You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #41: duh--the planet cannot sustain this kind of "choice" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-30-09 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #30
41. duh--the planet cannot sustain this kind of "choice"
Edited on Fri Jan-30-09 10:45 AM by ima_sinnic
gee, why shouldn't every woman go out and give birth to litters at a time? do you have any understanding of the concept of "carrying capacity"? do you think the resources of the earth are unlimited and infinite? should every woman say the hell with it, I don't care if there isn't enough to go around, I want the glory and the attention, I want to have the most babies of anybody in the world?

In the grand scheme of things, species that devote energy to parental care, such as humans and other mammals, do NOT have large litters, because the proportion that will survive is very high. And parents can devote only so much time to individual offspring (ask the Duggars' children how they feel about being used as free babysitters for their younger siblings). Species like fish and insects that release massive numbers of eggs do so because only a fraction will survive.

"Playing god" by artificially creating multiple fetuses is downright stupid. This woman obviously could care less about anybody but her own selfish little self. The only way those children are going to "make it" is with lots of input from others in the community (which I guess she just assumes she will get and "deserves")--people whose time and money could be better spent helping children without parents and other worthy causes instead of 8 sickly infants whose mother wants to be some kind of breeding machine.

Breeding for cash is quite popular now--you do watch TLC, right? She can follow the example first set back in the 30s by the parents of the Dionne quints and CASH IN! (but don't ask the kids how they feel about being exploited as sideshow freaks or anything ...)

Hey, a baby mill is more profitable than a puppy mill! Now that puppy mills are illegal and being shut down, start a human baby mill!

I just got a very urgent plea from our local homeless shelter. Here in Maine it seems that donations are down at a time when homeless people can literally freeze to death, and I would guess that donations are down everywhere in this depressed economy. Should I send them a note and say, gee, I can't donate any more for several years because a woman "chose" to give birth to 8 premature infants, artificially, without even a husband? What if something happens to "grampa" over there in Iraq? My tax dollars better not be paying one red cent for these little frankenbabies. She wanted them, she can damn well pay for them herself, and make sure every single one is educated enough to make a contribution to society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC