Re: Having Babies/DNR orders

[Guest guest]

I won't comment on Planned Parenthood's " philanthropic " doings, because I

know too much about it's founder's REAL motives, and the outcome of their

" assistance " in too many cases, having worked at a Crisis Pregnancy Center

myself for

a while. But I will say that a DNR is a good thing to have, and should it be

needed, it can be a comfort to families, not to have to agonize over what to

do " in case " . My own father had a DNR order in place when he got sick this past

year, and although I will miss him forever, it was a comfort to know he

didn't suffer, and we weren't doing things he'd HATE to try and squeeze another

few

months of poor quality life out of him for selfish reasons. I have since

spoken to my husband about MY wishes, and I think everyone should. It can't

wait!

Marilyn

[Guest guest]

At 11:11 AM 11/27/04 -0800, you wrote:

>Hopefully your Pregnancy Center also provided good birth control services?

>A lot of folks dis PP, but I don't see them helping folks get birth control!

>As a young, poor, married woman there really was no where else to get

>cheap birth control counselling and services in the US. I continued going to

>them even after I had money, because the regular docs just did not know

>as much about birth control (and acted embarassed to discuss it!).

>I never did have an unplanned pregnancy. Anyone who is serious about

>reducing the number of abortions ought to be out there teaching girls (and

boys)

>how to avoid pregnancy. Sadly, the kids in my circle who have had unwanted

>pregnancies have all been from very religious families and were very

>religious themselves, which is a double whammy: they didn't know enough

>to avoid the situation, and they felt doubly guilty once they got into it.

>

>As for morbid stories, having seen the pictures from Abu Graib and

>the priestly problems in the Catholic church, and what I've experienced

>with conventional doctors, I doubt there is any organization without

problems.

>Education rocks though.

>

>

>Heidi Jean

Agreed. Thank you for putting it so well.

MFJ

Yeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! ~Hammond of Texas

[Guest guest]

Heidi I won't get into a debate, because this subject can get HEATED.

But as for birth control advice at the CPC, yes, they did--it's called

" abstinence " , otherwise known as " self-control " --good advice for immature or

otherwise

unprepared potential expectant parents! It may not be popular advice these

days in this age of " political correctness " , but it's the truth. BTW--my advice

for MARRIED people about birth control is equally unpopular--just say " no " . If

you're a mature married couple, I believe you should welcome children into

your family without reservation or hesitation based on fears which usually prove

unfounded. Children are called a BLESSING in the Bible, and I don't think we

should second guess God, or refuse his blessings, no matter what form they

take. But that's strictly MY opinion. And I know I'm going to get flooded with

e-mails containing the horror stories and " what if's " , and as I said, I won't

debate the subject. In my belief system, God knows best, even if we don't

understand the " what if's " . It's just that black and white to me. Not everyone

feels

the same, and I'm aware of that, but my opinion stands, for me. Marilyn

[Guest guest]

>I won't comment on Planned Parenthood's " philanthropic " doings, because I

>know too much about it's founder's REAL motives, and the outcome of their

> " assistance " in too many cases, having worked at a Crisis Pregnancy Center

myself for

>a while.

Hopefully your Pregnancy Center also provided good birth control services?

A lot of folks dis PP, but I don't see them helping folks get birth control!

As a young, poor, married woman there really was no where else to get

cheap birth control counselling and services in the US. I continued going to

them even after I had money, because the regular docs just did not know

as much about birth control (and acted embarassed to discuss it!).

I never did have an unplanned pregnancy. Anyone who is serious about

reducing the number of abortions ought to be out there teaching girls (and boys)

how to avoid pregnancy. Sadly, the kids in my circle who have had unwanted

pregnancies have all been from very religious families and were very

religious themselves, which is a double whammy: they didn't know enough

to avoid the situation, and they felt doubly guilty once they got into it.

As for morbid stories, having seen the pictures from Abu Graib and

the priestly problems in the Catholic church, and what I've experienced

with conventional doctors, I doubt there is any organization without problems.

