From: Pam Niedermayer (pam@pinehill.com)
Date: 09/08/02-10:16:10 AM Z
Yes, this is clearly an area that could use the influence of more women,
who do, after all, have to give birth and succor to these new people.
It's too easy for men to be sentimental about children. It calls for
more honesty about goals and motivation, more transparency of the
decision making process.
Pam
Judy Seigel wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Pam Niedermayer wrote:
>
>
>
>>Why set up straw arguments? I said stop reproducing, not helping those
>>who are already here. In fact, the richer and healthier people get the
>>fewer children they have. That said, you can see the problem beginning
>>to manifest itself clearly. Look how fast West Nile virus is spreading.
>>Look at what happens with meningitis in dorms. Look at aids in Africa.
>>You need more hints?
>>
>>
>
>Pam, it's called disassociation I think -- refusal to connect the dots.
>
>I'm always amazed that folks manage to wring their hands about the state
>of the world, famine, rampage, loss of resources, and so forth, without a
>mention of population. I'm always amazed that our sanctimonious
>government, men who have never missed a meal, and probably use more water
>in their swimming pools, lawns & jacuzzis, than an entire Chinese town,
>manage to wax so wroth about supposed "forced abortion" in China.
>Whether or not that exists, surely it's more humane than widespread famine
>-- as was common in early 20th century, & is on the horizon in many places
>now. So our government in its wisdom refuses family planning info to the
>world ("gag rule" was first act of Bush 2) and then tells starving people,
>um,... whatever.
>...
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:08 PM Z CST