ok to plan really isn't an insulting message unless you;ve been taught
I too often like to accuse small organizations of being hellbent on controlling
the world despite having no evidence to support my claim. With
rational people like the letter writer, I can't imagine how UPEC could ever
imagine folks would make decisions despite having little to no knowledge about
the subject matter.
Utah's population is expected to double to over 5 million in the next two
decades. While we'll be blessed with all these more people, we won't
be blessed with more resources to accommodate all of them. In fact, if climate
change scientists are correct, we'll actually have less water, which will
create significant hardships for the state's quality of life and economy.
We need water for food, to drink, to power our coal-fired power plants, to frack
for natural gas, to turn tar sands into oil, etc. While Utah's
population is exploding, so will the world's. Today, we have about 7.2
billion people, and that is expected to hit 9 to 10 billion by 2050. Most of
that growth will be in Asia and Africa, where they want to live like westerners
with lots of gadgets, air conditioning, SUVs, etc. Again, no additional
resources are on tap -- from oil, water, farmland, rare earths for cell phones,
etc. -- to accommodate all these people and their demands for western
lifestyles.Smaller families is part of how Utah can navigate a
resource-constrained world ahead. We'll also have to invent a substitute
for water. Good luck!
has anyone heard of the voluntary human extinction movement? Radical people who
don't realize the earth was made for people and we take care of the earth.
Thing our change is damaging. What other creature puts out fires, buries
it's dead, cleans up fish from red tide. Humans have to grow food and cut
down trees or mine to survive. Food clothing and shelter is a need.Population control people want to control what is none of there business. A
married couple should be free to have as many children as they want it is there
choice. Population control tries to control the most private decision a couple
Isn't it funny that these organizations are trying to limit American
families, but then we are told we just don't have enough workers, and we
are letting in people by the millions/maybe by the billions if we count all the
refugees we are told we need to take, plus those who have invaded our borders
and tell us that they need welfare, food stamps and now demanding they have free
transplants? The large families I see raise responsible children who will be
paying for the welfare and the food stamps that this president likes to make
sure everyone has.
Yeah, it is a little demeaning. But it is free speech.
The probable reason that religions oppose birth control is because it interferes
with their membership acquisition. Children are automatic new members.
Ultra Bob The reason businessmen and their political minions oppose
birth control is that it reduces the number of customers and their profit.The reason that people might like birth control is to avoid the loss of
personal freedom that comes with increased population.
I'm sure Ms. Barlow is opposed to abortion too. Intelligent family planning
and birth control could greatly reduce the amount of unintended pregnancies with
a corresponding decrease in the demand for abortions. It's a win/win.Many couples may indeed plan their families, but too many others
don't. It's time that the rest of society stopped carrying this
As opposed to people who think pregnant women considering ultrasounds should
have mandatory ultrasounds for "information" purposes (as if women are
too stupid to know what a fetus is)?
"It's OK to plan"So from that you got this: "It
appears UPEC looks at the community at large as those who are ignorant about
various birth control methods and are just popping out babies because they are
religious zombies."Okay. "I think it is
instructive to examine why UPEC has created their Small Families
initiative."So this is what your "examination" came up
with: "They'll encourage this generation to only have two
kids, the next generation to only have one, and then eventually they'll
have the pristine, practically people-free Earth they dream of."Wait a second! Did you examine why they created their initiative (you know,
read their publications, or contact a spokesperson for the group), or did you
just make up stuff? "Why the push for population
control?"Have you read anything about population issues like
problems with finding fresh water for people around the globe and what we are
looking at in the future regarding fresh water issues? Including in this
country? Have you examined the pressures that are being put on our planet by
Lets look at it another way, a lot of families think having ten kids is a great
thing. Fine. But lets do some down and dirty math (I know there are
a lot of variables I'm not taking into account, and there isn't a 150
million couples, but I think you'll get the point.) In the USA
there are over 300 million people. Now lets turn that 300 million into 150
million couples. Lets say each of those couples have ten kids: 150,000,000 x 10 = 1,500,000,000In one generation we add one and
half billion to the population of the USA. Would that be a problem?
"Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague
and we are the cure."Agent Smith
I am about to paint with a broad brush here, but my comments are based on what I
often read in the DesNews forums. If you don't fit in my description below,
then I'm probably not talking to you.Those who are railing
against the idea of planning a family are often also those who decry medicaid,
WIC, school lunch subsidies, an increase in the minimum wage, insurance plans
that must offer birth control prescriptions, and an assortment of other
government helps to families with low incomes.May I suggest that
family planning could be as simple as delaying starting a family until children
can be paid for at birth and fed, clothed, and housed adequately after birth.Those who demand personal responsibility for supporting oneself, should
also demand personal responsibility when creating a family. Planning helps.
