Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 2677

The thing you really DON'T want is women having to wait until they're 25 - 35 to start having kids. That's the thing which ends up with population spirals and government "elites" inviting the third world in to take up the slack. 17 - 18 For women, 18 - 20 for men should be about the norm. Even if that means the government subsidizing kids getting married and starting families at that age to some extent I like that idea better than the idea of losing our country to the globalists and the la Raza/Atzlan crowd.

medved, Free Conservatives 27 Comments [8/18/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
BigDaddy

How do arrive at these conclusions? Do they teach this nonsense at some school?

8/19/2005 12:40:13 PM

Spaz

Yeah! And then do away with those pesky child labor laws and in fact have the government force all children to work! That way everybody will be dumb as a fucking brick since they're all doing nothing but working and fucking and this country will be great again!

8/19/2005 3:20:46 PM

Khaine

We need to keep 'em barefoot and pregnet or else the Mexicans will take over.
Is that what is arguement boils down to?

8/20/2005 12:25:11 PM

LtC

I want to know why you all think this post is so idiotic and 'fundie.' I get a kick out of most of the stuff here, but medved actually makes a valid point from a stance of nationalism (of maintaining the status quo). There's no getting around the fact that for the foreseeable future the majority of our population will be 'lower' class (meaning they work at unskilled jobs which do not require a great deal of education, like, say, college). Whether that segment of the population is filled up by native residents or by immigrants depends in large part on the reproductive rate of the natives. In case you all were unaware, the population growth rates of the natives in the Western nations are very low. France, for example, has a negative growth rate for its native population. So while I am a 'globalist' and I don't think that an American-born citizen has any more intrinsic right to an American job than a Mexican-born immigrant does, I also must admit the possibility that if a large population is added to an existing one without ever being assimilated into the existing culture, the existing culture will by definition change drastically. In Europe, that could mean that continued conservative Muslim immigration eventually reverses the trend of social progressiveness of the native population. It's important to remember that democracy and liberty are not interminably intertwined.

Also, he never said it was 'evil' for women to wait until they're 25 to have kids. He just said, I think, from a perspective of wanting to maintain the status quo, that you cannot allow the immigration growth rate to outweigh the native growth rate.

12/2/2005 6:49:59 PM

The Last Conformist

Female fertility starts to drop after about age 27, so the modern trend of later and later first kids *is* worrying from a demographic perspective.

OTOH, the advances of modern medicine seem well on their way to eliminating that particular biological snag.

12/3/2005 3:22:54 PM

Souper

Wow.

Really...wow. medved is obviously part of that wealthy 18-20 year set that can afford children at a young age. Either that or he's a guy with no physcial friends but his online circle jerk.

12/5/2005 2:19:58 PM

Why have children

Last I looked the world population was somewhere in the 6-7 billion range.

12/5/2005 2:22:10 PM

Questioning

Part of Europe's problem is that they tended to give generous welfare benefits to the children of Immigranst so that the Natives could have the jobs.Here in the U.S., we did no such thing.We fully integrate immigrants into the workforce(Especially in the cities) and this results in the second or even the first born generation integrating very quickly.The Situation with the Southwest Border is that we have a large Nation, Mexico, with a very large poor population who need money.They do not live across the sea, so they can go back and forth from Home to Home.Mexicans will and are converting large parts of the southwest into a \"Amermexico\" culturally.This is not a bad thing.Almost all previous Great Immigrations have involved sea crossings.But like Mexicans, the Majority of Immigrants(With some exceptions)planned on working in the New World to save up money to buy land/feed family back Home.And like Mexicans.Many just chose to stay here.All became \"Americanized\".

As for the idea that mexicans will outbreed \"Natives\" all integrated immigrants develope native breeding rates within 2-3 generations.

Personally, I feel this is a kneejerk reaction to the Idea of A \"Supposed Other\"
-My two Bits

12/7/2005 4:05:32 PM

dracul

We wouldn't want foreigners, you know people whose families haven't been here since the beginning of time, coming to this land. The whole notion is so tribal.

Why try to cling to some so-called culture? If you're big on clinging to the past then go back to caveman culture (probably not a big jump back to be sure).

Nationiolism is one of the great evils of the world.

