Like Black and White

Like Black and White January 30, 2014

On the one hand, Evil Liberal Al Gore wants to institute “fertility management” against the poor, as rich people so often do. On the other hand, Good Libertarian Rand Paul wants to institute fertility management against the poor, as rich people so often do. The reason Gore is evil is because he wants to do it for Mother Earth. The reason Paul is good is because Paul wants to do it for Mammon. Nobody asks the poor what they think because if they mattered, they’d be rich–and would therefore matter.

My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while you say to the poor man, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme that honorable name which was invoked over you? (James 2:1-7)

"Before Abraham was, I AM.Another jaw dropper from the Gospel of John ( 90–110 CE). ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."
"The earliest Christian text we know, 1 Thessalonians, addresses the anxiety of Paul's converts about ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."
"That is not at all what people mean by the "reliability" of the New Testament ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."
"One possible answer here is that Mark is a Catholic Christian, and not a Fundamental ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • KZ

    Do you consider John C Wright evil too? He proposed cutting benefits to unwed mothers a while ago, and for (I would say good, but at the very least logical) reasons. Also, I appreciate the thinkprogress link to Mr. Paul, together with the foxnews link to Mr. Gore. Outsourcing the slamming to the least objective (in these cases) sources – genius! Sometimes I wonder – did Mr. Shea consider his view on key issues and found himself a centrist, or did he decide to become one, and now, whenever it seems the left or right come up with something evil or stupid, he must strain to find its corollary on the other side to re-balance his percieved alignment.

    • Other than “Culture of Life” and Sexuality issues I think Shea’s basically Left-leaning now. (On reflection I might mean he’s more firm Anti-Rightist than Leftist)

      Or maybe some who write to him still think he’s Right-wing so he feels he has to be snarkier to that side to emphasize he’s not. But it’s been enough years now I’d think people should have gotten the message how much he despises the GOP. (Not the people, the party. Although sometimes I think the people too)

      All that said I think Paul’s idea might well increase abortion even if that’s not his intent.

      • Thomas R,

        “Other than ‘Culture of Life’ and Sexuality issues I think Shea’s basically Left-leaning now.”

        Your observation called to mind for me this passage from the thirteenth chapter of C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”:

        “All the same, the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like. Perhaps it gives us more than we can take. It tells us that there are to be no passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Every one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one’s work is to produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to be no ‘swank’ or ‘side’, no putting on airs. To that extent a Christian society would be what we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always insisting on obedience—obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly, it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding worry or anxiety as wrong. Courtesy is one of the Christian virtues; and the New Testament hates what it calls ‘busybodies’.

        If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, ‘advanced’, but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old fashioned—perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.”

        • I do think some things about Christianity or Catholic Social Teaching could seem “Leftish.” And I’m not really a Right-winger on economics either.

          I think he’s perfectly orthodox, I just think he emphasizes many of the Left-sounding elements of social-teaching, but more than that emphasizes he’s hostility/condemnation to Right-leaning though on economics or defense. At first I figured it was to make it clear he’s no longer Republican-leaning at all, but after six years (at least) of this I think if that’s not clear to people yet it never will be. So there’s no need to keep emphasizing how much you dislike Catholics voting for money-worshiping damnable Republicans or just how much you dislike American Catholics voting at all. (Because realistically all of the parties support what he deems damnable. Except maybe the “American Solidarity Party” and so far they don’t have candidates as such and I know that because I asked them)

          Anyway I do thank you for the post, which was quite fascinating. Even though I’m not exactly a Lewis fan.

          • I can’t speak for him, but he’s one of the very few prominent orthodox voices of which I am aware that addresses the issues from a perspective akin to that described by Lewis.

            Among the heterodox and the aging folk Mass set, there is a mainline-esque disregard for cultural conservatism. Among the orthodox and those with a proper appreciation for solemn liturgy, there can sometimes be a disregard for social justice. As Mark’s audience is largely drawn from the latter, I think his repetition ad nauseam of remonstrances of the latter may actually be a salutary purgative, with few others than Mark available in St. Blog’s to administer it.

            • IRVCath

              I take issue with the fact that a folk Mass makes one necessarily heterodox. Tacky, maybe, but I know good people who have those tastes, and their theology is definitely orthodox in the best sense of the word.

              But for me, leftist, rightist, I’m not that concerned. If it is orthodox or not, that is with what I am more concerned with.

              • “I take issue with the fact that a folk Mass makes one necessarily heterodox.”

                That’s true. And now that you’ve called it to my attention, I see that what I wrote plainly implies otherwise.

                I apologize.

                Thanks for a helpful, charitable comment!

      • ivan_the_mad

        I don’t think your comment inaccurate. He’s stated at a few points that he fundamentally considers himself a conservative. If this is taken in the narrow and specious sense of the American right, then he isn’t, but neither are they since the American right is by turns reactionary and revolutionary (and we must remember that the reactionary is a specific type of revolutionary and emphatically not a conservative). But if this is taken in the broader sense of a political disposition as espoused by Kirk and Burke, then he’s evinced just such a disposition nearly every day. Further, I consider categorizing by the left and right moot since they’ve both intrinsic evils embedded in the very fiber of their ideologies. Kirk also offers wise counsel to further avoid identifying conservatism with an ideology or political party: “Both the impulse to improve and the impulse to conserve are necessary to the healthy functioning of any society. Whether we join our energies to the party of progress or to the party of permanence must depend upon the circumstances of the time.” — The Conservative Mind

        • “we must remember that the reactionary is a specific type of revolutionary and emphatically not a conservative”

          So pithily put and so true!

          • ivan_the_mad

            Thank you! I also see that I’m definitely missing an indefinite article, which you’ve helpfully inserted. I’ll propagate the correction into the original.

  • Dave G.

    I’m not exactly a fan of the Paul family politics, but there is a difference here. Gore is simply playing up the ages old ‘there are too many people in the world’ mantra. Disagree or not, Paul’s is clearly a different plan, meant to stop those using children as a way to abuse a system. It may not be a good idea. It may not be a big enough problem to warrant the solution, or it may not work. But there is a difference between the two proposals.

    • MarylandBill

      Evil can mask itself under many “goods”. Mark’s point is that regardless of motivation, both men are advocating intrinsic evil.

      • Dave G.

        I didn’t say I agreed. I merely point out there are differences.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Ii think your prejudice shows when you state “to stop those using children as a way to abuse the system”. Do you have any statistical proof that this is a real problem?

      • Dave G.

        My prejudice shows? Really? Tell me more about myself Martha, it appears I’m not educated regarding the realities of me. Or it might be that I admit there are those who abuse the system on both ends: the high end and the low end. If you want stats, then define what you mean by ‘a real problem’. I see anyone who abuses any system as a problem, because it likely means some other person who might need the help could get hurt. And to think it doesn’t happen at all is beyond belief. Nobody really says it never happens, the degree to which it is a problem is the question, and how we can go about fixing the problem. Again, and again, I didn’t say I agree with Paul, I merely point out it is different in substance than what Gore is proposing.

      • The statistical proof you seek is in the differential percent of children who gain public aid and are taken away by the state for neglect and those who do not get public aid and suffer the same fate. Getting money for childcare and spending it on yourself is a tale as old as Dickens.

  • BigBlueWave

    Do taxpayers matter? Nobody seems to ask them.

    I don’t want anyone to starve, but is it unreasonable to send the message to women to just keep your legs closed? Is that such a heartless thing to say?

    • James H, London

      This isn’t about keeping your legs closed. No population control measure has ever been applied without coercion, or even consistently. Or logically.

      The world is not running out of food. Pur-lease, people, stop with the untermenschesgedenken, already!

      • fats

        untermenschesgedenken? is that like a turducken?