If Ms Barlow is offended then perhaps the way she perceives the world needs
tweaking. It was one thing for those who originaly colonized the
valley to have multiple offspring due to mortality rates, etc... This, however,
is not the 1850's.Maybe I'm oversimplifying what Baron
Scarpia & Mark said but it all down to 1 phrase... Water is a finite
resource... Did you not pay attention to Quantum of Solace?
"The agenda seems pretty plain. They'll encourage this generation to
only have two kids, the next generation to only have one, and then eventually
they'll have the pristine, practically people-free Earth they dream
of."---------------**Practically** people-free???Let's face it, these folks hate folks.
Utah's population is expected to double of the next 20 years.We are
already running out of water.Tell me your plan to use less water,
so I don't need to tell you the plan to keep people from killing each
other over the living giving resource.
Hutterite,IMO the "ok to plan" slogan really IS condescending and
insulting. It insinuates that families with more than 2 kids are too dim-witted
to know how, or are afraid to use birth control. It's in the category
with the condescending jokes like saying, "you know they know what causes
that now", to pregnant mothers with little kids in tow. LDS
families know how to use birth control. They know what causes babies. They
aren't stupid. Some actually WANT more than 2 kids.
Scarcity of resources is a common excuse for power-grabbing progressives to
attempt to seize more of our freedoms. The answer to that old argument (older
than Malthus) is more freedom. Like a free market for water. Let's sell
water at market rates, after assuring that waterways and wildlife have
sufficient, instead of subsidizing it so we can "make the desert bloom"
and grow lush lawns throughout suburbia. If you want to grow alfalfa in the
desert, and the market price of the water is cheap enough to justify it, then go
right ahead. Otherwise the people of Utah should be allowed to sell it to the
First of all, much of the year Utah's air is poisonous.Some people die
breathing it. We also lack adequate water for our burgeoning population.So what do we as parents when the number of children we have effects the
health of not only our own children, but the health of all those who live around
us? Our earth has finite resources. Many of us in the West use more than our
share of water, fuel, electricity, etc.In section 104 in the
Doctrine and Covenants, God assures us that "there is enough and to
spare." BUT, there is a qualification: "16 But it must needs
be done in mine own away; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have
decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the
rich are made low."The section goes on to say: "18
Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart
not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy,
he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment."WE ARE FAILING AT THIS.
Both sides make good points. Each couple has the right to choose how many
children they bring into the world, if any. However, these forums occasionally
omit the plight of couples who have difficulty having children. We had two
children five years apart, and lost 3 during that interim. Both of our children
also had difficulty having a family. Such couples can't afford to use
birth control if they hope to have any children at all. In such instances,
fertility treatments are an essential tool of family planning.
Dave D,Re: "WE ARE FAILING AT THIS"... Speak for yourself buddy.
I give of my abundance to the poor. You should try it. It works. And you
don't need to wait for the government to do it for you... you just give it
straight to the people who need it!Re: "Utah's air is
poisonous, Some people die breathing it"... Some people die breathing clean
air too. I don't think it's literally "poison", but there are
times when it's downright dirty (and we should do all we can to help with
that). But a man can't stop inversions, and the air in this valley would
be dirty even if we didn't drive a single car during these spells. But I
agree we should still do all we can (and I do).My suggestion is...
You need to do all these things you judge others of not doing. If you are
already doing them... that's all anybody can ask you to do. I'm not
responsible for your actions or anybody else, just mine.
Lets be honest, these billboards are an attack on large Mormon Families. As
others have stated, most of the people in Utah have large families by choice,
not accident. It may be different than in other parts of the world, but the vast
majority of Mormons know how to plan and choose these large families. So yes it
is condescending to insinuate that all these families don't know how to
prevent child birth, especially given that in Utah, people with large families
generally have a very high level of education. Most of the people my
husband went to med school with have more than 2-kids, and many have 4 or more.
They are not ignorant on what causes pregnancy.LDS liberal- What you
are saying is that you are LDS, but oppose the LDS Church when it has advocated
for large families, and actually think the leaders have been wrong in this area.
That doesn't add up to me.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT========== YOUR
Freedom ends, when YOUR actions impede or interfere with the Freedom of
others.This is NOT your planet.
