Forum Post: Is Having Only One Child the Key to Gender Equality?
Posted 10 years ago on Aug. 18, 2013, 9:33 p.m. EST by stevebol
(1269)
from Milwaukee, WI
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
2 comments 3 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Does this mean you will start bashing all the (R)epelican'ts fighting against Planned Parenthood now?
Or are you still supporting the "who needs a plan for that", crowd?
I was thinking more about the positives and negatives of population growth.
In general, having one child will certainly decrease the population while having two will maintain it and having more than two will increase it. However, not every child will live until able to reproduce or reproduce at all if surviving to reproductive age. Then there's the one child plan of China...how well has that been working out?
We got into this in a Human Geography course I took years ago. Many people will swear we need + pop growth for a healthy economy. Others think steady or - is the way to go. I don't have kids so naturally I think I'm doing everyone a favor.
Keli Goff writes interesting articles.
An anti-abortion group backed by a billionaire fracking tycoon has embarked on an unusual campaign to shut down abortion clinics: direct mailing DVDs to lawyers in order to entice them to sue doctors.
This unorthodox legal strategy is a new twist on a strategy long employed by Life Dynamics, an anti-abortion group based in Denton, Texas. Two decades ago, the group's president, Mark Crutcher, began a mail and advertising campaign urging lawyers to take up malpractice lawsuits against abortion providers. The organization's manuals for attorneys argued that these suits could be used to "force abortionists out of business by driving up their insurance rates." Crutcher's campaign was never successful, but he's still at it—now sending slick DVDs sent to tens of thousands of lawyers. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/life-dynamics-abortion-lawyer-dvd
It seems to me that there is profit for the prophets.
Really?
Because I got the feeling you were looking for a particular reaction, and not actually thinking at all.
Be that as it may, perhaps you would be willing to share those thoughts now?
You mean that a few Gen X'ers that finally figured out what has been said for a good 80 years on reproductive rights finally sinks in.
Pffffttttt
Glad she finally figured it out.
"To be clear, the choice to have children, and how many, should ultimately belong to a woman and as long as she can be emotionally and financially responsible for that child, her choice should be free of judgment."
That's the only advice that made sense. If career is the issue, having only one child is going to make it harder than simply being childless for all the same reasons that having more than one child is harder than having just one. There are successful women who aren't so-called 'superwomen' who have more than one child and there are unsuccessful hard working women with no children. It all comes down to what is valued and what is felt to be affordable.
And men?
They're not excluded although the article excludes focus on them.
Therefore, I must wait another 80 years for her to cross that bridge?
FFS
Yes.
Coming soon, heterosexual sex leads to pregnancy.