        • “untermenschesgedenken?”

          “ideology about [alleged] lesser breeds,” in German for the (God)win. FWIW, I thought Mr. London’s coinage was clever.

      • Elaine S.

        “No population control measure has ever been applied without coercion, or even consistently”

        The most effective and consistent ways to reduce a less-developed country’s birthrate are to open up educational and job opportunities for women (and young men) and reduce infant mortality. As standards of living and educational expectations rise, women and men naturally wait longer to marry and have children. As infant and child mortality goes down, so does the number of children required to maintain a stable population. (A replacement level of 2.1 children per woman applies only in developed countries where the vast majority of children born can expect to live to adulthood. In a country like Haiti or Bangladesh with, say, 50 percent infant mortality, the typical couple would have to have 4 or 5 babies in order to replace themselves because they could expect 2 or 3 of them to die in infancy.) The result is that fertility rates decrease — sometimes very rapidly in the space of a generation or two — without any coercion or outside pressure.

        Those who think you can raise a Third World country’s standard of living by reducing the birthrate are putting the demographic cart before the horse, so to speak. Birthrates “naturally” go down as standards of living rise and this is happening all over the globe. (The Baby Boom in the post World War II United States was a relatively short-lived exception to this general trend.)

      • Bobby Lawndale

        James, this isn’t about population control, let alone untermenschesgedenken. It is about a society in which 43% of births are to unwed mothers and most of those children depend on taxpayer support for basic living needs. This is a rather recent phenomenon, and the much lower illegitimacy rates prior to the 1960s did not involve government coercion.

    • Sus_1

      How about you send the message to men to stop climbing on top of the open legs!

      • Dave

        While that’s a fine retort to a crude and simplistic remark, I don’t think it’s realistic. Unfortunately, women more or less are the thermostat for the sexual “temperature” of a society. If there are “open legs” at any time in the history of mankind, I’m pretty sure at least one man will be willing to climb on.

        At the risk of being a bit too literal, women are obviously the “gatekeepers.” There are always a few marauders out and about, which is why the gates need to be guarded. If the gatekeepers cannot distinguish between marauders and friends, grave trouble ensues.

      • Absent the legalization and normalization of flogging, I’m not quite sure what else we could realistically try. Indentured servitude for 18 years if your name goes on the birth certificate even if you’re not the father, that’s a pretty strong message.

      • Bobby Lawndale

        I agree, 100% and have certainly sent that message to my son. That said, the sex drives of men and women are not identical, and women have always been the governor — including in marriage. One of my retired partners, I dope loving child of the 60s, once said, “For centuries men have wanted sex before marriage, but women generally said no; sometime around 1968 women stopped saying no, and we’ve had hell to pay ever since.”

        I’m not blaming women, or men, as a group. I’m blaming progressives, especially the feminist variant, for fostering a society that not only believes in sex without commitment or consequences, but values it as an esteemed social good. Aborted children are just necessary collateral damage.

  • Stu

    It is interesting how the two political tribes tend to come up with the same solutions by means of different paths but for the same reason; idolatry.

    Interestingly, the real solution for both of these issues comes from CST and that is BOTH subsidiarity and solidarity.

  • jroberts548

    To be fair, there’s a fine line between not incentivizing poor women to have more children than they can afford, and incentivizing women to have abortions. As a factual matter, I think Paul’s proposal falls on the wrong side of the line, but I think a person could, in good faith, believe otherwise, even if they’d be wrong.

    That is, making it harder to afford kids increases the likelihood that poor women will seek abortions. This, obviously, is not pro-life. On the other hand, incentivizing poor women to have more kids than they can afford increases the likelihood that they’ll have more kids than they can afford, keeping the women and children in poverty.