Education rocks though.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/2004 8:31:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

catzandturtles@... writes:

> just wish he'd let me support

> them a little better! lol

> L.

>

Amen to that, ! I hear ya! I, too, bought into the birth control

mentality years ago, influenced by feminists I associated with. But then I read

" The Way Home " and " All the Way Home " by Pride, and my eyes opened up to a

new possibility--one I am very comfortable with, eight children later! It's

definitely not the easy way, but I happen to be happy with it. Thanks for the

support! Marilyn

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/27/2004 9:07:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,

hl@... writes:

> Isn't this what Weston Price found? Couples would separate so as to

> separate births? The pill and other chemical choices are not

> biologically sound. Are they? WWWT?

>

Deanna--I had a feeling this might be misinterpreted by some. While yes, a

couple can be celibate for a time, so as to avoid conception, I don't believe

this is what's best for most marriages. Physical expressions of love are

important to most marriages, for the couples' sense of togetherness and

intimacy.

However, this can certainly be used for a short time, if desired by BOTH

parties.

And chemicals are definitely NOT okay, under any circumstances. What I meant,

however, is " just say no " to BIRTH CONTROL. A radical idea in this " modern "

age, but quite a liberating one for many couples, who are discovering the joy

and freedom of letting God decide on family size. When my husband and I first

married, he thought I was completely insane, not wanting to " plan " our family.

But he didn't argue with my obviously strong convictions, and let things

happen as they may. He's never, ever regretted it for a minute. Marilyn

[Guest guest]

Marilyn, I'll start by sending support. God saw fit to give me my

boys...after I thought my dd would be an only. 7.5 yrs between #1 and

#2. and #3 was never expected at all... once truely is all it takes!

lol

And they are blessings. And I will accept any other blessings God

sends my way. I figure if he's sending children for me to raise, he'll

send a way for me to support them too... just wish he'd let me support

them a little better! lol

L.

.. Children are called a BLESSING in the Bible, and I don't think we

> should second guess God, or refuse his blessings, no matter what form they

> take. But that's strictly MY opinion. And I know I'm going to get flooded

> with

> e-mails containing the horror stories and " what if's " , and as I said, I

> won't

> debate the subject. In my belief system, God knows best, even if we don't

> understand the " what if's " . It's just that black and white to me. Not

> everyone feels

> the same, and I'm aware of that, but my opinion stands, for me. Marilyn

[Guest guest]

> BTW--my advice

> for MARRIED people about birth control is equally unpopular--just say

> " no " .

Isn't this what Weston Price found? Couples would separate so as to

separate births? The pill and other chemical choices are not

biologically sound. Are they? WWWT?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>It may not be popular advice these

>days in this age of " political correctness " , but it's the truth. BTW--my advice

>for MARRIED people about birth control is equally unpopular--just say " no " . If

>you're a mature married couple, I believe you should welcome children into

>your family without reservation or hesitation based on fears which usually

prove

>unfounded.

In the 1800's that was certainly the politically correct thing to do ... 10

children

families were fairly usual, tho a lot of the kids died, and there ended up being

way too many mouths to feed. In our family, my grandfather was kicked out

of the house (along with all the older sibs) to fend for themselves, because

there was not enough food. Overpopulation eventually led to famines and other

problems which ended up in mass emmigration to America.

It would be nice to believe that the folks who have some random number

of babies always end up with a good life, but I'd love to see some studies

that show that is the case. Human beings have a brain, and life tends to

go better if they use that brain.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/28/2004 3:36:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> In the 1800's that was certainly the politically correct thing to do ... 10

> children

> families were fairly usual, tho a lot of the kids died, and there ended up

> being

> way too many mouths to feed. In our family, my grandfather was kicked out

> of the house (along with all the older sibs) to fend for themselves, because

> there was not enough food. Overpopulation eventually led to famines and

> other

> problems which ended up in mass emmigration to America.

>

> It would be nice to believe that the folks who have some random number

> of babies always end up with a good life, but I'd love to see some studies

> that show that is the case. Human beings have a brain, and life tends to

> go better if they use that brain.

