Having a Third Child...not "green" anymore...

[deleted account] ( 158 moms have responded )

Pamela Paul wants a third child.

Writing in the Washington Post about her desire to have a “sprawling” family like the one she grew up in—“with seven brothers, real and step”—Paul mused about the high cost of raising a child these days: $204,060 according to a new federal estimate.

In many expensive American cities and suburbs, Paul noted, a third child has become “an ostentatious display of good fortune,” on behalf of the decreasing number of parents who can afford to feed, clothe, and educate the “luxury good” known as baby number three.

But while Paul considered the economic impact of having a third child, some irate readers excoriated her about what they say is the environmental impact of a bigger family.

“The oceans are dying, the oil is almost gone,” wrote one reader. “Large families are criminally irresponsible in such a desperate time.”

“More than two kids per couple means you are not just replacing yourself on the planet,” wrote another. “You are claiming more of the Earth’s resources for your family simply because it will be ‘fun.’”

Selfish…stupid…killing the planet with your overproduction of children. The baby shower of criticism stunned Paul, who wondered in a follow-up article why she—who viewed herself as a responsible mother who recycled, conserved water, and didn’t even have a car—was being accused of “destroying” another mother: Earth. “Golly,” Paul wrote. “I’m not even pregnant yet.”

“The days of big families should be over,” responded a critic. “Get a dog from an animal shelter instead.”

Tell us what you think: Do you believe that having a third child brings the pitter-patter of little feet, or the destructive carbon footprint of the future? When it comes to having more children, is three an irresponsible crowd?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

[deleted account]

Maybe I misread the article, but I didn't see where it mentioned government regulations; all I see is someone asking people to consider the impact of over population on the planet when deciding how many kids to have. No one is telling anyone how many kids to have, or to get rid of 'extra' kids.

That said, the argument that larger families live more "green" than smaller ones due to economic factors and the increased ability to reuse goods is short lived. Example. If a family has 4 kids, they do not make a bigger carbon foot print while the children are still living at home--they use the same home heated by the same amount of oil that would be used to heat the home of a single child, on the same small piece of land, ride in the same car and reuse lots of clothes. But, when they grow up, they will live in 4 different homes, use 4x's the amount of oil the single child will use, drive 4 different cars, and buy 4 times the new clothes. They will then have 4 kids each who will grow up and be responsible for 12x's the amount of resources.
That creates a problem with food even with genetically altered crops because we are going to need more land to put all those extra homes on, so where are we going to grow the crops? We are also going to need a lot more cars, so there will need to be more factories, or bigger ones on the land as well.

According to World Bank World Development Indicators, the population has increased by at least 0.8% EVERY YEAR since 1960 (the 1st available data). As a whole, the world has NEVER experienced a drop in population--yes, the population growth was lower many years, but it grows every single year. The current population of the world is estimated at 6,692,030,277, and the land surface area is 148,940,000km/sq (which will NOT grow with as the population grows). If current birth and death rates remain consistent we can expect a population of 9billion by 2040.
Also since people are living longer, we will still see a growth in population even if we reduce the number of births, so shouldn't we be trying to at least slow it down since we know we are running out of room? We could either kill old people faster, or have less kids (or since most people already have more kids, teach our kids to have less kids...)

Sharina - posted on 02/26/2010

139

40

18

It's really none of anyone's business how many children each couple has.

[deleted account]

Oh if we are only replacing people then im allowed to have my four because im only replacing my parents and my husbands parents so the UK is no better or worse off than it was before my kids were born lol. Also my argument is why should i limit the amount of children i have when my country is allowing hundreds of thousands of immigrants into the country every year. If theres room for the immigrants i dont think one little baby is going to make much difference.

Christi - posted on 02/25/2010

30

9

2

OK, because population growth is a global problem (not a N. American/ European one), how about this... Since "rich" countries like USA, UK, and Canada are responsibly having population shrinkage, our governments should send even more billions of dollars to poor countries in Africa and Asia to teach them how to be better stewards of our planet by not having 10+ children on average (obviously not actual statistics). Why is the discussion even had against members of developed nations having multiple children, when the problem is a global one? People in other countries are being selfish or ignorant, so we careful people shouldn't be allowed the families we want and can responsibly sustain?

Jenny - posted on 02/25/2010

4,426

16

126

Sometimes I wish electricity was never invented so we were forced to maintain living WITH the land instead of from it.



.All we humans do is take and we make NO apologies for it. It is everybody's problem but mine and we are doing the best we can right? Well let's be brutally honest with ourselves here. Look at from outside of our overly comfortable lives. How is that working out for us so far?

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

158 Comments

View replies by

Meghan - posted on 03/26/2010

85

52

15

I have 3 kids, no more, no less. We are done. 3. However, I know MANY people with a lot more than three and MANY with one, two or none. I think it is a personal choice and it is ridiculous to say, "get a dog instead." I would never compare my children to dogs. I think people should be allowed to have children if they want them. If they don't want them fine. But really, what about those who have more that three dogs? Lol. What message is that sending?

LaCi - posted on 03/26/2010

3,361

3

171

For every woman who wants 3 children I'm sure theres a woman like me who's content with just the one, or a woman who wants none at all.



I think people freak out excessively over population growth. Typically, the US has a growth of less than 1% in population, even with our large families and immigrants. The problem with the planet is the lack of environmental concern and the lack of sustainable materials being used, not people having 3 children. The population doesn't destroy the planet, their habits do. So, owning 3 Hummers is much worse than having three children, our need to accumulate so much CRAP in the name of capitalism to show off our status is detrimental. Not having 3 children because we love being parents.



Personally I couldn't handle 3 kids. I'm struggling to keep up with the one I have and have no desire to add to that number. I get a fleeting thought of "oh wouldn't it be nice for Nico to have a little sister?!" and then I catch myself and quickly get back to my reality.



The issues with having many children to replace those who will die have NOT ended in much of the world. Even in semi-peripheral countries like India this is still an issue. One of my sociology professors was Indian, she said she asked a woman why she had so many children when she had so little to support them with, and the woman asked *why should I be left with no children at all if some get sick?* Straight from India, so I trust that.

BRANDI - posted on 03/22/2010

11

6

0

AS A MOTHER OF 3 OF MY OWN AND 2 STEPCHILDREN THAT LIVE WITH ME FULLTIME THERE IS NO BIGGER HEART BREAK NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD THE EXTRA FUN STUFF FOR MY BABY I FINALLY GET A GIRL AND THE ECONOMY TAKES A NOSE DIVE I WOULD TRY TO DECIDE IF ITS SOMETHING YOU REALLY WANT OR MABEY JUST "BABY SICK" ALL I HAVE TO DO IS SEE BABY CLOTHES IN A STORE AND IM THINKING ABOUT IT FORTUNAT FOR ME MY PLUMIN IS GONE SO I CANT BUT THAT IS EVERY PERSONS RIGHT IF YOU WANT TO BRING A NEW LITTLE SOLE HERE THAT YOUR CHOICE NOT ABOUT BEING GREEN BUT FINANCIALLY ITS REALLY TUFF NOW HOPE THIS HELPS IN YOUR DECISSION!

[deleted account]

It's just someones hair brained theory on how things work, it assumes all other factors stay constant in the future to create these disastrous outcomes hmmm crystal ball much? The idea has not one iota of scientific merit. That is all, except for this one word concept....FLUX ... Check it.

Valerie - posted on 03/15/2010

240

22

12

We are a global community....I don't deny that. My question is....if the third world populations grow so rapidly the idea is we are supposed to counter that? So are the rest of the world supposed to stop reproducing altogether to make up for their irresponsibility? Instead of jumping down each others throats.....why not create organizations that work intensively in countries where population control is a problem. To educate, provide resources, and do whatever they can to help those countries get their populations under control? To me that seems far more reasonable.

My biggest issue with this whole debate is how judgmental everyone is on both sides! I want to have three kids. *GASP To all those who would harass me, yell at me, call me iresponsible I must counter and ask.....do you use gas? Do you shop at a grocery store and not grow your own food? How about all those people who drive SUVs because they are chic instead of a gas efficient car? Do you use renewable energy resources or not?

Why not first address the areas that cause the MOST problems at the present moment. When we try to fix everything at once nothing will be accomplished. I'm not saying we shouldn't mention the issue of reproduction to people and then leave it at that. But I'm saying lets focus our resources on the more pressing issues first and once they have been taken care of work from there. We would get far more accomplished.

Julia - posted on 03/15/2010

1,075

16

79

Holy crap! Seriously? My grandmother was one of 18 kids, my grandfather one of 11, my other grandmother one of 8. My father is one of 4 and mom is one of 3. I personally have 4 brothers and sisters (yes one is adopted) My brother has adopted one child with no intentions of having any others, my oldest sister could only give birth to one she has raised her husbands 3 sons and adopted another, my brother has 4, my sister has 4 (with intentions on having more with her new husband) and I have 3 with intentions of having more.

With that being said, I think there is less of an impact on the environment NOW then back when my great grandparents were having kids. And if some tree hugging hippie wants to preach to me about my impact on the environment I will happily look at them with a styrofoam coffee cup in my hand throw in the trash in their face and tell them to shove it because I will have as many kids as I damn well please and if they don't recycle then so be it.

Jane - posted on 03/14/2010

1

5

0

The days of needing to have 7 or 8 children, because at least 3 will die in childhood, due to disease etc, are gone. Thankfully......medicine and knowledge have advanced enormously, However, the flip side of that coin is the dilemma (if you can call it that), whereby people are living a lot longer. The elderly will need to be looked after and someone will need to pay for taxes, health care ( in the US). A certain amount of children and young population is absolutely vital. I think it only becomes perverse when a couple go overboard....like the woman in the States who has around 19 kids and pops another one each year....what exactly is she trying to do??

[deleted account]

Or we could just all get greener and stop dictating to everyone how to live their lives. If everyone who feels so strongly about it doesnt have any kids will it make a difference to the world probably not

Lady - posted on 03/10/2010

2,136

73

221

Poor wee thing - my first was quite blue, it was a bit of a shock having never seen a new born baby before but he too pinked up after a minute or so.

[deleted account]

yeah mine turned pink after but he was definately purply blue when he came out i think it was because he was holding his breath as he was covered in meconium lol

Lady - posted on 03/10/2010

2,136

73

221

Mine was a lovely pinky colour - very healthy but no deffinitly not green!!! lol

[deleted account]

Just read the title again and i'd like to add that my third child was a purple colour when he came out not green at all lmao

Lyn - posted on 03/08/2010

5

3

1

No I don't think so. I have 4 children although they are teeenagers now, but when I had my son (2nd child), he wasn't even 12 hours old when I was told I had my pigeon pair I didn't "need" anymore. we now have 3 girls and 1 boy. They all wore hand-me-downs, they have learnt to recycle and are reasonably conscious of the green world. It is your business how many children you have, not everyone else's.If you can afford to have anothe one go for it.

Terri - posted on 03/08/2010

287

0

13

Well if that's the case, then Im already destroying the earth because I already have 4 children lol! And Im sorry but we dont live in china, so nobody is going to tell me how many children I can or cannot have.



There is always so much death due to so many different events that I believe it all balances out in the end. And like a few other ladies have said, you will always have people who are unable to have kids or dont want kids. Our government encourages this nation to have at least 3 children per family, so Im doing my bit for my country!! lol

[deleted account]

Thats all very well but what if they wont let you adopt? My husband would be ruled out because of his age so if it was up to adoption agencies i wouldnt have any children.

Christy - posted on 03/06/2010

272

11

15

i am totally with Jenny and Carol on this one. it's not about emotionally not wanting a big family, it's about being responsible and wanting a better way of life for the children that we do have. and i'm not saying that it will directly effect the lives of our children but future generations will inevitably have serious hardships when we use up all of the earth's resources. think about this: if 1 couple has 10 children and each of those children say "growing up in a big family was awesome, i want 10 kids too", that ONE COUPLE will have been responsible for creating 100 people. it's much more environmentally friendly for a couple to have 2 children and have those 2 children each have 2, making them responsible for only 6 people on the planet. and it's not about whether or not you teach your family to be environmentally friendly, 6 new people on the planet will always be more eco-friendly than 100.

maybe a good way to get the big families that people crave (and i'm sure they always will want those big families if they were raised in one) is to adopt the unwanted children from orphanages. you still get your 5+ children without producing them all yourself. you can give an orphan a loving home AND grow yourself a huge family without the extra environmental consequences.

[deleted account]

I really care about the environment and I wish others did too. It makes me angry that such a worthy cause could be hijacked by the liberal agenda and used as a stick to beat people who believe in big families.

Jenny - posted on 03/06/2010

4,426

16

126

You are aware that people ARE animals right? We are a part of the ecosystem, not above it.

User - posted on 03/06/2010

2

0

0

Something is really wrong when we decide "animals over people" I wonder what this individual would have thought had his parent thought the same about him. I believe that the reason I have many seeds "ovum" in my body IS for the purpose of repoducing humans in the earth. I have 4 beautiful children and 2 grandchildren. NONE of them are "criminally irresposible." This sound a little bit like what was done in China and what Hitler did to the Jewish. Is this where we are heading? Come on people.

