would her response have been different if I'd worded the question another way? "Let's say your children are alive, but living happily and healthily with another family who loves them. Do you ever wish that you didn't have children?" This question is not asked as often as the one addressed to me. Everything in our culture assumes the lack is in my life, not in hers, the more common female path of children and grandchildren, the universal raison d'être for one's time on Earth.
Some women who, like me, have spent their working lives as teachers might have responded differently to my dinner companion's query. In similar situations, I've heard them say their students are their children; they don't need any others. Though I've been fond of many of my students and though they keep me connected with generations other than my own, they're not there to fulfil my maternal needs. I do my best to be a good teacher and mentor, but with one or two exceptions, they already have mothers, thank you very much. In our time together, which is relatively brief, it's my job to challenge them and care for them in a more detached way.
Others claim animals as their children. Again, that equation doesn't work for me. I feel squeamish when someone calls me the mother of my cats. I wouldn't mind even a small amount of their grace, quickness of eye and felicity of ear, but I don't have these feline qualities in my genes. The two cats who share my life are distinct creatures of another species. I adore them, perhaps too much, but they are not ersatz babies in the house. Nor are books, though they've been called a writer's children, especially if that writer is a woman without a family of her own. The metaphor is a thin rationalization for a condition that seems to need an apology or explanation. Surely there is no substitute for a daughter or a son. Either you have a child or you don't.
When the body said 'baby'
For a few years when I was in my mid-30s, a voice inside my body demanded "baby, baby, baby," but I was with a man who'd had five kids already and who'd had a vasectomy. Here's where choice becomes complex. I'd come nowhere near to wanting a child during the 10 years of my first marriage to a man who was good father material. I was busy getting an education, learning the art of poetry and inspiring my students, I'd hoped, with a love of literature. Now, when my body was driving me toward motherhood, I was with the wrong man. Was Patrick's refusal to have more children one of the unconscious reasons I'd chosen him? I could long for a child like a "normal" woman, weepily bemoan my fate and then blame him down the road if I thought my childlessness was a mistake. I wouldn't have to accept responsibility for my loss.
I felt no regrets at first. Our relationship was so intense and fraught with battles that I thought we wouldn't last more than a year, and my new life would begin. The choice would be mine all over again. I could have a child or not. That was 28 years ago. Patrick and I are still together, and I wouldn't give up one day of my life with him, even the difficult ones, for anything else the world might offer. Sometimes, however, I imagine the child who might have been; sometimes I see her in the shadows that are close to sleep. In the garden, with others of her kind, she is a flickering deep within the bamboo; she is moonlight pouring from the throats of lilies. Would she have made my life different? Yes. Better? I don't know, but my days are bountiful and rich even though I live without what children bring.
In "Living Day by Day," a poem I wrote in my late 30s, I tried to find words for my situation, one that is not less or empty though sometimes there's an ache in it, as if I almost hear a song my mother taught me, but the words are gone and only a faint, fractured melody remains.
I have no children and he has five,
three of them grown up, two with their mother.
It didn't matter when I was thirty and we met.
There'll be no children, he said, the first night
we slept together and I didn't care,
thought we wouldn't last anyway,
he and I struggling to be the first
to pack, the first one out the door.
Once I made it to the car before him,
locked him out. He jumped on the hood,
then kicked the headlights in.
Our friends said we'd kill each other
before the year was through.
Now it's ten years later.
Neither of us wants to leave.
We are at home with one another,
we are each other's home,
the voice in the doorway,
calling Come in, come in,
it's growing dark.
Still, I'm often asked if I have children.
Sometimes I answer yes.
Sometimes we have so much
we make another person.
I can feel her in the night
slip between us, tell my dreams
how she spent her day. Good night,
she says, good night, little mother,
and leaves before I waken.
Across the lawns she dances
in her white, white dress,
her dream hair flying.
A mother's blessing
A year or so after Patrick and I moved in together, I visited my mom in Swift Current, and we went for our usual morning walk. There was something important I had to tell her and I felt frightened. She has always struck me as the quintessential mother. All through my childhood, she'd had to work to keep us in groceries, but she wasn't what you'd call a career woman. Her jobs were difficult, low-paid and often demeaning. And her fierce love for her two children led me to think, in the self-centred way of offspring, that we were the centre of her life. As she and I climbed the steps to the overpass above the railway tracks, she told me that Patrick was good for me. She was glad I'd left my marriage and we'd found each other, although our running off together and the minor scandal it had created had upset her for a while.
"Mom," I said, the wind from the west making us lean slightly to the side, "I don't know if you realize this," I paused for a moment to catch my breath, "but if I stay with Patrick, I won't have children."
I waited for her to pull me to a stop, I waited for her wrath and disappointment to spin me around like the wind and drop me on the tracks below. I waited for her to tell me to leave him.
"Lorna," she said, "not every woman has to have children, you know."
I was stunned into silence, and we kept on walking side by side. She mentioned my cousin who'd had two kids and wasn't happy with motherhood. She said that God might have other plans for me. She told me she loved her children, but we were gone. Her life went on without us; we weren't what gave her days grace or value. What a gift she gave me almost 30 years ago, my mother saying as we crossed the overpass in the city where she gave birth to me, "Not every woman has to have children, you know."
The slippery egg
When I was a child visiting my maternal grandparents' farm on Sundays, I'd always volunteer to clean the chicken after it had been plucked and the pinfeathers singed over the fire that sparked and hissed from the open burner of the wood stove. I loved reaching inside the hen and pulling out the warm, slippery package of intestines, gizzard, heart, liver and sometimes, if I was lucky, a small necklace of eggs glowing in the light of the kitchen, each one blue-white, the colour of moonstones. I find it odd that human eggs are so much smaller; most of us have never seen them. Are they as beautiful, I wonder, magnified and held up to the light?
This spring I turned 58, far past child-bearing age. The uterus is the only organ in the human body that diminishes with time. Mine must be parchment-thin, a phantom part of me, the once-full pear-shaped purse emptied of its bright pearls. Whatever choice I had about giving birth is gone. Scientists say nature abhors a vacuum and something always moves in to fill the vacated space. Perhaps in me there's a new awareness of the fragility of life now that the possibility of reproduction is over. Perhaps there's a sharper sense of the thinness of time's membrane that separates me and those I love from whatever, if anything, lies beyond.
And where there's loss, is there more room to feel blessed for what exists? How lucky I am to have an 88-year-old mother to whom I talk on the phone every Sunday. How lucky I am to have poetry as a close companion and to have lived almost three decades with a man whose bones I want my bones to lie with in the earth. Do I regret not having children? First, let me say again that my life has not been a lessening, an acarpous stretch of wasteland like the one I see in my parents' old photos of the dust bowl. My life has been a gathering, not a giving up. Then, I'll answer yes; I'll answer no.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- The Disconnect of Killing 'Connect with Mark Kelley'
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Harper gov't funded study arguing Canada suffers from 'Dutch Disease'
- 'A Gut Feeling'
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- It's no yolk: Breakfast crew share $21.4M Lotto 6-49 jackpot in Ontario
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- North Island College Cutting Down on Face Time
- Gov't Moving to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Does BC Stand for Ban Clotheslines?
- Does Simon Fraser University Need a Men's Centre?
- Should We Subsidize Work?
- 'The Dictator'
- The Future of Education Is Here...
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- Does BC Stand for Ban Clotheslines?
- Tyee Builders Tally: Amazing!
- 'Storage Wars'
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
213
Login or register to post comments
RickW
5 years ago
Comments on "What's Wrong with Being Nobody's Mother?"
Of course, nearly ALL of us agree that the world has too many people. But of course, what many of US mean is that THEY are breeding like rabbits, while WE are not breeding enough. Hence, the Lorna Croziers of the world are not being natural when they do not want to be baby factories.
But Stephen will fix that............
freebear
5 years ago
Instead of child less, try planet saver.
If you have kids look forward to telling them your generation and others before have trashed the planet and sorry you have to wear that sun-guard suit or why we killed off the polar bears!
I do not have kids, may have wished to have a child at one time, but now not likely.
As to the previous post:
You can't stop the trend, at some point all humans will be a shade of brown!
Embrace it!
freebear
5 years ago
Remember the familair lament, or prayer:
the children will save the world!
Talk about adults ducking their responsibility!
WE SET THE TABLE FOR THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
anarcho
5 years ago
The fact that childless women are still being hasseled for being so indicates that patriarchy and its resulting misogyny are not yet dead in our society. Women should be free to choose.
maestro
5 years ago
Interesting TOPIC / story:
Our own social circle involves many in the teaching profession, some in academia, who did the exact opposite. In the early 1990's many of them , who at the time would be in their 40's decided they wanted to have children. Some tried " naturally", but the biological clock was closer to midnite. Most were married...or re-married, and one was single . Some had children from previous marriages.
In the end, they ended up adopting , going to Asia, Russia, South America in order to adopt.
-
In hindsight, it almost looked like a mass " group think" keep -up -with -the -Joneses where they all adopted children within a relatively short time period.
They are good loving parents, but the group dynamic and what catalyzed it is what I found interesting. It was apparently either now or never when they reached that fork in the YES to motherhood/fatherhood or NOT " road" .
maikopunk
5 years ago
This is such a beautiful essay on not wanting children, and not apologizing for it. I too, have known, for as long as I can remember that I don't want babies, don't want children. I want something else.
It's not a phase, I'm not going to change my mind. The responses to the story above are so familar, too: breed white children so the "others don't take over," breed so that you will have someone take care of you in your old age, breed now, because you'll regret it when it's "too late."
With all the obviously badly-parented examples running around in the world, you'd think that people would applaud the person who makes a conscious choice not to raise children.
The common misconception is that people who don't have children must hate them. The truth is, although we know we're not cut out for parenthood, we love and take care of the ones who are already here. How many of those who just want "someone who loves me," "someone to take care of me," or "someone who will carry on my genes" can say that?
I agree with Ms. Crozier that there ought to be a postive word to describe this outlook on life.
Shannon Rupp
5 years ago
Actually, there is a word for women not burdened with children: lucky.
Bytesmiths
5 years ago
My partner and I are without children. We both came from a big Catholic families.
One day, while at Carol's family gathering of nine children and assorted descendants in four generations, telephoto scenes of some Chinese or Indian city at rush hour appeared on the TV, with masses of people going about their business, pushing through crowded streets.
"You know," Carol's father, the clan patriarch, said, "there's just too many people in this world!"
Carol, quick as an arrow, responded, "As if YOU had NOTHING to do with that, dad!"
But the irony of the situation went right over his head, and the monthly checks to anti-population-control organizations kept going in the mail, I'm sure.
We are trying to create a multi-generational intentional community, where those without children can share in the joy and sorrow of extended family, while limiting our collective impact on the planet. http://www.EcoReality.org .
danneau
5 years ago
Men can also make choices about not having children. I married a woman who had two children from a first marriage and went through much of the pain and joy of raising children without the thought of having contributed to the tripling of world population since I arrived here. Whatever people choose to do, it should be a conscious decision: we are programmed to procreate and sometimes we need to overcome that programming.
maestro
5 years ago
Re the micro and macro future outlook :
It appears the long term prognosis is Canada ( relative micro-outlook) will have a declining birthrate, hence to maintain the status quo we will rely on immigration. The global (macro outlook) is perhaps in the opposite direction,ie population growth but depending on the info source, even that may be plateauing.
However, my point is the micro ( Canadian ) situation. If one's rationale to not have children is fears of overpopulating the planet, does that premise actually apply in the Canadian context ?. This population void is then ultimately filled by external sources. THAT new void created elsewhere is filled by the carrrying capacity(old biology term) of the new immigrants' old country of origin much like water fills voids in fluid fashion. In other words, others will still produce more children over THERE after their ex-patriates come over HERE.
Hence , not having children via fears of environmental etc. impact/s on modern socieities is not a good reason in and of itself to not have children. What I have noticed is most immigrant families are exactly that, .....FAMILIES, and can and will have children , most at minimum 2, and often more. If not mistaken, Immigration policy is more reflective of maintaining this status quo and future tax base etc. given various pro-active projections ... and not necessarily growth oriented.
dolphin
5 years ago
Sometimes natural selection really works. But what a shame that creative, gifted, talented people choose to end their line. Intentional childlessness seems more about a focus on the self, and a lack of concern for preparing the next generation to meet the challenges of humanity. As a result, every single western nation is failing to reproduce itself--and that is going to be a huge problem for the generation to come.
ubiquitous
5 years ago
Shannon Rupp,
What a f**cking arogant statement to make. If a wonan (or a man) decides not to have children - so be it. Good for them; that's their choice. But what you just said is just a rediculous as when childless adults are accused of being selfish for not wanting children. I may get about 4 hours of sleep a night, haven't socialized as much as I used to, but if there is one thing that my son isn't, a burden. I don't know if you have children or not ms. rupp. If you do and consider them a burden....well, I don't think i need to say any more.
danneau
5 years ago
No child of mine leaves the choice with others as to whether or not they have issue, but one thing's for certain, at least for the moment here in Canada. Children in Canada can be the occasion for ridiculous levels of consumption of scarce resources, and when children have children there is a mulktiplier effect. My stepson has one child, another is on the way (after which they've decided to sign off), but even with the first, there has been a binge of presents already, and she isn't even three. My wife, who is not a shopper and wouldn't think of spoiling herself goes nuts where her grand daughter is concerned and I have a hard time resisting the temptation myself. Her other grand parents are WalMart experts. What happens in the pre-teen years and on down the line as she gets a drivers license, a dwelling, clothes, entertainment and the like? At least some of us can avoid reproducing, but we all need to change our behaviour when it comes to consumption. At a colloquy not too long ago, I heard a well-intentioned minister say that it's only human to want more. My retort was that it was animal to want more, especially if we already have enough. It's human to recognize that we need to sign off. Just a thought.
maikopunk
5 years ago
Children are wonderful. I love the little people in my life. But I've examined my reasons not having one.
Maestro / Dolphin - If the motivation for childbearing is to win some kind of population war with the Third World, or India or China, I'll pass. Perhpas what we ought to be doing is raising the standards of living and reproductive choice for women around the world, so that no country is in the situation of being overpopulated and not having the resources to meet the needs of its people.
Regarding the fact that creative talented people are "ending their line" let me ask you this: when you think of great people,whether they had children or not, do you name their achievements or their descendents? Can you name the children of say... Michelangelo? Did he have children? Does it matter?
flyingfish
5 years ago
Most of the creative and talented people I know came from perfectly"ordinary" families and parents. In fact, not infrequently they come from families who one might say probably shouldn't have had children at all.
It's not quite like passing down blue eyes.
flyingfish
5 years ago
>Intentional childlessness seems more about a focus on the self, and a lack of concern for preparing the next generation to meet the challenges of humanity. <
And as for comments like this, well, I'd say being a childless teacher, writer, communicator, helping professional, or even a good role model can do far more to prepare the next generation (and have impact on far more young people) than being, let's say, a harassed, exhausted and fundamentally self-centred soccer mom in the suburbs.
anarcho
5 years ago
>Intentional childlessness seems more about a focus on the self, and a lack of concern for preparing the next generation to meet the challenges of humanity. <
As though having children too, isn't a focus on self - as insecure people seek to have something they can dominate, someone to look after them etc. Historically, before social welfare and labor saving machinery, having children often entailed a lot of selfishness, not only the situations before mentioned, but also providing labor for the family, living up to some authoritarian religious strictures, and also "passing on the name."
maestro
5 years ago
maikopunk:
People have children, or choose not to have children, for 100's of reasons.
Some lay out the case why they DO have them, (though in my own experience very rare ) but in my expereince some of those that choose NOT to have them tend to either be a bit on the defensive (which they actually shouldn't be ) or seem to be promoting child-ness. The TYEE has published many stories on this issue.
My previous point is that IF the person chooses not to have children ONLY BECAUSE they feel having that child will ruin the environment, and create the big biological impact footprint...and that their OWN choice not to have children will save the planet...I am stating a rebuttal case..... and that I submit they are wrong, their objective will fail .....and the void they create will simply be filled via other means ......a major one void filler will be IMMIGRATION , and likley many more first generation Canadians after that.
Thus , if the ONLY reason one chooses to not have children is the aforementioned, perhaps review that past choice, before the biological clock winds down, buy some Barry White albums , turn the music low...throw a log on the fire....you get the picture...and let us know in 9 months.
flyingfish
5 years ago
I suspect some people devise their theories about overpopulation in order to mask their own emotional discomfort and ambivalence about not having or wanting children.
Those that want them go ahead and have them. And if you are so inclined, you devise any equally arcane and torturous theory about why having kids is a good thing for the world.
Barbara
5 years ago
Lorna Crozier: thank you, thank you, thank you for a meaningful expression of what it means to be a woman who is childless by choice. Reasons why I am childless by choice would require a similarily lengthy explanation but let me just state that it is not a given that all women (and men) are drawn to that parenting role. And that fact that one is not drawn to parenting does not mean she or he is not a decent person either.
To be perfectly frank, I am quite tired of all the sanctimonious views on being a mother. Women are more than mothers, just as men are more than fathers.
Having said that, some of the everyday folks I encounter are fantastic parents and I admire their commitment. It's just that not everyone is cut out for that commitment, and it would be great if our culture could accept that.
We all should be supporting our communities, including the children and the families we live near, whether we have or adopt children or not. It's in all our best interests for families to be supported within our society/culture as it is for all to have the choice to have children or not and to be accepted for whatever the choice.
