• Jared...You asked me when I thought rights should be bestowed onto people. I answered that I thought it should be at birth. You didn't like that answer and want to know why and say you take offense with my answer. Well, I'm sorry you took offense, but you ASKED. On my part, there was no intent to offend. Why should rights not be bestowed until birth? Well, for one thing, a fetus cannot exercise rights before it is born. For another, granting a fertilized egg "rights" would probably make abortion illegal because it would violate the egg's "civil rights".

    I can think of any number of reasons a responsible adult might want to abort her pregnancy. Perhaps she already has all the kids she wants to raise. Perhaps she doesn't want ANY at all. Maybe her family cannot afford the cost of a(nother) child. Maybe she was raped or was the victim of incest. Maybe she discovered nature made a mistake with this one and the fetus is defective and will require lots of money for medical care. And maybe, regardless of how much money is spent on the child if it is born, it can't be fixed and made normal. There aren't any guarantees when it comes to babies. If they are born defective, you can't send them back. You're stuck.

    Maybe the family next door had a perfect baby who is thriving and growing and learning to walk and that baby is the absolute joy of the parent's lives. They couldn't be happier. But maybe I have a baby that will never learn, never walk, never be toilet trained, never talk above some gurgles. You're telling me that if I found out the fetus is defective that I must, because of YOUR belief that ALL life is sacred, allow this baby to be born and somehow attempt to bond with this baby and have to spend every dime on doctors who can't do anything positive for it? Maybe the kid next door has a lightening bolt for a right arm and will be the next Nolan Ryan and make millions of dollars. Mine could very well eat through a million dollars in the cost of care and never even be able to understand any kind of game or play. Maybe in your world, you find value in that baby's life. I do not believe I would EVER be able to bond with it. It's none of your business, the clergy's business, or the government's business to tell anyone that they must under force of law raise a baby they don't want.

    May 11, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.

  • holein1, if you were asking me:

    I was 5 off, mea culpa.

    May 11, 2012 at 11:19 a.m.

  • Jared

    I think it's fair to say that you're not a Democrat and that's not putting you in a box; that comes from your ideology in your writings. It doesn't really matter but it has a basis because you start out by demonizing Planned Parenthood by saying that it's the largest provider of abortions. Your statement is true but only 3% of their funding goes toward abortion and 97% of their funding goes to other vital women's health issues. It's easy to demonize PP because they help the poor. I think healthy moms are an important part of the equation; even the poorer ones. It is the GOP that is making an all out effort to close every PP clinic in the nation. Their budget programs are for cutting nutritional programs for poor children. You mentioned that you didn't want your tax dollars subsidizing PP but guess what; that’s our tax dollars. We are all in this together.

    Innovation is great but you won't pass any funding for it because we have a Congress who doesn't believe that we need to preserve or take care of our portion of the planet. They want to cut the EPA, so who are we kidding?

    I'm not for sterilization or any kind of government population control measures up but based on what I have seen, I believe modern American working moms would roll their eyes if you try to convince them that they should have more than three children. That's where we are, sure there are other reasons for our declining birthrate. I believe as women become richer, more educated, more involved in the work place, and along with their move to cities, the birth rates will continue to decline. Welcome to the 21th century.

    The people of Bangladesh and other third world countries have a different problem because they are not consuming their resources proportionately because there are migrating to the cities. As poorer counties build up their middle class; they will want the same electronic gadgets we have, in a planet that’s getting hotter.

    It's a huge problem and we are not addressing it because we are stuck in our ideological corners...I include myself in that group.


    May 11, 2012 at 11:17 a.m.

  • One area we must be aware of is our most important resource. Water. Our failing infrastructure and growing population will intersect one day and the price of gas will be a very small problem.

    May 11, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.

  • You site your sources, but you failed to site the source of the 55 million figure. Care to share that one?

    I don't want to say that you're easily manipulated or brainwashed, obviously you're a smart man, but some of things you say often sound like they were delivered with full faith in whomever told you and with little or no real research done. And by real research I mean non-biased, fact-based.

    May 11, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.

  • Jared,
    I'm not trying to box anyone in. I was speaking statistically and I guess I should have been more specific.

    May 11, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.

  • @born2bme. "Not to bring politics into this, but if we want conservation and protection of our natural resources, Republican isn't going to do it. That party favors big business profit at any cost and not putting dollars into developing green energy. On the other hand, Democrats favors family planning and freedom of choice. So, which way do you go?"