[deleted account]

Okay well what about the fact that not everyone has kids! I know alot of people who don't have kids and never plan on it. In Canada they talk about the dilemma of our shrinking population and growing "older" population with not enough young people to take over in the work force and pay into our Canada pension plan to support the aging population. Yet there are woman who give birth annually in developing countries knowing that most of their kids are going to die. (Not blaming those woman, they really have no choice)

The oceans dying and oil being depleted has nothing to do with population it has to do with how we pollute and abuse the environment. If all developed countries made it mandatory to recycle, made polluting a jailable offense (for company owners too!) drive fuel efficient vehicles and conserve energy then other countries would have to follow suit. Theres lots that people can do to help the environment, not just stop having kids so that the rest of us left don't have to "heaven forbid" change how we live.

Johnny - posted on 02/25/2010

8,686

26

318

One child per person. Two children for a couple. Just replacing oneself and adding none. That is why people suggest 2 kids as the cut-off.

Brandi - posted on 02/25/2010

172

8

12

I completely understand that people are not trying to judge someone's parenting...I just find it odd that the environment is obviously the priority, but you still had two kids. Why is two the cut off? Who made that rule? Someone with two of their own?

Christi - posted on 02/25/2010

30

9

2

I'd actually be for Communism if it were practiced the way intended. Like you said, though, it never has been. It would be great if everybody who could contribute to society did, and if everyone had a high standard of living. But people are selfish and it will never happen. I also don't think any government needs to be making more laws regulating the way honest decent citizens live their lives.

I don't mind that our governments provide monetary and physical aid to developing countries. We do use more than they do, and we have more than they do, so we should do what we can to help out. That doesn't mean though that we should suffer for it. How about if they take the responsibilities for themselves that they can. They can take measures to control their populations (I'm not saying enact laws or force sterilizarion or abortion or anything). How about more education, provide birth control, as you said earlier- ask the figures they trust and revere to encourage the use of birth control. We can do more to help them than limit ourselves.

Jenny - posted on 02/25/2010

4,426

16

126

Well that's why we will never see changes unless they are government imposed. No one wants to change THEIR life for the good of all. I don't know any stats but I believe per capita our part of the world uses WAY more resources than less developed countries. I've read it would take three planets to give the lifestyle we have here to everyone currently on the planet. We get to have more becasue "they" have less.



Christi, you don't need to defend yourself as not being a Communist. I tihnk most of us are progressive enough to understand just because one advocates sharing and taking less so others have more does not mean they support the failed political ideals of communism. BTW true Communism does not have a government so we have actually never seen it on our planet.

Christi - posted on 02/25/2010

30

9

2

Jenny, I see your point about it's being our problem when other countries run out of resources. It already is our problem. We already send food and aid to developing countries, through our governments and numerous charities.

My issue with the entire argument is that I don't feel like I should limit my life just because someone in some other country refuses for whatever reason to stop producing children. Yes, it is a global issue that definitely needs attention. We need to teach developing countries how to control their populations.
But I'm NOT a communist. I DON'T agree that there has to be perfect balance in the world. I don't agree that I should have to have less even if I work for it, just because someone else can't or won't. why should I not have kids because someone else has too many?

Amy - posted on 02/25/2010

1,761

18

248

I see no problem with it. Not everyone even wants kids. For example my sister and her husband will never have kids, they love kids, just don't want there own.

Jenny - posted on 02/25/2010

4,426

16

126

Well most of our posters are from those countries so we post what we know right? When I speak of it I am referring to the wrold and not any specific country though. I just don't feel the need to put a disclaimer on EVERY post.



You're right Christi about population is other countries as well and religion could come in at that part such as the pope coming and perhaps telling people it is ethical to use condoms and other forms of birth control.



Also, since less developed countries are growing way faster than ours what do you think will happen when they run out of usable resources? I'm guessing we will really realize no country is an island once we hit that point in the near future.

ANITA - posted on 02/25/2010

1

15

0

as it is we are leaving our children nothing but heart ache, by the time a new born today is 18, what will be felt?are animals are dying off,our water supple is hardly drinkable for us today,the air is filled with unbreathable air,i could go on and on, it's not what these beautiful little unborn babies will do to the earth, it's what this world will not be able to do for them.....

Shelby - posted on 02/25/2010

258

13

12

The fact that there are Christians in this group, means that somewhere, sometime, someone will always "play the God card" However for us its not playing a card...Its going by our beliefs. Religion is not something that we just wake up one day and decide to throw around. Its embedded in every thread of your being. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of people that believe that God gives you how many children he thinks you should have. Thats why there are families like the Duggars.

I mean for arguments sake, A lot of us on here already have more than 2 children...What do you want us to say...We are sorry we had them? We regret the fact that our children are alive? The fact of the matter is YES more children equal more natural resources they will use. Fact of the matter is there are several people that believe that GOD yes GOD will decide when the planet is finished and mankind has run its course.

I mean if you are truly all about saving the planet then you do whatever you can to lessen your impact at all cost... REGARDLESS of what everyone else is doing...Correct? So how many people on here agreeing with the fact that we are irresponsible are using electricity? How many do have a car? Do you have your own farms? Because those electric milkers they use to give us all milk, Use alot of power...So do you have your own cow, and if you do, are you sure to scoop all the manure to make sure there is no run off? And have we really solved enough of the BIGGER problems polluting our planet to start sterilizing women after 2 children?

Lady - posted on 02/25/2010

2,136

73

221

quoting Alison;
Obesity and the environment are two huge and separate issues. It would be foolish to focus on one and ignore the other. Both require radical means.

I'm not sure I get your point, mine is that the argument has been put forward that large families consume too much which is what is destroying the planet - my counter argument is that obese people consume as much as a large family, if not more, so maybe obesity and the environment are not such seperate issues.

Kenda - posted on 02/25/2010

2

5

0

irresponsibility? uhh...i believe that you can live green regardless of how large your family is..i think more focus should be on those that do not, in any way contribute to the "green" lifestyle...

personally the irresponsibility of having more than 2 children is not being able to care for them, not to mention the thousands of unwanted pregnancies that turn their children over to the state.

isn't it funny that we were appalled years ago when china passed the one child law, and forced people to murder or hide their children, and from what i understand, they are now allowing (encouraging) the people of china to have 2 children....i am amazed at the things we get caught up in...if every town made it mandatory for the residents to live green it would make a huge difference in how the earth is...not to mentin the industries that continue to pollute our air, earth and water...our children ARE our hope for a better future, not a hinderance...but it appears they are being blamed for the state of affairs that we have created with ignorance and laziness, rather than buckle down and do the work we need to do and have found reasons not to.

Alison - posted on 02/25/2010

2,753

20

466

Obesity and the environment are two huge and separate issues. It would be foolish to focus on one and ignore the other. Both require radical means.

Alison - posted on 02/25/2010

2,753

20

466

The twins & triplets argument is pretty weak too. There is a difference between choosing to have a child and the lot that you are given (let's not even get started on those who didn't even want their kids in the first place).

Mandy - posted on 02/25/2010

9

28

0

My biggest argument is that the government should not be the ones to regulate the number of children a couple/individual should have. I understand what everyone is saying about the planet and preserving it so that our children still have a beautiful place to live, food to survive, etc. So instead of limiting the number of children we can have, educate them.

[deleted account]

My childrens grandparents were one of 13 and one of 15 child families i hardly think me having 4 children is affecting the planet anymore than they were.

Lady - posted on 02/25/2010

2,136

73

221

If consuption is the issue then maybe the focus should be on the growing rise in obesity. Watching all the weight loss programmes on tv I can quite honestly say that one obese man consumes more in one week than my whole family does. Plus they sit in watching tv, playing computer games, consuming electricity and adding very little to society. As I said earlier families with more the 2 children are just an easy target - there are much larger problems out there that should be looked at. Children in big families are being brought up to be more environmentally aware, less of consummers generally healthier and more caring and sharing. This is the type of population we need to be able to heal this planet.

Jocelyn - posted on 02/24/2010

5,165

42

274

I agree with Jenny and Carol with this one, but I have nothing too add because I'd read a post, think of a great reply then scroll down to see that you two have already said it! :P

Johnny - posted on 02/24/2010

8,686

26

318

Well, personally, I didn't join Circle of Moms for kicks, I joined because I am a mother. And I am pretty certain that everyone here is also a mother. It is impossible to know for certain on the internets, but I'd wager a fair bit on it. Silly question.

I have not seen anyone in this debate argue against the value of children, how wonderful and what a gift they are. Of course they are human beings who change the way we live and can lead us to be our absolute best selves. I have not seen anyone dispute that idea. Not to speak for the others who believe that we should practice self-restraint in our procreation, but I think we believe this exactly because we value our children and the future generations. We do not wish to see them suffer on a depleted and beleaguered planet.

The argument that larger families may be more ecologically friendly per capita is true, but it does not mitigate the population growth problem. Every extra person requires greater resources from the planet. They grow up to be adults who then have more children of their own. It is really quite simple math.