Chris H
5 years ago
This isn't the first time someone has wriiten something on why they didn't have children. Having children is, obviously, a personal choice and there are really no good arguments why any particular person should or shouldn't have children (assuming that they would be resonable parents if they did). I have to wonder, however, at the motivation to sit down and explain to the world your personal decision. Even support groups like No Kidding (I believe that is the name) have sprung up so people who have decided to not have children can hang out with each other. My take on it is that when all your friends start having children, and they don't have time for you anymore, you can get pretty lonely. The need to justify to yourself your choice is there I guess. One thing I am sure of is that I do know what it was like not to have children, and now that I have two beautiful girls, I know what it is like to have them. Adults without children will never have both these perspectives. Being a teacher (I teach grade one) is nothing like having your own children and is completely different. There is no reason that people should feel the need justify being childless just as it is expected that those of us with children won't shut up about them. Having children is an integral part of your life, but not having them shouldn't be.
flyingfish
5 years ago
>There is no reason that people should feel the need justify being childless<
Well that's true, of course, but the point of Lorna's story is that she does feel pressure to justify it, and I don't think she is imagining it.
It is still rare to hear a woman say that she does not want children, never did, and has never regretted her choice.
Coyote
5 years ago
Oops! Wrong door.
Nahh. I think I'll take a pass. :-) lol. No sense stirring up this hornets nest anymore than they already are.
Enjoy your careers, ladies. Wish ya health and happiness. :-) ( I'm chuckling with ya, not at ya.)
G West
5 years ago
Isn't this a huge and total non-issue about personal choice? Surely, anyone so insecure that the decision to not have children is going to be a problem for them because someone else is having kids needs more than a support group of like-minded individuals. They need psychological help - just like the idiots who are constantly mouthing the mantra that you need a child to be complete.
Get over yourselves and more on.
G West
5 years ago
should be 'move' on - I hate this font
flyingfish
5 years ago
oh oh.
we have awakened the slumbering thread-killers.
RickW
5 years ago
maestro
"maintain the status quo"
Quite an entirely arbitrary number, don't you think? 50 years ago, the status quo was 20 million, not the 30 it is today.
But I like to think of Canada as a large bag of loot, with (today) 30 million hands holding onto it. Seems to me that, if there were 20 millions, there'd be more loot for each of us....
You get the picutre.
flyingfish
5 years ago
>Enjoy your careers, ladies.<
ick.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Great story Lorna. To not be a biological mother doesn't mean you haven't done some serious parenting. Those that can't understand the story must be the stressed out self absorbed soccer/hockey moms and dads. Those that have any vision at all obviously take the job seriously as we head into uncertain times. It take s a whole community to raise a child. A healthy community = a healthy child. Body and soul. Have a look around as we rush away from the small safe sutainable communities and cram ourselves into major urban centres. Now tell me what you see?
RickW
5 years ago
"It take s a whole community to raise a child."
Good on ya, CofR! I'd forgotten that truism.
maestro
5 years ago
RickW
Good point, but in my view it strengthens my premise even more
50 years ago there was a war,.it ended....and the baby boom started. The age of so-called prosperity kicked in.
Social program arose, ie Medicare,..Old age Pension, etc. when a critical mass of people via a growing population was acheived in order to support them ...Can these programs be supported in the future...or higher taxes via less people..etc.?
20 million Candians 50 years ago..versus 30 million now. I think the " loot " or loot value has perhaps plateaued, but it will potentially devalue as most Gov'ts likley did stay out of the bedrooms (ala P Herr Trudeau) and predicted continued population growth from the outside.
Many doom and gloomers are predicting at current population growth rates, real estate values will collapse and there will be a glut on the market. These types of considerations will come into play and what will ultimately happen in the Big Picture is anyone's guess.
PS I'll start staking out my choice places and mulling the appropriate offer.
Rhea
5 years ago
I'm curious as to why in every thread like this, somebody brings up the argument that "we gotta have more of OUR babies because otherwise THOSE people (be it immigrants, or some group identified as "other" ) are gonna take over!"
As somebody else pointed out, it's not a contest! For those who are concerned about "Canadian culture" disappearing because of a dearth of white babies born wearing mitts and toques, quite honestly, immigration and low internal birth rates have less effect on what we identify as "Canadian culture" than globalization and US cultural imperialism. Plus, Canadian culture is a slippery customer...people in BC will identify different cultural markers than people in Quebec or Newfoundland.
From that POV, the argument that "us" having kids will stem the tide of cultural erosion caused by "them" having kids seems slightly pointless to me.
frank2
5 years ago
Good article, Lorna
I am struck that no-one on this thread has referred to the most obvious traditional role which involved being (officially) childless in the West--serving "God" through the church -- and then riffed on that idea.
macsasquatch
5 years ago
Gosh I hate to do this...
Naaah! I'll enjoy doing this.
Pal told me about a commercial on tv somewhere in Europe. Shows a young man in a super market doing some shopping. With him is a 9 year old kid.
The man is looking at his shopping list. The kid grabs a box of candy cereal and puts it into Dad's shopping basket. The man takes it out and puts it back on the shelf. The kid whines, stamps, screams, pulls boxes off of the shelves and stomps on them.
Then the logo comes up on the screen: Be sure to use condoms.
(Okay...I'll be serious from now on!)
Bluenose
5 years ago
"But of course, what many of US mean is that THEY are breeding like rabbits, while WE are not breeding enough."
There is no US or WE. There is only the HUMAN GENOME. To quote Kari Stefansson: "We can know within minutes exactly how everyone is related to everyone else." There is only one family: the HUMAN FAMILY. Not just metaphorically, but LITERALLY.
"The fact that childless women are still being hasseled for being so indicates that patriarchy and its resulting misogyny are not yet dead in our society."
Read "Virus of Faith - Memes of Unreason" by Richard Dawkins. Parasitic worms are tenacious and remarkably agile creatures. They need to be killed several times over before they are ever completely eradicated.
"I agree with Ms. Crozier that there ought to be a postive word to describe this outlook on life."
There is: RESPONSIBLE.
"We are programmed to procreate."
Complete and utter nonsense. This is the reductionist argument parroted by the brainwashed breeders of the world. One might as well argue that our ultimate aim as a species is to turn food into feces.
"The global (macro outlook) is perhaps in the opposite direction,ie population growth but depending on the info source, even that may be plateauing."
That would be a relief, if only it were true!
"But what a shame that creative, gifted, talented people choose to end their line."
More complete and utter nonsense. There is only one line: the HUMAN LINE. The survival of the world may well depend on our collective recognition of this unwelcome little fact. But I very much doubt that we're up to it.
"Intentional childlessness seems more about a focus on the self, and a lack of concern for preparing the next generation to meet the challenges of humanity. As a result, every single western nation is failing to reproduce itself--and that is going to be a huge problem for the generation to come."
The memes invade again. As the Cathars used to believe before they were all tortured and murdered by the self-appointed representatives of Christ (hah!) : procreation is the work of Satan and babies are the food of the Devil. The officials of the social institution that appropriated the image of Jesus Christ for advertising purposes decided it would be easier to kill the Cathars than to argue with them, since they lacked the intellectual capacity or the moral integrity to do so.
"Many doom and gloomers are predicting at current population growth rates, real estate values will collapse and there will be a glut on the market."
Ah yes, it always comes down to the money and the market, doesn't it? When the members of the human race are no longer able to inflict themselves upon this planet and upon one another, we won't need to worry about such matters anymore. Then real estate values will go through the roof, and the rain will continue to fall.
The present population of the world stands at:
6,561,437,857
And rising, rising, rising, with no immediate end in sight.
The decision to NOT have children is RESPONSIBLE. The decision to ADOPT children is COMPASSIONATE. The decision to breed and breed and breed and breed and breed is MONSTROUS, INSANE and UTTERLY HOMICIDAL.
Of course, as a crypto-kathari, I wonder whether the human race will breed itself into oblivion, which it seems well on the way to doing. In the meantime, I congratulate Lorna Crozier for having written an excellent and insightful article. A crozier indeed!
DavidN
5 years ago
Rhea, Agreed.
We need positive pop growth for this type of economy to get BIGGER, and the type of economy we have is one that requires growing poverty. The ugly culture is just affixed to this ugly economy. As long as we choose this economy we will import a poverty class. In this I think Bluenose has some really good points hidden in his vitriol, our ideas about propagation are based on issues that have nothing to do with what is good for the world or our success as a species, but I don’t think anyone mentioned The Da Vinci Code. Although Tom Hanks is someone to think about when one doesn’t want to feel like breeding.
We all know people who haven’t bred, or know people who shouldn’t have, and sometimes people who wish they had not. It sounds in this article as though she is trying to convince us that life without offspring is as deep as life with child, and that she is a victim of breeder-cruelty. I am as bored by the concept of reading her book (I don’t care if she breeds, in fact I agree with Blue in that I would rather fewer people were born) as I am perplexed by the challenge of describing the depth of experience in being Dad. I can do neither, she will never know both.
She is primarily selling a book here, looking for like-minded non-breeder readers, but just who is she cringing from? Are we leering at her as she ambles past without “a sweet-smelling bundle swathed in pastel woolens?†She should stick her nose in a few bundles of joy before she waxes poetic on that, and give society credit for being where it is….which is well beyond where she is. I say… and I see that Caps Lock makes you more correct or something …YAWN!!!
pure
5 years ago
I like to see them barefoot and pregnant. lol
pure
5 years ago
We are going broke with the medical system as it takes up 43% of our total budget in bc. Now that leaves us how much left to run the balance of the province of bc. That is why Gordon C. is selling so much of our provincial ownership. Gordon C. thinks he can have us debt free in a short period and he is probably correct but our running expenses will cost us more. He is more concerned about the capital cost the mtc costs. He is oh so wrong.
pure
5 years ago
Take one look at your vehicle and ask yourself is mtc important or should I try for another 1000 miles. Mtc is a very important thing to keep costs in line over the long haul.
maestro
5 years ago
Nobody should claim this is a contest.
Nor that it is an " US" Canadians versus " THEM " immigrants.
Often immigrants bring with them a re-iteration and further endorsement of the global concept / definition of family.
Due to changes to societal norms, many who do choose to have children often have them later in life than previous generations.
Past generations had large familes due to the norm back then , much of it due to previous agrarian (farm) backgrounds prior to the more urban transition.
Much of this delay is the career paths take precedent over earlier parenthood.
Perhaps this fork in the road is reached say late 20's early 30's that the crucial decision is made...YES to children or NO to children. Some have maintained a NO stance since day one, others are UNdecided, much like election day. Tme flies by, and the biological clock ticks, and the concept of Non Parenthood seems to fit like a comfortable shoe.
I agree with a TYEE post above, those that are parents have seen both sides, ie what it is like to NOT HAVE children , and what is is like to HAVE children. They can compare the two.
Others who write Child-less stories cannot compare the two. They are " experts " on child-ness, but left musing about the eternal question of " what if" ? Some had stated they wouldn't be good parents and its probably good they chose not to have kids. However, one wonders about the many potential good parents who let nouveau societal norms influence them till it was too late.
One also wonders what their thoughts are when they enter their senior years , their peer groups members pass on, and what social network is left ? ...this may be a topic to consider.
As we speak, my wife's co-worker has given birth to twins...having postponed parenthood into her later years, and had to use expensive artificial means to achieve this blessed day.
G West
5 years ago
Now that, using expensive artificial means to bring children into the world when there are hundreds of thousands of orphans worldwide who need good homes and parents - that is wrong.
In my estimation that kind of mommy-ness is not a good thing.
flyingfish
5 years ago
>ne also wonders what their thoughts are when they enter their senior years , their peer groups members pass on, and what social network is left ? ...this may be a topic to consider.<
I know of so many seniors who have been pretty much abandoned by their adult children, who are living on the other side of the world, or too busy with their own familes to visit, are emotionally estranged, too broke to help mom out in a crisis, or too messed up to do much of anything. And since so many of us are only having one or two kids, the chances of those kids not being around or useful in our later years is greater.
If you're having kids for comfort and security in your old age, you'd be far better off with some financial investments and a nice hunk of real estate.
flyingfish
5 years ago
Not to mention those grandparents who are spending their golden years raising their grandchildren because their kids have abandoned ship.
clubofrome
5 years ago
The stressed out, self absorbed soccer/hockey parents = the me first in line, must get ahead of your car people = those who have to have their views understood. Only those with kids can understand both sides! What nonsense. Responsible is the best definition put forward yet. Parents should make the responsible choice to have children based on many factors. Those factors are changing around us. To ignore them is to bring unwanted children into deteriorating conditions. Those breeding for the sake of norms get what they pay for. The world is alreday overflowing with neglected children who become neglected adults and seniors. As noted above, so called responsible parents have left their elders to fend for themselves in some cold and lonely home as far away as possible. These are some of the parents today, not all. But enough to tip the scales of society in a way that many youth will lose sight on what is right, becasue they never had the plan from the beginning. Read the article again, and try and look at it from another perspective. One that puts some thought into the subject that very few have the guts to bring up. If the community you see around you isn't perfect for children then maybe you need to tend the garden before you plant the seed.
Avicenna
5 years ago
It is just seems odd that the anyone would feel the need to justify the "selfishness" of their genes - be they propagative or terminal in nature. Another take on this issue is provacatively layed barren (pun intended) with this movement: http://www.vhemt.org/.
maestro
5 years ago
G West:
Well a valid point at the surface, but read my earlier comment about parties we know that tried the adoption route. Local adoptions often have long waiting lists.
Some do not want to wait.The parties we knew who went to Russia, Asia , South America in the early 1990's spent approx. $30,000 per adopted child by the time the travel and legal work was done. That undoubtedly costs much more now .
Local " artificial means " are often much less expensive per attempt than foreign adoptions.
Many prefer to acheive their own offspring as well , and may not be interested in adoption.
Its all about choice and the options available at the time.
maestro
5 years ago
flyingfish;
Yes, that unfortunately happens, and for many reasons, but that's not a reason to think and say " I won't have kids because that M - A- - Y happen " .
I am stating the case from what the other "child -less " side may be up against in the future, not that one should have offspring as " ones own personal future nursing home care employees" . Child - less parties will more than likely be in the same boat or worse than those situation involving estranged family members.
One of the parties we know who adopted from a foreign country also kept their mother at home for years till her best interests were determined to be in an extended care home .
clubofrome
5 years ago
There was one study that asked parents what was their primary reason for having children. The number one answer was, 'I don't know,'" says Sharon N. Covington, a clinical social worker at the Shady Grove Fertility Center in Maryland
From Population Connection, formerly ZPG.
Thanks for the link to vhemt. Harsh times, harsh measures? The bare minimum pre requisite for having a family has to be a better answer than the one above, "I don't know." There needs to be a more concious evolution with respect to education for parents and youth. Development of these programs aren't coming from our stagnant education systems but concerned sectors in society. Peace movements and youth movements to help develop needs and identify strengths at a young age. These programs bring a sense of purpose and belonging sadly lacking in our public sectors. Parents of future generations need to become aware now, as the youth of today will be most affected by the emerging global crises.
Stump
5 years ago
Look at me! I'm a childless/child-rearing attention whore!
Attention navel-gavers. Nobody cares if you had a kid or not. Check that. Maybe your friends and family give a crap.
Stop caring what other people think and do what's right for you.
If you DO choose to have a child, I offer my one piece of advice. Never make up a rule for which the justification is "because I said so".
RickW
5 years ago
Do the death squads still shoot kids in Brazil..............?
mhoule
5 years ago
When asked about children, I simply say, "I've chosen not to have kids." I'm not self-righteous about it or snooty. I get responses from people interested in hearing more, to a simple "oh" and change the subject, to morons who respond with "well, I like children" in a defensive and shocked way. I always find it interesting that my choice to not have children still threatens some people. Odd that.
RickW
5 years ago
Yeah.....and for some choosing not to hunt gets you a sideways look ,too.......
G West
5 years ago
I think the decision not to have children is vaguely subversive in a society where the primary emphasis is the accumulation of 'stuff' – (which for the child-proud or the child envious is just a form of property). Those who chose not to pass on their genetic material seem to be saying that the whole raison d'etre of the nominal culture might be flawed. Just like people who aren't interested in fame wealth and reputation, such folks seem to be making a comment about the objectives of their fellow citizens. Why do you think the neocons who post here are always so angry?
It's the same reason the conditioned reaction to the beggar or the handicapped is discomfort. The 'other' always tends to undermine and criticize - even without actually trying to do so overtly.
eight
5 years ago
Shannon Rupp,
It really is a pity that your mother wasn't "lucky".
clubofrome
5 years ago
Wow. The terms void, barren, lacking could also apply to the sense of humor around here. Frank! Where are you? I need another shot of endolphins!
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
I have no idea why people want kids. a relative of mine has four kids. they live from paycheque to paycheque. Need I say more?
Stump
5 years ago
I can't think of a single childless person who lives paycheque to paycheque, nor of a wealth family with many children. Nope, not a one.
G West
5 years ago
Stump,
Good point. I was actually thinking more of the fact that the most acquisitive among us are usually VERY concerned with the next generation.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Coyote,
You've been check-mated on this one, sorry pal. ;-)
kjc
5 years ago
"Let's say your children are alive, but living happily and healthily with another family who loves them. Do you ever wish that you didn't have children?"
Let's say your child is alive, living happy and healthy with another family who loves them Lorna. If you want to know what that feels like why don't you ask someone who lost theirs to adoption? In particular the closed record kind that was prevelant when we were young. Remember the girls that went away?
I lost my only child to what I later discovered through a FOI request was an entirely illegal adoption perpetrated by social workers and maternity ward staff who used the closed record system to cover their tracks in meeting the demand for the healthy white newborns harvested by them for decades from underage and unmarried mothers. When records went public in Australia, so many women came forward to testify that their babies were taking from them, illegally with drugs, lies and forged documents that a parliamentary inquiry was ordered. And the same thing happened here to the extent that "given up" for adoption really means "taken" for adoption to meet the needs of immature adults who somehow felt that their infertility entitles them to the children of others.
The closed record system stems from a 20s era "social experiment" designed to legitimize the underground and hospital door baby sales. It actually made it illegal for people to know and associate with their own relatives. A situaion they were expected to be "grateul" for. Traditionally, most societies practiced adoption as a means of finding homes for children who were genuinely orphaned or abandoned with no attempt made to hide whatever was known of that child's real identity.
It is no exaggeration for me to write that this barbaric system destroyed most of my adult life. The loss of my son left deep deep wounds that were immeasuralby exacerbated when he refused my attempts to be re-united with him. As "wonderful" as his adopters may be, they did not have the right to have my life destroyed out of what is an essentially immoral desire to have exclusive rights to the children of others.
The reality is that adoption is a 1.4 billion dollar industry in the US alone. People don't want orphaned children, they want babies and that makes babies a commercial product. For example, infertile couples in China (childlessness is not always a choice) are complaining of the difficulty they have in getting a baby to adopt because the money is in selling them (not always for nice purposes either) to foreigners.
In Guatemala, a UN investigation was called to investigate complaints that babies were being kidnapped from all over Central America and sold for adoption through the corrupt Guatemalan court system to meet an international demand that was created when School of the Americas trained death sqauds were instructed to take any babies they came across alive as they were a valuable commericial product that could be sold through "Christian" adoption agencies.
Babies are also a by-product of the international sex industry as some men pay extra in brothels to not use safes and some pay for sex with pregnant women. This unsavory reality is refeced in the fact that countries with big sex industres are also big providers to the adoption industry.
For the same money that is paid for one foreign baby purchase, a couple could support an African Aids orphanage for a year.
Aside from the Brangelia spawned feel good fantisies, adoption is huge can of worms. The perks that the sisters who sold Maddox to her included a waterfront mansion in Hawaii with Mercedes in the driveway and a luxury apartment in Cambodia's capital that came with seven bodyguards and a bullet proof limo. The rewards for doing "God's work" were made public during their trial in Seattle when they were busted for visa fraud in saying that the babies they purchased and otherwise conned from their desperate mothers were "orphans."
In short, the subject of adoption is a huge can of worms that has yet to hit the fan.
mhoule
5 years ago
KJC - thank you for a well-worded and passionately stated comment on the issue of adoption. I've believed for a long time that adoption isn't some sort of win-win situation. The only people who usually win is the adoptive parents (unless they decide they don't like the child and send it back - it happens!). And with international adoptions, it creates a lot of victims - including but not limited to the children losing their culture and language. Ultimately, it's not about the best interests of the children at all. Thanks again KJC.
Fii
5 years ago
Oh right, a child that would otherwise have grown up in an orphanage or on the street doesn't "win"? Right.... how dare you accuse adoptive parents of being anything less than they are- extremely self-less and compassionate. What good is a "culture and language" if you don't have a roof over your head and someone to love you? "Ultimately, it's not about the best interests of the children at all." - Thanks for the opinion, mhoule. That's all it is.
Fii
5 years ago
As for KJC's "well-worded and pasionately stated comment", she clearly has a bias.
kjc
5 years ago
Thank you mhoule.
Fii - I guess the same kind of bias that Karen Madeios of the Adoptive Families Association had when she dismissed the UN Guatemalan investiagation as "rumour" in a telephone conversation with me.
Baby sellers have even been known to cut pregnant women open, steal the baby and leave the womna to die.
At the same time that the BC Liberals are cutting funding for highschool daycares so that teenage mothers can get their Gr 12, they are giving heaps of money to adoption agencies and groups to encourage teenagers to give them their babies.
The adoption industry is not about helping orphaned children, it is about supplying a commodity - an infant, not a child.
In view of the large amounts of money adopters expend in purchasing a coerced or even kidnapped baby, adoption is actually called "the last legal slave trade on earth."
Fii
5 years ago
KJC, I'm not saying that what you described in your first post is not a serious issue that should be addressed- I was replying more to the blanket assertion that adoption is not in the best interests of (any) adopted children. As far as I am concerned providing daycare at highschools and funnelling money into adoption agencies are both less than ideal methods. EDUCATE and give young girls and women all the resources, strength and knowledge about their bodies that they need so that not ONE young girl finds herself pregnant unless she wants to be. In a perfect world, I know... but both of the other strategies are simply band-aid solutions. That girl, with a grade 12 education, is still going to have a struggle. Giving up her baby is also going to cause irreparable damage. Why is it so damn complicated for us humans to just get it right to begin with??
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Let's get back to the article, shall we? Is a woman's life less meaningful is she has no kids? The answer to me is No. No person or thing can 'complete' you. Newsflash: It's called adulthood. Now, I do feel it is a little unsettling to have so few babies being born in the developed world. I think I must be an oddity sometimes, the fact that I am 37 and never been married, with no kids. Fact is, I can't stand being poor. My sister and I have concluded that we've 'coded ourselves out of existence'. Yep, you know what I mean. Today's bachelor's degree is equal to yesterday's high school diploma, and so on and so forth. We've strangled our ability to reproduce. Right now I make $40,000/year. I'm holding off until I make $60,000. (to reproduce). Lorna Crozier is a fine person I'm sure. We have the fact that we are childless in common. However for me, it's fear of poverty which keeps me from breeding, pure and simple. Give me some money and I'll give ya some kids. But we all know the world don't work that way. Peace out.
G West
5 years ago
I can't stand being poor.
Who can?
kjc
5 years ago
As my mother used to say, if people waited until they could afford them, they wouldn't ever have kids.
And hwo about, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed." Teenage girls have been having babies since the inception of mankind, Thirty was a ripe old age in the Middle Ages remember? Loretta Lynn was a wife and mother at age 14. It is only recently that this has become "a problem" solved by adoption. I belong to an adoption victim support list and for you to get a feel for the kind of anguish adoption creates, this is just one posting to it this morning:
"I am wondering if any of you could help me to better understand what a
openness agreement is exactly, as i lost a 3 year fight with the
minisrty of child and family services, a 9 month court trial , which
ended in july 0f 2006 in the ministry being awarded the cco they were
looking for , under false pretenses, they falsified information in my
trial and were able to allow other professional access to those untrue
documents, and they based an opinion on me a false information, which i
even told them was false and they came back with the purposed well i
must have repressed these memories, memories which i could not of had
because what was alleged never happened GO FIGURE,now the ministry is
asking to sit down with me and my highly incompatent lawyer might i add
whose is refusing to appeall on the grounds that the judge was also
going on falsified information, and set up some agreenent where i can
be allowed to see my two young daughters , who i have been kept from
now for a little over 2 years. i am so lost and so confused i just
don't understand how my whole life could be put through the ringer and
i have nothing left, they took me from being someone to wanting to
committe suicide, i have lost everything that ever meant anything to me
and i don't even understand why yet. any suggestions would be gladly
excepted please."
And that's "open" adoption. Pretty sad isn't it?
When I receieved my son's adoption file through a FOI request, I took the forged documents I found in it to the Fraud Department of the Victoria police. and on the basis that forging documents and presenting them to the BC Supreme Court is criminal activity, not social work, a six month long investigation was launched. It did not end in my favour however as the MCF, for whom the social worker involved, Valerie Johnston Henley, still worked, were allowed access to the original documents and paid a "former RCMP hand writig analyst" to say it was his opinion that an obviously falsified signature was "original and authentic."
My son had a mother, he had a father, he had a family. Unfortunately for me, he was also a valuable commercial product.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Perhaps we should move this discussion further to daycare. That is, should daycare be a right, as public school is? Should universal, taxpayer-supported daycare begin? Of course, taxes would have to be increased. Would a tax hike stifle initiative, and drive capital out of the country?
I still feel I made the right choice by not breeding. Stories like your kjc, and many others who lack the money to support their offspring, are very effective in the control of who gets to reproduce. Money talks in this world, and with a fat bank account and a great lawyer you'd have your kids back, yesterday. Nope, I won't have any kids until I hit the jackpot or free, national daycare is the law of the land. No way, too many sad tales and money is always at the root of it.
westcoast chick
5 years ago
Patrick Lane had a vasectomy???
I'd rather not have known that....
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
who's patrick lane?
G West
5 years ago
acadian driftwood
Patrick Lane is Lorna Crozier's husband/partner/significant other - or whatever the current terminology is these days. Another poet.
I sympathize.
But I'm very concerned if the only people who have children anymore are the rich and effete. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
shela
5 years ago
Listening to the CBC interview with the authours of "Nobody's Mother", I realized that I was not the only woman in the world who at 17 knew she wouln't have kids. Over the years the rational for this deep knowledge has taken different forms, from concerns about world population and quality of life to deep introspection of my own experiences as a child. The procreative clock has almost stopped ticking, and I have no need to bare a child in order to give back to my world, in many changing and various ways. I feel much less "outside" of the world I live in and it reinforces that small voice who knew all along that there was a reason to be even without having your being confirmed by a babe in your arms.
G West
5 years ago
I posted this message here a week ago:
Surely, anyone so insecure that the decision to not have children is going to be a problem for them because someone else is having kids needs more than a support group of like-minded individuals. They need psychological help - just like the idiots who are constantly mouthing the mantra that you need a child to be complete.
I still think it's all that really needed saying.
Why is this such an issue for anyone?
G West
5 years ago
And I don't mean that flippantly, or disrespectfully. I've read all the comments and the article and I'm no closer to understanding why matters of personal private choice should be such a cause celebre - either here or on Shelagh Rogers' show on CBC Radio.
Are we that bored?
I’d have thought a discussion about the causes of family breakdown and the difficulties of single parents would be more interesting and useful.
This seems so much a question of me, me, me.
Am I wrong?
GKL
5 years ago
With all due respect, in your article, you say:
"And today, I can't make her less lonely as she spends another holiday by herself with a turkey and all the bounty that goes with it on a prairie table over a thousand kilometres away from where I now live on the west coast."
Elsewhere, you indicate that your mother is 88 years old. I gather that your sibling is either dead or also "can't make her less lonely as she spends another holiday by herself." The problem I see with folks who decide to have no children (as opposed to those who would love to but cannot) is a lack of proper priorities. Why did your mother have to spend the holiday alone? Does the reason behind that relate in anyway to the reason behind your decision not to have children? We humans are social animals. Indeed, we are familial animals. We need one another. Our elderly parents need us. We need children and they need us. Priorities (be they career or social activism) which leave our mothers alone in their old age and leave us with none or few children are fundamentally against our nature and, if I may be so bold to say so, disfunctional.
Rick W. believes we have too many people. Is there any other species of plant or animal of which Rick believes we have too many? I have never met an environmentalist yet who thought so. Canada, as another poster noted, has below replacement fertility. Unless more and more immigrants arrive, its population will begin to drop just like Russia's is now doing (by 700,000 per year). Yet Canada's population is highly concentrated in a few areas and has ample room to accomodate more people. I live in the U.S. We too have large sections of the country with very small population densities. Indeed, large portions of the Great Plains now have less population densities than when the frontier was declared closed in 1890. Overpopulation is not a problem in North America. Please don't use that as an excuse or pat yourself on the back for not having children because you are personally doing your share to save the planet. For whom are you saving the planet. If everyone took your stance, in a generation there would be no humans to enjoy what you believe you have preserved.
I am sorry for anyone who is past their childbearing years and has no children. You missed one of the most important opportunities our lives provide us. All the work we do will crumble and rot. Our writings will be lost. Our structures will collapse and be overgrown. Our bodies, even our bones eventually, will return to dust. All that we can possibly leave behind that might exist 1,000,000 years from now are our descendants. But more importantly, those rejected children were rejected opportunities to love, to give to another sacrificially without requiring anything in return. I am even more sorry for a person whose mother is alone and who can think of nothing she can do to "make her less lonely." What a sad commentary on a misspent life.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
GKL,
Thank you so much for your forthrightness. Most people try to be neutral, and all things to all people. What a pleasant change to have someone speak up. There is no confusion where you stand.
The overpopulation argument is ridiculous. Sure, in Calcutta, maybe, and in some other places I suppose, although I am no expert. But North America -no way.
I was raised in a solidly middle-class family. My parents have lots of stuff. My mother has a china cabinet. Yet I am going down the social ladder, I don't make enough money for a down payment on a home. This is a most unusual development for humankind. At the same time my aging parents are prospering, with full pension and home ownership, I am falling into obscurity. It's a conundrum. I have no job security, I can be fired at will. And so I will end this sad tale as I am not seeking pity. I am trying to understand why I don't have a family, and if I do, I'll be a father when most men are gandfathers.
Peace.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Good thing I stopped by for a reference, as there appears to be a couple of confused individuals who don't understand what they are talking about. First to Dr. GKL, are you just stirring the pot or will we find you denying global warming and climate change here or on another thread? You can't use ignorance as an excuse any more as you appear to be able to access to a computer. I suggest you apply generally recognized rules of education and apply them to your research. Are you a doctor of anthropology? Population expert? Do you understand what it means to have a large foot print? Any other species you know of with that kind of impact. That goes double for your Acadian Deadwood friend. OK! Lets get this thread rolling again!
G West
5 years ago
GKL
I'll second acadian's sentiments. Nice that you express your point of view and do it with grace, for the most part. Although there are a couple of your points which would have been better left unsaid:
First: “If everyone took your stance, in a generation there would be no humans to enjoy what you believe you have preserved.â€
Second: “What a sad commentary on a misspent life.â€
The first comment is hardly worth refuting. It suggests a hypothetical construct which, in a growing world that has more than 6 billion mouths to feed now, is nonsense, plain and simple. Any concern about depopulating North America can be remedied faster than you can open the floodgates to increased immigration – people only too happy to ‘enjoy’ what anyone might have preserved here on this continent. Such attitudes are, in light of any problem, excuses for pretending that individual behavior doesn’t matter.
The second observation is a value judgment and a personal observation that is neither valid, nor worthy of anyone, in my opinion.
Misspending one’s life has absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s status as a child bearing or rearing being. I’m sure you thought better of the remark once you had posted it.
I come from the Canadian Midwest and I've seen the same kinds of depopulation too.
I don't see it as a bad thing. Much that's now deserted will return to its natural state and as part of Palliser's Triangle, that's where it belongs. All the sad stories of drought and deprivation of the people who struggled for a hundred years to make a decent living there will not much be missed; but if they are, in any permanent historical way, I’d say such stories are more than compensated by the equally forgotten lives of the First Nations peoples who were displaced by the settlers who took their lands in the first place.
Loneliness is a terrible thing. It is in no way an emotion unknown to mothers and fathers of children. Particularly, I’ve always found, among those of us who consider ourselves members of the North American middle class. This is an indictment of the way we live in communities and not of our choice to have a family or not, in my view.
In other less well-off lands across the sea I think you’ll find healthier families and relationships between old and young than we have here.
If any North Americans choose to live less selfish and self-centered lives, for whatever reason, I think that’s a good thing. On the other hand, I cannot help but think that there is, among some non-breeders, a certain element of selfishness too.
In any case, my main point would be, in such personal matters, to observe a general principle that such decisions are left to the people involved and ought not to become a subject of either congratulation or ridicule.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Well said G West. Very articulate. One way to inform is gentle pressure applied relentlessly. The problem with that as I see it is it can't compete with the wall street marketing machine. They continue to miss inform and miss lead to the point where George Bush gets elected President, twice. The average westerner doesn't stand a chance. They've grown up with the American dream going on many generations now. Even with disaster approaching on several fronts, the human race forges forward, consumming, polluting, breeding and bringing us closer to the "limits to growth." Or as some might say, the end of the glory days of human society. What's left will be a mystery. Some folk just don't know how close to living in caves we really are!
There's a world of pain and suffering to go through before we get to that serene and peaceful setting though. Good luck kids! We'll keep trying to spread the message, but you'll be the ones drinking green smoothies.
GKL
5 years ago
clubofrome,
You are typical of the fatalistic mindset which is resulting in suicidal fertility rates throughout almost all of the developed world. It wasn't true when Homer penned his classic poems in which Zeus was motivated to aid man by dealing with overpopulation. Nor was it true when Euripides and Tertullian wrote about overpopulation. Nor was it true more than 200 years ago when Malthus wrote on the subject. Have you ever bothered to get out of the big city and spend time in the country. Vast tracts of the world even today are practically devoid of humans. There is definitely overcrowding in urban areas and misallocation of resources, but we are not overpopulating the globe. But don't dispair, your view appears to be prevailing and by mid-century, demographers believe that world population will peek and then begin its decline. Hopefully, my descendants will help fill the void you leave.
G West,
Perhaps I was uncharitable, but wouldn't you think that a woman as billiant as Ms. Crozier could figure out away to alleviate (or at least mitigate) her 88-year-old mother's loneliness. On any given holiday, it might be impossible, but one gathers from her article, that her mother is almost always alone more than 1000 km from her daughter. Until very recently, her mother would by now be living with her or her other child. In the last century, through misguided social programs, we have enabled selfishness to the point that we don't even recognize it when we see it.
You are exactly correct that we Westerners are extremely selfish. Having children is a sacrifice. I know, I have three of them so far and I pray that God will give me more. (Rick W. and clubofrome can now go into shock ;-)) Taking care of one's aging mother is also a sacrifice. Several years ago, I moved back closer to where my widowed mother lives and have passed up career opportunities so that I can be near her. I have invited her to move in with my family whenever she wants. These are, of course, my personal decisions and, yes, decisions must be left up to individuals to make, but some decisions are good and some are bad. If Ms. Crozier did not want criticism of her decisions she shouldn't have made her personal decisions public knowledge, particularly in a way designed to justify them.
Not having children, absent medical reasons or extreme poverty, is selfish. I doubt very many folks who have decided to forgo children did so, if they are honest with themselves, because they believe the overpopulation nonsense clubofrome and Rick W put forth. They did so because it would interfere with their chosen lifestyle. I have nothing but sympathy for couples who are infertile or have medical or financial reasons which preclude having children. That does not appear to be Ms. Crozier situation. She freely admits that it was a choice. And the remainder of her article pretty much demonstrates it was a selfish choice. If she now regrets that choice, she has my sympathy, but she shouldn't market it to people who can still decide otherwise as a good decision.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Yes I see you're a good christian man whose education comes from generations of ignorance and intollerance. It doesn't make you a bad person, just a dangerous one. Only three? I pictured 7 or 8 sitting on the porch before dinner time! Good luck to your knuckle dragging relatives taking over the void mid century, I'm sure your middle american talents and growing your own food will keep you around just long enough for the urban gangs to catch up when their food runs out. No doubt you also have a vast cellar of weapons to defend your klan when the hungry urban hordes amass at your fence!
I'm not going to sugar coat this any more. You are genetically defecient. You are incapable of strategic thought and you personally are the reason the human race will go extinct. Not the other 6.5 Billion, but you and only you. Sorry for the pressure pal, but if we need to point our finger and blame someone you are as good a candidate as anyone. You and your pal Dubya. Just know this, when your water runs out and you make your way north to the border, I'll be there to meet you. Tough guy. I'll be the one with the hockey stick....
GKL
5 years ago
clubofrome,
I want to make sure I get this straight. You are genetically superior, but you have decided not to bless the world by passing on those genes. I suggest you reread Darwin, it is survival of the fittest. Procreation is necessary for survival.
That's okay. When your dead and gone, rotted in the grave and nothing left to prove you ever existed, not even your superior genes, my grandchildren will be enjoying the life that I help give to them now through my children and their parents. They'll get the last laugh. If we can get some more of that global warming you're so afraid of, perhaps they'll even winter in Oh Canada, in the vast wasteland once inhabited by a people too afraid of the future to populate it.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
GKL,
Unlike the others, I think you're probably an average guy. What would you to say to someone like me, a city boy who eeks out an existence with no job security whatsoever, taking the odd construction job -anything actually, to pay the bills. Have I been genetically squeezed out? Should poor people start families, even though they know their offspring will suffer for it? How old is too old to become a father? 50, 60? I could use the advice. I'd feel awful if I raised a kid in a world of diminished resources and limited opportunities. Perhaps that is too fatalistic. What about daycare, should it be universal and taxpayer-supported?
G West
5 years ago
GKL
The last person in the world I wish to defend is Lorna Crozier. Not because I have anything against her or her decision not to have children but because - and I think I've posted it twice above here at various times - I don't understand her need to proselytize.
These are personal choices. They neither, in my opinion, reflect the character of the decision maker or detract from the values of someone who make a different decision.
I wish Lorna Crozier and all the non-matrons who seem to think they need society’s approval for their personal actions would stop making such a fuss about it. To be fair, I also wish the matrons with kids and strollers would stop pretending that the only thing that gives their life meaning is the fact that they now have one or more children.
From a psychological point of view, I suspect Lorna Crozier wishes she were closer to Swift Current so she could spend more time with her mother, but that too is her problem: Undoubtedly it plays a role in creating the state of mind that engendered her essay. I’m not sure the fact it so troubles you, GKL, says as much about Lorna Crozier as it does about your own judgmental nature.
I won’t get between you and clubofrome on the issue of over-population except to say that I think your historical and mythic analogies fall a bit short of the mark. That Malthus’ thesis was incorrect as to timing may well not reflect badly on its ultimate truth. Given the irrefutable scientific evidence that global warming is significantly altering the carrying capacity of the earth, and the fact that you’ve misstated the application of Darwin’s thinking as well, I think I’d be inclined to suggest that an unwillingness to take positive measures to reduce population growth (and deal with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2) would be irresponsible.
On the other hand, since you are so convinced that the vast stretches of uninhabited land in central North America are good places for human settlement I will certainly be expecting to hear about your active campaign to bring, for example, the occupants of Bangladesh’s flood plain to America on the next available fleet of ocean liners. I hope your concern for those families and their future is as profound and humane as your admirable reflections about Lorna Crozier’s mother.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
I guess my confusion is this: who and when should breed? I have a relative who married at a young age. He has four kids. Predictably, he had no time, money or resources for education, not even a trade. Even today, as you can understand, all the money goes to bills, nothing left over for savings. The money goes thru his fingers like water. With four kids, there's no time for anything, not even a down payment for a home. My question is this: who wants to live like this?
Alcibiades
5 years ago
acadian driftwood
It's a personal decision. Nobody goes into life with the idea of screwing up my friend, sometimes what seems right will end up wrong and vice versa.
Above all, don't knock yourself out about it - mayhap your relative loves his life. The fact you 'know' it wouldn't work for you is about the only guidance you can expect in life. There is no manual.
Good luck. A good friend of mine, I had dinner with him on Wednesday of last week, dropped dead today - massive heart attack. He enjoyed his life to the last and I think he'd have been glad the way he went.
We live for a while and then we die - I'd say the lesson is, don't put too many things off till tomorrow - but don't pretend that actions don't have consequences either.
And don't come to places like this looking for advice.
Nice song by the way – the Band’s I mean - http://theband.hiof.no/articles/acadian_driftwood_viney.html
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Hey, thanks -what kind words. As for the song, yea it's a great one. I've been living in the states for awhile now and the song gives me solace. There is something to say for livng in another country, to be able to reflect on your country of origin. For a single person like me, a Canuck, I identify with the song. Of course, I am exagerrating a little. I wasn't uprooted from Nova Scotia and sent against my will to Louisiana. Nonetheless, a beautiful song and a tribute to a mythology we have so little of in Canada.
GKL
5 years ago
"I won’t get between you and clubofrome on the issue of over-population except to say that I think your historical and mythic analogies fall a bit short of the mark. That Malthus’ thesis was incorrect as to timing may well not reflect badly on its ultimate truth. Given the irrefutable scientific evidence that global warming is significantly altering the carrying capacity of the earth, and the fact that you’ve misstated the application of Darwin’s thinking as well, I think I’d be inclined to suggest that an unwillingness to take positive measures to reduce population growth (and deal with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2) would be irresponsible."
In other words, your position is that every other generation that feared that the world was becoming overpopulated, dating back to well before the time of Christ, was wrong, but we, at last, are correct. Or to put it another way, if we predict doom and gloom long enough eventually we will be correct. This fear of overpopulation is overblown. Read the UN projections, they have been lowering their projections almost anually and are now predicting a peak of about 9 billion people by midcentury, after which the population will drop. Russia, which could easily accomodate a larger population is already in demographic free fall. Much of the rest of Europe and the developed countries in Asia are on the cusp of joining Russia. These are symptoms sick societies. They are societies whose economies, like Canada's, promote reliance on the state instead on one's self and have successfully convinced their aging citizenry to fear the future. If they don't arrest these conditions, they are goners, fated to be replaced by a population with the will to strive and procreate.
As to Darwin, my only point is that if one is to pass on his "superior" genes, he must procreate. I was not expounded a full thesis of Darwinism or evolutionary theory.
As to caring for others, I have donated to charity (mostly through my church, but not exclusively) at least 10% of my gross income for years, frequently more, occassionally less. In the last several years, my church has sent aid to the tsunami victims, both in terms of supplies and human help, to Afghanistan, to India, the Peru, and to the Dominican Republic, among others. It also helped with the Katrina relief efforts. I volunteer at a homeless shelter and have supported programs to repair older homes in poor innercity neighborhoods.
I have no problem with immigration to the U.S. so long as the immigrants are hard working and work toward assimulation into the broader American culture. Most immigrants of whom I am aware are very hard working and thrifty and have been a boon to my nation. Immigration is one thing that has saved us from the fates of most of the rest of the developed world. The other is an economic system that still allows a man and women to make and keep enough of their income to support at least replacement rate fertility.
As to being judgmental, Ms. Crozier is the one who raised the topic and sought to justify herself on a site which welcomes blogging. As best I can determine, she seems to regret her decisions but lacks the willingness to say so. She would do a great service to women who are still in their childbearing years to honestly admit it was a mistake not to have children.
acadian driftwood,
I'll pray for you that you find steady and profitable employment. I am 45 and am still open to having more children. Because of a variety of circumstances, I did not become a father until I was 38. Don't give up.
GKL
5 years ago
acadian driftwood,
One other thing, as to your relative with four kids and no money. There is more than one type of poverty. It sounds like your relative is poor in material things, but rich in relationships. I would take his situation over the reverse any day.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
You've hit the bullseye and that is one trait I envy in Americans. Stand up for yourself with clarity and conviction. The overpopulation argument is bunk -no scientist would advocate birth control to save the planet. There is room enough for everyone who wants kids to have at least two. China has really screwed themselves with their one child policy. It is estimated that 20 million young Chinese men will not be able to have a wife, as there are no brides available.
As for myself, you are correct. Loneliness is a form of poverty. Here's the catch: I, like Lorna Crozier, wouldn't trade my lifestyle for kids if it meant ham sandwiches for dinner every night. Nope, no way.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Sorry GKL your perception of me is as bent as your perception of the world around you. To set the record straight as you say... I never said I was superior, I said you were defecient as you are so obviously incapable of recognizing danger or peril. Your genes will lead us to extinction, as Mel Gibson said it's just a matter of time, and he said it on TV! So it must be true! Since I have obviously struck a chord with my profile of you, you feel the need to try and compete and try and match up in a battle of wits. But you are unarmed in this fight sir. What ever gave you the impression I don't have children? Try and read as if you were listening to the preacher at your baptist revival meetings. Genetically were not that much different from apes, or slugs for that matter. The gene pool is just that, a pool, made up of diversity. Unlike say fruit flies though we are slow to adapt, and therefore not really prepared to deal with these complex issues such as loss of diversity, failing fish stocks and a host of other issues you seem to be completely unaware of. You weren't born in the Love Canal district of Buffalo were you?
So for the record GKL, here is what I believe. We are not the superior life form on this planet, Dolphins are. Human society as we know will end, and much sooner than you think. When it does end the Dolphins will take their place as rulers of this planet. It is destiny and also who other than the next biggest brain will be ready for the job. Perhaps some of your knuckle dragging kin, will re-ermege from their 100 years in hiding. Now there is a new movie for Mel! Imagine all these humans from the US midwest, returning to the surface of the earth after a hundred years in a mine shaft! I see a cross between the x-files and deliverance. No sir you can have it.
I've already prepared my family. They know that life isn't fair, but they have and will make informed choices. They will pass that down when it comes their own families too. Should they decide to have families. You see they are a little concerned with the current state of affairs. And you sir are part of the problem not part of the solution. One last thing, so you don't misquote me again. I don't like you. You and your kind are dangerous to human development or what chance there is left of it. It's not fear. It's not dread. Doom and gloom? Never met them. When we go extinct, well thats just one more experiment in life on earth that ran it's course. If you need a vision about me or on how I feel about it, picture in your mind Spock from Star Trek. He raises an eye brow and says "fascinating."
GKL
5 years ago
clubofrome,
Thanks for the laugh. You're not afraid of the future, but you're preparing your family for the Rule of the Dolphins after you all go extinct. Your line is just another "experiment in life on earth that ran it's course." You've convince me. My line, meanwhile, will go on while dolphins still swim peacefully in the sea. ;-) I'm going to print out your post to hand down through the generations so that my descendants can get the same good laugh I have enjoyed.
clubofrome
5 years ago
So you think I'm funny, like a clown? Do I amuse you.....? (a little Joe Pesci seemed appropriate there!)
Anyway, you're welcome. That's what I'm here for. Good luck to you and all the little coal miners!
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
perhaps this is part of a broader discussion about who we are as a people (north americans). The word 'line' makes me uncomfortable. It is, in my humble opinion, megalomaniacal. It conjures up memories of the third reich, of race, of pure genes, of superiority.
GKL, while I do share your opinion that overpopulation is absurd, I also agree with clubofrome. The world needs critical thinkers. We don't need any simple, down-home, awshucks, golly-gee, no book-larnin', crawdaddy-fishin', sittin' on the porch playin' banjo, kids. If this is your vision of the future, I do not share it.
Incidentally, if this is the 'line' you boast of, you are in serious need of counselling. I can't stress enough the value of a college education.
GKL
5 years ago
clubofrome,
For the record, clubofrome, here is what I believe:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father (and the Son); who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
So yes, the world as we know it will indeed end one day, on the day when "He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead." On that day, "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." Dolphins won't rule the world; He will. And His "kingdom shall have no end." So I have the greatest hope in the future.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Bagged you like a snipe! You should go check out todays other stories, you'll find them very disturbing I'm sure. Tell me GKL what color is the skin of your God? My God, Flipper, is grey with spots on his belly.
G West
5 years ago
GKL
Well now, I don’t know about dolphins – I haven’t actually spoken to any lately, but, I have no reason to believe that they’d have managed to make as big a mess of this world as say, 3,000 or 4,000 years of monotheistic religions have. I think you have a pretty tough row to hoe on that account GKL. Even the vision of literally dozens of sects and denominations arguing about ‘who’ gets to share in the heavenly reward with the big fella sets my head spinning.
And, if I were going to argue with you I’d have to point out that the ‘evidence’ you use to support your claim that the current scientific view about the state of the world and its carrying capacity, not to mention the ‘quality’ of its air and water, is just another in a long line of doom and gloom predictions doesn’t sit too well with the obvious irony of the fact that most of those predictions (the ones you’re laughing about now) were the delusions of individuals like you who believe in a God who acts in the world.
It ain’t God who’s got us into this mess; it’s the folks who ‘think’ they’ve been doing his work.
Couple of other points:
I’ve traveled fairly extensively in what was the Soviet bloc and your insinuation that the good people of those nations aren’t and weren’t hard workers and somehow sat around sharing government largesse is utter nonsense. I take it you’ve never seen the Moscow subway and know nothing about how it was constructed.
For laziness and an attitude that the sun rises and sets with their own corrupt and overly-entitled government, nobody can beat 21st century Americans.
And those folks from Bangladesh, about 50 million of whom are going to need re-housing in your empty mid-west before long, they’ll work you under the table too. Just like the illegal Mexican immigrants you Americans want to do your dirty work but won’t recognize as ‘real’ Americans.
Some Christianity.
Save your prayers. My God says people have the right, nay the duty, to solve their own problems.
GKL
5 years ago
GKL, while I do share your opinion that overpopulation is absurd, I also agree with clubofrome. The world needs critical thinkers. We don't need any simple, down-home, awshucks, golly-gee, no book-larnin', crawdaddy-fishin', sittin' on the porch playin' banjo, kids. If this is your vision of the future, I do not share it.
Don't let clubofrome fool you. I have a bachelor's degree, a master's degree and a law degree. I am not some dumb hick breeding in the woods. My "line" comment was to gig him a little. His view is alarmist and over the top. He insults my intelligence because he is ossified in his own thinking, having bought the elitist rhetoric hook, line and sinker without any critical examination and common sense. Some professor told him such nonsense when he was a college student and he was so enamoured by his degrees that he just accepted it. Global warming is real. The causes are complicated and not very well understood. Man may or may not have a role in it. clubofrome doesn't know; I don't know; and noone else, save God, knows. Whether its net effect will be good or bad for life on the planet is also not know. If it continues, the world will be different, not necessarily worse. Having said that, I have no problem with efforts to lessen our pollution of the planet so long as they do not impoverish the developed world and leave the developing world without hope and do not treat babies as parasites.
The notion, however, that disaster looms is fear mongering. Scaring people into limiting their fertility to save the planet is extremely irresponsible and illogical. Their solution is to deny existence to some humans to save others (or in clubofrome's case, dolphins). Why not just kill off a couple of billion people now, preferrable those like me who are still reproducing, to get the ball rolling toward a "sustainable future?" They don't intend it, but their views are creating, as the late Pope John Paul II described it, a culture of death. A cutture inaugurated with the acceptance of contraception, followed by legalized abortion, regressing to euthanasia and infanticide. It looks very much like the ancient Roman world in which Christianity was born. It is, at its roots, pagan. It is sacrificing children to a god. The ancient Canaanites sacrificed their children to Molech. We sacrifice ours to fear of global warming or personal convenience. clubofrome and his ilk are Chicken Littles shouting the same doomsday message which has been proclaimed since at least Homer's time. It wasn't true then and it is not true now. Our descendants (for those of us with the courage to have them) will look back on this Chicken Little talk the way we look back on the same pronouncements by Homer, Euripides, Tertullian, Malthus et al.
Don't buy it and don't live in fear of the future.
GKL
5 years ago
what color is the skin of your God?
My God (and yours, whether you now acknowledge Him or not) is a spirit and does not have a body and, hence, does not have skin. His Son took on human flesh, however, and received his human genetic material from a Jewish girl. I suppose He looks like whatever His mother looked like, including skin color. He is not a racist, if that is your point. With Him there is neither Greek nor Jew. As we post, His cause is gathering millions of Africans and Asians. He is the creator of all men and all races of men. LIke the ancient pagans, if your god is an animal, you are worshipping an idol, created things rather than the Creator.
G West,
How much of your income and time do your donate to help those less fortunate. Most God-denying liberals say they care, but the evidence is overwhelming that it is all just talk. The most charitable state in America, based on giving as a percentage of income, is Mississippi, which is also the poorest. The least charitable is Massachusetts. Liberals care, just not enough to give sacrificially. I helped send supplies and people to help the tsunami victims. Did you? I helped send supplies and people to help the hurricane victims. Did you? I help at a homeless shelter. Do you? I assist a ministry that repairs homes for poor families living in the innercity. Do you? I helped send supplies and people to dig latreens and provide dental and medical assistance to people in the Dominican Republic. Have you? I do it not to gain merit for myself, but because those in need are my fellow brothers and sisters.
