It might say that in the beginning of the book, but what about what it says in the end about the woman, a child and the dragon. This is something I feel god wants our attention drawn to, and I have no problem seeing her as a woman in China, trying to out run the one child rule. There is a dragon in that story.

Ironically the atomic number for gold is 79 and it was in 79 that this rule was first applied. I became familiar with this because my government took the first two children I had off me. Not because I was a bad mother, but because I was young single mother with no family of my own to help me. Then when I asked them to cut and tie my tubes, they said no because I had no children.

I was one of those in the 2% contraception didn’t work for, not even the copper seven. So what part in all of that did god play for me on the subject of be fruitful and multiply? A part where an Australian woman is told she can have none, while in the worst of it all worldwide, woman in China could at least have one.

2,000 years ago a local girl had a hard time finding a local husband after Herod’s slaughter, and now a Chinese man struggles to find a wife in his own country. And somewhere in the world there’s a woman boasting the birth of her 18th child.

It’s a big sea creature that man was not given dominion over, unless you read it into scripture. But perhaps it is something that god gave Jesus dominion over and what he wrote in revelations is there to help us figure it out.

Just a thought from Skeeter.

Well, some of us think that we would be bad mothers. I, however, am delegating my 2.1 children (or 1.05) to another couple who would do a better job raising them.

Besides, it’s not all about my genes. Some of us simply do not wish to procreate with the men who find us attractive. My lack of procreation is a sacrifice of my genes in the name of keeping their genes out of the next generation.

However (and this is addressed to everyone), every person is of value whether they are retarded or slow or whatever term you care to call them. Someone doesn’t have to make a great scientific or literary contribution to the world to be worthwhile. Some of my greatest joys came from a little boy with fetal alcohol syndrome. He didn’t judge anyone- all received a smile and a hug. Think of the lessons we all could take from that.

Maya, so well educated people are shown to have fewer children. So what happens if the well educated people sit back, simply content with their few children? Then they aren’t helping to contribute better educated people to the earth and letting those with lesser educations have more children. Hmm, does that mean those who are well educated are really being smart?

Also, I believe that we as Christians, recognizing the Lord’s explicit command to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food” gives us the most responsibility in caring for the planet, but not in the way of those such as this woman.

To care for the planet requires that we be sensible and take true fact in hand before acting. There is plenty of misinformation which tends to paint doomsday scenarios of our pollutants killing the planet. Movies such as The Core and The Day After Tomorrow and other such eco-scripts have popularized the idea that mankind currently has the tools to destroy the earth. But that is just not so. Later today I’ll post an article regarding nuclear disasters over the years and how in actuality they are much less destructive than popular myth has led us to believe, both in terms of human damage and loss and in terms of environmental issues.

The fires in southern California are particularly destructive as a direct result of environmentalist policies which do benefit neither the environment nor the people, and in fact directly lead to great loss for both.

For instance, if people were allowed to clear away brush and trees from immediately surrounding their houses in fire-prone areas, the fire would have a more difficult time getting large enough and gaining enough momentum to destroy as much acreage as they do. Also, the people would still have to evacuate, but there would be a greater chance they’d not suffer the catastrophic loss they currently experience.

Also, the catch phrase of many environmentalists is “Old-growth forest” which is actually an invention of man. Before we stopped fires, entire forests would burn every 10-15 years as trees aged and became weak. New growth would then be freed to growth and thrive.
Old-growth forests shade the ground to such an extent that young growth is not capable of growing. Old trees are more likely to be harmed by disease and pests. Old growth trees contribute less to the warming and cooling cycles of the earth as they cannot process as much Carbon Dioxide as young trees can.

As a Christian, it is my responsibility to be a good steward, allowing the old to die and the young to thrive and growth through their natural cycles of life. Unfortunately, with the current political climate, that translates into what can easily be confused with a lack of interest in the environment as I find myself fighting against misinformed and overzealous attempts to protect the environment at the expense of legitimate interests.

Those misinformed and overzealous environmental policies do more damage over time as people see them not working and hurting their own interests. People lose interest in environmental protection and default to selfish and destructive activities, habits, and policies.

Wanton belligerence may indeed just be a lack of interest because of the lies currently ruling politics.

I find the opposite within the Church. Often there is “worship” of family and procreation. At the same time those who are often very pushy about procreation (I am hardly putting you in that camp as I have only just met you) also at times view God’s creation with wanton belligerence.

I can understand each couple not having a dozen kids, but to take yourself entirely out of the gene pool and declare it selfish to have children? That’s probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

Can the economy work best without humans? Is that even possible?

Maya, consider the fact that your children will be just what the economy needs: they will create and they will consume, just what the economy ordered. But even then, an economy is a morally neutral entity: one should not make moral decisions based on the economy. Your children will be moral agents imbued with purpose. While it may seem that as a group, people are getting dumber, that does not mean that you have no choice but to allow your children to be that way.

Ps I am another woman who won’t be breeding….because its the respnsible thing NOT to do.