https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-childless-liberals/

From what I could tell from the video, it was NOT suggested that childless adults should not be able to vote, but that parents should get MORE votes. (The article says otherwise.)

However, the dimwits in the video didn't even consider that they'd be seriously hurting people like the late, childfree Rush Limbaugh. (But, last I heard, he seldom voted anyway.)

He was hardly the only conservative who had no children or fewer than two. Tennessee state senator Stacey Campfield is in his 50s, Catholic, and he never even married.

Besides, it's been said that parents are the ones who give LESS of their time and energy to the community's needs - and they can be pretty short-sighted even when it comes to their own children's futures, such as when they use disposable diapers. Or when they buy them piles of junk that can't be recycled.

Lenona.

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-childless-liberals/

>From what I could tell from the video, it was NOT suggested that
>childless adults should not be able to vote, but that parents should get
>MORE votes. (The article says otherwise.) . . .

What if the children are naughty? What if the parents are neglectful?
You simply aren't taking this far enough.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 07:47:03 -0700 (PDT), Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Besides, it's been said that parents are the ones who give LESS of their time
>and energy to the community's needs - and they can be pretty short-sighted
>even when it comes to their own children's futures, such as when they use
>disposable diapers. Or when they buy them piles of junk that can't be recycled.

Do you know what would be even funnier and more erotic than the 20th
anniversary of 9/11 being celebrated via nuclear weapons that leave
Canada and Mexico separated by nothing but a vast lake of radioactive
glass?

Neither do I.

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 12:22:49 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Lenona > wrote:
>
> > https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-childless-liberals/
>
> >From what I could tell from the video, it was NOT suggested that
> >childless adults should not be able to vote, but that parents should get
> >MORE votes. (The article says otherwise.) . . .
>
> What if the children are naughty? What if the parents are neglectful?
> You simply aren't taking this far enough.

Or, as omnishambles wrote on a similar subject (tax support of the elderly), years ago:

"Do the childless (as opposed to childfree) get a pass in his utopia? Do you have to prove you at least tried and failed to get knocked up, or are you just left to rot with the rest of we harridans? What if you had a child that died? Or never paid taxes? So many questions."

That was in response to this, by Imran Khan (it's long):

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

"...a childless old woman should not then be able to extract resources from the children of other women. Fair is fair, and the obligation of working-age people to support the elderly should not be socialized in order to subsidize women who chose not to reproduce."

Another response, from Yurble:

"I would like him to explain how women without children are 'heavily dependent on taxes paid mostly by men.' I have a professional career, and although it won't make me rich, my salary is above average. Does he think that unmarried women are sitting at home like well-off spinsters in the 1800s, only supported by taxpayers instead of their families?

"It does appear that he's living in an alternate time zone if he thinks that only men maintain infrastructure and safety in society.

"On the subject of inventions I do not see how you can look at several hundred years of history where women were not given access to higher education, capital, or the means to promote their inventions and conclude that most things were invented by men. One could equally well say that most inventions were made by white people, ignoring the social factors which limited the opportunities for non-whites for hundreds of years. By his logic, India is leeching off British inventions and has been for two hundred years. Without a level playing field it is impossible to see what category of people is most inventive...and then you still have to answer the question of whether inventions are the only important contributions one can make to society, and if people who share characteristics with the group in question share the glory."

On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 00:17:05 UTC+9:30, Lenona wrote:
> https://www.rawstory.com/fox-news-childless-liberals/
>
> From what I could tell from the video, it was NOT suggested that childless adults should not be able to vote, but that parents should get MORE votes.. (The article says otherwise.)
>
> However, the dimwits in the video didn't even consider that they'd be seriously hurting people like the late, childfree Rush Limbaugh. (But, last I heard, he seldom voted anyway.)
>
> He was hardly the only conservative who had no children or fewer than two.. Tennessee state senator Stacey Campfield is in his 50s, Catholic, and he never even married.
>
> Besides, it's been said that parents are the ones who give LESS of their time and energy to the community's needs - and they can be pretty short-sighted even when it comes to their own children's futures, such as when they use disposable diapers. Or when they buy them piles of junk that can't be recycled.
>
>
> Lenona.