The group's message is certainly patronizing. This implies that Utahns are
not planning which cannot be said, based on the low number of out-of-wedlock
births and other statistics, like the number of abortions, compared to the
nation at large. A quick check on UPEC's amateur webpage seems to overlook
national or global trends. It would be wiser to target fertility rates (6+) in
sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries which are expected to bring
the world's population to 9 billion by 2040, not developed countries.
Also, as the letter writer wrote, immigration is the reason our country is
increasing in population, not the native population which is in decline.However, it is freedom of speech to advertise the group's message
on the billboard. The LDS church or other private entity could equally chose to
advertise, "The joys of marriage" in predominately single areas, or
"Why stop at two?" in family-oriented areas.
LDS Liberal,How does my giving to the poor, or not driving on bad air days
" impede or interfere with the Freedom of others? How does
somebody else having children, "impede or interfere with the Freedom of
others"?I know it's not my planet, I never said it was. I
know who's planet it is. I know why he made this planet. It
had something to do with his spirit children getting bodies. He instructed his
Adam to "multiply and replenish the earth". I don't think that was
a zero-growth instruction. And I don't remember him changing his mind on
that.When you say, "Don't have children"... are we
encouraging what he made this earth for? Or when you say, "Don't have
children"... are you fighting AGAINST his expressed purpose for this
earth?Just something to think about.
The letter writer and her supports CHOOSE to be offended. How many times have I
heard these same people complaining that others are choosing to be offended.What goes around, comes around.And, 2Bits, for the record,
the people I know having bigger families are the frequently the very people who
probably shouldn't be having any because they're unable to support
themselves, muchless themselves AND children.
RanchHand,The people I know having bigger families are frequently VERY
able to support their families. I guess it depends on the area you live in and
the people you know.Hows this... I won't assume I know what
kind of people are having children in your neighborhood, and you don't make
blanket assumptions that include mine. Deal?I know there are some
people who have more children than they can afford. There are also people who
have children just to get government support. But I'm not going to judge
a people, or a whole State, or the people of any certain religion, with blanket
assumptions of whether they can afford the children they have or not.
That's pretty much up to them to decide (not me or the billboard
people).I agree you have to choose to be offended. But I think
it's pretty obvious the billboard was INTENDED to offend certain people.
How about renting a billboard on the other side of the street (there just about
one on every corner) that says: "Do your duty and have lots of kids!" or
shut down sex ed in the schools once and for all or better yet, close all the
schools since the parents should educated their kids.
@2 bits;In saying that it's "pretty obvious" the
billboard was intended to offend, you're assuming you know what they were
thinking.If you're so willing to let people decide how many
kids they're going to have (even when many of them can't afford them),
why aren't you willing to let two people who love one another marry? That
seems pretty inconsistent to me as it goes against the
"live-and-let-live" attitude you just presented.
Every woman, regardless whether she wants a small, medium or large family, needs
to plan her pregnancies. For her own physical and emotional well-being,
pregnancies need to be spaced at least 2-3 years apart to give her body time to
recover from the last pregnancy and delivery before starting another. Any
closer together than that can cause some real problems for her.Another idea -- if she wants a large family, why not have two biological
children (to replace the parents) and then adopt one or more of the many
children who do not have parents. That would be a win-win decision for all
involved (especially the children who would then have homes). Just a thought.
For people who like to regulate exactly what a woman can do with a pregnancy,
you all sure get upset when a billboard merely notes options people have...
"I guess it depends on the area you live in and the people you know."Well, 2bits, I guess that would be true. Maybe you don't meet many
families that can't afford children. After all, Cottonwood Heights. But are
you really that oblivious as to what happens other places? Oh well. Actually it
never surprises me that people from areas like Cottonwood heights live in a
bubble. And who can blame them? Things in the real world aren't always very
nice. But seeing as you are all about people in your neck of the
woods being able to afford their kids, I'm sure you will agree with me that
we should get rid of the tax breaks that go to people in this state that have
kids. After all, they can afford them, so why should the rest of us make up for
what they don't pay in taxes. I'm glad we are agreed on that. Actually, I don't mind helping families in Utah pay for their kids.
But lets not pretend that I don't pay, and lets not pretend that the number
of children a family has doesn't affect me.
The developed world has no problem with overpopulation. Rather the opposite.
5th attempt....To the hyper-defensive/offended --Please
quote scripture and verse that family size is a pre-request or requirement for
the Celestial Kingdom?And what does THAT have to do with
secular matters anyway?