    At the level of actual decision-making, I would be surprised if a significant number of poor women really have extra babies in order to get the slight increase in aid that that child will bring in – aid amounts are not high, and only a truly insane person would think the marginal child will bring in enough marginal aid to constitute a net gain. I think Paul’s error may be more directly economic than moral – at a macro-economic level, paying more for kids will lead to women having more kids, but that ignores the level at which the decision is actually made. No one’s going to choose to pregnant for a tiny marginal increase in aid. Reducing aid per child will mainly lead to more stress placed elsewhere in the system of aid and charity that exists now, rather than actually leading to reduced birth rates or pregnancy rates.

    • This isn’t directed at you personally, jroberts548, but I think it is telling that your comment and others here focus entirely on women — keeping their legs together, how to discourage them from having more children, how to encourage/discourage them from having abortions, etc. But last I checked, it takes two to make a baby. It seems to me that in this debate about responsible parenthood, charity, and governmental aid, we are omitting a huge factor — men. Perhaps society would benefit if we also spent time telling men to keep it in their pants, and when they do father children, getting them to step up and take responsibility for those children?

      • Stu

        But the big elephant in the room on that is abortion. Society tells women they have a “choice.” Men apparently do as well and that is just walking away.

        Obviously I don’t disagree with your overall point, but I think people focus on women because ultimately they are usually left with all of the responsibility in such instances.

        • I think that is one of the unintended consequences of the legalized abortion movement, that men feel more entitled to walk away from a pregnancy because hey, she can just abort. Hence the idiotic Men’s Rights Movement, which has been agitating for years for men to be free of any legal responsibility for parenthood or child support, leaving legalized abortion advocates to come up with contorted arguments as to why that shouldn’t be (and never mind that it is a non-starter, legally, because once the child is born it no longer is about parental choice but the best interests of the child).

          Yes, in fact women are left with all the responsibility (and were, even before legalized abortion), but they shouldn’t be. Which is why anyone who considers himself to be pro-life and pro-family should focus just as much on the role of men in this mess.

          • Stu

            But if a man has no say in the child being born, but the woman does, then legally there is a point to be made. Legally speaking, women cannot have their “choice” but then comply men to go along with it. Either men have an equal footing in this or they don’t. It is the embrace of contraception and abortion that have put the focus on the women and cruel irony of it all. Satan is tricky like that.

            • It’s been a while since I practiced law, but as I understand: legally, no they don’t have a point, at least not once the child is born. The gold-star standard of family law is “the best interests of the child,” so if it is in the best interests of the child to receive financial support from its father (and it almost always will be), then it does not matter if the father wanted the mother to have an abortion, or even if the mother wanted an abortion but didn’t get one for whatever reason.

              And yes, more and better birth control and access to abortion have placed more of a focus on women, but that focus was there anyway; there have always been men who have abandoned their children, and people in authority who have looked the other way about it; it’s just even more common now.

              • Stu

                Laws change. That’s why I say legally they have a point and ultimately I think that point will carry the day. Marriage itself is an institution about the best interests of the child and yet we see that being modified for the best interest of adults.

                Society will not support one adult having a “choice” and the other not having that same “choice.”

                • Dave

                  I think you may be right. After all, if the woman can decide whether she wants to take responsibility for her child or not, why can’t the man?

                  • IRVCath

                    It’s logical, infamously so. We have allowed rights to trump responsibilities

                • Perhaps, but so far the courts have resoundingly said “no.”

                  • Stu

                    And they resoundingly said “no” to redefining marriage before as well.

                    It’s in the cards.

                  • Also, it amuses me that I have typed out all these comments with a screaming baby in my arms.

                    • Kathleen Lundquist

                      You rock, Beadgirl.

                    • kmk

                      You go, girl! : )

              • Were the gold star standard of family law truly the best interests of the child, no-fault divorce would be heavily restricted. We pay lip service to the interest of the child but we have legalized a number of behaviors that are very unlikely to produce results in the best interest of the child.

          • Marthe Lépine

            I have been getting the impression, for most of my life, that another problem is that men feel entitled to sex whenever they want it and to have nothing to do with the consequences. There is certainly a need for more education in that area; and there is a need to help women to feel empowered to say “no” without some kind of retaliation. It is not so rare to find a man who will try to manipulate an insecure woman…

      • Dave G.

        Stu is correct. It’s because men are told, having donated their sperm to the cause, they must then sit down, shut up, and wait to see if the woman chooses to abort the baby or not. If so, then he can deal with it. If she chooses to have the baby, then it’s back to reminding everyone that the man is responsible and needs to pay up. Because of that, it’s understandable why there would be a tendency to think it has something to do with the woman’s first of all. Not that it’s right, but it’s understandable.

      • jroberts548

        Single men don’t get marginal increases in government aid for each marginal illegitimate child. In fact, they get marginal increases in their child support obligations per marginal child. At the level of economic decision making, I don’t know what else could be done to discourage poor men from fathering illegitimate children. At the moral level, of course, the father is and ought be responsible, but I don’t see how federal or state aid programs could be structured to reflect that other than how hey already are.

    • Stu

      So given the level of decision-making, should this actually be a Federal issue? I think that fundamental question should be asked.

      • From the article, Paul answered no for the most part but he seems to be struggling in public with the temptation to use the leverage that federal poverty aid gives the feds to intervene in the issue.

        What hasn’t been noted much in the commentary is that this came out as a response to a question, not as part of the speech. That increases the likelihood that this was off the cuff musing and not heartfelt policy initiative.

  • Sherry

    Either we believe that children are a blessing or we do not. To be Catholic, we don’t get to pick a political party and say, the angels are over here. We get to work with the flawed people in power to seek to mitigate the injuries we can see, but they still require we see them.

    The GOP always cloaks its greed in we’re against abortion, and the DNC its equal lust for power with we care for the poor. Neither actually is interested in caring for the poor as human beings, but as a political body they can bribe, marginalize and/or manipulate. There isn’t an easy policy or soundbite solution to care for both the poor –women, men and children, and discourage the behavior that creates the seemingly intractable need for abortion and birth control, because to help each person requires a more personal relationship than the government can have via policy or procedure.

    To promote abortion or birth control is a means of not having to see the poor, we’ll control how much we have to care by having fewer people we’re ignoring. It’s a null set way of thinking that is not virtuous, at best, it is luke warmness that eventually becomes omission.

    • Andy

      Bravo – very well said!

  • Andy

    Where else do we see the government putting limits on the number of children – I know – China. As Sherry said below – a pox on both houses – neither party is interested in governance, both are interested only in power and its exercise. Neither party is honest in its statements – we deserve what we et because we do not demand honesty – instead we look for a “leader” to save us. I think this is because we have become far to comfortable in our sense of entitlement/.
    We have a leader – his name is Jesus. It is His banner under which we should walk – yet we don’t. Instead it is liberal vs. conservative, democrat vs. republican, tea party vs. the 98% and so on.

  • Obpoet

    Poverty begets procreation. So to decrease procreation ……

    • Andy

      I guess I thought sex begets procreation not poverty.

      • Stu

        Generally the case if you do it correctly.

      • He left out the middle steps:

        Squalor (not poverty per se) begets despair begets impulsive pleasure-seeking, the last of which begets procreation, addiction, obesity, dropping out of school, no-call/no-show at work, etc., and so begets . . . squalor.

        YMMV as to the best point(s) in the cycle in which to intervene to maximize amelioration. To the extent that the state can and should ameliorate the contribution of immiseration to squalor (which of course is the main point of political contention in the modern world), then it has a role to play.

        N.B., The proclamation of the Gospel kerygma and the invitation to a sacramentally mediated discipleship of Christ is, inter alia, an extraordinarily effective micro-targeted pharmaceutical against despair. Opium of the people and all that. Personally, I pray to see the Eucharist’s “dealers” learn to outcompete Sin’s. That’s my kind of war on poverty (and drugs).

