Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?

Expand Messages
  • richardson_mcphillips
    perhaps I get a bit extreme in my expression. Mao denounced incrementalism and warm-feelingism over 40 years ago, truly a man ahead of his times. I would add
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      perhaps I get a bit extreme in my expression. Mao denounced
      incrementalism and warm-feelingism over 40 years ago, truly a man
      ahead of his times. I would add reductionism to that as well, given
      the title and goals of this group.

      I'm not firm calling someone 'idiots' is the sort of discussion that
      a group like this is calling for, but everyone has different ideas I
      suppose.

      a week late but gung hay fat choy!
      --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Patty Frost <frost_patty@...> wrote:
      >
      > Please do not think that all of us on VHEMT feel this way. There
      are those ignorant and retarded (socially) on every blog. VHEMT
      believes in population control by attrition and this can not be
      accomplished by spreading insipid banter over the internet. We, as a
      species, should voluntarily work to reduce the worlds population as a
      means of conservation. The idiots that have been writing on this
      thread are not representative of the majority.
      >
      > I have two children myself and my daughter has elected not to
      reproduce but to adopt when the time comes. I believe adoption is a
      very nobel action for anyone and I am happy that you found a home
      when you had none.My children are products of a broken home but are
      very well grounded individuals. I was a single mom and they saw the
      struggles I went through. Neither of them have the need to pass along
      their "blood line" but they want to have a family and offer a child
      the love that they received as children themselves.
      >
      > Patty Frost
      >
      > --- On Thu, 1/29/09, Peter <mailtoford@...> wrote:
      > From: Peter <mailtoford@...>
      > Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?
      > To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 5:38 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Somehow I got to be on the emailing list of your VHEMT
      discussion.
      >
      >
      >
      > Normally I don't much bother and just click delete. After all, the
      basic premise of your 'discourse' is just insane.
      >
      >
      >
      > Literally.
      >
      >
      >
      > This time the word 'adoption' caught my eye.
      >
      >
      >
      > I was an orphan who was adopted. How about YOU?
      >
      >
      >
      > Yeah. I thought so.
      >
      >
      >
      > Do you folks even begin to understand what unadulterated crap you
      are uttering?
      >
      >
      >
      > Yeah, I thought so.
      >
      >
      >
      > Please feel free to forward this to all the other inmates of your
      particular nuthouse....
      >
      >
      >
      > Peter Forde
      >
      >
      >
      > Brisbane, Australia
      >
      >
      >
      > Original message
      >
      >
      >
      > From: richardson_mcphilli ps
      >
      >
      >
      > To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Received: 1/29/2009 12:27:56 PM
      >
      >
      >
      > Subject: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?
      >
      >
      >
      > I disagree with adoption, for the same reason as John Mack. Adopted
      >
      >
      >
      > children might learn "more responsible values" than from their
      >
      >
      >
      > breeder parents. They might learn to value children, family and
      >
      >
      >
      > home. This will lead in turn to their desire for children, family
      >
      >
      >
      > and home. Large happy families even if they are of adoption lead to
      >
      >
      >
      > large happy families.
      >
      >
      >
      > No, let the orphans lead miserable solitary lives like so many
      people
      >
      >
      >
      > in today's world. Then they will be less likely to have children
      >
      >
      >
      > themselves.
      >
      >
      >
      > richardson
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com, "John Mack" <tarim@> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > > I don't think the production of neglected kids is demand-driven;
      the
      >
      >
      >
      > > irresponsible breeders of the world will keep grunting them out
      >
      >
      >
      > whether
      >
      >
      >
      > > there are other people to dump them on or not. Adoption has the
      >
      >
      >
      > advantage of
      >
      >
      >
      > > perhaps teaching more responsible values to children who might
      have
      >
      >
      >
      > > otherwise emulated their breeder parents.
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > > John
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      >
      >
      >
      > > From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:Why_ VHEMT@yahoogrou
      ps.com]On
      >
      >
      >
      > > Behalf Of real name
      >
      >
      >
      > > Sent: Saturday, 17 January 2009 3:54 AM
      >
      >
      >
      > > To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com
      >
      >
      >
      > > Subject: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > > I think personally adoption may be a very good idea. However, as a
      >
      >
      >
      > > widespread practice, there would be long term problems. Hosts are
      a
      >
      >
      >
      > at
      >
      >
      >
      > > a definite and dramatic darwinian disadvantage; what will happen
      >
      >
      >
      > after
      >
      >
      >
      > > several generations? Those that procreate (sometimes rapidly and
      >
      >
      >
      > > numerously, in stark opposition to VHEMT ideals) without regard to
      >
      >
      >
      > > being able to provide a good life for their children will
      dominate
      >
      >
      >
      > the
      >
      >
      >
      > > gene pool. So, such a widespread well intentioned practice might
      >
      >
      >
      > very
      >
      >
      >
      > > well ultimately lead to something similar to a third world
      >
      >
      >
      > catastrophe
      >
      >
      >
      > > of suffering of large masses of young and innocent souls.
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • JG Miller
      ... I take a median position. Personally, I call on people from wealthy countries, which includes Americans, not to adopt children from less-consumptive
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        richardson_mcphillips wrote:

