Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, that whole "most inflammatory thing possible" part of his posts is EXACTLY what makes me question his motives and understanding of the situation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kwicko,


I think the point was about how the new society has mandated everyone's time, and there is no free time, and no time to raise children, so they're being raised by the public school and the idiot box, but I have learned from experience that such a post doesn't generate the same level of response.

I still think there's another way, I just haven't found out what it is yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
At the moment, the scariest "change we can believe in" is Obama's idea that "You must buy health insurance for your children." Sounds good if you're not listening, but what it's really saying is "here's a very expensive bill that you will now have to pay to buy a consumer product which is a middleman for another consumer product that has no net benefit, if you want to have kids." That's another way of saying "You can opt out, or you can have kids." Not allowing people the freedom of having children under their own terms, a path that we embarked on with the introduction of Clinton and Waco, have carried on through Bush, and now will potentially complete with Obama, falls under the UN charter of genocide.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo

Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.

It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo

Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.

It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.

---

I'll give the UN Charter a check in a few - I sincerely doubt any of it's authors would agree with your characterization though.

Just checked his site because, quite frankly I could not remember the details:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."

Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).

It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo

Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.

It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.

---

I'll give the UN Charter a check in a few - I sincerely doubt any of it's authors would agree with your characterization though.

Just checked his site because, quite frankly I could not remember the details:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."

Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).

It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."

---

50-million illegal aliens need free medical care, er, 100-million. They average 6 anchor babies each... Billed to YOU.

And everyone will be forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines, that include live HIV and cancer virus. Same vaccines that infected 50% of Africans with AIDS. Just like the military is already forced to do by socialized medicine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
There is no freedom without the freedom to say no.

F.I.W.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

50-million illegal aliens need free medical care, er, 100-million. They average 6 anchor babies each... Billed to YOU.

And everyone will be forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines, that include live HIV and cancer virus. Same vaccines that infected 50% of Africans with AIDS. Just like the military is already forced to do by socialized medicine.

---

PN - my hat's off. I am amazed at how many buttons you can push in the space of 3 sentences. You should teach a class! Maybe you do?

I especially love, "forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines." Nice, but I really think it's missing some Hulking Demonic Nazi Nurse imagery (just guessing your style).

Whatever, you regain your stride with *somehow* (magic? witchcraft?) being able to add the words, "HIV" "cancer" "virus" "African" "AIDS" and the recently made toxic "socialized" all in just 2 sentences - f*cking amazing, tour de force English.

---

Quote:

---

Nurses' Participation in the Nazi Euthanasia Programs

Professor Susan Benedict, CRNA, DSN, FAAN
College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina
Western Journal of Nursing Research, April 1999

During the Nazi era, so-called "euthanasia programs" were established for handicapped and mentally ill children and adults. Organized killings of an estimated 70,000 German citizens took place at killing centers and in psychiatric institutions.

The end of 1996 marked the 50th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial in Nuremberg in which physicians were convicted of crimes against humanity.

At the specialized centers, children who were designated by the Reich Committee for euthanasia were killed shortly after arrival by medication or were starved to death. In the pediatric unit of Haar, for example, 332 children died of deliberate starvation or by an overdose of Luminal [Phenobarbital]. This drug was mixed into the children's food every morning and night until they became unconscious and developed pneumonia. Some were also given injections of morphine and scopolamine.

The doctors sometimes received a 250RM [approximately $800 US] Christmas bonus. In some clinics the tensions of the job were soothed by a visit to the wine cellars to mark every fiftieth killing with copious amounts of wine and cider.

Although the children were killed with injections or starvation, these methods were not efficient for the large number of adults at the killing centers. In these locations, gas was used. Patients were transported by bus from local and regional hospitals to the killing centers. "At the killing center, the arriving patients were met by the staff and led to the reception room by a male or female nurse, who might have accompanied them on their trip". They were then taken to gas chambers which were disguised as shower rooms.

Hitler ordered the organized euthanasia program for the adults to end in August 1941. The killings had become public knowledge and opposition to the programs came from individuals and churches; however, the children's euthanasia program continued without interruption and the stop order applied only to the killings in the gas chambers of the killing centers. "As with the children, after the stop order, physicians and nurses killed handicapped adults with tablets, injections, and starvation. In fact, more victims of euthanasia perished after the stop order was issued than before".

Fraudulent death certificates were prepared and the bodies were cremated. Families were notified of the deaths of these relatives and could receive an urn of ashes purported to be those of their loved one. In reality, the urns contained combined ashes of many people from the crematorium.

If the patients were in their right minds and could see through everything, we told them that their health condition had improved in a manner that they only would have to take a cure in order to get discharged.

Young nurses deliberately weren't appointed to participate in the killings because we feared they couldn't be able to keep their mouths shut.

The killing of patients was never done by only one nurse. Practical experience had shown that it was absolutely necessary for the killing to be done by at least two nurses. The killing of a person is a hard strain on the nerves of the person doing it.

It's a fact of experience that medicine doesn't taste good and people generally are not readily prepared to take medicine. The same can be said with regard to injections. Almost all of our patients were scared of injections. In order to give the dissolved medicine, particularly the injections, and the cooperation of at least two nurses was necessary.

When giving the dissolved medicine, I proceeded with a lot of compassion. I had told patients that they would have to take a cure. Of course I could tell these fairy tales only to those patients who were still in their right minds to the extent that they could understand it. I took them lovingly and stroked them when I gave the medicine. If, for example, a patient did not empty the entire cup because it was too bitter, I talked to her nicely, telling her that she had already drunk so much that she would drink the rest, otherwise her cure couldn't be finished. Some could be convinced to empty the cup completely. In other cases, I gave the medicine by the spoonful.

They were not to be tortured more than necessary and I thought it would be better to give them an injection.

The Director Grabowski always warned us of the Gestapo. He said he would inform the Gestapo if we didn't do what he ordered.

www.baycrest.org/Winter%202002/article4.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I can't believe the BS posted here.

Women have NEVER had a free ride, historically or during evolution.

Look at more primitive societies - you will find females provide roughly 80%+ of the food through gathering and primitive agriculture, males provide 20% or less through hunting.

It is common for women to do all the farming AND cooking AND child minding AND fetching - water, firewood, goods - women are often treated as beasts of burden.

Girls are treated as trade goods, sold into prostitution, often to fund the father's drug habits.

Islam is the driving force of female mutilation. Hey guys, how would you like to have YOUR parts dug out with a rusty razor blade in order to be considered 'clean' ?

As for Islam - the more restrictive it is - in say Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Morocco, Nigeria, Western Sahara - the higher the female suicide rates, mutilation rates, abuse rates. Uuhhm, yeah, women really must like that.

When it comes to childcare, in Fiji today (an egalitarian society) the older people look after the children, men fish, and women plant, harvest and cook taro and other vegetables. Food is too hard to come by to waste the time of able-bodied adults in looking after children.

The idea of the delicate flower staying at home is a recent Western notion, spawned in the late 1800's, and only for high class consumption, as women in lower classes still did the farming, worked in mills and sweatshops, as housemaids etc.

And y'all need to read the book 'Mother Love'. It's historically common (in Europe through the 1200's to currently, for which data is available) that when females have social opportunities other than child-bearing, they choose those things other than child-bearing.

Female choice is the driving force of the 'demographic transition' - the reliable change to smaller family size as overall prosperity goes up, education goes up, and people move to cities.



A male dominated society in which females are restricted has never been a good things for women. And given the choice, women choose otherwise.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Oh, have fun, hope on. Some of us my fight against our extinction, but don't mind us, we're just finicky conservatives objecting to our extermination, it's just a little nitpick of ours. How quaint

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Oh, have fun, hope on. Some of us my fight against our extinction, but don't mind us, we're just finicky conservatives objecting to our extermination, it's just a little nitpick of ours. How quaint

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

As I have said before and still maintain, this is not about them being punished for being 'different'. It's not about 'a few bad apples'. Grooming girl children and giving them no other choice but to be underage brides to much older men in polygamous marriages is DOCTRINE.

---

Quote:

---

"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."

Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).

It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."

Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).

It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."

---

Here's the problem, Pizmo. No public option means people have to pay for that insurance outta their own pockets. Raising kids already costs a crapload of money. Now it costs more, which means people have an incentive to have fewer kids, because they can't afford them when before they might have been able to.

