Bearing Children

SAVE THE POPULATION
Re: Robert Stacy McCain’s “Child Free” Follies:

And people who do want them (and can pay for them) should have them. What’s so difficult to understand about that? There is no need for everyone to have children, any more than there is need for everyone to drive a Maserati, live in a tent, or play the bassoon.

Having lived in single blessedness all my life (soon coming up on 60 years), I have been relentlessly hammered for at least the last 45 about how sorry I will be some day that I did not marry, and even more so should I not have children. Every day I turn on the TV and see another woman murdered by her husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, ex-boyfriend or lover; and wonder of wonders, more than a statistically expected number of these women were pregnant when they were murdered. My sainted Southern Granny always advised that if you cannot be thankful for what you have, be thankful for what you have escaped. It seems to me that my decision, for me, is the correct one. Perhaps other women feel the same way about their choices too?

Incidentally, having heard the relentless pounding away of mothers and mothers-in-law at women who (with their husband’s consent) have decided not to have children, I think those women who claim to be childless in order to save the planet may just be trying to find some way to shut up the drums that continue to tell her how “selfish” she is for wanting to pursue other avenues than kinder, kirche, kuch. After all, can Mom say it is selfish if you are doing it for Mother Earth?
Kate Shaw
Toronto, Ontario

Six children? My hat off to you sir. I love kids, to a certain extent. I don’t think I would ever want six. Two, maybe three for me is about all I think I can eventually handle.

But that’s my preference, and each of us are allowed that, and I respect yours. To all of those who choose not to have children, I say ‘Thank you.’ It’s good to know your particular brand of insanity will not be imbedded into the next generation. However, let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

Life is about that next generation. From the single-cell organisms of 3.8 billion years ago until this day, the amazing achievements of Mankind, the goal of life has always been the same: make the next generation better than the last. Make sure your genes are there. Are we over-burdening this planet? Hardly. I won’t reiterate any of Mr. McCain’s excellent points on this.

You don’t want to have children, that’s fine. Again, thank you. But don’t peddle your insanity onto the rest of us, please.

Think of the children. Please, won’t anyone think of the children?
Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

What would we do without the “selflessness” of those who refuse to have children in order to “save” the planet? One might ask if they think their mothers agree with them.
Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

We should rejoice in the fact that the eco-freaks are electing self-sterilization to save the planet. Now if we can get the global-warming crowd, the 911 conspiracy brigade and most of Hollywood to go along, our next generation will have a considerably brighter gene pool!
Ralph Alter
Carmel, Indiana

VANISHING BEFORE OUR EYES
Re: George H. Wittman’s Back to the Future With Putin:

Not only will Russia not grow a major economy, its demographics make it likely that it will lose Siberia to China by mid-century.

Were Russia’s leaders proactive and truly solicitous of Russia’s future welfare, they would propose merger with the United States in a globe-spanning superstate.

At a stroke, it would solve many of Russia’s and America’s problems with cantankerous China.

Check and mate.
David Govett
Davis, California

Erich Fromm comments in The Forgotten Language: An Introduction to the Understanding of Dreams, Fairy Tales and Myths, the psychological and sociological reasons the Jews of Exodus were not allowed to enter the Promised Land was they would be unable to adapt to the new freedoms; they were slaves, not only because they were under the rule of others, but because they also had learned to think of themselves as slaves. The Exodus generation had no way to expunge from themselves what they were existentially. This held true for the Moses and his generation and it holds true for most citizens of the former USSR.

Many of the people who made for peaceful and semi-peaceful revolutions in East Europe (a.k.a. Russian and her Soviet satellites) have allowed or called for less than democratic leadership for which they strove. Russians hoisted Boris Yeltsin onto their shoulders and demanded freedom for all, but without any leaders who truly understood freedom and democracy, the people and the nation stumbled. And it was not just leaders who could not fathom freedom (or the risks that attend freedom), but the people themselves who howled for a new king. Now, once again, they have a rather strong dictatorial leader in President Putin, and while they have lost much freedom, they seem more contented than when they were freer.

As we read in Ecclesiastes, there is no new thing under the sun. So, just as the freed Israeli slaves bemoaned their transition, trials and tribulations and wished to return to ” the flesh pots of Egypt” and the familiar heavy hand of pharaoh, the Russians long to feel the weight of Putin’s reins. Can the Russian psyche ever be one that yearns for freedom above structure (and false security) is one that is still open to question, but America and the West would best be served by steady patience. An entire generation had to die before even one Israeli was allowed to step into the Promised Land. The people of Russia may need a similar time frame.
Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

THE FIGHT OF FRED’S LIFE
Re: Lisa Fabrizio’s How to Fight for Life:

Ms. Fabrizio has written an extremely terse and well reasoned article regarding the stand taken be Fred Thompson on the issue of abortion rights and the debate within the pro-life community as to the proper method of attack to get the current policies changed. I will not rehash her arguments, as that would be redundant. I merely write to say that I fail to understand how professed Conservatives, of all people, can so merrily reject the idea of sending the issue to the states to be decided. Those of us on the right constantly are invoking the Constitution and how that is the instructive document, and how we all should adhere to its principles and teachings. OK, then you must take and equally revere the entire document, not just an article here or there.

Do we understand that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are to be considered, with the Constitution itself, our primary Bill of Rights, our road map as to the governance of this once great country? Is it right and just to simply ignore the 10th Amendment, to excise it from our very thinking about the issues of right and wrong as regards governance in America? I think not. The 10th Amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as the 1st Amendment.

Now I have researched, with great interest, Fred Thompson’s stance regarding the abortion issue, the propounded pro-life amendment to our Constitution, etc. Mr. Thompson is arguing that we are, and ought to be, bound by the 10th Amendment. Are those of us on the pro-life side supposed to revere and affirm the 10th Amendment in all things except issues relating to the abortion question, and then we ignore the amendment?

Folks, I merely ask that people on my side of the pro-life debate be consistent in their arguments. I ask that we not be hypocritical. Let us revere and adhere to our entire Constitution and ALL of the amendments. Fred Thompson and Lisa Fabrizio are right in this case. Let us acknowledge that fact, not be partisan deniers like those on the other side of the political spectrum. Trust the people of the states to do what is right in their individual states. That tactic and strategy has worked to virtual perfection in the issues tied up with the 2nd Amendment and gun control. It will work with abortion also.
Ken Shreve

BUSH LEGACY PROJECT
Re: Jeff Emanuel’s Betrayal at Annapolis:

This so-called Mideast peace conference is a sham. It only reflects a crass attempt at headline grabbing. The object is to divert attention from the disastrous Iraq war; the American people now face, thanks to meddling in the affairs of Mideast countries.

The only reason the principals would come together for a meeting is: money. American taxpayer money. The last 50 plus years, Israel has received well over $100 billion, and regularly claims $3 billion a year from our treasury.

Of course Saudi Arabia doesn’t need the money, but they are afraid that we will discover who our true enemies are, and they are it. Their country generates more terrorists worldwide, than any other nation in the world!

Face it, Semites love to kill each other. They have been doing it for well over 3,000 years and are not going to stop doing it now.

Carter and Clinton, going all the way back to Harry Truman, tried to reconcile Jews and Muslims, and failed miserably. It is a fool’s errand, and anyone with a lick of sense can see it.
Samuel A. Hill

CHRISTIAN ANTI-MORMONISM
Re: Mike Dooley’s letter under (“We Pick One for a Reason”) in Reader Mail’s Political Turnover:

I would like to thank the editors for printing my letter, and to thank Mr. Dooley for responding thoughtfully. And I am very glad that the circles he moves in try to look honestly at other creeds and not misrepresent them. This will save him the extreme embarrassment that some of my good meaning friends have suffered. That is what happens when, with the best of intentions, you drag somebody to a showing of a film or a special meeting to convince them of the error of their way only to find the film or the meeting filled with outrageous falsehoods. There is a Christian Anti-Mormon Industry out there, and it has been shoved in my face many times.

I have no doubt that such an open mind will eventually have to admit that Mormons do exercise great faith in Jesus Christ and are Christians. And whether right or wrong, much of what Mormons believe about Jesus is strongly supported by the Bible. The Bible though is self contradictory on this issue, and I admit that the creed is one way of trying to resolve the contradictions. But not all Protestant Churches require that somebody recite and swear to a creed to be saved, or even to be Christian. Those who believe that we are saved by faith in Christ alone would take offense at that.

Protestant churches exist because they believe that heresies abounded in what was handed down by the ancient church. Their very definition is that they are man made attempts to clean out the heresies. Man made means imperfect. The fact that they keep multiplying is additional proof of imperfection. Unless God restores His Church, the only church that can claim to be free of heresies is that very church that all the Protestants protest against. Mormons believe God has done so. That makes them very different, and Mr. Dooley, they are used to being viewed as heretics and even slandered as non-Christian. But if God has shown you very clearly that the creed is wrong, than it is wrong. Mr. Dooley, do you realize that unless you are Catholic, that by definition you are heretical?

I am very glad that Catholics and Protestants have finally put aside their grudges and disputes, and even the fact that each side sees the other as heretical. It is wonderful that churches can work together and have discussions without fights. Such cooperation is extended to Jews and Muslims who believe in the same God of the Old Testament, but not in Christ as God’s Son or the world’s Savior. It is also extended to Buddhists and Hindus and even shamans. And yes even in some places to Mormons.

I wish that we could all abide our differences peaceably and charitably. There are no freedoms if one can’t worship as one believes or share that belief with others. Such freedom allows contention and disputes. Unfortunately some, but not all who contend develop bigotries towards and spread lies about others. Mormons, who were not so innocent of this in the past, have begun to clean up their act. If others don’t, that is their right.

BUT, I take offense at open declarations and support of bigotry. And it is my right to point it out and call them on it. Hopefully we can all unite against such bigotry.

I am actually heartened by the fact that evangelicals are supporting every major Republican candidate. I have been afraid that Christian Conservatives are going to see the glass as half empty, and then sit out the election. Even pro-choice Giuliani would do more for Christian Conservatives than any of the three Democrats. They are likely to do great harm. I am as unconvinced of Romney’s many recent changes towards social Conservatism as the rest of you are. Thompson’s voting record was good, but he took quite a few bad stances and is less honest about them than Giuliani. McCain has temporarily quit stabbing social conservatives in the back, and Huckabee is liberal except on social issues. I am having a hard time picking one myself. But, if we allow dissatisfaction with our final choice to get in the way of our electing them than we doom ourselves to another 4 years of the glass being empty.

And, if anyone really wants the nation to see every ugly thing that can be said about Mormons, both true and false, elect a Conservative Republican Mormon as President. The main stream media will do the rest for you. You will be sicker of that than you are of the MSM attacks on Bush’s faith. But be forewarned. Hewitt is correct. If we support such attacks we will be giving the MSM free license to tear us asunder and destroy each of our faiths one by one. Faith will have to be hidden from the public square. The ACLU’s dream come true. Our bigotries will be used to destroy us.

Ask yourself What Would Jesus Do? And unite with me against bigotry. You can do so while believing my faith is wrong, or even while believing I am going to Hell. And I wont take offense at your being wrong about that too.
James Bailey

TWO EARS, ONE MOUTH
Re: Jay Molyneaux’s letter (under “Friends in Low Places”) in Reader Mail’s Political Turnover:

Jay Molyneaux correctly points out the threats caused by illegal aliens. But there is a growing problem endemic to all too many Americans nowadays and Mr. Molyneaux shows he is part of that group.

He just doesn’t listen.

Mr. Molyneaux says:

“Now pick any of these issues. Do you hear anyone, in any party, speaking forcefully and sensibly on a single one of them?”

Well, Jay, ever heard of Rep. Tom Tancredo? How about Rep. Duncan Hunter? Both of them have talked passionately about the border problem and offer real solutions (like enforcing the law and building the border fence and employer sanctions). Seems to me both men mentioned something about running on the Republican ticket for president.

I guess some people are so busy talking they forget to listen…
Garry Greenwood
Gearhart, Oregon

THE PICKENS CHALLENGE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Crybaby Kerry:

Mr. Tyrrell should attach the text of Mr. Pickens’ challenge and a copy of the Senator’s letter to the clock in addition to the piece he wrote himself. I would very much enjoy seeing the Senator’s letter, I suspect it was in many ways similar to the one Harry Reid sent to Mr. Mays. Presumption that, because they speak, it must be truth.
Roger Ross

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register