        • Obpoet

          Why not enjoin a war on poverty also?

          • Obpoet,

            Personally, I tend to fall on the leftward side of debates about whether the state ought to employ taxation to fund the financial relief of the poor: we’re on the same team, methinks.

            I just try to keep in mind that each man’s need for bread is ultimately less than his need for the Bread of Life. (Not that there need be any conflict between the two needs, just that I, personally, am far more likely to get caught up in political wrangling to the exclusion of remembrance of what really matters eternally, and I need to fight against that failing in my habits of thought.)

          • Nordog6561

            A war on poverty? Why hasn’t that been tried?

        • kmk

          Displaying my ignorance: What is YMMV, please?

          • YMMV is an online acronym for “Your Mileage May Vary,” often used in contexts where an effect akin to this is desired: “reasonable folk may disagree, but with that caveat out of the way, my take on this is…” which takes a lot longer to type. My meaning just given is a bit of a semantic extension of the original, though, which IIRC (if I recall correctly) and AFAIK (as far as I know) began in online forums for automotive product reviews/consumer reports, where the “mileage” meaning was pretty literal.

            FWIW (for what it’s worth), I have often found that if I copy a word or acronym I don’t know into a Google search, the definition will be one of the first results. Not–I hasten to add–that your question isn’t most welcome. Just thought the suggestion might be helpful in case you encounter a similarly unknown word or acronym somewhere online where it’s harder to ask questions: e.g., in a magazine article.

          • chezami

            Your mileage may vary.

      • Obpoet

        You do not understand poverty, or sex, to think so.

        • Obpoet

          Or at least the interaction between the two.

          • Andy

            Sort of do – grew up in poverty and have three kids. But please explain what I don’t know – I guess from your superior view only those who are rich/well-off should have children. Damn please show me that as a Catholic doctrine. I find it fascinating that people blame the poor for being poor and then want to deny them. humanity. China much?

    • Nordog6561

      Are you saying that procreation should be wiped out?

  • Dave

    This discussion is like talking about rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. When the choice is killing the children or leaving them fatherless, either way you lose. Obviously, one is significantly worse than the other, but either way, society dies in the not-so-long term.

    The real solution is evangelization. Other than that, I don’t see any way that the problem of poverty-stricken, poorly-raised children is going to be solved.

    Sex is always going to be among the “Top 3” of any “gods” list when the true God is rejected.

    • IRVCath

      Of course, we must not forget that the other members of the trio are Money and Power.

  • Mariana Baca

    I don’t agree with his proposal, but he is dicentivizing having children out of wedlock, not children in general. Married couples would still get benefits over 5 kids. His argument is he is doing this to encourage marriage. I don’t think it is a good proposal (it is a terrible one — many women don’t choose to be single or divorced), but it is unfair to say he is doing it all for Mammon. Nothing in his proposal was about “fertility management,” anyway.

    • Mike

      “many women don’t choose to be single or divorced” this is a stretch of the truth!
      Every single women who chooses to have a child before getting married or without a stable partner is by definition choosing to be a single parent. And many, many, many women are single because they choose to divorce their husbands. According to the trial lawyers of America the majority of divorce cases are brought on by women.

      • Mariana Baca

        Women pregnant from rape or coerced consent are not choosing to be single parents. Women abandoned by their partners or divorce after abusive situation are not choosing to be single mothers. Bringing on the divorce case doesn’t mean you are at fault or initiating the situation that caused divorce — it might mean the woman is protecting her assets and getting custody of her children to protect them from an irresponsible or abusive man. Widows are also no single by choice.

        And, to note: “many” = “most”. You can have most women at fault for divorce or single parenthood and still have many in the other group. What I mean is, it is not the odd 0.1% here and there, but a sizeable minority.