I never said Soviet citizens were lazy. I said that they lost their will to strive on their own. It was taken from them by statist. The proof is in their falling fertility rates, population and life expectancies. It is no coincidence that state's that substituted themselves for family have below replacement fertility and impeding crisis when there are insufficient people of working age to support the Ponzi scheme.
As to Mexican immigrants, I welcome them. I have family and friends who are of Mexican descent. Our immigration laws are horrible and need to be changed to improve the lot of immigrants who come here. Don't blame me for our laws. I don't like them any better than you do. I also have Asian relatives and am myself part Native American. Do all Canadians think all citizens of the U.S. are racists? Do all secular humanist believe all Christians are racists? And you accuse me of ignorance.
And I believe in the future and am not afraid of it. We have problems, of course. We always have and always will until the Lord returns. The solution is not to deny existence to other humans. It never has been. It wasn't in Homer's time, nor in Malthus', nor now.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Just answer the question GKL, what color? Sorry if I insulted your self declared intelligence, I was sorting hoping you'd blow that theory apart yourself. Please continue...
GKL
5 years ago
Let's try this again.
God is a spirit. He does not have skin because He does not have a body.
His Son was a first century Jew. He would have had the skin color of Mary. I really don't know exactly what color His skin was (and is). He wouldn't have the skin color of a northern European, nor a Native American, nor a sub-Saharan African, nor an East Asian, but I cannot tell you exactly what His skin color was. I don't see how it matters. He didn't come to die for just those of His own skin color; He came to die for all of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Skin color doesn't matter, except to racist, "liberal" ones included.
And you didn't insult me. You merely engaged in ad hominem attacks because your own arguments lack substance. I practiced law long enough to recognize B.S. when I read it. I was just pointing out that what you were up to. Rather than attacking my arguments, you attacked me. I'm a big boy, I can take it, but I won't let it pass without calling you on it.
At the end of the day, you fear the future. You can't deny it. You think humanity is doomed because we are too successful at procreation. You think we need fewer humans to love and care for. All those babies just take up too many resources. If you were to act honestly on your beliefs, you would not procreate at all and commit suicide, for you are using resources as well. Either you don't really believe it deep down inside (which I suspect) or you just think you are more worth of life than those whom you would deny life. You position, whether you recognize it or not, one of fear. You apparently don't believe in God and so, in reality, you have every reason to live in fear. I do believe in God and so I live in hope. The latter is better.
clubofrome
5 years ago
OK that's good enough for me. Life's little lessons include being kind to dumb animals. I like most animals, but the human ones just haven't earned the same amount of empathy. I just can't put my finger on the reason... But here is a last parting gift for you and your future kin...
Glad to see you consider donating to Jim and Tammy Fay Baker as part of your charitable work. It's important you have your own religious compound to vacation at, a sort of christian disneyland! It's also important that Gerry Falwell and gang should line their pockets and live in luxury too. No sense sharing with those less fortunate. I'm sure you donated through the red cross for tsunami relief as well. Exactly how much of that fund went to the victims again? About the same amount that went to the victims and families of 9/11, all diverted to the greater good of fighting terrorism and preserving your way of life. How did you say it? You have no problem with reducing pollution if they don't impoverish your way of life? Who are they anyway?
The point I was trying to make was that you, not god is a racist. You are against life on earth, non human life. I'm sure that includes those humans too, that don't follow your faith. GKL = Great Klan Leader?
If you'll excuse me now, "I must stop Christmas from coming..."
GKL
5 years ago
G West,
By the way, don't confuse Christianity with the U.S. The U.S. is not now and never has been a "Christian Nation." I don't even know what the term "Christian Nation" means. Nations aren't Christians; individuals are. Our laws do not now and never have been a mirror of Christianity. Don't allow the sins of America to jaundice your view of Jesus Christ. We are not His chosen people no matter how much folks of the religious right might seem to claim. As a nation, I fully understand that America has much to be ashamed of.
G West
5 years ago
GKL
I notice you haven't actually answered my question about the state of the world's ecology and how it got to that state. And, like Milton Friedman, I bet it really gets up your nose that the most successful and happiest states in the world - and have been more or less continually for the past 3 score years - are socialist Scandinavian countries. As for what happened in the Soviet bloc, it’s good you have a law degree because you clearly don't know much about economic history and the effects of the cold war on the Soviet economy. And that stuff about a ‘statist’ society? I take it you haven’t looked very closely at the way decisions are made in America – you might want to spend some time in New Orleans if you want to start looking at how incompetent centralized ‘democratic’ rule is in the US. Personally, I think all your politicians ever do is talk.
You might want to look at the US debt clock too. Trying to solve a nation’s problems by buying more cheap crap at Wal Mart doesn’t seem to be all that great an idea either. As to my politics, I didn’t bring up yours – so why would mine matter? These are the typical tactics of someone trying to defend an untenable case in the face of hard evidence.
As far as what you personally DO for others, like what I do; it has no bearing on this conversation. And it’s none of my business – or yours. I don’t do what I do for others out of any misplaced notion that it makes me a better person – which is, apparently, what you believe. You're the one who claims that the only motivation for someone to choose not to have children is selfish and that, without family connections peoples’ lives are pointless. Remember?
Let me just roll back here and grab your quote: “What a sad commentary on a misspent life.â€
Again, what brand of Christianity did you say you believed in? Because it sounds like judgmental hypocrisy to me: In fact that pretty much characterizes everything you’ve said.
I hope you’re not a trial lawyer because if you ever made a comment like that in open court in this country, you’d end up with a real whack on the knuckles counselor.
GKL
5 years ago
I am not against non-human life on earth. As a Christian, I believe humans are stewards of the earth and all its life and I agree with you that we have done a poor job of it. I just disagree with you that denying life to other humans is an act of good stewardship. If I were what you say, however, I would not be a racist, but a specist. Perhaps you should use a dictionary when you blog.
And once again, you have proved the lack of merit in your arguments by resorting to ad hominem attacks. Thanks. It will just prove to the intelligent reader that your position is so weak that you can't defend it but must resort to personal smears directed at those who disagree with you.
I have obviously hit a nerve with you and G West. You both fear the future and can think of no way to "save" it other than deny other humans the existence you enjoy. Sad. Fear almost always leads to irrational and destructive actions.
GKL
5 years ago
G West,
This will be my last post as I can't go on for ever. My misspent life quote was directed specfically at Ms. Crozier's admission that her mother spends her holidays alone. My faith teaches me to honor my father and my mother. Leaving them alone for multiple holidays shows a lack of proper priorities. On the cross, one of the last things Jesus did before He died was make arrangement for the care of His mother. Having said that, I should not have said what I did and I apologize to Ms. Crozier for having said it. The generic point, however, still applies and is part of Christian ethics: you don't leave your parents to be alone in their old age.
As to your remarks about the sins of the U.S., see my post just before your last one.
clubofrome
5 years ago
I thought he'd never shut up...
G West
5 years ago
GKL
'deny other humans the existence you enjoy'
Not guilty, counselor. I’m all for inviting the teeming hordes of the Asian sub-continent to settle here in Canada. In fact, I’d like to load up all the women and children in Afghanistan and bring them here too, instead of pouring billions of dollars and dozens of Canadian lives into the that ‘humanitarian’ disaster. I think we could well do with a real hit to our vaunted standard of living right here in North America.
If I'd ever said any such thing, it would be an egregious fault. I didn't and you know it.
From almost the beginning of this conversation you've undertaken to claim I've said things which I haven't. You've assumed things about me you've imagined. And denied consistently the logical conclusions which arise out of your ‘belief system’.
All I've ever done, and you can check back to confirm it if you like, is point out things you yourself have written which are inconsistent with your alleged beliefs. I fear neither you, nor the future, and I'm more than willing to acknowledge the role my 'species' has had in getting us here. If I were going to start fearing anything, it would be people who think they can ignore the rain that's pouring in through the hole in the roof; people who accept the mess and think God will look after them instead of getting out a ladder and some roofing material.
Your way doesn’t work and I can point to two thousand years of examples why.
And, since nobody actually knows God, and since the Holocaust he seems pretty convincingly disinterested in the fate of his own chosen people, I'd suggest your denial of the reality of the actual circumstances around us is the only real thing we need to fear.
In short, you scare me. You scare me because you hide your inaction and delusions behind the patina that you’re doing it this way because you love Jesus. I don’t think so.
Your pretense that the remark about Lorna Crozier wasn't judgmental is just another example of why you're to be feared. You have no respect for either facts or truth. In short, you're dishonest.
G'bye.
GKL
5 years ago
G West,
I am sorry if I misunderstood you. Here is why I thought you wanted to limit fertility (which is at it essence about denying existence to others which we ourselves enjoy). Your said,
I won’t get between you and clubofrome on the issue of over-population except to say that I think your historical and mythic analogies fall a bit short of the mark. That Malthus’ thesis was incorrect as to timing may well not reflect badly on its ultimate truth. Given the irrefutable scientific evidence that global warming is significantly altering the carrying capacity of the earth, and the fact that you’ve misstated the application of Darwin’s thinking as well, I think I’d be inclined to suggest that an unwillingness to take positive measures to reduce population growth (and deal with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2) would be irresponsible.
I am at a lost by what you meant by "positive measure to reduce population growth" if you did not mean limiting human fertility.
You know and I know that you couldn't possibly relocate large numbers of Afghanis and Pakastanis to North America. I have no objection to immigrants from those nations, but to make a real difference en masse we must help them where they are. I won't accuse you of misdirection here, but I think you know that what I meant by your advocacy of "deny[ing] other humans the existence you enjoy," I was referring to your advocacy of "positive measures to reduce population growth." This all began with Ms. Crozier's defense of not having children and some posters saying it was a great thing not to have children because we have too many humans already. I emphatically deny that. To say that is to say that those denied life are not as worthy of life as those whose world will supposedly be made better by their absence. I won't accuse those who hold that position of hate (though it sure sounds like it), but of fear which blinds them to the import of what they are proposing.
I am not scared of you. I am just sad that you cannot see the import of your position, some humans should be denied life so that the world is a better place for other lives, human and otherwise. That way of thinking has led to abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. It has led to holocaust and genocide. There must be other ways to "save the planet" than to deny existence to its inhabitants. It is the language of the culture of death.
Instead of knee-jerk reactions, think about the full implications of what you are advocating.
God bless ye as well (which is, of course, the root of G'bye).
GKL
5 years ago
"Your pretense that the remark about Lorna Crozier wasn't judgmental is just another example of why you're to be feared. You have no respect for either facts or truth. In short, you're dishonest."
I apologized for that remark. It was judgmental because it was directed at her personally when I don't know all the circumstances and that is why I apologized. Christians confess when they sin and you are correct that that remark was a sin.
The generic principle on which I made that judgment, however, remains valid. Even clubofrome recognized last week the ethical problems associated with "so called responsible parents [who] have left their elders to fend for themselves in some cold and lonely home as far away as possible."
clubofrome
5 years ago
You take a lot out of context GKL, as noted by G West. The generic principle is tend the garden before you plant the seed. Try and look at the world outside your box. I'm trying to keep an open mind to new ideas. You bring a centuries old lunch bucket to the table and want to eat with the rest of us. Try to separate your religion from what you think you might need to survive. For your kin to survive in the future. Just in case the Lord doesn't come right on time as we are about to perish. She's a busy person, with many worlds to oversee.
GKL
5 years ago
You take a lot out of context?
Perhaps I do. So do you. Like tying me in with Jim and Tammy Faye because I am a Christian. Why do non-Christians always do things like that? Why not identify Christianity with C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Walker Percy, and G.K. Chesterton, for example?
God bless ye as well.
G West
5 years ago
GKL
This is it for me, well and truly. If you'd also read a bit more of what I said you'd have come across this:
"These are personal choices. They neither, in my opinion, reflect the character of the decision maker or detract from the values of someone who makes a different decision.
I wish Lorna Crozier and all the non-matrons who seem to think they need society’s approval for their personal actions would stop making such a fuss about it. To be fair, I also wish the matrons with kids and strollers would stop pretending that the only thing that gives their life meaning is the fact that they now have one or more children."
Then maybe you wouldn't have taken so much time assuming I was allied with all those Liberals from Massachusetts you seem to dislike so much.
The fact I don't believe in a God who'd be so negligent of some of his flock while he rewards a whole bunch of others who seem to think they're the only people in the world who actually “are†his children makes me really skeptical about people who assume they know better about how to organize other peoples' lives.
I think you might fall into that category and, although I don't normally quote scripture to anyone I think you might want to consider that line that goes, approximately, ‘judge not that ye be not judged’.
As for population, I for one am not unwilling to say I appreciate the fact that China appears to have gotten its population growth under control - and the few Chinese friends I know who teach at Peking University seem pretty happy about it too.
They were kind of tired of living in conditions that wouldn't be appropriate for animals in this country.
I think our main duty as responsible citizens is to our families, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious facts of the world around us. Truth to tell, I think the best way to limit population growth is to raise the standard of living in the societies where population growth is rampant. But, at the same time, with clubofrome, I think it's very important not to be hypocritical. Just as it's illogical to expect the third world to limit their use of fossil fuels while we drive SUVs.
Right now Canada consumes more energy each year than the whole continent of Africa. We have no lessons to teach the third world and anyone who suggests that a North American who decides not to have a family is doing anything wrong is spouting nonsense. Plain and simple. I think that about covers it.
Merry Christmas
clubofrome
5 years ago
Partly it's comedy. We're mocking your sorry ass! It's like the oil companies buying scientific experts to refute global warming and climate change. Evengelists selling snake oil. We know that there are other factors, everyone uses sceintific data to their own ends. You hear that we go through ice ages every 10,000 years and will again. Those facts are interpreted differently depending on which camp you're in. Your camp genrally thinks it's fear mongering or doom and gloom. My camp says it's a warming as unprecidented conspicuous consumption drives us to the brink. I can't explain to you in this format or any other, 30 years of research that supports our position. So I mock yours, hoping that you are at least aware of the issues and some of the solutions. Stockwell Day believes dinosauers roamed the earth with mankind. He is christian too. Pretty easy to mock. Just as easy as you when you play the fear card. So if you want truth and honesty there it is. Why don't you take up an issue that helps the natural world, lets say organic farming. Be an advocate for organic farming in your part of the world. We are what we eat! Do you want pesticides and bovine growth horomeones in your milk? Neither do I. If you do that, I'll tone down the Jimmy Baker routine. See? Compromise!
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
clubofrome,
I noticed you referred to God as She. While I am a firm believer in equality, revisionism scares me. I knew women in university that would, for example, refer to history as herstory. Their husband is 'partner'. Fishermen are 'fishers'. Is it because as a male I am threatened?
I knew a lady who had an unusual twist on the equality issue. She rejected that women were equal to men because the current definition implies that women are the same as men.
Thank you for being environmentally conscious. However, I pity your situation. Afraid to have kids because of what the future may bring? You are a whitewashed sepulchre.
GKL
5 years ago
Well I will admit that I allowed the heat of the debate to cause me to overstate my position. I was not surprised to the degree of opposition I generated from clubofrome, especially as we each began to mock the position of each other. I was surprised by G West's opposition because of his previously state nuanced views, but I will accept that he was responding to me hyperbole directed at clubofrome. So that my own views aren't misunderstood because of my hyperbole nor misrepresented, here are my actual views in a nutshell:
See http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2366. Read through Sec. 2379. My only difference with the teaching of the Catholic Church (of which I am not a member) is that I see no reason to reject the artificial means when medical or other justifying reasons exist that would permit the use of periodic abstinence.
Note, population control is not a justifying reason.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
G West,
You were made in the image of God, and you know this. He loves you. Don't let fear of the unknown arrest you. Don't let shrill, vapid feminism keep you from the truth. Many women have gone down that path, and in their old age one can see the regret in their eyes, the pangs of loneliness which are quite pathetic. Good night and God bless.
G West
5 years ago
acadian driftwood
What the hell are you talking about?
GKL
5 years ago
See also http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm#2231
G West
5 years ago
Pure bathos.
As I wrote on another thread earlier today:
God exists in the space between one individual reaching out in empathy to help another.
Simple.
If God does not exist there, God exists nowhere; and all the rest of this is noise.
This is the fundamental root of all moral teaching. Catechisms are for children who cannot otherwise understand the hegemony of a church that is more concerned with its own future than the welfare of its members. Religion is the lie.
earthwind
5 years ago
I keep seeing this story, and the photo of Lorna Crozier, and all I can think is, "That photo must be 20 years old!" Is this relevant? Wy did LC submit such an old, glamorous, and flattering photo of herself? My puny brain tells me that this has some bearing on the story, but I can't connect the dots. Please help.
G West
5 years ago
Wishful thinking?
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
a woman is not truly a woman until she bears children
G West
5 years ago
acadian driftwood:
Now you truly are of the lunatic fringe.
Fii
5 years ago
Haha... Thanks Acadian...
For the good laugh. I was reading everything since my last post and at first thought you were a woman (and how much we think alike)- and no, at 37 and never been marriend, no kids, you're actually not an oddity. You're talking about you and me and most of my friends. AND my brother...
Then I started reading GKL's posts and thinking, "This is sooo a church dude/dudette..." and soon enough my suspicions were confirmed and I was just about to stop reading because GKL's comments were so aggravating... when there were your hilarious comments.
Now- these old, creaky, spinster limbs are off to bed.
Shit, I love that work- "spinsta!"