>

>

> Heidi Jean

>

Heidi I'd like to think that people who have chosen our lifestyle DO

have a brain, thanks! I don't consider myself ignorant, backward, or

uninformed--I'm a suburban housewife with several years of college behind her. I

homeschool, and have run numerous support groups over the years. I have studied

childbirth, lactation, nutrition, special education, and early childhood

education.

I have successfully raised one very fine son, who is now Head of Internet

Security for the American Bible Society, with his own apartment and very decent

salary. I still have seven at home, and I like to think they're all pretty good

kids! It is a well thought out, conscious decision that we make to live as we

do, based on faith. To answer your concerns, it is not typical for families to

kick unprepared " baby chicks " from the nest. Those of us with large families

either make an extended family unit, as we are doing, by buying or building a

home that can accomodate multiple generations, and we prepare our kids for an

early maturity and independence, starting when they are very young, so they

don't sit around the house expecting handouts when they're 30! It can be done,

and is being done every day, in many families around the country.

Overpopulation is a myth, plain and simple, because if it weren't, many years

after the

time period you're referring to, we'd all have nowhere to go! Famine was a

reality that drove people to emigrate, and that was due to climactic events,

mainly.

As to your last concern, of course they don't have studies " proving " that all

kids from large families do well. There is similarly no study proving that

kids from SMALL families do well either! This is because nothing in life is

certain, regardless of our background or family size! Each family chooses the

path

that's best for them, and this happens to be ours. I have a right to say so,

as you have a right to say it wouldn't work for you. No judgements here, just

stating the way it is for ME. Marilyn

[Guest guest]

Heidi I believe your arguments come from a perspective I can not find

credible in many ways, for religious reasons. I joined this group to discuss

nutrition, and that is where I think I'd like to leave this particular subject.

Arguing your points, when I can not debate you due to extreme philosophical

differences, will get us nowhere. Not sidestepping the issues due to lack of

answers--just lack of desire to argue. Hope that's okay with you. Marilyn

[Guest guest]

> Heidi I'd like to think that people who have chosen our lifestyle DO

>have a brain, thanks! I don't consider myself ignorant, backward, or

>uninformed--I'm a suburban housewife with several years of college behind her.

I

>homeschool, and have run numerous support groups over the years. I have studied

>childbirth, lactation, nutrition, special education, and early childhood

education.

>I have successfully raised one very fine son, who is now Head of Internet

>Security for the American Bible Society, with his own apartment and very decent

>salary. I still have seven at home, and I like to think they're all pretty good

>kids.

If you've studied a lot, then you know that for most

of history human beings, and for that matter most of the animal kingdom,

do not just randomly have babies. Most animals mate in a specific season,

and don't if there isn't enough food. In wolf packs, only the alpha pair have

children, which prevents wolf overpopulation. Humans in pre- " modern " societies,

as

Price noted, spaced the children so the Mom's could rebuild their reserves (and,

I presume, give the young adequate milk and carry them around). Women

raising lots of kids in this country do a lot better than in other countries,

mainly

because our standard of living is higher and the women are better educated.

But of the families I know personally, more of the bigger families end up

on foodstamps or needing other help: it is just harder to raise that many

kids.

Overpopulation is a myth, plain and simple, because if it weren't, many years

after the

>time period you're referring to, we'd all have nowhere to go!

Huh, so how " overpopulated " does it have to get before it isn't a myth? I mean,

do

we have to wipe out the buffalo, the salmon runs, the elephants,

the Atlantic cod, whales, the old growth forests? Or all those little species

that

God created so specially, do those have to start going extinct? Do the

farmers have to start fighting for water rights with the cities? Do the

rivers have to start going dry to feed the Southwest? Do we have to

start meddling in the Middle East to get the last of the oil? Start having

new diseases crop up, or much of the world go malnourished?

Or does it only count as " overpopulated " if folks like you and me start

starving? (The fact most of the US is living off the modern equivalent

of Soylent Green and living in crowded conditions probably doesn't count

either).