        I don’t think Rand Paul is evil for this proposal. I don’t see it as Mark does, as a move to control the fertility of the poor to appease Mammon. I think Paul is trying to make marriage a more attractive prospect than cohabitation for modern but poor inner-city families since it will help with the stability of the home and the woman’s income in the long run. But, I think it will come at a cost to women who do need aid unexpectedly and are not single by choice, and thus I’m not sure it will achieve the aims it hopes to achieve.

        That said, I don’t think women with more than 5 kids are a sizeable percentage of any demographic. The main abusers of the aid in this demographic are likely polygamist families, who can’t get married, incentives or no. The main beneficiaries are likely large religious families where the husband dies unexpectedly or abandons them unexpectely — again, woman can’t choose to not be single. Some percentage is poor, inner city families, but I don’t think most of those families have 5 kids to one mom. Some do, and of those, a small percentage might be encouraged that marrying is a wise financial move if they have the option, but I’m skeptical this will have much positive effect.

        • Eve Fisher

          You’re absolutely right. Since polygamous families are illegal, they can use the welfare system in order to help maintain their large families: the women are all registered as unmarried mothers, and get food stamps, etc. And they have lots of children. There’s a lot of it going on in Utah, Nevada, Northern Arizona, New Mexico, etc…

  • AquinasMan

    Memo to Rand: “Incentive” is so 2000. This gov’t is all about “Mandate”. A real politician just tells us what to do, or else.

    • Is it a mandate from the masses, and not some farcical aquatic ceremony?

      • AquinasMan


        • IRVCath

          Of course in this case, we really do see the violence inherent in the system.

    • PalaceGuard

      “Mandate” is so sexist, though. Where’s the “Womandate”? Or the “Polyamorousdate”, for that matter?

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)
    • meunke

      But what if you liquify the camel and squirt it through the eye of a needle? Or use a REALLY BIG needle??? 😛

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Trying to decide whether to vote Democrat or Republican is like trying to decide whether to join Saruman or Sauron. There are no “lesser” evils these days. They’re only “different” evils.

  • Nordog6561

    It is difficult to guess from the linked story exactly what Al Gore means by fertility management. Yet, if the eugenicist history of Leftism generally speaking, and Planned Parenthood specifically speaking, is any indication, there is likely a coercive nature to the whole affair.

    Rand Paul simply suggests government not pay women to have children out of wedlock. I’m hard pressed to find a problem with government not paying women to have children under any circumstances. In any event, that would not be a case of regulating someone else’s fertility, or even behavior. It doesn’t even have as it’s goal to lessen the number of births.

    I just don’t see an equivalency between Rand proposing not paying women to have children out of wedlock on the one hand, and Al Gore on the other hand advocating for some sort of government intervention to curtail human reproduction.

  • peggy

    Mark Regnerus, the author of the recent study showing the inferiority of same-sex households for parenting, had this to say in a recent article.

    Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, says that women today have struck a kind of “grand bargain.”

    He says, “Women get contraception and the ability to limit and space
    their children, and the chance to fashion careers — things that sound
    good and are often experienced as such — and in return men get to decide
    just how invested in a relationship they actually have to be.”

    The problem, he notes, is that “men prefer cheaper sex” — that is, they prefer not to be more invested than they have to be.

    Women need to realize that men are the main beneficiaries of the sexual revolution, not women.

    I see nothing wrong with encouraging women to wait until marriage to have sex, for goodness sake. There is a multi-generational cycle of dependence in some quarters in the U.S. I am sorry if that fact offends. I understand that cutting or limiting benefits to unwed mothers is a fine line, I am not going to entirely endorse the idea, though it is appealing. We certainly do NOT need to do any more than we are already doing to discourage abortion. IN fact, the predominant seeker of abortions is a single white woman over 25 who has much to lose by an unwed pregnancy. Poor women have nothing to lose.

    • Andy

      His study was based on faulty research and somewhat fabricated results. Citing him does little to support your argument.

  • Mike

    What are the 2 sides of the same Roman coin.