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
yea. I used to hang out with a guy named hyena. truth be told, I only come on here to bug people. it's great, even cathartic. To be able to blab your mouth off. I love it. Of course a woman is whatever she wants to be. My last post I wrote out of sheer mischievousness and boredom.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
now on a serious note. everyone here is right. we need organic farmers and we also need faith. GKL is not a nut, believe me. that's a cop out. Is anyone who takes a stand a nut? By your logic, Mother Theresa is a wack job.
clubofrome
5 years ago
On second thought.... After reading just a few paragraphs of your link GKL, I'm convinced more than ever you might actually need to be a lawyer to gather any meaning from that document. Who writes that stuff, or who's interpretation is it? Never mind, I don't care anyway. Spiritualism comes in many forms and I've alligned mine with the natural world. The world that we really live in, with every other living organism. Not bound by some crap you nut bars have been brainwashed with. No wonder there are holy wars, your type just bring out the worst in people. I'm going to go and assault the heavy bag and pretend it's you for 10 minutes. That goes double for you deadwood...
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
clubofrome,
I understand you. your position isn't new nor unique. here's a nugget: no one is an atheist when people are trying to kill you. for soldiers, when shit hits the fan, they pray to God. Him. Yep, even women use the masculine. In a crisis, people find this reassuring.
In youth, people speak their mind without thinking. Words come out of their mouth like a babbling brook. Closer to the grave, people have less to say, and when they do speak, they choose their words carefully.
happy composting.
clubofrome
5 years ago
deadwood: You understand little and even less about me. I am a man. A family man. I have never said anything about my own religious beliefs, other than to say I'm spiritual and I'm linked to the natural world. If there is a God, it's nothing the way GKL describes it. If Jesus was here, good for him! He wrote a best seller that you and every other christain ******* has bent and twisted to meet your own needs. Just in case the message was lost in the first line, you understand little. See above where you are refered to as lunatic fringe. Not much more needs to be said, so please, with sugar on it, fuk off.
GKL
5 years ago
"If there is a God, it's nothing the way GKL describes it."
What specifically about the way I describe God do you deny? And how do you know this? What are your sources?
GKL
5 years ago
It is dinned into one's ears that the gratification of the sex urge is a solemn obligation like the obligation of discharging debts...and not to do so would involve the penalty of intellectual decay. This sex urge has been isolated from the desire for progeny and it is said by the protagonists of the use of contraceptives that conception is an accident to be prevented except when the parties desire to have children. I venture to suggest this is a most dangerous doctrine to preach anywhere, much more so in a country like India....Marriage loses its sanctity when its purpose and highest use is conceived to be the satisfaction of animal passion without contemplating the natural result of such satisfaction.
Mohandas Gandhi, Harijan (1936)
clubofrome,
I suppose you consider Gandhi on the lunatic fringe as well. All you can do is engage in ad hominem arguments (i.e. insult the one with whom you disagree). I suppose now you will insult Gandhi. (Warning: Gandhi was not a Christian. You'll have to add another of the world's great religions to the list of beliefs you insult.) Have you no substance to offer to support your position?
GKL
5 years ago
“… the Stranger was speaking and pointing at her as he spoke.
She did not understand the words; but Dimble did, and heard Merlin saying in what seemed to him a rather strange kind of Latin:
‘Sir, you have in your house the falsest lady of any at this time alive.’
And Dimble heard the Director answer him in the same language:
‘Sir, you are mistaken. She is doubtless like all of us a sinner; but the woman is chaste.’
‘Sir,’ said Merlin, ‘know well that she has done in Logres a thing of which no less sorrow shall come than came of the stroke that Balinus struck. For, Sir, it was the purpose of God that she and her lord should between them have begotten a child by whom the enemies should have been put out of Logres for a thousand years.’
‘She is but lately married,’ said Ransom. ‘The child may yet be born.’
‘Sir,’ said Merlin, ‘be assured that the child will never be born, for the hour of its begetting is passed. Of their own will they are barren…’ â€
C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
`Man's conquest of Nature' is an expression often used to describe the progress of applied science. `Man has Nature whacked,' said someone to a friend of mine not long ago. In their context the words had a certain tragic beauty, for the speaker was dying of tuberculosis. `No matter' he said, `I know I'm one of the casualties. Of course there are casualties on the winning as well as on the losing side. But that doesn't alter the fact that it is winning.' I have chosen this story as my point of departure in order to make it clear that I do not wish to disparage all that is really beneficial in the process described as `Man's conquest', much less all the real devotion and self-sacrifice that has gone to make it possible. But having done so I must proceed to analyse this conception a little more closely. In what sense is Man the possessor of increasing power over Nature?
Let us consider three typical examples: the aeroplane, the wireless, and the contraceptive. . . .
And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
I suppose you consider C.S. Lewis on the lunatic fringe as well.
GKL
5 years ago
Following the 1930 Lambeth Conference decision in which the Church of England became the first Christian body to approve the use of contraceptives, T. S. Eliot commented, "The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized, but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail, but we must be very patient in waiting its collapse" (Thoughts after Lambeth).
I guess you will add T.S. Eliot to the list of those whom you believe to be on the lunatic fringe.
GKL
5 years ago
In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.
Speech of Mother Teresa of Calcutta to the National Prayer Breakfast,
Washington, DC,
February 3, 1994
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
Mother Teresa
Are you going to insult Mother Teresa as well?
GKL
5 years ago
If Jesus was here, good for him!
Well, Josephus and Tacitus, both of whom lived in the first century and neither of whom were Christians by any stretch of the imagination, mention Jesus in their writings. But I am sure you know more than someone who lived in the same century as Christ. Undoubtedly, we should believe what you think instead.
G West
5 years ago
Driftwood:
“….here's a nugget: no one is an atheist when people are trying to kill you. for soldiers, when shit hits the fan, they pray to God. Him. Yep, even women use the masculine. In a crisis, people find this reassuring.
In youth, people speak their mind without thinking. Words come out of their mouth like a babbling brook. Closer to the grave, people have less to say, and when they do speak, they choose their words carefully.â€
That’s no nugget, that’s nonsense.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
yep. poorly written. I'll try again. Looks like you and clubo have received a serious thrashing by gkl. I take no delight in this, but you need to be set straight.
We need organic farmers, that's undisputed.
But that is not the topic here. We are discussing what is wrong with being nobody's mother.
So I will make an attempt. here goes.
First one must decide if they are christian. Why? only because motherhood has a distinct role within christianity. maybe even superior? I don't know, I'm not the pope. Have you ever perused the pages of the bible? You may want to, you cannot advance in our western society without at least a cursory knowledge of the good book. In Canada and the United States, good luck trying to hold elected office without any knowledge of our judeo-christian heritage. Good luck being a teacher, counselor or cop. The people have, historically, thrown out frauds. We've even defeated fascism and communism. But I digress.
The bible is full of struggle. I must admit I've always been conflicted about Judas. Can you judge him? What would you have done in his shoes? He ended up in a bad way.
Maybe- just maybe-what is wrong with being nobody's mother is being neither hot nor cold -but lukewarm, and so the creator will spew you out. harsh words I know, but should I be more delicate?
G West
5 years ago
“serious thrashing by gkl. I take no delight in this, but you need to be set straight"
Sorry bud, you've been down south so long the food additives have begun to effect your mind. No threshing that I noticed. I've read Father Brown mysteries for years and I'm a great fan of C S Lewis and J R R Tolkien. Wonderful fantasists and moral men. Authorities on the Godhead – nope, and neither is Mother Theresa – you might want to check Chris Hitchens on the good mother. She was one hell of a self-promoter. I’ll take Jean Vanier and L’Arche any time.
Doesn't make the existence of God any more likely - except as I described above – which both of you appear to have ignored and neither of you seem to understand. Sad. I’m always suspicious of anyone who tries to shove their theology down anyone’s throat.
And that bit where GKL says he hadn’t meant to be judgmental. I don’t believe that either.
I have no particular desire to thrash anyone's delusions; but I know lots of people who went happily to their graves with not a worry in the world nor a single thought about God and the afterlife.
People grow up. You and GKL should too.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
down south? nope -the heart of liberalism, the west coast of bc. I drink starbucks. I drive a fuel efficient car. I even smoke pot. Yep, you read correctly. Who said I was ramming anything down your throat? Merely correcting you, that's all.
Jean Vanier and L'Arche are indeed wonderful.
Now back to the topic.
The question isn't whether you've known people that went to their death peacefully without knowledge of God. The question is what is wrong with being nobody's mother. I believe this to be an existential question. She wants to know, or else she wouldn't have told the world.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Lorna Crozier says, "Do I rerget not having children? First, let me say that my life has not been a lessening..." note the key words, 'my life'. The potential child's life is of no concern. This is literally, self-centred. I did not say selfish. I repeat: Lorna Crozier is not selfish, she is self-centred.
I am not some evangelical, far from it. By this time tomorrow, I'll be stoned.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
trying to deny the existense of God is centuries old. I'm sorry G west but it's true. your argument is not original. Saying I am ramming my religion down your throat is laughable. I have been even tempered and level. After all, Lorna Crozier opened herself up to this blog. She published this essay with an an invitation to respond.
Sadly, and pathetically, your response to this article is: to each their own. how conveniently vague is that? how about abortion? pro-choice? Well then, I guess you're off the hook there, too. Never make a decision and don't take a stand. backbone, shmackbone, who needs it?
can you answer the question posed by this essay? 'to each their own' is pretty weak. GKL has given you some of the best of our heritage, going back ages. You've offered drivel from the past thirty years. You lose.
G West
5 years ago
Nope.
You weren't correcting me, you were trying to say your philosophy and GKL's philosophy were somehow right and mine was mistaken.
Further, you're an unreliable interlocutor anyway.
No one can 'correct' anyone else in matters of belief.
Here's what you said a little way back up this thread to another commenter:
“I've been living in the states for awhile now and the song gives me solaceâ€
Now you tell me you live in BC. You don't know what you believe, or where you live, apparently.
If you haven't read what I've posted here any more carefully than your last post indicates I'm afraid you're not worth my wasting any more of my valuable time. If I was interested, I could post all kinds of evidence from the Church itself about how ‘empathetic’ it really is. In addition, I am speaking ironically. A discussion where you ignore everything I post is just a waste of effort.
G West
5 years ago
And in the end, it really is up to the individual. That's what conscience and free will are all about. In short, you're not my daddy - and I'm not yours either. Moreover, I'm not a troll - but I ain't so sure about you.
The 'ironic' reference in the previous post referred to the Church's empathy - because relative to its history, it has almost universally lacked the essential quality I find necessary to believe in the existence of God. TO wit: EMPATHY.
Something in pretty low supply in both you and GKL if your writings here are any indication.
Bye.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
right. ok, I am a merchant seaman working out of a union hall in tacoma. I am a dual citizen. when i go to work, i drive to tacoma and ship out. when i take my vacation i return to bc where I live. i should have said previously that i've been working in the states for some time now.
there seems to be some confusion here. i bear you no ill will, and i apologise if i've offended you. No one denies that the church has done some awful things. It is my duty to remind you that this is not the debate here. You have not answered the question which Ms. Crozier asks. You have consistently avoided the question. You say no one can correct you in matters of belief, yet you have not stated what you believe in. What is your belief? Gkl has stated his, and I cannot find a passage of his where he attacks you personally.
As for empathy, the shelters, food banks and soup kitchens that I know of (at least in bc) are run by christian denominations.
where in this passage am I calling you names and insulting you? This is why I said earlier that you lost this little debate. You were defeated by logic and reason.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
"And in the end, it really is up to the individual. That's what conscience and free will are all about".
hahahaha. no kidding. now tell us something we don't know. G West, you keep stating the obvious. you really are a simpleton. I know I said I wouldn't call you names but I couldn't resist here. you left yourself wide open.
newsflash: nobody disputes that as individuals we possess a conscience and free will. Think about the question. What's wrong with being nobody's mother? follow along now with me now.....we don't dispute that she has the right not to be a mother! However, she is asking us what is wrong with not being a mother. Are you with me G West? Good.
Now GKL has told you what he believes. In my opinion, you lost the debate because you could not compete with his reason and logic. Lorna Crozier chooses her 'self' , and the cultivation thereof, as the highest good of mankind. She made a choice, and she chose herself. A mother, conversely, puts her child before her self, and in so doing brings herself closer to the creator of the universe. Therefore a woman who chooses not to have children robs herself of that which she cherishes most: self-knowledge.
Lorna Crozier is impoverished because of this.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
finally, I will say, I will drive this home so you understand. Everybody knows you have the 'right' to do whatever the hell you want! This is not the debate! I really don't care what you do in your personal life. But if you publish an essay on the internet and invite people to blog, whaddaya expect? (I don't mean you, I mean Crozier).
GWest, you have not said what is wrong with being nobody's mother. Nor have you said what is right. You have dodged the question. You have been vacuous. Ms. Crozier knows she has the right to live as she wants. So do we, so we don't need to debate whether she has these rights. They are self evident. ok?
Now. Finally. Can you respond to her question? What is wrong with being nobody's mother?
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
did I mention the food banks, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters are run by christian denominations? how do ya like them apples?
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
oh I gotta good one. You're gonna love this one, G West. hehehe. When Christ offered himself to die on the cross, was this an act of empathy? When God gave his only son so that man's sins could be forgiven, was this an act of empathy?
You are so confused. It is an act of love so deep and mysterious we cannot fathom it. It is self-sacrificing, and never selfish. Empathy? Are you suggesting Ms. Crozier deserves empathy? Well, I can do that. I have empathy for a lot of people. But empathy is not the highest spiritual attainment of mankind. It is but a subcategory of the infinitely mysterious faith, hope and love.
G West
5 years ago
Nope. Not a good one at all. It was an act of redemption, not empathy.
Soup kitchens and food banks are expressions of charity, not empathy.
I'm not the one who's confused and you apparently don't know what empathy is, although you'd like the reader to extend it to you, in view of your own situation..
Another rich irony since you deny its grace in your attitude toward Ms Crozier - or anyone other than yourself.
In my opinion empathy is the key to all other graces and grace of any kind is impossible without it.
There is no life of the spirit without it. In fact, without empathy your other ideals are nothing by parasitical self-aggrandizement.
Goodbye.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
the point I'm making is once again, you're way off topic. nowhere in Crozier's article did she ask for empathy. wasn't even implied. how do you get so off topic?
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
excellent. we agree the crucifixion was not an act of empathy. As for charity, I agree with you. The point I was making (which appears to have flown over your head) is that these organizations are run by christian outreach programs.
Will you ever answer her question? What is wrong with being nobody's mother?
I cannot find anywhere in your posts where you even come close to answering.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
GWest,
how can one but not conclude that you are indeed, confused? In your previous posts you are openly derisive of christians and their faith. Yet you acknowledge the crucifixion. You are aware that the vast percentage of charities are run by christians. As GKL so eloquently states, the intelligent reader will see that your argument is so weak that you must resort to personal smears.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
now, once again, I will try to get you on topic. What is wrong with being nobody's mother? If you cannot answer, I will presume you lack the intelligence to build a case. So far, you've dodged the question. GKL has not. I have not. You have. Here is what you've said, in a nutshell:
1. Everyone can do what they wanna do, it's a free country.
2. Empathy is the key to grace.
On point number one, as I've said before -that is self-evident. Are you espousing moral relativism? If so, then explain how you acknowledge the crucifixion?
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
I'm gonna add one last thing before I have a smoke and go to bed. empathy is indeed a key to grace. However, empathy alone is insufficient. Reason and logic must guide it.
good night, see ya tomorrow.
GKL
5 years ago
G West,
I have tried to avoid getting personally as to you. If I have failed, I apologize. You and clubofrome, of the other hand, have repeated replied to my arguments on the merits of the question at hand and which Ms. Crozier raised, by ad hominem attacks aimed at me and my faith. acadian driftwood is quite correct, the question on the table, which Ms. Crozier opened, is "What's Wrong with Being Nobody's Mother?" Christian teaching (and the teaching of many other major world religions prior to the 20th century) is that there is nothing wrong with this so long as you are chaste or if, you are not chaste, you don't take actions during or in anticipation of intercourse to prevent conception. What you may not do is be sexually active and attempt to prevent new life. That's not just my personal judgment; that has been the teaching of most major world religions until the last 100 years.
Very early in this conversation, I stated the following:
These are, of course, my personal decisions and, yes, decisions must be left up to individuals to make, but some decisions are good and some are bad. If Ms. Crozier did not want criticism of her decisions she shouldn't have made her personal decisions public knowledge, particularly in a way designed to justify them.
I don't deny that it is an individual choice. This isn't a matter of coercing people by law or otherwise to be open to life. That is not the question Ms. Crozier raised. She asked what's wrong with her decision. That is a moral question. She insists that their is nothing wrong with that decision. I disagree and state clearly when and why it is wrong.
You and I agree that it is her and every other couple's choice. We just disagree whether it is a morally licit choice. Your position is live and let live (or rather live and its up to each individual whether others ever live).
Is it impossible to discuss the issue which Ms. Crozier raises without getting personal? If the question is so unworthy of substantive debate, then what was her point in raising it in the first place. Go ahead and insult personally those with whom you disagree on issues if you choose, but don't then accuse me of being the one who needs to grow up.
GKL
5 years ago
For a good reason for why "Being Nobody's Mother" is wrong, see http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/061026/d061026b.htm
Developed countries arouind the world are beginning to try to figure ways to incentivize greater fertility, including France, Japan, Russia and Australia, because if they do not there will not be enough workers to support their economic and social systems. Individual decisions and actions do effect others, in this case, one's entire nation and its very way of life.
When there are not enough young workers to support the social benefits of the aged, what will be the solution? What do you believe this cavalier attitude toward the lives of others is teaching the next generation? I'll give you a hint: euthanasia. Afterall, Auntie Em wouldn't want to live like this. Her protests to the contrary just serve to prove that she no longer is able to make rational decisions. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1391622,00.html This is the same body that first approved of contraception when it had previously been universally condemned at its Lambeth Conference in 1930. Aldous Huxley was inspired by that decision to pen Brave New World. But he was just part of the lunatic fringe.
I venture to guess that Canada will soon, if it is not already, be trying to figure out ways to induce Canadian women not to choose to be "Nobody's Mother." If they fail, don't say you weren't warned.
G West
5 years ago
acadian driftwood:
I said I was finished trying to have a discussion with you. It's pointless. Goodbye means goodbye.
GKL
I disagree.
I have not once made an ad hominem attack on you. All I've done is point out several inherent contradictions in what you’ve written and I've illustrated how profoundly and frequently you've misrepresented what I wrote. In this sort of forum, further dialogue with someone who has a clear agenda is a waste of time. I’m not prepared to play games with a dishonest interlocutor any longer.
Pardon me. I did lay one metaphoric glove on you. I called you a ‘whited sepulcher’ – I’d say that was fair comment.
I assume you know its meaning.
Goodbye.
GKL
5 years ago
By the way, if you choose to attack Huxley's belief system, you will be attacking your own: Huxley was agnostic.
G West
5 years ago
GKL
That's why it's impossible to have a discussion with a dishonest man. Your citation of Huxley is your business and I've never once mentioned him - any more than I've mentioned what or whom I believe in.
Perhaps you should learn to read a little more carefully counsellor.
If you want to continue to assault straw men, do it on your own time. You are now officially off the clock.
GKL
5 years ago
Your citation of Huxley is your business and I've never once mentioned him - any more than I've mentioned what or whom I believe in.
Exactly, I have engaged the issue, not you personally, and have said exactly what I believe. As you now admit, you have never "mentioned what or whom [you] believe in." You are quite right, it is a waste of time to try to have a discussion on the issue with you because you refuse to engage the issue.
As to your accusation that I have misrepresnted you, you have never shown how or when. The one time you tried, I explained the basis of my comments, to which you then failed to reply
As to ad hominem attacks, they primarily flowed from clubofrome, to whom most of my replies were addressed. Did it bother you that I respnded to his comments more than to yours? If you chose to take them as applying to you, perhaps that reflects on you.
As to calling my a "whited sepulcher,' that is what acadian driftwood called clubofrome. You never used the phrase or anything similar to it in any of your post before your most recent one. If you don't even know what you said and what was said by someone else, how can I expect you to understand what I have said?
As to your ad hominem attacks on me, you have in essence called me a child twice, once when you wrote "Catechisms are for children" after I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church and second when you said acadian driftwood and I need to grow up. Apparently acadian driftwood and I are children because we disagree with you.
And while you may be ignorant of its derivation, goodbye means "God bless ye." And despite what you have said about me, I still sincerely mean it.
Adieu and adios (which mean may God be with you).
I won't post again because I had hoped to have an intelligent exchange of ideas, not a food fight, and you refuse, now by your own admission, to mention what you believe.
You may not continue your slurs against me if you choose. I will not reply.
G West
5 years ago
Last post:
When posting to this thread (on account of it’s abysmal font) I compose in word and paste into the comment pane.
I can now see that the two words ‘whited sepulcher’ were not appended to a post meant for you. Acadian driftwood’s use of ‘whitewashed sepulcher’ is apparently what you are talking about above here – though why it would be appropriate to his response to clubofrome I can only wonder.
I do think it is an appropriate description of your sociopathy and it was certainly intended for you – from me. And, as I averred above, I think it’s fair comment.
As to your claim I haven’t engaged you – or that I haven’t countered your facile attempts at argumentation – like virtually everything else you’ve written – it’s dishonest and doesn’t reflect the facts.
The one advantage this form of discourse does have is the more or less permanent record it leaves behind.
I’m perfectly happy to let that speak for me. Were it not for the error concerning the matter of the two word descriptor you mention above, I wouldn’t have wasted my time.
Honest men admit their mistakes. I’ve done that.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
but you see, GWest, you don't admit your mistakes.
"As to your claim I haven't engaged you - or that i haven't countered your facile attempts at argumentation - like virtually everything else you've written - it's dishonest and doesn't reflect the facts".
Where in your posts do you engage anyone on the topic at hand, which is, as I have said over and over and over: What is wrong with being nobody's mother?
How many times have you been asked this question?
Can you not admit you've dodged the question? Is it not as plain as day?
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
GWest,
Now I really am beginning to think you lack the intelligence to build a case. Perhaps you are confused. You acknowledge the crucifixion. Yet you have no answer to the question, What is wrong with being nobody's mother?
Nope. No answer. Can't find it. Nada. Nothing. You don't have one.
As I said before, the title of this article isn't: Do I have the right to choose to not be anybody's mother? We established that these rights are self-evident. We also established that Lorna Crozier's question is a moral one. We also established that she wrote the article with a view to receiving feedback. Are you with me? Want me to back up? Slow down?
You have not answered the question. I must therefore presume you lack the intelligence to build your case. You lose.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
acadian driftwood,
A few days ago I posted a friendly message for you. I've now read what's gone on here since.
You're an idiot. No doubt on that accout.
Are you bored with life, or what?
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Al,
I am an idiot and I am bored. That was a really friendly message, it's true. What happened was I saw this argument develop, and over time I observed how flawed Gwest's side was. The more I got into it, the harder it was to stop. It's almost over, this article will be removed soon, I think. I can't recall now but I may have said some things that were over the top. Here's the deal: if you read these posts, and you use logic and reason, you'll see how badly gkl defeats gwest. gwest never could muster an argument, never did articulate a position. Do you see it? I don't.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Al,
The title of the essay is 'What's wrong with being nobody's mother?' It is not, 'Do I have the right to not be anybody's mother?'
What can I say? scroll up and see Gkl's posts. Now check out Gwest's posts. Seems to me Gwest got his ass kicked. Why? He never engaged the issue.
Am I right?
Alcibiades
5 years ago
I have.
I read them all.
And no, you're not right. As a matter of fact I think you're a sleaze bag. GKL is slightly better, but not much.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
this is too funny. now you're name calling and not answering the question. what can I do with that? I can't debate you -you haven't said anything! oops, wait...you said I wasn't right. But then you didn't illustrate as to why!
Alcibiades
5 years ago
"What can I say? scroll up and see Gkl's posts. Now check out Gwest's posts. Seems to me Gwest got his ass kicked. Why? He never engaged the issue.
Am I right?"
That's what YOU said and since it doesn't reflect the facts, what else is there to say?
No one can argue with a Troll. And you, well and truly, are a Troll.
Nothing more needs to be said. You can write notes to yourself until Hell freezes over and it won't change the facts - as already demonstrated above in your foolish and spiteful tactics.
But go for it - it only demonstrates more clearly what's already apparent.
Fill you boots.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
And by the way, there's nothing wrong with being nobody's mother. Never has been.
GKL
5 years ago
Alcibiades,
I am not saying that there is something inherently wrong with being "Nobody's Mother," Mother Teresa was nobody's mother. I am saying that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life" absent medical or some other exigency. One may and has the right to ignore this precept, but that does not make doing so right and a society that does so will cause itself serious problems.
See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Gandhi the same, as did Mother Teresa. C.S. Lewis, as demostrated above, illustrated some of the problems. And the statistics on the crisis of below replacement rate fertility in most of the developed world also demonstrate why.
You apparently disagree. Can you make a case why all of Christianity for its first 1900 was and Catholics still today are wrong on this issue? Can you refute Gandhi's and Lewis' concerns? Do you really think saying that the teacings of some of the greatest moral thinkers and actors of the ages are wrong without any supporting reasoning makes a compelling case against those teachings?
I'm still waiting for an argument against the once uniform Christian teaching and the concerns of Gandhi. Don't just say they were wrong, demonstrate why they were wrong.
Most of my friends and family disagree with me on this. I still like them and they still like me. Once need not slander those with whom one disagrees. Ms. Crozier has raised an important question. Can't we discuss it on its merits?
GKL
5 years ago
Sorry for all the typos in the previous post, but I think the question I am asking is clear. I just one someone to make a compelling case in favor of Ms. Crozier's position and against that of historic orthodox Christianity and Gandhi.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
GKL
People are people, whether here or on the other side of the world.
If God gave us this place to live on, which I suppose you'd also contend, then it's ours to look after.
And we haven't done that very well.
Your arguments are the quaint notions of one sect of Christianity, that's all. Nothing less, nothing more. I can show you the writings of other worthies in the church who thought it was just fine to keep slaves and kill Indians….among other things, Thank God about all the Church talks about now is the pathology of homosexuals – although that’s bad enough; and thank God equally that many religious in Africa are busy passing out condoms to those who want them.
Until the whole of Earth reaches the point where there is some real danger of the fairy tale you're talking about coming true I'm not going to get upset if a few people of a thoughtful nature decide not to procreate.
You are an imaginary problem searching for a needless solution.
You need to realize that community is a much broader term.
GKL
5 years ago
Alcibiades,
Thank you.
You answered me without implying I was a hick or a reprobate. While I reject your assertion that tradtional orthodox Christianity is a fairy tale, that is not an insulting characterization from one who denies it. It is, indeed, either true or a fairy tale. We just disagree as to which it is. You were no more dismissive of my believes than I have been of those of clubofrome's. That's fair.
The problems I raised are not imaginary, but time will have to be the test of that, I suppose. Most of the developed world and the developed world as a whole has well below replacement rate fertility. Fertility rates are dropping rapidly in most of the developing world. As to the developed world, leaders and demographers see this as a serious problem with potentially very harmful consequences. They may be wrong or the the trend may reverse before it does too much damage. We will see.
Your attacks on the history of some in the Church are sadly true, but that neither proves nor disproves its teaching on this matter. (I would assert that there have always been Christians who fought the evils within the Church, but that only mitigates against and does not remove the truthfulness of your remarks as to others who claimed to be Christian but acted against His teachings.) Finally, until the 20th century, my position was the position of all Christians, not just one or a few sects. It has also been the position of other major world religions until recent times, as demonstrated by Gandhi's views, for instance.
You still have made no positive defense of the claim that there is nothing wrong with being nobody's mother, but at least you can disagree with class. The concept of community is indeed broad. The question is what our individual obligations are to the broader community. We simply disagree.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Alcibiades,
I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to name calling. This, however will not persuade the intelligent reader to your side. You have made statements but then you neglect to substantiate your claim. Let me give you an example:
"people are people, whether here or on the other side of the world".
"you need to realize that community is a much broader term".
In order to convince and persuade, one must back up their statements with proofs.
Simply casting epithets and insults at people will only harm your ability to argue convincingly.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Alcibiades,
neither you nor gwest have engaged the issue. that is why I find this so amusing. if you are not up to the task, say so. I will presume you lack the intelligence. See how easy that was? no name calling, no personal attacks.
can you build a case that is objective, reasoned and substantiated with facts? Can you do so without resorting to personal smears? If you cannot, I will conclude you have lost the debate, and consider the case closed.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Alcibiades,
"And by the way, there is nothing wrong with being nobody's mother. Never has been".
I agree with you. But then you do not list the reasons as to why you hold this belief!
Have you never written an essay?
YOU LOSE NUMNUTS!
Alcibiades
5 years ago
Sometimes, acadian driftweed, you'd be better to leave well enough alone.
You've now removed any doubt I had about your qualities as an interlocutor. Moreover, as for criticizing people who call other people names, not much need for me to pursue that any longer either. You've just removed all doubt.
You wouldn't know a reasoned, objective case if you tripped over it my friend.
GKL
Time will tell.
I think, in the end, we are all alone and only a very few of us will leave a person-sized hole in the universe when we pass on. God, as a positive entity, exists within relationship.
The idea that relationship can only be meaningfully expressed in a pair-bond maternal style seems so at odds with my understanding of the world that I'm surprised you'd even ask me to defend it. I'd suggest that you do a little more reading - St Theresa of Avila might be a good place to start.
That's all. Your ideas about the Church being in any way unitary prior to the 20th century leads me to conclude you haven't studied much history either.
Best of luck.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Alcibiades,
I have tried to teach you to back up what you say with proof and examples. You have not. This is how one persuades another . Let me show what I mean:
"I think, in the end, we are all alone and only a very few of us will leave a person-sized hole in the universe when we pass on". -you do not tell the reader why you think this way. You presume the reader agrees with you. You are false.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
al,
here's another:
"the idea that relationship can only be meaningfully expressed in a pair-bond maternal style seems so at odds with my understanding of the world that I'm surprised you'd even ask me to defend it".
again sir, you change the topic. The title of this article is not, "Is the pair-bond maternal style the only way relationship can be meaningfully expressed?' You have changed the topic. I have just proved it.
The question Lorna Crozier asks is profoundly moral. You and Gwest cannot answer because you lack the intelligence to build a case.
I will say again: no one cares what you say. They only care if you can prove what you say. Do you understand? Opinions are like assholes- everyobody has one. I don't have time to teach you how to write an essay. One more time, the question is:
"What is wrong with being nobody's mother"?
Alcibiades
5 years ago
Absolutely nothing.
More pertinent. What is wrong with you?
GKL
5 years ago
That's all. Your ideas about the Church being in any way unitary prior to the 20th century leads me to conclude you haven't studied much history either.
Alcibiades,
I did not say the Church was unitary; I said that it was universally accepted among all Christians that contraception is sinful. The Church has always been divided. The early Church councils were largely about establishing a unified Church and they failed. The first one ousted the Arians. The third one ended with the Church of the East (Nestorians) living the Church catholic. The fourth ended with what is now called the Oriental Orthodox leaving the Church catholic. Then we have the Great Schism between what is now known as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. And, of course, the Protestant Reformation.
Now, when I say that all Christians taught that contraception is sinful, I do not mean that literally everyone who called themselves Christian refrained from using contraception. There would not have been the injunctions against it and the penances required for its use had it not in fact been being used by Christians. No one would enjoin and develop a system of penance for an act which in reality no one practiced. I would assume you would agree that Christianity has always condemned murder. That doesn't mean that no Christian ever committed murder. What I mean is that I have yet to find a single Church Father who condoned the use of contraception prior to the 20th century. If you know of one, please tell me who it was and provide me with a citation to a source so I can check it out. I mean that sincerely. I have looked and have asked people with much more knowledge of Church history than I have and no one has yet been able to provide me with even a single exception.
Noonan wrote an excellent book in the 1960s in which he asserted that the tradition was not well understood and offerred an explanation of why it did not mean that artificial contraception is always illicit (too detailed to go into here), but he did not deny that the tradition was in fact that contraception was considered sinful.
And may God bless you. (I don't believe in luck. :-) )
GKL
5 years ago
Let me add. Among the people I have asked to provide me with a pre-20th century source who condoned contraception are Christians who condon its use and who know a great deal about Church history. Nothing so far.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
GKL
Then you've been asking the wrong people and reading the wrong books.
I've read Noonan's book.
I'll only say this, about that:
Anyone investigating the relationship between family and fertility restrictions in Greek and Roman times will find few if any WOMEN who’ve written about it. This hardly means that contraception was unknown and medical historians certainly confirm that various forms were widely used – as a matter of fact some of the early church fathers have written about them in great and prurient detail. The fact that such methods were, after the 2nd or 3rd century, uniformly condemned tells us a lot more about the male hierarchy of the church and its already retrograde attitude toward women than it does about the dilemma of women who found themselves pregnant under less than optimal conditions. The inappropriateness of your condemnation of Lorna Crozier for ‘daring’ to suggest that her value as a human being and an artist is as nothing if she doesn’t comply with your prejudices about her status as a non-breeder. Such hypocrisy (coming from a man) has its parallel in the early church’s writing about the horror of contraception which, by its omnipresence in the literature, indicates three things:
1. That contraception was needed, practiced and effective throughout the era of the early church;
2. That the church then, as now, cared little or nothing about the role or the problems of women; and
3. That the evidence of the Church’s inability to actually contend with the character of women as individual human beings with the power and intelligence to think for and decide things for themselves has improved but little in the 1700 odd years since.
GKL
5 years ago
Alcibiades,
I am sorry to see your reply with this tone. I thought we were developing a more appropriate tone in our conversation. I can indeed see that you have read Noonan's book as you recognize that contraception was widely available and used in the ancient world and that it was universally condemned from at least the 2nd or 3rd century forward. (There is evidence, but inconclusive, that it was condemned before then as well.) You seem to buy the old myth that it was misogynist. If you read the early fathers, at least some of them express a concern that it made women into sex objects rather than lovers. A concern continued through the ages. I would argue that this is exactly the effect it has had in our time. That is the opposite of misogyny. I am sure you disagree, but that is a point which could be debated without casting aspersions. Not it is not only men who condemn the practice even today.
GKL
5 years ago
"The inappropriateness of your condemnation of Lorna Crozier for ‘daring’ to suggest that her value as a human being and an artist is as nothing if she doesn’t comply with your prejudices about her status as a non-breeder."
Ms. Crozier asked a question: "What's Wrong with Being Nobody's Mother?"
She gave an answer that never really addressed the question but merely discussed how she came to make that choice and how she felt about it, all focusing on herself and not the would-be children who she denied existence nor on the impact on the society and culture in which she lives, and allowed it to be posted on a blog site where, I assume, she would expect people to address the topic she raised. From your reply, it appears that you believe that we all should just agree with her and that no one should seek to answer her question by showing what is wrong with choosing to be nobody's mother while rejecting celibacy (as opposed to being unable to be someone's mother or choosing to remain celibate). She clearly says her not being a mother was a choice:
In some ways I chose not to have children; in other ways, I didn't make that choice as much as it made me. Throughout my young adulthood, unlike many of my friends, I didn't go soft-eyed and giddy at the idea of holding a sweet-smelling bundle swathed in pastel woollens. There may be several reasons for that, including ones I'm not consciously aware of, but except for a few years in my mid-30s, I didn't long for a baby. I didn't feel any need to extend my genes into the future; there were enough humans in the world without my red-faced resemblances squalling into the light. Children were not a way of ensuring happiness or endowing my days with meaning. That hard task was mine alone.