The earth has been " overpopulated " since Neolithic times, in terms

of decimating the planet to a more or lesser degree ... the Indians lived

in America for thousands of years and it was more or less pristine,

huge herds of buffalo and wild animals, because there weren't all that

many Indians. Westerners have been here for a mere 400 or so and

we've cut down most of the old trees, remodeled Florida, and mined

the easy metals, farmed the open grassland, killed off the wolves and

driven back the cougars. Good thing we aren't expected to be " good

stewards " or anything!

>Famine was a

>reality that drove people to emigrate, and that was due to climactic events,

mainly.

Famine happens when people are overcrowded ... climate changes and plague

are triggers (plague happens more often when plants and people are overcrowded

too). It's kinda like a 50 car pileup on the freeway ... the cars can tailgate

all

day long until someone taps the brakes. Before the Irish overpopulated,

if the climate changed a bit, they could hunt deer or fish. Ditto the first

settlers here.

Once the Irish got potatoes and got dependent on them, one or two bad

harvests and they were starving.

Granted in the US it isn't much of a problem ... we can import food, and

we grow too much corn anyway. Japan is no longer self-sufficient though,

it requires imported food. Ditto for a lot of other countries, esp. when there

is a drought. Those countries used to be able to survive drought far better

when there were fewer people.

Right now LA and Las Vegas are living right on the edge ... I'd hate to

see what would happen if the river dries up (it's right on the edge too).

The LA area is historically prone to big floods ... the Indians just moved,

but I'd like to see LA get evacuated ...

>As to your last concern, of course they don't have studies " proving " that all

>kids from large families do well. There is similarly no study proving that

>kids from SMALL families do well either! This is because nothing in life is

>certain, regardless of our background or family size! Each family chooses the

path

>that's best for them, and this happens to be ours. I have a right to say so,

>as you have a right to say it wouldn't work for you. No judgements here, just

>stating the way it is for ME. Marilyn

Actually I'd guess there are studies about how well folks do in various

sizes of families, though I haven't studied it myself. In the past, the

women would get VERY stressed with the larger families, and often

they would die in childbirth. It's better now, in THIS country, but in

some others, giving women the freedom to not support 10 kids is

just an amazing thing to them. One of the reasons a 10 kid family

works ok here is that not everyone is doing it ... by and large families

are smaller and that takes the stress off the system. Of the 4 larger

families I've known personally though, 2 lost their homes due to

financial problems and 1 ended up on food stamps. They were very

nice folks though.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:52:15 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> >It may not be popular advice these

> >days in this age of " political correctness " , but it's the truth. BTW--my

advice

> >for MARRIED people about birth control is equally unpopular--just say " no " .

If

> >you're a mature married couple, I believe you should welcome children into

> >your family without reservation or hesitation based on fears which usually

prove

> >unfounded.

>

> In the 1800's that was certainly the politically correct thing to do ... 10

children

> families were fairly usual, tho a lot of the kids died, and there ended up

being

> way too many mouths to feed.

Do you have a cite or cites for this? While it is certainly true that

birth control was not the thing it is today (actually the use of birth

control has been cyclical), it does not follow that 10 kid families were

" fairly " usual. I would like to see some support for that assertion.

Nor is the issue of birth control something new as I note below

concerning overpopulation. It has been around for a long time. The early

Church Fathers (which includes Church Mothers as well) tackled the issue

from the very early days of the Church.

In our family, my grandfather was kicked out

> of the house (along with all the older sibs) to fend for themselves, because

> there was not enough food. Overpopulation eventually led to famines and other

> problems which ended up in mass emmigration to America.

Overpopulation is a myth. The cause of various famines was NOT

" overpopulation. " I would again like to see some cites. People have been

trying to make the overpopulation argument for an awful long time. Of

course it reached its zenith and most hysterical with the modern day

followers of Malthus.

Even one of my heroes in the faith, St. Chrysostom, was defending

birth control with the overpopulation argument back in the *4th* century.

It was wrong then (the overpopulation argument) and its wrong now.

> It would be nice to believe that the folks who have some random number

> of babies always end up with a good life, but I'd love to see some studies

> that show that is the case. Human beings have a brain, and life tends to

> go better if they use that brain.

I don't think anyone has suggested that a random number of babies always

ends up in a good life. And you can not practice birth control, as it is

normally understood, and still not have a " random number of babies. "

Personally I would like to see some studies that show having a small

pre-planned family leads to a good life. And of course some of that

would depend on how you define the " good life. "

One could just as easily use their brain to decide that birth control is

bad as one could use their brain to decide birth control is good. While

it is certainly possible to disagree on the topic, to suggest that

people who don't practice birth control (or use natural spacing methods) are

somehow not using their brain is fallacious and highly prejudicial.

" Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through

a deeper factual analysis. "

Murray Rothbard

" Vegetarians, come away from The Dark Side.

Pork is the other white meat; beef is what’s for dinner;

and a day without pepper-crusted venison tenderloin is

like a day without sunshine. "

Brad Edmonds

[Guest guest]

>>Do you have a cite or cites for this? While it is certainly true that

birth control was not the thing it is today (actually the use of birth

control has been cyclical), it does not follow that 10 kid families were

" fairly " usual. I would like to see some support for that assertion.<<

~~~I suppose I shouldn't comment, since I'm too lazy at the moment to go on a

thorough search for documentation, but this is generally accepted as true. I

used to be skeptical until my cousin sent me a foot tall stack of genealogy, and

I saw that almost every generation of my ancestors, going back a few hundred

years, were almost all huge families, and most kids didn't die young either.

(In fact, there were more than a few 11 kid families.)

Here's a couple of sites talking about the shrinking size of families, due to

less need for help on the farm etc. (I couldn't quickly find facts and

figures, even on the census cite, but didn't have a lot of time to spend on it.)

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/limitingbirths.cfm

http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/primarysources/lowell/transcript01.html

Carol

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:35:25 -0800

" Carol " <cah@...> wrote:

>

>

> >>Do you have a cite or cites for this? While it is certainly true that

> birth control was not the thing it is today (actually the use of birth

> control has been cyclical), it does not follow that 10 kid families were

> " fairly " usual. I would like to see some support for that assertion.<<

>

> ~~~I suppose I shouldn't comment, since I'm too lazy at the moment to go on a

thorough search for documentation, but this is generally accepted as true. I

used to be skeptical until my cousin sent me a foot tall stack of genealogy, and

I saw that almost every generation of my ancestors, going back a few hundred

years, were almost all huge families, and most kids didn't die young either.

(In fact, there were more than a few 11 kid families.)

>

Yikes! In my above comment I left out the bit " and a lot of kids died. "

It should read " it does not *necessarily* follow that 10 kid families

were " fairly " usual and that a lot of kids died " ( presumably from

starvation).

" Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through

a deeper factual analysis. "

Murray Rothbard

" Vegetarians, come away from The Dark Side.

Pork is the other white meat; beef is what’s for dinner;

and a day without pepper-crusted venison tenderloin is

like a day without sunshine. "

Brad Edmonds

[Guest guest]

:

>> In the 1800's that was certainly the politically correct thing to do ... 10

children

>> families were fairly usual, tho a lot of the kids died, and there ended up

being

>> way too many mouths to feed.

>

>Do you have a cite or cites for this? While it is certainly true that

>birth control was not the thing it is today (actually the use of birth

>control has been cyclical), it does not follow that 10 kid families were

> " fairly " usual. I would like to see some support for that assertion.

http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm

Family size declined between 1800 and 1900 from 7.0 to 3.5 children (4). In

1900, six to nine of every 1000 women died in childbirth, and one in five

children died during the first 5 years of life.* Distributing information and

counseling patients about contraception and contraceptive devices was illegal

under federal and state laws (8,9); the timing of ovulation, the length of the

fertile period, and other reproductive facts were unknown.

So the *average* in 1800 was 7 kids.

> In our family, my grandfather was kicked out

>> of the house (along with all the older sibs) to fend for themselves, because

>> there was not enough food. Overpopulation eventually led to famines and other

>> problems which ended up in mass emmigration to America.

>

>Overpopulation is a myth. The cause of various famines was NOT

> " overpopulation. " I would again like to see some cites. People have been