    Ok, born2bme, I am not a Republican. Boxing me in will not work. I am pro-life, against death penalty, against war that doesn't fit with JWT, pro-enviroment (I have taken further study in my industry for green practices and volunteered to help design and build the rain harvesting catchment system for Stroman Middle School (that project went on to win national awards)). Rather, I am a huge support of the human person. I don't think anyone innocent should be killed, either after conception in utero or before natural death. Like I said earlier, there are problems, but killing innocent children is not the answer.

    @WWW, "You're right, Jared. With all the other stuff I was thinking about I neglected that. Okay, I believe rights should be bestowed at birth." Why? I do kinda take offense because I was present at the C-section of my son and realized that his life could have been taken up to the point he was out of the womb. I am pretty sure he was the same person five minutes prior to the C-sec.

    @maryann, thanks. Good to hear from you again.

    May 11, 2012 at 8:39 a.m.

  • Not to bring politics into this, but if we want conservation and protection of our natural resources, Republican isn't going to do it. That party favors big business profit at any cost and not putting dollars into developing green energy. On the other hand, Democrats favors family planning and freedom of choice. So, which way do you go?

    May 10, 2012 at 10:30 p.m.

  • Born, I hear what you're saying about large cities. I think we can see Lake Texana, even during the worst drought in recorded history in Texas, as being evidence of man's inventiveness and ability to work and think his way into prosperity. Without that lake and other man-made reservoirs, we would have been in much direr straits, still.....

    If some see it as a city getting too large to sustain itself, I'm sure others see it as an opportunity for conservation and ingenuity, not population control.

    There's a blind Chinese dissendent who spent a few years in prison protesting his government's forced abortion and sterilization policies who represents what the worst population controlers have done in recent times.

    As for the American forests, I think they also speak for that conservation and ingenuity. If we can do it here, the Germans, Australians, et. al. can do it as well. The green movement just ain't in Moulton, TX USA! :-}

    May 10, 2012 at 9:18 p.m.

  • maryann,

    Do you remember last year when Lake Texana almost reverted back the the original river? If a large city has to get it's water from somewhere else, then it has gotten too big to sustain itself. What you may not know is that Formosa also gets it's water from Lake Texana. Now, when there is a drought, such as the one we had last year, who gets the water? A city of people, or the industry that supports our community? Now take every large city across America and you can see where it will all lead if the populations keeps getting larger.
    The forests. You have to look at forests worldwide, not just in America. We dont' have a fence around our air to keep it in and other air out.

    May 10, 2012 at 8:18 p.m.

  • I bet vet has come up with a BIG contributor to population lost. Does he have any numbers of the fatalities caused by this? I wonder how many the CB craze caused several years ago every truck driver of those big ol 18 wheelers rolling down the road with a good buddy driver on the air for hundreds of miles. How much are the drug cartel contributed to the population of Mexico. I bet those people kill more people in one day that died from an accident caused by texting while driving. I wonder also how many wrecks and fatalities are caused by drivers trying to emulate the very popular and much shown TV shows where a male drive is receiving oral sex while driving. I would think that would be much bigger distraction than texting while driving.

    "Our culture has introduced more ways to "thin the herd" thanks to modern technology. Texting while operating motor vehicles is one."

    May 10, 2012 at 8:02 p.m.

  • Another great blog, Jared.

    Born2, I think human inventiveness and ingenuity are the answer for most of our concerns.

    We can always do better with conservation, but we shouldn't overlook the fact that Lake Texana is a man-made body of water created just for the purpose of supplying water for human consumption. Reservoirs the world over have improved living conditions and will continue to do so.

    So, the fact that the city of Corpus is nosing around for water around Lake Texana speaks to man's inventiveness to a certain degree, as well as their own need to conserve.

    Another example of human pro-activity and ingenuity is shown by the fact that the US forests today are growing faster than they are being cut, and they cover a third of the US. The National Wilderness Preservation System grew from 9 mil. acres in 1964 to 104 mil. in 1994, an area twice as big as all of New England and New Jersey (according to a GAO and US Forest Service "National Wilderness Preservation System Fact Sheet of 1994).

    Let that be evidence of the hippie flower children I remember from the 60s and 70s affecting the planet positively!

    May 10, 2012 at 7:45 p.m.

  • You're right, Jared. With all the other stuff I was thinking about I neglected that. Okay, I believe rights should be bestowed at birth.

    "What would I do with 55 million children? Raise then. Imagine the voting block I would have with 55 million children. Each child was conceived, my easy answer is the parents should be responsible for the children."

    No, Jared, that's NOT an easy answer. You aren't gonna raise them. In the first place, there are too many, and they aren't your responsibility. You need to take off the dark glasses and look at the world the way it IS rather than your idealistic dream world.

    Remember, these 55 million were unwanted to the point that the mother ABORTED them. You're right when you say the parents SHOULD be responsible for them, but would they be responsible? Some would, of course. They'd put their lives on hold and do what they could to raise the kid, but many would do exactly what so many parents do now. They'd continue to live a lifestyle that is full lof booze, dope, crime and abuse. Many (most?) of the kids would be raised by the mother and her mother and her mother without much if any help from the "father". Some of the kids would do well in school regardless of their home circumstances, but many (again, most?) of them will be disruptive in school, drop out and join gangs and have a criminal future.

    Why do I think this way? It's simple. I look around without the dark glasses and this is what I see from kids who aren't wanted but weren't aborted.

    May 10, 2012 at 7:09 p.m.

  • Jared, it is happening right now. Either you really don't realize it, or you ignore it in favor of your position.
    Explain to me why Corpus needs water from Lake Texana? Explain to me why there is a rise in the level in mercury in fish? Oh, and that is just 2 examples. There are a lot more, but I don't have time to type it all, nor is there enough room.

    May 10, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.

  • WWW, yet you still haven't mentioned when exactly is a person a person. What is the moment you think a person should have rights?

    born2bme, "You don't think increasing populations harm mother nature? So every person does not use anything on this Earth during their lifetimes?"

    No, I think people making bad decisions harm the earth. In my field, I have studied methods to build buildings with minimal enviromental impact. I realize this would never have been studied if people were not around to innovate.

    "Congratulations Jared. Someone here has finally said something that leaves me speechless and scratching my head in wonder. Where did you go to school?"

    It is always good to use ad hominem. Perhaps I am too dumb and uneducated to see your logical fallacy.

    "But those large families would be needed to plant the crops by hand, weed by hand, harvest by hand, etc. Are you ready to go back to that?"

    I think much of the problem can be cured by good economics and virtuous business practices.

    I can search for the studies, but I have read that large families leave smaller footprints per capita than small families. Proper husbandry and care for the enviroment is very important, I just don't think overpopulation affects it. Overpopulation has been preached for decades, but non of the apocolyptic disasters have happened.

    May 10, 2012 at 8:33 a.m.

  • Jared,

    You don't think increasing populations harm mother nature? So every person does not use anything on this Earth during their lifetimes?
    Congratulations Jared. Someone here has finally said something that leaves me speechless and scratching my head in wonder. Where did you go to school?
    To make your statement even possible, we would have to go back to pre-electricity and pre-fuel engine, pre-industrail age. But that wouldn't even work because then people would depend on wood to heat their homes and cook their meals and we both know where that would lead, even faster than it is now.
    But those large families would be needed to plant the crops by hand, weed by hand, harvest by hand, etc. Are you ready to go back to that?

    May 10, 2012 at 12:23 a.m.

  • Let me point something out. My comment is about America and Western society AS A WHOLE.

    May 9, 2012 at 11:44 p.m.

  • Oh, I don't argue the fact that life begins at conception. It grows from a fertilized egg and divides and divides and divides and grows and grows. I do NOT believe, however, that the fertilized egg or a few divided cells or a zygote or a fetus has the rights we ascribe to people. You see it differently. I will agree with you that abortion is a lousy form of birth control. However, because not all women who become pregnant against their wishes are seventeen year old sluts who had too much to drink, I believe that abortion must remain a viable option for those who find themselves, as we used to call it when I was in high school, "in trouble." Perfectly respectable and responsible women (including married women) who use birth control as it is designed sometimes find themselves pregnant when they don't want to be. I do NOT believe it is in the purview of the government or clergy or a next door neighbor to tell this woman that she must carry a baby to term and give birth when she doesn't want it. I absolutely see no difference between that and slavery. I do NOT believe that a fetus has rights that trump the woman's. Yes, a couple does indeed make a choice to have sex. That choice for an hour or two of pleasure should not ruin a person's life. Sorry, Jared, I don't consider a fetus to be a person. Vet told me one time that it seemed my milk of human kindness had soured. Perhaps there is truth in that, but I will always remember the horrible panic that surged through my body when I thought my wife was pregnant. I believed my life was over. I could not believe it was happening. As it turned out, it didn't happen, but the memory remains vivid. I believe in birth control, but for those times it fails, I believe abortion should be an option.

    May 9, 2012 at 9:07 p.m.

  • WWW, I really haven't brought any religion into this. Biology is all I need to defend this point. If life begins at conception, then it is real human life. If it is at some arbitrary point, you tell me when it begins. After that, I will tell you that so and so said it was after that point. And who will be right? You? The ethicist seated at Princeton? Or some sinle guy in Rome that says all life is valuable which includes your life and mine?

    What would I do with 55 million children? Raise then. Imagine the voting block I would have with 55 million children. Each child was conceived, my easy answer is the parents should be responsible for the children.

    May 9, 2012 at 8:25 p.m.

  • Thank you, Jared. I enjoy talking to you, also. However, what would this society have done with an extra 55 million people to raise, feed, clothe, house, educate, and eventually find jobs for? I'm certainly not going to scream at you to answer the question, but I am interested in knowing how you think our society would be different with an extra 55 million people. That's in the neighborhood of one-sixth of or present population and, given the offspring from those 55 million, the population of this nation would be closing in on a HALF-BILLION people. Would our society be more like India or China than the society in which we live now? Would we be seriously contemplating a one-child-per-family edict? I don't think if that were the case, you would see the mass destruction of females like in China because our society doesn't call on male offspring to take care of their parents and females to help with the care of her husband's parents. Would we be looking at forced retirement at maybe 55 to make room in the workplace for all those extra people? What would our diets be like with so many extra people eating? What about our energy consumption? Would we have been forced to build many more nuclear power plants to supply electricity to that many more people and what would we do with the waste from those reactors?

    I'm sorry, Jared, I don't see the upside to every couple having a bunch of children because some bachelor in Rome says so. American liberty means that American citizens can live their lives pretty much as THEY see fit. If they decide for themselves that they don't want any or any more kids, that is a choice for them to make between themselves.

    May 9, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.

  • WWW, your parents, God bless them for choosing life because I like chatting with you, made a choice to have sex which can create a new person. If you were aborted, would you know the difference? I say yes. Just because you cannot remember your in utero experience doesn't mean it didn't exist. I also cannot remember being fed a bottle but am pretty sure I am grateful for it. The point is that human life is not something anyone should discard.

    May 9, 2012 at 7:12 p.m.

  • Jared...I'm glad I have lived. I was born into a family that wanted another child and were committed to doing whatever it took, making whatever sacrifices that were needed to see to it that I was raised properly and that I always knew that I was loved and wanted by my family. It is quite obvious that people who choose abortion don't want to make those choices and sacrifices or are unable to do so for whatever reason. If you succeed in making abortion illegal, what will happen to all the kids who will be born into situations where they are NOT wanted?

    If I had been aborted, I wouldn't know about it, now would I?

    May 9, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.

  • By the way, for those that have had an abortion (male or female), the greatest news is that forgiveness is offered. I seldom go into spiritual matters, maybe I should more often, but there is nothing that cannot be forgiven. You are loved.

    May 9, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.

  • WWW, I am not saying everyone should be parents. Remember, I am Catholic. We think priests and nuns shouldn't have children so that they can dedicate their lives to their spiritual children. If a couple doesn't want children because they are unable to raise them, then natural family planning is option as well as abstinence. PP may offer other services, but it is nowhere close to their money maker of abortion services and receiving your forced donation of taxes. Regardless of all this, wanted or not, where does that trump the value of human life. Would you rather have lived or been aborted?

    May 9, 2012 at 6:54 p.m.

  • @born2bme, save me the rain forest. Since when does human life have to abuse mother nature. Remember, I am do not support Big Waste anyway. Destroying mother nature is not a good thing; I just don't think increased population harms it. Bad decisions waste it.

    @Writein, I never said it was the only problem. I merely mentioned recent articles that peeked my interest which included a secular source talking about population implosion (which I have said before), a person who survived abortion, and eating human remains in the form of a pill. The latter, though disgusting, is hot off the press. If Mr. Tasin agrees with the blog, so be it. Did I write anything false?

    May 9, 2012 at 6:47 p.m.

  • Jared...What would we have done with those 55 million (?) unwanted babies? There are thousands of children waiting for adoption now. If tens of millions of kids had hit the adoption industry, how many would still be waiting and how would they be taken care of? Obviously, not all parents would give up their children for adoption, but if even a quarter did, that would be a HUGE number of kids looking for adoptive parents.

    Yeah, PP performs abortions, but they also do a great deal more. They provide sterilization services -- I got my vasectomy at PP in Houston -- and prenatal care for pregnant women. They provide education materiels to teach people how to NOT get pregnant in the first place if they don't want or can't take care of children.

    One more question for you and I'll shut up: WHY are you (and so many others) so adament about people having kids even when it is obvious to anyone looking for the truth that a great many of those people DON'T WANT KIDS. Not everyone is parent materiel. I know for a certain fact that I'm not. When my wife had a pregnancy scare, I was the most miserable person on the planet till we found out she wasn't. Our family doctor refused to clip me, so I went to PP and spent the BEST $75.00 I ever spent. Like the old Ban deodorant commercial, it took the worry out of being close. Look at all the people who SHOULD have either been sterilized or had an abortion. Their kids are in gangs and running dope, robberies and other crimes. The citizens will have to pay to take care of them in the Huntsville Hilton.

    May 9, 2012 at 6:35 p.m.

  • Jared.

    Your blog is nearly extreme as Wm P Tasin’s writings. Falling birth rate is made possible by many factors other than abortion. Women in the work place, increase homosexuality, feminism , and yes birth control.

    Mr. J. Williams

    May 9, 2012 at 4:43 p.m.

  • Jared,

    I don't think history disagrees with me. How many of our past super-cultures have ceased to exist after they grew too large to sustain themselves during hard times?

    You say that innovation has kept up with human growth, but at what cost? We are losing our rain forrests at alarming rates. More and more forests across the globe are being turned into farm land to feed the world. As a result, carbon dioxide levels are going up, oxygen levels are going down. We need forrests/trees to clean the air. Sure, we are keeping up with producing food for now, but the way we are going about it is going to destroy everything. We are depleting our natural resources faster than ever, which in turn, is destroying clean drinking water and air quality, which in turn effects the animals, crops, and basically, every living thing.
    Every man, woman and child leaves a footprint. The more footprints there are, the faster Mother Earth gets trampled to death.

    May 9, 2012 at 12:45 p.m.

  • To think we have the deadliest culture in history is a very strong statement but then you think about how true it is. Our culture has introduced more ways to "thin the herd" thanks to modern technology. Texting while operating motor vehicles is one. Providing new chemicals that alter our ability to think about consequences is another example. Throw in the occasional gun shot victim and it adds up.

    May 9, 2012 at 11:49 a.m.

  • I doubt abortion, legal or otherwise, has much to do with falling birth rates.

    May 9, 2012 at 9:04 a.m.

  • PatB, just those recent headlines. The thought of taking a pill filled with dried human remains kind of creeped me out. The fact that we still, and I am one of them, buy goods from China disappoints me.

    May 9, 2012 at 8:09 a.m.

  • A little stronger than your usual offerings. Anything specific cause you to amp up the retoric?
    Since I replaced myself and my wife in the '70s I had an operation and no more. So you know where i stand.
    Patrick Barnes

    May 9, 2012 at 7:59 a.m.

  • born2Bme, I think history would disagree with you. Innovation has kept pace with human growth. We can now feed more people than ever before on less land than in the past. Regardless of the earth resources, I would never end your life for the sake of natural resources. Why should we end a baby's life?

    OLDRUSTYBUCKET1, Having children is a natural right and natural end of marriage, I don't have the ability to read any hearts to know if a couple will one day harm a child or the ability to mind read to know if a couple is smart enough to raise a child. If abuse happens, then arrest, detain, imprison the abusers but don't kill a child in the false sense of security that you save a child from distress that has yet to happen by ripping apart the limbs or burning them with chemicals. Though
    "Argumentum ad Misericordiam" works in the advertising TV industry, it doesn't prove something true.

    May 9, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.

  • Jared,

    I think more people "get it" than you think. Our life-sustaining natural resources are going to run out one day, and people know that having more kids than the Earth can sustain, is just plain selfish and not too smart..

    May 9, 2012 at 12:12 a.m.

  • While I'm not beating the same drum against birth control nor abortion like one of our esteamed, or is it steamed?, contributors, my question is,"What's worse, aborting or giving live birth to kids to be tortured by and/or raped by "loving parents" Some people are too dumb to have kids.

    May 8, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.