There's a movement out there associated with the globalist movement that wants to see a decrease in human population. The most obvious and likely reason from this is there's less people to share resources with for the people still around.

---

Quote:

---

No, it is mainly due to the 'demographic transition' wherein, through improved economics, women find better things to do than have children.

---

Quote:

---

That movement must not be very strong in well-off European countries where having children is heavily supported through medical and social policies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
DT, the reality is that there are too mnay people for the earth to support. It may not feel that way since you live in the North American West, but you have not been to Europe, China, Japan, India, Bagladesh, Indonesia etc where any land that is even marginally arable is farmed, and every even semi-horizontal piece of land is occupied with something.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yeah, I know those were a year old, but it had some bearing on the topic I wanted to discuss, so I addressed the comments about Obama's healthcare plan.

The problem with those policies is who it benefits, and it's not the populations the policy is instituted on.

The way I see it, it benefits the rich and those already in power, because those already in power are not having as many children anyway, so they aren't affected by the policies. But the lower classes that live a harder life and where it is less certain that their children will live to adulthood, these policies cause direct harm to them, and also exist to prevent the lower class population from exceeding a certain number that the powers that be think they can control.

That's how it is in China, the urban areas where all the power groups are (where they have undergone something like Rue's demographic transition) are unaffected, but rural areas and areas that are not Chinese ethnically but that the Chinese government claims are part of China, they are very much affected, and it is really almost a form of ethnic cleansing. The rural people of China do NOT like the one child policy. Perhaps they are selfish for wanting to have progeny that live long enough to reproduce themselves, but I don't think so.

---

Quote:

---

DT, the reality is that there are too mnay people for the earth to support. It may not feel that way since you live in the North American West, but you have not been to Europe, China, Japan, India, Bagladesh, Indonesia etc where any land that is even marginally arable is farmed, and every even semi-horizontal piece of land is occupied with something.

---

Quote:

---

So are you saying that women are COERCED into having fewer children when the economy becomes too NICE to them ?

Or that the government COERCES them into having fewer children as part of some grand conspiracy with policies that make having kids LESS of a burden ?

---

Quote:

---

And, uhm - WHICH government polices are making it harder ? Be specific !

---

Quote:

---

you have not begun to think

---

Quote:

---

You need, I think, to break out of your own head - it's really small in there and the only thing you'll find is yourself !

---

Quote:

---

But if we had some improvements, we could cut down on a lot of the land being used, and increase our output.

---

Quote:

---

And if we were to actually invest in establishing some freaking off world colonies, the human race might have some long term potential without having to make any potentially murky decisions.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, you're right, population decrease would ALSO make us use less land, but if you go that route, you still have to ask yourself, "what populations do we decrease?" That's not a decision that I think anyone should make, because it's impossible to be neutral when it's your nation, YOUR people's reproductive future at stake. Furthermore, without force (China), the population is unlikely to accept such a measure because it goes against basic instincts. Unless it's whitecoated, or they're preconditioned to accept it, a population will always choose survival over lofty sounding noble goals.

---

Quote:

---

I have pointed out the fata flaw in your logic that people wo are concerned about being able to afford children have fewer as a result - by highlighting the FACT that the poorest people who can afford them the least have the most.

---

Quote:

---

The problem is now, Byte, not in the distant future when we "might" go off-world. And if we had the $$ and the will to go off-world, wouldn't we have the $$ and the will to improve our earth?

---

Quote:

---

But it's also still a question of resources and economic security. They don't have more children because resources are limited by a capitalist system. These family level considerations are easily converted into arguments about the resources and population and environmental problems faced by humanity. Hence the reason I extrapolated

---

Quote:

---

Are there others that DISincetivise having children ? A question you have yet to answer.

---

Quote:

---

maybe, just possibly maybe, given a choice women find better things to do than have children.

---

Quote:

---

"But it's also still a question of resources and economic security. They don't have more children because resources are limited by a capitalist system. "

And resources AREN'T limited even more by the capitalist system in Bangladesh ? You simply can't say that A (lack of recoures) is a cause of B (fewer children) when MORE of A (poverty) causes LESS of B (more children).

---