What we really have to worry about is people who butter their bread on the other side.

12/10/2005 5:06:53 AM

Mal Renyolds

My view is that with immigration, is that we should welcome all people, except criminals and terrorists. With illegal immigration, what I don't get is why people want to build a fence across the border to stem the tide. A much better way to do that is help latin american governments with their economy and make it so that a person can get a good well paying job in their home country rather than having to come here so that they can feed their family and give them a decent standard of living.

12/19/2005 4:44:07 PM

Matilde

My grandparents and my parents married at that age and they are large families. Stop saying nonsenses

8/14/2006 10:28:46 AM

SaneChick

He just ignores the fact that most women don't want to have kids at 17. What about finishing high school? What about college? What about starting a career?

Unless you force women to have kids, or remove all birth control options, you're not going to have the majority of women having kids at 17 in this country ever again. Time change.

11/18/2006 1:28:20 PM

Carrion Crow

The simple fact is: population decline or not, kids should not be having kids. There I said it. Also, it is stupid to suppose that girls of that age only see themselves as baby machines for the forseeable future. Women value themselves far more highly than that these days, and its a good thing. Do you really want another million+ teen moms whose babies' fathers have disappeared into the ether because they are not mature enough to bring up children? We already have the highest teen preganancy rate in the world, why make it worse?

3/1/2008 6:44:20 PM

hGoddess

I'm really not ready to be pregnant yet, thank you very much.

3/1/2008 9:36:05 PM

Feminazi

There are SEVEN BILLION people on this planet. A few women deciding not to have children is not going to cause a downward spiral in the population.

4/26/2008 5:55:02 PM

clockworkgirl21

Me, at 19, with a child? That would be hell.

5/3/2008 1:48:17 AM

T. McGee

It might "tend" to, TheLastConformist, but that doesn't mean you start menopause at age 27. Most of the people I know have moms who birthed them in their 30s (some even 40s), and I know many folks today who are waiting until their late 20s at least.

Honestly, I don't see it as worrisome at all if people wait until they're a bit more prepared for the rigors of childbearing/rearing. Hell, my mom was 32 when she had me (her first), and I'm glad she waited.

Few things are worse for society than people having kids before they're prepared to take care of them (which most of us would be at 18-20).

7/22/2008 11:41:09 PM



@hGoddess: Neither am I. I guess all girls at seventeen stay at home and are married off by their fathers in this idiot's parallel dimension.

7/23/2008 4:52:33 PM

clockworkgirl21

Holy shit. I'm a girl, and 20, and can't imagine having a kid until at least 10 years from now.

4/4/2009 3:19:54 PM

Darkevilme

Has this person talked to someone who is 20?
Sod he must of been one at sometime surely?
Newsflash from someone who is 21, we are sure as fuck not ready to be a father or mother. Or at least i'm not. Now 25 maybe...just maybe, but i havent got there yet so i wont comment.

4/4/2009 6:07:50 PM

Kitourahime

Biologically, it is a good age for having children. Mentally, it is not.

Also, what the fuck was in between his age statements there? What the fuck does that say?

4/14/2011 8:49:56 AM

GamblingDementor

Yeah, for sure, and not a single woman will be able to go to college and study and have a steady job... Yeah, very good thing for the women.

6/13/2011 11:38:54 AM

rw23

medved isn't thinking about the happiness of individuals, just the fulfilment of his own ideological prejudices. Thankfully for that reason alone not everyone will agree with him.

6/13/2011 1:16:06 PM

GigaGuess

Shit, why stop there. Just make it so a woman must reproduce as soon as she has her first period. I mean...they ain't worth anything unless they're cranking out kids, right? Being good breeders for the menfolk?

Or, you know, we can do as we are doing, and let PEOPLE DECIDE WHEN THEY ARE READY TO HAVE A FAMILY.

6/13/2011 3:17:53 PM

Moondog

Racist bullshit dies hard. Look at newspapers from 100 years ago. They were saying the same things about Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants- all of whom were diifferent, they were the "other" of the time, and the same stereotypes abounded. They were criminals, drunkards, and they would never, ever be "real Americans," who were, of course all white and Protestant. (See "Little House on the Prairie")

6/13/2011 4:43:21 PM
1 2