If Ms. Crozier didn't want an answer, she shouldn't have asked the question.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
I see the church isn't the only party that still hasn't come to grips with a paternalistic and schizophrenic attitude toward women and their role in our culture.
I'm sure Lorna Crozier doesn't want to be seen as a sex object either GKL. Perhaps you won't decry my tone if I suggest your attitude toward women has at least as much, if not more, to do with 'men's' view of women as it does toward women's view of themselves.
I think Ms Crozier's reflections on her decision are perfectly plausible and indicative of care, thought and reflection. The Church makes much of conscience but frequently gets upset when people actually use it.
If you've read much about the early church, I think you'll recognize that (individual conscience) is one aspect of Christ's teachings that was popular in the church in its formative years but which was stifled comprehensively after the Council of Nicea.
I think she's answered her own question very appropriately.
GKL
5 years ago
"Perhaps you won't decry my tone if I suggest your attitude toward women has at least as much, if not more, to do with 'men's' view of women as it does toward women's view of themselves."
Not at all. It is fair to raise that possibility, though I deny it in my case. It is also fair for me to note that I know at least as many women as men who agree with me, including professional women with advanced degrees and successful careers, my own wife included. Certainly her career has been impacted by her openness to life, as has mine, as we share in the parenting responsibilites. Neither of us will have the "success" in the career world that we might have had had we not been open to life. That is part of the sacrifice of being open to life and part of its benefit, as it trains you to think of others' needs and wants ahead of your own.
There is no doubt that at times the Church has stifled individual conscience. (See the treatment of Hus and Wycliffe, for example.) On the other hand, the Church never took the attitude that anything goes and that whatever one wants to do he or she may. Even in the early period, it taught that we are to form and inform our consciences and to think about the impact of our actions on other individuals, our community, and society at large. Further, as early as the Gospels and Epistles, the Church taught that some actions are inherently sinful, that is that some actions are wrong by their nature. That is, individual conscience may be exercised, but it has its limits and it doesn't mean that just because one thinks an action is morally licit that it is. The Church has always taught that there are objective moral absolutes that when transgressed call for confession and repentance.
And still, I have yet to see a defense of why it is not wrong to choose to be Nobody's Mother when their is no medical or other exigency which might make being open to life potentiially very harmful other than the assertion that everyone is free to do what he or she wants. That is a conclusion, not a defense. I'm beginning to think there is no defense that anyone on this site can articulate.
GKL
5 years ago
And, of course, no one who disagrees has yet addressed Gandhi's concerns. He was not a Christian, so you cannot tar him with the sins and alleged sins of the Church.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
GKL
Personal behavior that is neither illegal nor immoral requires no approval or sanction from you, the church or anyone else.
Anecdotal evidence it not at all useful in this kind of a discussion - If you really are a lawyer, you know why.
The fact that I could cite the writings of thousands of women throughout the ages who have been victimized by male hegemony is not particularly germane either. Let’s keep away from that kind of grandstanding and deal with the fundamentals.
This is a matter of universal human rights. Plain and simple. I don't need to resort to anecdotal evidence to justify the idea, nay the absolute necessity, that women, as fully functional and rational human beings and citizens have the right and duty to make these kinds of decisions about how and to what uses their bodies are put. ‘No means no’ in a lot of areas outside the question of acquiescence to sexual intercourse.
All the Christian special pleading and male dominated moralizing to the contrary. It is irrelevant to the issue at hand – no matter how hard you try to pretend it isn’t.
These are, as they always should be, matters for the individual woman to decide. Ghandi, another man, is irrelevant in relation to the principle involved. His musings are, in this context, just another anecdote.
GKL
5 years ago
Alcibiades,
Further discussion of this will be fruitless. I cannot convince you and you cannot convince me.
May God bless you.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
GKL
I'll extend my own best wishes to you too. God's role is, as it should be in my opinion, irrelevant in all matters except the personal... and there, although it creates many problems, it continues to play an essential role in teaching people some sense of moral values and an awareness of their obligations to others.
In the end, all human relationships boil down to how we treat our neighbour - as understood in the widest and most inclusive sense.
That's why I'm a socialist.
As for women, I have every confidence they'll mostly make up their own minds.
On thing about American government that I do respect (although more in theory than in practice of late) is the strict separation of Church and State; James Dobson's pathetic arguments to the contrary.
Have a Holy Christmas.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
Oh, and Lorna, the word you're looking for is: nullipara - Noun, (obstetrics) a woman who has never give birth to a child.
A perfectly serviceable word and nothing to be ashamed of.
Marry Christmas to you too.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
Al,
sigh...(hanging my head in disbelief)
here we go again.
Didn't we agree the title of the article isn't: Do I have the right to not be anybody's mother?
we agree she does. this is undisputed. guess what: I am a non-christian and I am pagan. I smoke a lotta pot.
newsflash: you lost the debate! not because you're wrong, but because you couldn't prove you're right!
EVERYBODY KNOWS SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO AS SHE PLEASES NUMBNUTS!!!!!!!!
you lose cuz the man whipped you using logic and reason.
g'bye.
Alcibiades
5 years ago
Sorry bud, but keep up with the declaiming. You'll find you probably do agree with yourself. That's not unusual among people for whom the truth has no meaning.
I'm surprised you can spell the words logic and reason because you certainly don't know what they mean and what kind of behavior they entail. Bye Yank!
Alcibiades
5 years ago
The title, by the way, of Crozier's piece is:
"What's Wrong with Being Nobody's Mother?"
You couldn't even get that right.
acadian driftwood
5 years ago
sigh
hanging my head in disbelief.
nope. scroll up, meathead. I got it right.
lemme see.....should I?.....
nahhhhh. if you don't get it by now, you probably never will.
you lose. case closed.
GKL
5 years ago
acadian driftwood,
Whether I am right or wrong in answering the question posed in the title of the article by Ms. Crozier is of secondary or even terriary importance compared to the question of how one relates to Jesus Christ. As much as I have come to believe that the use of artificial contraception (absent medical or other extreme exigency) is sinful, rejecting the divinity and lordship of Jesus Christ is a much more serious matter. The former, if it is indeed a sin, is a sin for which He paid on the cross. The latter is a sin for which the one rejecting Him, should he persist in such rejection throughout his entire earthly life, will pay for himself throughout eternity.
You seem like an intelligent person, open to reason and logic. If you have not already done so, might I suggest that you read and meditate upon the following C.S. Lewis works: Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, and The Pilgrims Regress. Read them in that order. Recall that C.S. Lewis was a non-believer until well into his adult life, when a few men, among them J.R.R. Tolkien, persuaded him of the truthfulness of the Christian faith. I would also recommend that you read the Gospels of Luke and of John.
May God Bless you in this coming year.
GKL
5 years ago
To those of you who believe that there is nothing wrong with being nobody's mother, you might want to contemplate the relationship between Ms. Crozier's question and the following headlines:
Mohammed overtakes George in list of most popular names, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/21/nnames21.xml
Japan population 'set to plummet', available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6197315.stm
Islam Thrives as Russia's Population Falls, available at http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=12077
We in the developed world seem to have either given up any hope in the future or are too preoccupied with our own individual wants to care.
clubofrome
5 years ago
Don't you just despise the way he uses the phrase "We in the developed world." Creepy! Is a jungle devoid of humans underdeveloped? Is a society devoid of religion underdeveloped? Connecting your dots, says a woman without children is unfulfilled or has a relationship in international politics! Try all you like, but know this: you're genes will never be the dominant ones. Your beliefs will die off with your klan as the domination of your developed world concludes. You are broke. Morally and financially. The east will once again rule the roost, and you of white skin will fade away. That is gods will!
Thanks for keeping this thread open for me Tyee, Happy Holidays!
GKL
5 years ago
Just more of the same from clubofrome. Ad hominem attacks and not even an effort to address the issue. No doubt about it, you refuse to discuss this issue ON THE MERITS because you lack any argument which ON THE MERITS can show that there is nothing wrong with choosing to be nobody's mother when one has no medical or other exigency to justify that decision. If you had any such arguments, you would undoubtedly make them. Thank you for showing that there are no good arguments to support your position.
You are correct about one thing: the West is broke morally and our unwillingness to populate the future is a symptom of this moral bankruptcy. You are prophetic on another point: we will be broke financially when our social service and economic systems, based upon young workers supporting children and the elderly, lacks workers in sufficient numbers to support the self-centered elderly who were too consumed with themselves to have children when they were young adults. It will undoubtedly make for bleak times in the final years of life for many of these folks who thought other peoples' children would support them, but God is not mocked, we reap what we sow.
clubofrome
5 years ago
You missed the arguments a long time ago. That's the problem with religeous zealots like you, blinders and ear plugs. You see only your own views supported by your experiences and brain washing. Just because you were abused as a child doesn't mean you should pass it on. Alci and G West have made all the agruments as well, but you refuse to see outside your box. There is no point in debating you. We're not on the same plane. You discount science or a at best twist it to some perverted support of your belief. You are the reason there will continue to be wars and society as we know will remain in peril. But, you see yourself as the solution not the problem. Lets pick another book to debate, how about "Extinction" by Paul Erlich? Loss of diversity would be the main theme. To all lifes peril. Think you can wrap your head around that? What about the deteiorating condition of most of the agricultural land across North America? Just how long can we sustain growing food from chemicals? I see cheap land in Saskatchewan, good farm land still, but abandoned because small farmers can't afford to farm and their children won't take up the task of working long hours to keep the practice alive. Your solution is to have more children? And you say I have no argument? Why don't you join in some of the other debates like I mentioned above? You have no game. Don't confuse my attacks as ad hominem. When I say you were abused as a child, I mean I assume you were taught your religion and are passing it down to your klan. Generations of zealots breading and eventually forming your own militia's to defend your views. That's how I see you. Sort of like how I smelled your BS right from the start.
clubofrome
5 years ago
You (USof A) are already broke financially, and morally was the point. Sending your children all over the world to fight for your beliefs has financially ruined you. Just the thought of you invading Iraq to protect oil interests and your developed way of life is morally bankrupt. You sir are the terrorists. Capitalists by definiton, are terrorists. You stand by and let JFK, RFK MLK, and 9/11 happen with no accountability. How do you look at yourself in the mirror? Republican? Sorry I forgot. I shouldn't just circle the US as all western democracies are complicit. What makes us better is Hockey and the fact we are popular around the world. Now go listen to American Woman again, but this time read the lyrics.
clubofrome
5 years ago
GKL wrote:
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
Mother Teresa
How many have you killed GKL, so as to keep your Developed World? You see that can be interpreted as those hording wealth do so at the peril of all the earths children. Not just the ones on your compound. But please don't stop at twisting science, continue to twist everything in your favour!
GKL
5 years ago
So your defense is the discredited predictions of Paul Erlich, who was just the latest in a long line of doomsayers who said we would overpopulate the globe since centuries before the birth of Christ. Will your next position be that man is responsible for global cooling which will lead to the next ice age? That was big among the doomsayer crowd in the 1970s as well and I am sure it will be big again in another 30 years or so.
See New York Times Says Paul Ehrlich Got It Wrong at
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/101169.html
See also Overpopulation: The Perennial Myth at
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2025
See also Remember Global Cooling?
Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/
Are you incapable of engaging in debate without insults based on bigoted stereotypes?
If you have some basis for your position other than the discredited belief that we are going to overpopulate the planet, please let me know. If not, you may continue to show your lack of any cogent arguments by insulting anyone and everyone with whom you disagree.
clubofrome
5 years ago
I have also stated that the predictions of the Population Bomb and The Limits to Growth were both off target. In timeline though. Others have warned the message should be one of caution. But you have made no argument to dispute anything I have said. Alas, you missed the question again. I said the book "Extinction" not the Pop Bomb. Loss of genetic diversity due to human activity on the planet. You're just an experiment in this thing called life and have no claim to the throne on this planet. Not you or your god. Mother nature will set you straight soon enough. Climate change is a big subject, it doesn't just debate warm vs. cold. How about depletion of all food fish, agricultural land, pollution, sea level rise? I'm trying to reserve insults for only those who are bigited stereo types, like you. While I do enjoy a lively debate, you brong nothing to the table. I've claimed you were a religious zealot from the start and nothing you have done or claimed has changed that. While you continue to mislead in everything you post. I've asked you some straightforward questions. Why don't you try and answer just a few? Why is the land cotinuing to deteriorate? Mining and leaching of toxins? Salination of agricultiural land? Loss and pollution of ground water? Gods will or human meddling? I've been honest when I say I don't like you. But I do respect all forms of life, especially Dolphins. You though are redundant, dangerous and a threat to society. A natural threat, like the next ice age. It's not your fault though, you're only human. You have just as much right to go extinct as the Dodo bird. You are a canary in a mine shaft, a frog in a boiling pot of water. you are insignificant in the big picture. Your god will not save you, he helps those who helps themselves. Who help others. Those who are meek perhaps, and tread softly on the earth. Is any of this getting through to you? If not just admit you are a creationist and lets be done with it. I just thought you may have picked up some education along the way besides how to impregnate your wife and not even enjoy it. I'm sure she didn't. You make all this noise about love and how it relates to your belief. Yours, not ours. OK. We happen to enjoy sex, just like Dolphins, for the fun of it. It's just one more reason you can't be taken seriously!
clubofrome
5 years ago
Not that I would normally open one of your links, but here is what your professor at St. Josephs wrote:
“Overpopulation†cannot stand on its own. It is a relative term. Overpopulation must be overpopulation relative to something, usually food, resources, and living space. The data show that all three variables are, and have been, increasing more rapidly than population.
The whole agrument falls apart when these misleading statements are shreaded, as worthless as the paper they were written on. Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond for a different viewpoint. Society's have always collapsed because of rise and fall of wealth. You are confusing money with wealth. Try eating it when the shelves are bare at your local grocery.
Here's another pearl:
Everything is not fine. There are many problems in the world. Children are malnourished. But the point that cannot be ignored is that all of the major economic trends are in the right direction. Things are getting better.
Economic is man made, not a gift from god you hick. Oops sorry, But you don't seem to have a clue, what kind of idiot are you! I'm sorry! I feel like Kevin Kline in a "Fish called Wanda" kicking John Clease then apologizing then kicking him again... What kind of moron buys into this crap.... Sorry!
GKL
5 years ago
clubofrome,
You are the one who cited Paul Ehrlich, not me, I just pointed out his unreliability as a source to base one's views of whether one should have children. Here a few more of his predictions:
* "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (1968)
* "Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
* "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)
* "Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)
See The Story of Chicken Little at http://eleaston.com/chicken.html
Allow me a little literary license to modify the Narrator's last line:
So [the population control crowd] led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. [They] led them straight to [their] den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling.
Let's look at the fertility of some of the population control lobby:
Margaret Sanger - four children
Clarence Gamble - five children
John D. Rockefeller III - four children
Alan Guttmacher - three children
Notice a pattern here. All of them had above replacement rate fertility while they were working and funding the works of others to convince the common folk that babies were ruining the world. Obvious they didn't believe their own rhetoric or believed that their babies weren't part of the overpopulation problem. Would you like to see some quotes from Sanger and Gamble about whose children were overpopulating the world? Given your earlier rhetoric, I don't think you would like who they said were the problem.
(Ehrlich apparently really believed his doomsday scenarios, having only one child. Though if he really believed the world was going to be such a terrible place, it is hard to understand why he would have any children.)
All of these folks advocated and policies to induce the common folk to reduce their fertility. Their success in the developed nations of the world is without dispute and with each year their success is spreading to the rest of the world.
By all means, keep believing their doomsday myths if you wish, but don't expect the rest of us to order our lives around their rhetoric when they didn't practice what they preached.
clubofrome
5 years ago
OK, Rainman, Jeopary at 4, Jeopardy at 4.... I'm done with you as*hole. You can't answer simple questions, I'm not sure you even understand them. If you're a lawyer I'm a Dolphin. You can't possibly be educated, unless you count field stripping and cleaning your AK-47 learnin. I'm amazed at your ability to ignore the logic! Is that what gung-ho is? They breed you that way to make marines out of you? You poor brainwashed SOB. You need to lessen the enemy, make them less than human to kill them and you continue the practice this with your religion. You'll take up arms now as militia, fight anyone your grand wizard deems the enemy. You make me sick. You must be a big part of the reason only one abortion clinic was left in Mississippi. I'm sure I saw you on TV picketing the last one. You sick fuk.
Lets continue to discount science and all the work of all scientists who may or may not have been smoking pot back in the sixties. Forget the passion of their work and the warnings they speak of. Erlich, David Suzuki, what do they know!? Al Gore, what a fool! GreenPeace, the World Wildlife Fund all commie subversive groups looking to divert tax money from education and health care into their own leftist, infertile views! We must now close our minds and trust only in your god. And I used to wonder how anyone could strap explosives to their own body for their cause. You, Great Klan Leader, have shown us how. I an Canadian, and I would rather blow myself up than live in your world. You, GKL, are the reason Americans are despised. That's how rotten your apple is. Able to suppress all the possible good from America. Now do me a favour, after you've thought about this, you will want the last word, which I will not bother to read, so you may as well save yourself the trouble, but it would be advised that you don't ever post here again, as you will surely be ripped apart as you you have here but are just too numb to notice. Now, just as I ended with deadwood, pretty please, with sugar on it, go fuk yourself.
GKL
5 years ago
Please don't blame me for the fact that there is still one aboritorium in Mississippi. Were it in my power, there would be none in Mississippi or anywhere else and abortion would be illegal except to save the life of the mother.
clubofrome
5 years ago
I was going to let him have the last word, but nah! The last word should still be Fuk You GKL and all the rest of the GKL klan. "May the gasoline at your next cross burning spill on your robes and engulf you in flames..."