>trying to make the overpopulation argument for an awful long time. Of

>course it reached its zenith and most hysterical with the modern day

>followers of Malthus.

Don't forget Price ... he was worried about overpopulation too (AND

declining soil fertility). I suppose we'd need to define " overpopulation "

in order to show if it is a myth or not. In terms of using up renewable

resources, we clearly are using them at an unsustainable rate. Since

every source I've ever read on most famines mentions that there were

recent population increases (and, at the same time and very related,

decreases in soil fertility and the amount of available fuel, plus

soil and rain changes due to cutting down all the trees), I'd challenge

you to DISPROVE it.

Overpopulation doesn't always result in famine though. Overal

environmental degradation takes place ... like, all the trees got

cut down in Europe. The land can't renew itself fast enough with

too many humans. Humans with technology are even worse. And

it depends on the area ... Las Vegas is REALLY overpopulated

for what the water in the area can sustain, so is Los Angeles.

>Even one of my heroes in the faith, St. Chrysostom, was defending

>birth control with the overpopulation argument back in the *4th* century.

>It was wrong then (the overpopulation argument) and its wrong now.

Why was he wrong? Europe today is not nearly as nice as it was prior

to all the growth. I doubt it is self-sustaining foodwise either.

http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm

Accepting 12 percent as the magic number for biodiversity preservation, one can

calculate that from the approximately 2 hectares per capita of biologically

productive area that exists on our planet, only 1.7 hectares per capita are

available for human use. These 1.7 hectares become the ecological benchmark

figure for comparing people's ecological footprints. It is the mathematical

average of the current ecological reality. Therefore, with current population

numbers, the average footprint needs to be reduced to this size. Clearly, some

people may need more due to their particular circumstances -- but to compensate

others must therefore use less than the average amount available. Assuming no

further ecological degradation, the amount of available biologically productive

space will drop to 1 hectare per capita once the world population reaches its

predicted 10 billion. If current growth trends persist, this will happen in only

little more than 30 years.

FIGURE 4: Ecological deficits. The ecological footprint measures how much

ecological capacity we occupy. Some countries claim more ecological capacity

than there is within their boundaries. This means that they run an ecological

deficit. Consequently, they need to import their missing ecological capacity --

or deplete their local natural capital stocks (above). Countries with footprints

smaller than their capacity are living within their nation’s ecological means

(below). Often, however, the remaining capacity is used for producing export

goods rather than keeping it as a reserve.

There is a great chart showing all the countries. Of all of them, the US has the

highest deficit. China has more population, but of course they use less. As they

get more money though, it is figured they will start using more and more, and

the increase in consumption in the developing countries AND their increasing

population will put more stress on the environment. The worry right now of

course is oil, not food per se. However since it takes a lot of oil currently to

grow and deliver food, food costs would go up too, unless you are growing your

own.

> One could just as easily use their brain to decide that birth control is

>bad as one could use their brain to decide birth control is good. While

>it is certainly possible to disagree on the topic, to suggest that

>people who don't practice birth control (or use natural spacing methods) are

>somehow not using their brain is fallacious and highly prejudicial.

Well, the original post was saying (probably not completely seriously)

that children should just " come when they come " with no birth control.

I just would not recommend that to anyone, and possibly she wasn't

really meaning it, but taking it at face value, just getting pregnant

whenever is really " random pregnancy " , trust to luck, and if someone

really thinks that is a good thing, then yeah, I'd say it's not using your

brain. Pregnancy takes a lot out of a woman, and if the woman isn't

sufficiently recovered, then you increase your chances of birth

defects and miscarriages and damage to the mother.

Price had some good notes about how tribal cultures

would space babies to avoid weak babies

and birth defects, and how the Aborigines would only have the

number of babies that could be fed. Whether a couple practices

abstinence (as Price mentioned) or ovulation prediction or condoms

or whatever, it is still controlling when to have babies.

Heidi Jean

T

[Guest guest]

@@@ Heidi/:

> > It would be nice to believe that the folks who have some random number

> > of babies always end up with a good life, but I'd love to see some studies

> > that show that is the case. Human beings have a brain, and life tends to

> > go better if they use that brain.

> One could just as easily use their brain to decide that birth control is

> bad as one could use their brain to decide birth control is good. While

> it is certainly possible to disagree on the topic, to suggest that

> people who don't practice birth control (or use natural spacing methods) are

> somehow not using their brain is fallacious and highly prejudicial.

@@@@

,

Part of what you said is at least reasonable on the surface, that

choosing the " let God decide " approach is an active use of one's

brain, but another part of what you said is simply a mistake. Heidi

didn't suggest using natural spacing methods is not using one's brain;

using such methods was precisely and explicitly the usage of one's

brain she was referring to! Note that any distinction between " birth

control " and " natural spacing methods " is irrelevant to her point.

But that's just a minor goof-up in your post. To address the heart of

the matter, I think Heidi's point is quite profound, not some kind of

flippant or prejudical insult to people with different belief systems.

Being someone with a scientific background in cognitive science, I

was immediately impressed by her insight; for others it may require

extra reflection. Think about it this way: our biological niche as a

species is a result of our physiological totality, and whatever

conditions we have successfully dealt with historically could

potentially require any aspect of this totality. If we " shut off " one

of our major bodily systems, in this case the part of our brains that

can do abstract reasoning about our reproductive behavior and health,

then we may be passing over a " winning strategy " that is our

birthright (genetic entitlement).

As I interpret the concept, Heidi wasn't saying that the practitioners

of the " let God decide " approach are not *thinking*--obviously someone

like Marilyn is a highly intelligent person who has thought long and

hard about these topics--but rather that they are not deploying a

specific set of cognitive resources that has typically been deployed

in the history of our species. That's a deep and serious point, not

a cheap shot.

I hope that clarifies the issue. I'm personally impressed by the

WAP-based argument cited in this thread for controlling birth spacing.

I certainly plan to implement this wisdom myself one day. I'm can

also cite my first-hand experience living in a region with a very

concentrated Amish population, and seeing the lifestyles and health

conditions of many families with broods in the neighborhood of 10.

Overall, it's quite depressing. They are generally quite aware of

the downsides to this aspect of their culture. As one of my favorite

Amish farmer friends, with a rather large familiy of his own, once

told me, " We don't believe in birth control, and we have no

self-control. " ! Those guys do have a great sense of humor.

Here's a quote I really love, certainly relevant to the question of

overpopulation, a concept dependent on a specific set of resources.

It's from the book " Permaculture in a Nutshell " .

" Imagine the last half billion years of Earth's history compressed

into one year. It is now midnight on 31st December. Oil has been

laid down continuouly since about May. We discovered it three seconds

ago and in another three seconds we will have used it all up. "

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>Think about it this way: our biological niche as a

>species is a result of our physiological totality, and whatever

>conditions we have successfully dealt with historically could

>potentially require any aspect of this totality. If we " shut off " one

>of our major bodily systems, in this case the part of our brains that

>can do abstract reasoning about our reproductive behavior and health,

>then we may be passing over a " winning strategy " that is our

>birthright (genetic entitlement).

One problem with this argument is that it would have to be altered fairly

substantially for people who don't believe in evolution.

-

[Guest guest]

@@@ :

> One problem with this argument is that it would have to be altered fairly

> substantially for people who don't believe in evolution.

@@@

Darn! Thanks for catching that gaping loophole. That is a serious problem!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

>As I interpret the concept, Heidi wasn't saying that the practitioners

>of the " let God decide " approach are not *thinking*--obviously someone

>like Marilyn is a highly intelligent person who has thought long and

>hard about these topics--but rather that they are not deploying a

>specific set of cognitive resources that has typically been deployed

>in the history of our species. That's a deep and serious point, not

>a cheap shot.

Thanks, and you said it a lot better than I did! Actually what I was *thinking*

was about elephants ... they only mate at very specific times, and then

the female calls all the males from miles around and chooses one for

a mate. They do this by instinct, it's built into them. Most animals mate

at ONLY specific times, and those are the times when it is better, for

one reason or another, to raise offspring.

The exceptions are the prey animals, who will overpopulate wildly

without the other animals that eat them. And humans, who, according

to Price and others, generally enforced their own methods of population/

breeding control which varied from culture to culture. But with humans

it is a conscious choice, and act of will, so to speak, not an instinct.

With animals most things seem to be inborn ... with humans, we end up

having to think things through the hard way, to use our brains rather

than our heart, so to speak.

This is pretty much in line with the thinking

of a lot of the religious writers, who note that humans have " will " where

animals do not, on MOST areas of life. Food, for instance. A Panda bear

ONLY eats Eucalyptus leaves ... a human has choice. So you have free

will to eat Twinkies or to eat steak or to eat only brown rice. How do

you choose? Do you decide to eat whatever happens to be closest,

and easiest or cheapest, figuring " God provided it, it is near at hand " ? Or

do you say " My job is to nourish myself according to what I know,

and Twinkies are not good food " ? Most of us are on this list because

we are trying to figure out what IS good for humans to eat, and it's

not an easy question, and we can't solve it by what tastes good, or by

what is convenient, or by what most of our compatriots are eating.

I figure procreation is in a very similar department. " Random chance "

procreation

doesn't work any better than " random chance " eating ... and in both realms,

there is no one who has " THE ANSWER " that really works.

Also, there is very little in the Bible about birth control ... one passage

about " be fruitful and multiply " (after Noah got off the ark ... I think we

can safely say that we obeyed that!) and don't sacrifice your babies to

gods. 's thoughts were that it is better not to be distracted by

family at all ... don't get married. All or most of the current thinking comes

from religious leaders of this or last century, and the different versions

of Christianity have highly different takes on the subject. So I'm not

even going to tackle the " religious " stance ... the " science " stance is a lot

more well-defined.

But no, it wasn't meant as a cheap shot ...

no one in this list is unintelligent, or they wouldn't be here!

(BTW I am always impressed at the quality of the WRITING on this list.

In business circles, it is general a " given " that most people cannot

express themselves in words, or spell, for that matter. Most people

here write at a professional writer's level, which is kind of amazing,

esp. since most of it is " off the cuff " , and perhaps under the influence

of some amount of wine according to recent posts).

Heidi Jean

The trouble with the world is that the

stupid are cocksure and the

intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand

[Guest guest]

> Also, there is very little in the Bible about birth control ... one

> passage

> about " be fruitful and multiply " (after Noah got off the ark ... I

> think we

> can safely say that we obeyed that!) and don't sacrifice your babies to

> gods. 's thoughts were that it is better not to be distracted by

> family at all ... don't get married. All or most of the current

> thinking comes

> from religious leaders of this or last century, and the different versions

> of Christianity have highly different takes on the subject. So I'm not

> even going to tackle the " religious " stance ... the " science " stance

> is a lot

> more well-defined. - Heidi Jean's wisdom

> ------------------------------------------

You know, I have to really watch out for the ever present dogmatic

tendencies that constantly try to infiltrate my life. They show up in

everything, and if I don't recognize them for what they are, they close

my mind to other possibilities. And I very much like a neat and tidy

world of black & white, right & wrong. That's why I cling to the truths

of math so tightly like a comforting security blanket.

And life is just not so easy to compartmentalize and judge; as your

pregnancy really illustrates. Even when you shave out religion (using

Occam's Razor) we still have the ethics of philosophy to contend with.

And though it is not just with the biological sciences that we have

ethics, yet those fields tend to stare at us in the face with choices of

life and death very directly. Granted, building nuclear bombs have

these impacts too, but not in the same direct sense. And can you come

to easy conclusions about who has right to what when more than one

person's health, and perhaps life are on the line? I don't think so.

That is why ethics is still a part of philosophy. Intuition and choice

must be available to individuals whose lives are affected by medical

decisions. Doctors have no business placing their ideals above our own

in these cases. It is unfair and unethical to do so, I do believe.

Deanna