The word I prefer is "childfree", not childless, because I am not less of anything. Obviously childfree people should be allowed the same vote. The idea of democracy is "one person, one vote". One pursues happiness in one's OWN way, regardless of the judgement of others about their lifestyle. What next? That gays should not be allowed to vote or that women should not be allowed to vote or that those who are not rich should not be allowed to vote?

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:49:23 PM UTC-4, Meteorite Debris wrote:
>
>
> The word I prefer is "childfree", not childless, because I am not less of anything.

I agree. For some reason, though, not so long ago, conservative professional writers like John Leo (now aged 86) couldn't seem to grasp that there's a big difference between the childless and the childfree, and that, therefore, the relatively new adjective is very much needed. Namely, the former group spends thousands of dollars trying to HAVE children, but the latter group spends thousands trying not to have them. What more proof does anyone need?

In article <6a72a9e0-85db-4ac6-9c8b-57bad0f97ecen@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
....
>relatively new adjective is very much needed. Namely, the former group spends
>thousands of dollars trying to HAVE children, but the latter group *saves*
>thousands of dollars by not having them. What more proof does anyone need?

FTFY

--
"There are two things that are important in politics.
The first is money and I can't remember what the second one is."
- Mark Hanna -

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 21:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Namely, the former group spends thousands of dollars trying to HAVE children

I ran a few errands last week and came home to my California house,
the sky over which was gray from the smoke from multiple fires caused
by climate issues brought on by too many idiot reproductive offenders.

I found that some ambulatory excrement had left a card on my porch
informing me that surrogacy compensation begins at $50,000 and there's
currently a $1,500 signing bonus.

Coincidentally, one of the errands in question involved checking out
the possibility of leasing an EV to replace my aging hybrid. The
manufacturer in question has an *extremely* generous promotion going
on right now that, assuming the car isn't garbage, is nearly
impossible to resist.

As it turns out, the plague that the viciously stupid continue to
intentionally spread has disrupted the manufacturing and supply chain
to the point where while Corporate is heavily promoting the deal, the
dealerships have no cars and don't know when they'll be getting any.

Anyone who thinks humanity has even a scrap of a chance at a long-term
future is a completely hopeless moron. All birth is abuse.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:35:32 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <6a72a9e0-85db-4ac6...@ .com>,
> Lenona wrote:
> ...
> >relatively new adjective is very much needed. Namely, the former group spends
> >thousands of dollars trying to HAVE children, but the latter group *saves*
> >thousands of dollars by not having them. What more proof does anyone need?
>
> FTFY
>

To be fair, I don't know how much money the average childfree woman spends on birth control in a lifetime, or what sterilization costs if her insurance doesn't cover it. (Obviously, it costs far less than raising a kid!)

But...and this is pretty important - preventing unwanted pregnancies is harder than people realize. Why? Because, first of all, even the Pill has a real-life failure rate of 6%, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. (Of course, that includes human error.) So, a woman and her doctor have to figure out which two contraceptives she can use simultaneously that are affordable AND safe. (Plenty of women can't use hormones, and the IUD can be scary, for good reasons.)

Second, a woman has about 30 years of fertility. So, even if she wants two children, and, between age 20 and 50, has sex once a month on average, she still has to prevent pregnancy well over...300 times. With that in mind, is it really any surprise that half of all pregnancies are still unplanned? (Before the Pill, one could argue that unplanned pregnancies didn't officially exist at all, because it wasn't quite civilized for married couples to talk about them - they were just supposed to learn to love any extra children they found themselves having. After all, "if you didn't want children, why did you marry in the first place?")

On top of that, many women over 50 can still get pregnant - but they mistakenly assume they don't need birth control at that age. (In the same vein, I've heard that STDs are rampant among people that age.)