And no, if I have an unplanned third pregnancy I would not consider terminating it or giving the child away. I would cherish and raise it well. Nor would I wish anyone else to reject children that have been conceived. I simply hope that before deciding to conceive, that people take into careful consideration the impact on the ecology of our planet. Our children deserve our best, and that does not often come from fulfilling our own narcissistic desires.

Mandy - posted on 02/24/2010

9

28

0

Are you a mother? Children are not some item that we just collect because they are something we want. They are living human beings, who by the way can help to change the way we live, to help improve the earth. Some larger families are more eco-friendly than people who have one, two, or no children! What happens if you have an unplanned "third" pregnancy and the government says you can only have two? Are you going to give the child back, or abort it, or give it away?

Johnny - posted on 02/24/2010

8,686

26

318

Please, by all means. If you have scientific, peer-reviewed studies to support the idea that overpopulation will not harm the planet, please, post the information. I would be interested in expanding my knowledge on the situation. This is not a debate about climate change, but the environment as a whole. Food shortages are not specifically related to climate change (although some may argue that it is a catalyst), but they can be directly correlated to population issues. As can pollution and deforestation. This planet can only support so much life, human or otherwise. When any species overpopulates, there is a natural push back to sustainable levels. I'm not sure that we really want to witness that kind of suffering.

And yes, humans "breed". That's how I got my child. She is a blessing bred by my husband and I.

Jenny - posted on 02/24/2010

4,426

16

126

For sure, like where will the grown population work to pay for this genetically grown food (most of which one company owns a patent on)? They need infastructure to work, transportation to ge there, homes to go home too, space to put it all on, sewers and electrical grids to maintain it. Not to mention the energy we will be required to generate to run and just manufacture it all to begin with. Renewable energy is not in our immediate future as noone will pay to invest what is truly needed to meet our needs as they are just today! In 40 years we'll be in the same boat with double the people. No amount of reducing, resusing, recycling or carbon credits will reduce the major impacts of simply adding additional people.

Charlie - posted on 02/24/2010

11,203

111

401

Jenny i am the same , i am undecided about climate change however that is not the topic , environmental impact of overpopulation is and although i am not religious if someone wants to bring up the subject as they are entitled to do in their side of debate i am more than willing to debate that too in regards to the topic at hand .

Jenny - posted on 02/24/2010

4,426

16

126

I am on the fence on climate change and have not determined if it is man made or cyclical. I'm not talking about being carbo nuetral or anything like that. My arguements of overpopulation ruining our planet are much different if you read my previous posts.

[deleted account]

such bullshit!!! im atheist so im not going to argue a secular discussion with religious rhetoric but im going to ask the climate changers to do the same. just because someone theorises that (all variables removed!lol) it would be better if we all only replaced ourselves on the planet, DOESNT MAKE IT TRUTH. its a ridiculous idea without any scientific merit, oooh a bit like the energy saving bulbs with mercury in them!, EPIC FAIL!. This is just more narrow minded prescriptive rubbish by sheeple who have cloaked themselves in the colour green but have given the movement a really bad rep, highjacked much? utter drivel.

Charlie - posted on 02/24/2010

11,203

111

401

Actually you will find that WWW. means world wide web meaning that the internet is actually international and not just America as some would like to believe .



Breeding :

.One's line of descent; ancestry: a person of noble breeding.

.Production of offspring or young.



And technically we are animals we just happen to be the most intelligent animals on Earth ( according to humans ).

Genetic (DNA) evidence strongly supports this , we fit the biological criteria of the definition for animal "A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."



spiritually and ethically that is where we differ to animals but that is another debate ;)

User - posted on 02/24/2010

1

0

0

I am russian and Russia lost 30 million people in World War 2, including several in my family. The population grew very slowly, and the birthrates are so low that the government is giving families $10,000 just to have a second child (not third!). I live in the US and my husband is American, we are having a fourth child soon, so at least there will be four more half russians!

Mandy - posted on 02/24/2010

9

28

0

I'm sorry, "breeding"! Our children our not animals. Raise your kids to be earth friendly. We live in the USA and as long as one can provide for their children, then that is their business, not the governments!

Charlie - posted on 02/24/2010

11,203

111

401

exactly Jenny !!!



I dont believe people are bad parents if they have more than two kids , obviously they love kids BUT the debate is about environmental impact , it seems people forget that and take immediate offense before considering exactly what it is we are debating .

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms