In complete agreement with you.
?
Doesn't this baked twaddle smack you as the repackaged-for-a-newer-generation-but-still-the same logic that fueled the heroine in "Looking for Mr. Good Bar"?
And we all know her happy ending....
BB,
I don’t know, if they all lose their jobs then they’ll have more time to write drivel like this.
I followed the links back to the source and a few other lines bear commenting on:
I like children, but every time I fantasized of having one, I felt pangs of guilt over how for this 'impulse' of mine, someone else would have to put their body on the line. ... I was raised in an extended family setting with a lot of women, and as they got married, I noticed their lives becoming either extremely stressed (if they chose to work) or extremely limited in their scopes, and sometimes even threatened in a pregnancy.
This selection seems to indicate that the author (“freethinker”) is a male (I refrain from saying “man” because s/he is clearly not one). Unless of course the person grew up so self-absorbed that children would obviously be born using a surrogate. Given the vanity of this culture that is always a possibility.
I’ve never understood the male feminist. While I’ve been told it’s possible to be male and not be a misogynist, I just don’t buy it :p. Seriously though, I don’t understand the self-loathing necessary to subscribe to that ideology. Then again, I don’t get the “logic” behind Reparations either.
Also notice the assumption that pregnancy is inherently a dangerous proposition. Now there is risk involved in all things (such as crossing the street) but the author’s worldview seems to be formed with the assumption that this is the one area modern medicine has not made advances in. Then again, maybe the threat is to one’s figure and not health.
Another feeling came from growing up near the poor: married people become much less charitable when they had their children to ‘take care of’, which means expensive schools, football clubs, game consoles, etc., etc. Because of the social premium on marriage and family, the poor also have children, only their children have no future and can easily be exploited by the economic system. If families are for raising and 'taking care of' children, what about the poor and their children? With high incidence of domestic violence, child abuse and 'juvenile delinquency', there are little 'family values' that the underprivileged can realistically talk of.
Apparently growing up near the poor (is that proximity to or relations with?) gives one all the insight necessary to conclude that their children “have no future” and that they have no “family values.” Not to mention that “the poor” apparently beat their wives and children. I guess that’s why Planned Parenthood disproportionately locates in poor neighborhoods (and minority ones) because they know how much their services are needed to end the cycle of abuse and economic exploitation.
James G
Commenting by HaloScan