        > perhaps I get a bit extreme in my expression. Mao denounced
        > incrementalism and warm-feelingism over 40 years ago, truly a man
        > ahead of his times. I would add reductionism to that as well, given
        > the title and goals of this group.
        >
        > I'm not firm calling someone 'idiots' is the sort of discussion that
        > a group like this is calling for, but everyone has different ideas I
        > suppose.


        I take a median position. Personally, I call on people from wealthy countries, which includes Americans, not to adopt children from
        less-consumptive countries. Why? Because it's usually almost as bad as a wealthy-countryite breeding their own. If adopting from
        China into the US, for example, the adopted child moves into a life of approximately 11x the consumption it would have had in China
        (Jared Diamond).

        Yes, by relatively wealthy Americans not adopting such children, they would probably have harder, or at least less luxurious, lives
        in the home country. Unfairness abounds in the world. At the same time, all rich countries need to pare down their own lifestyles
        now.

        Given these realities, I believe that the typical pattern of Americans adopting from countries like China, where the unwanted
        whitish kids abound and are relatively easy to get, does a lot of harm to the biosphere, and worse still, we allow this kind of
        adoption to go unchallenged, and thus the adopters get to feel good about themselves while satisfying their mommy and daddy urges.

        Adopt a damn cat if you won't or can't adopt nationally, and get on with your lives.

        Jim


        > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Patty Frost <frost_patty@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Please do not think that all of us on VHEMT feel this way. There
        > are those ignorant and retarded (socially) on every blog. VHEMT
        > believes in population control by attrition and this can not be
        > accomplished by spreading insipid banter over the internet. We, as a
        > species, should voluntarily work to reduce the worlds population as a
        > means of conservation. The idiots that have been writing on this
        > thread are not representative of the majority.
        > >
        > > I have two children myself and my daughter has elected not to
        > reproduce but to adopt when the time comes. I believe adoption is a
        > very nobel action for anyone and I am happy that you found a home
        > when you had none.My children are products of a broken home but are
        > very well grounded individuals. I was a single mom and they saw the
        > struggles I went through. Neither of them have the need to pass along
        > their "blood line" but they want to have a family and offer a child
        > the love that they received as children themselves.
      • Les Knight
        You re right, Richardson, calling anyone an idiot is a personal attack -- not the sort of discussion called for here. Les perhaps I get a bit extreme in my
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          You're right, Richardson, calling anyone an idiot is a personal attack -- not the sort of discussion called for here.

          Les

          perhaps I get a bit extreme in my expression. Mao denounced
          incrementalism and warm-feelingism over 40 years ago, truly a man
          ahead of his times. I would add reductionism to that as well, given
          the title and goals of this group.

          I'm not firm calling someone 'idiots' is the sort of discussion that
          a group like this is calling for, but everyone has different ideas I
          suppose.

          a week late but gung hay fat choy!

          --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Patty Frost <frost_patty@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Please do not think that all of us on VHEMT feel this way. There
          are those ignorant and retarded (socially) on every blog. VHEMT
          believes in population control by attrition and this can not be
          accomplished by spreading insipid banter over the internet. We, as a
          species, should voluntarily work to reduce the worlds population as a
          means of conservation. The idiots that have been writing on this
          thread are not representative of the majority.
        • Hal Friedman
          Right, it s so much better for children in poor countries to suffer poverty than to take any action that could compromise one s moral purity and sense of
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Right, it's so much better for children in poor countries to suffer poverty than to take any action that could compromise one's moral purity and sense of superiority to those ignorant child adopters who should, under no circumstances, be permitted to feel good about anything because they're affluent.

            From Hal who believes self-righteousness seems to be the preferred attitude of some VHEMT'ers

            ________________________________

            From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com on behalf of JG Miller
            Sent: Mon 2/2/2009 3:29 AM
            To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?



            richardson_mcphillips wrote:

            > perhaps I get a bit extreme in my expression. Mao denounced
            > incrementalism and warm-feelingism over 40 years ago, truly a man
            > ahead of his times. I would add reductionism to that as well, given
            > the title and goals of this group.
            >
            > I'm not firm calling someone 'idiots' is the sort of discussion that
            > a group like this is calling for, but everyone has different ideas I
            > suppose.

            I take a median position. Personally, I call on people from wealthy countries, which includes Americans, not to adopt children from
            less-consumptive countries. Why? Because it's usually almost as bad as a wealthy-countryite breeding their own. If adopting from
            China into the US, for example, the adopted child moves into a life of approximately 11x the consumption it would have had in China
            (Jared Diamond).

            Yes, by relatively wealthy Americans not adopting such children, they would probably have harder, or at least less luxurious, lives
            in the home country. Unfairness abounds in the world. At the same time, all rich countries need to pare down their own lifestyles
            now.

            Given these realities, I believe that the typical pattern of Americans adopting from countries like China, where the unwanted
            whitish kids abound and are relatively easy to get, does a lot of harm to the biosphere, and worse still, we allow this kind of
            adoption to go unchallenged, and thus the adopters get to feel good about themselves while satisfying their mommy and daddy urges.

            Adopt a damn cat if you won't or can't adopt nationally, and get on with your lives.

            Jim

            > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com> , Patty Frost <frost_patty@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Please do not think that all of us on VHEMT feel this way. There
            > are those ignorant and retarded (socially) on every blog. VHEMT
            > believes in population control by attrition and this can not be
            > accomplished by spreading insipid banter over the internet. We, as a
            > species, should voluntarily work to reduce the worlds population as a
            > means of conservation. The idiots that have been writing on this
            > thread are not representative of the majority.
            > >
            > > I have two children myself and my daughter has elected not to
            > reproduce but to adopt when the time comes. I believe adoption is a
            > very nobel action for anyone and I am happy that you found a home
            > when you had none.My children are products of a broken home but are
            > very well grounded individuals. I was a single mom and they saw the
            > struggles I went through. Neither of them have the need to pass along
            > their "blood line" but they want to have a family and offer a child
            > the love that they received as children themselves.






            ______________________________________________________________________
            This e-mail transmission contains confidential information that is the property of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any retention, disclosure, reproduction or distribution of the contents of this e-mail transmission, or the taking of any action in reliance thereon or pursuant thereto, is strictly prohibited. No warranty is given by NYSIF that this e-mail is free of viruses, interception or interference. NYSIF disclaims liability for any unauthorized opinion, representation, statement, offer or contract made by the sender on behalf of NYSIF. NYSIF's delegation of authorities, setting out who may make representations or contract on behalf of NYSIF, is available by contacting NYSIF at mailadm@.... Jurisdiction for all actions arising out of dealings with NYSIF shall lie only in a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of New York.
          • JG Miller
            ... I was acerbic but I m using the same principles that argue against breeding: it s all about the resources. And there are other, arguably better options
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hal Friedman wrote:

              > Right, it's so much better for children in poor countries to suffer poverty than to take any action
              > that could compromise one's moral purity and sense of superiority to those ignorant child adopters who
              > should, under no circumstances, be permitted to feel good about anything because they're affluent.
              >
              > From Hal who believes self-righteousness seems to be the preferred attitude of some VHEMT'ers


              I was acerbic but I'm using the same principles that argue against breeding: it's all about the resources. And there are other,
              arguably better options than foreign adoption to help alleviate suffering of those unwanted children, chiefly cash funding through
              charities. Your money can buy much more for them over there than here, even with bureaucratic overhead, and they're not going to
              adopt the American consumption lifestyle with that money. This sounds like a win-win to me.

              My oldest brother, who has been living on social security disability for 10 years now and will never have another income again, and
              who does not have a rich person's savings, felt comfortable enough with costs to fund a Filipino girl through her teens, and then
              paid for her 4-year college education in the Philippines. Just college alone here - 25 grand minimum? Often much more.

              He's never met her but still feels very satisfied from doing this. Part of the "Why Breed?" matrix addresses the desire to
              personally raise a young person in one's own image, which has a lot to do with the desire to control and the aspiration for status,
              and the more generalized need to nurture. The standard solutions people use for these have several good alternatives.

              Jim



              > From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com on behalf of JG Miller
              > Sent: Mon 2/2/2009 3:29 AM
              > To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?
              >
              > richardson_mcphillips wrote:
              >
              > > perhaps I get a bit extreme in my expression. Mao denounced
              > > incrementalism and warm-feelingism over 40 years ago, truly a man
              > > ahead of his times. I would add reductionism to that as well, given
              > > the title and goals of this group.
              > >
              > > I'm not firm calling someone 'idiots' is the sort of discussion that
              > > a group like this is calling for, but everyone has different ideas I
              > > suppose.
              >
              > I take a median position. Personally, I call on people from wealthy countries, which includes
              > Americans, not to adopt children from
              > less-consumptive countries. Why? Because it's usually almost as bad as a wealthy-countryite breeding
              > their own. If adopting from
              > China into the US, for example, the adopted child moves into a life of approximately 11x the
              > consumption it would have had in China
              > (Jared Diamond).
              >
              > Yes, by relatively wealthy Americans not adopting such children, they would probably have harder, or
              > at least less luxurious, lives
              > in the home country. Unfairness abounds in the world. At the same time, all rich countries need to
              > pare down their own lifestyles
              > now.
              >
              > Given these realities, I believe that the typical pattern of Americans adopting from countries like
              > China, where the unwanted
              > whitish kids abound and are relatively easy to get, does a lot of harm to the biosphere, and worse
              > still, we allow this kind of
              > adoption to go unchallenged, and thus the adopters get to feel good about themselves while satisfying
              > their mommy and daddy urges.
              >
              > Adopt a damn cat if you won't or can't adopt nationally, and get on with your lives.
              >
              > Jim
              >
              > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com> , Patty Frost
              > <frost_patty@...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Please do not think that all of us on VHEMT feel this way. There
              > > are those ignorant and retarded (socially) on every blog. VHEMT
              > > believes in population control by attrition and this can not be
              > > accomplished by spreading insipid banter over the internet. We, as a
              > > species, should voluntarily work to reduce the worlds population as a
              > > means of conservation. The idiots that have been writing on this
              > > thread are not representative of the majority.
              > > >
              > > > I have two children myself and my daughter has elected not to
              > > reproduce but to adopt when the time comes. I believe adoption is a
              > > very nobel action for anyone and I am happy that you found a home
              > > when you had none.My children are products of a broken home but are
              > > very well grounded individuals. I was a single mom and they saw the
              > > struggles I went through. Neither of them have the need to pass along
              > > their "blood line" but they want to have a family and offer a child
              > > the love that they received as children themselves.
            • Alex Bates
              ... attitude of some VHEMT ers ... I ll assert that self-righteousness seems to be the preferred attitude of many people, everywhere, regardless of their
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 3, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Hal Friedman" <hfrie@...> wrote:
                >
                > From Hal who believes self-righteousness seems to be the preferred >
                attitude of some VHEMT'ers
                >

                I'll assert that self-righteousness seems to be the preferred attitude
                of many people, everywhere, regardless of their socio-political beliefs.

                -Alex in Alaska
              • Hal Friedman
                OK, point accepted. I myself sponsor a child in the 3rd World with the Childreach program, also called Plan USA, which uses my contributions to pay for
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 3, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  OK, point accepted. I myself sponsor a child in the 3rd World with the "Childreach" program, also called Plan USA, which uses my contributions to pay for school books, clothes, medicines and food, if necessary. As long as one helps, it's OK, and it doesn't have to be through adoption.

                  From Hal who says self-righteousness doesn't have to be in VHEMT.

                  ________________________________

                  From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com on behalf of JG Miller
                  Sent: Tue 2/3/2009 1:11 AM
                  To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?



                  Hal Friedman wrote:

                  > Right, it's so much better for children in poor countries to suffer poverty than to take any action
                  > that could compromise one's moral purity and sense of superiority to those ignorant child adopters who
                  > should, under no circumstances, be permitted to feel good about anything because they're affluent.
                  >
                  > From Hal who believes self-righteousness seems to be the preferred attitude of some VHEMT'ers

                  I was acerbic but I'm using the same principles that argue against breeding: it's all about the resources. And there are other,
                  arguably better options than foreign adoption to help alleviate suffering of those unwanted children, chiefly cash funding through
                  charities. Your money can buy much more for them over there than here, even with bureaucratic overhead, and they're not going to
                  adopt the American consumption lifestyle with that money. This sounds like a win-win to me.

                  My oldest brother, who has been living on social security disability for 10 years now and will never have another income again, and
                  who does not have a rich person's savings, felt comfortable enough with costs to fund a Filipino girl through her teens, and then
                  paid for her 4-year college education in the Philippines. Just college alone here - 25 grand minimum? Often much more.

                  He's never met her but still feels very satisfied from doing this. Part of the "Why Breed?" matrix addresses the desire to
                  personally raise a young person in one's own image, which has a lot to do with the desire to control and the aspiration for status,
                  and the more generalized need to nurture. The standard solutions people use for these have several good alternatives.

                  Jim

                  > From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of JG Miller
                  > Sent: Mon 2/2/2009 3:29 AM
                  > To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?
                  >
                  > richardson_mcphillips wrote:
                  >
                  > > perhaps I get a bit extreme in my expression. Mao denounced
                  > > incrementalism and warm-feelingism over 40 years ago, truly a man
                  > > ahead of his times. I would add reductionism to that as well, given
                  > > the title and goals of this group.
                  > >
                  > > I'm not firm calling someone 'idiots' is the sort of discussion that
                  > > a group like this is calling for, but everyone has different ideas I
                  > > suppose.
                  >
                  > I take a median position. Personally, I call on people from wealthy countries, which includes
                  > Americans, not to adopt children from
                  > less-consumptive countries. Why? Because it's usually almost as bad as a wealthy-countryite breeding
                  > their own. If adopting from
                  > China into the US, for example, the adopted child moves into a life of approximately 11x the
                  > consumption it would have had in China
                  > (Jared Diamond).
                  >
                  > Yes, by relatively wealthy Americans not adopting such children, they would probably have harder, or
                  > at least less luxurious, lives
                  > in the home country. Unfairness abounds in the world. At the same time, all rich countries need to
                  > pare down their own lifestyles
                  > now.
                  >
                  > Given these realities, I believe that the typical pattern of Americans adopting from countries like
                  > China, where the unwanted
                  > whitish kids abound and are relatively easy to get, does a lot of harm to the biosphere, and worse
                  > still, we allow this kind of
                  > adoption to go unchallenged, and thus the adopters get to feel good about themselves while satisfying
                  > their mommy and daddy urges.
                  >
                  > Adopt a damn cat if you won't or can't adopt nationally, and get on with your lives.
                  >
                  > Jim
                  >
                  > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:Why_VHEMT%40yahoogroups.com> , Patty Frost
                  > <frost_patty@...> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Please do not think that all of us on VHEMT feel this way. There
                  > > are those ignorant and retarded (socially) on every blog. VHEMT
                  > > believes in population control by attrition and this can not be
                  > > accomplished by spreading insipid banter over the internet. We, as a
                  > > species, should voluntarily work to reduce the worlds population as a
                  > > means of conservation. The idiots that have been writing on this
                  > > thread are not representative of the majority.
                  > > >
                  > > > I have two children myself and my daughter has elected not to
                  > > reproduce but to adopt when the time comes. I believe adoption is a
                  > > very nobel action for anyone and I am happy that you found a home
                  > > when you had none.My children are products of a broken home but are
                  > > very well grounded individuals. I was a single mom and they saw the
                  > > struggles I went through. Neither of them have the need to pass along
                  > > their "blood line" but they want to have a family and offer a child
                  > > the love that they received as children themselves.






                  ______________________________________________________________________
                  This e-mail transmission contains confidential information that is the property of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any retention, disclosure, reproduction or distribution of the contents of this e-mail transmission, or the taking of any action in reliance thereon or pursuant thereto, is strictly prohibited. No warranty is given by NYSIF that this e-mail is free of viruses, interception or interference. NYSIF disclaims liability for any unauthorized opinion, representation, statement, offer or contract made by the sender on behalf of NYSIF. NYSIF's delegation of authorities, setting out who may make representations or contract on behalf of NYSIF, is available by contacting NYSIF at mailadm@.... Jurisdiction for all actions arising out of dealings with NYSIF shall lie only in a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of New York.
                • Patty Frost
                  What about that cow who has 6 kids and now 8 more all by invitro. No father. Never married. Think of all the money she spent on these procedures. The amount of
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    What about that cow who has 6 kids and now 8 more all by invitro. No father. Never married. Think of all the money she spent on these procedures. The amount of resources it is going to take to raise these kids. There are children out there that already exist who need assistance. This is the headline we should be discussing. In my opinion, the fertility specialist who performed this procedure should be sued by the federal and state government for cost recovery and in no way shape or form should she receive ANY public assistance.
                    This is a completely irresponsible individual and she should have been sterilized after the firs set of twins......

                    Patty Frost

                    --- On Tue, 2/3/09, Hal Friedman <hfrie@...> wrote:
                    From: Hal Friedman <hfrie@...>
                    Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?
                    To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 12:39 PM











                    OK, point accepted. I myself sponsor a child in the 3rd World with the "Childreach" program, also called Plan USA, which uses my contributions to pay for school books, clothes, medicines and food, if necessary. As long as one helps, it's OK, and it doesn't have to be through adoption.



                    From Hal who says self-righteousness doesn't have to be in VHEMT.



                    ____________ _________ _________ __



                    From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com on behalf of JG Miller

                    Sent: Tue 2/3/2009 1:11 AM

                    To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com

                    Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?



                    Hal Friedman wrote:



                    > Right, it's so much better for children in poor countries to suffer poverty than to take any action

                    > that could compromise one's moral purity and sense of superiority to those ignorant child adopters who

                    > should, under no circumstances, be permitted to feel good about anything because they're affluent.

                    >

                    > From Hal who believes self-righteousness seems to be the preferred attitude of some VHEMT'ers



                    I was acerbic but I'm using the same principles that argue against breeding: it's all about the resources. And there are other,

                    arguably better options than foreign adoption to help alleviate suffering of those unwanted children, chiefly cash funding through

                    charities. Your money can buy much more for them over there than here, even with bureaucratic overhead, and they're not going to

                    adopt the American consumption lifestyle with that money. This sounds like a win-win to me.



                    My oldest brother, who has been living on social security disability for 10 years now and will never have another income again, and

                    who does not have a rich person's savings, felt comfortable enough with costs to fund a Filipino girl through her teens, and then

                    paid for her 4-year college education in the Philippines. Just college alone here - 25 grand minimum? Often much more.



                    He's never met her but still feels very satisfied from doing this. Part of the "Why Breed?" matrix addresses the desire to

                    personally raise a young person in one's own image, which has a lot to do with the desire to control and the aspiration for status,

                    and the more generalized need to nurture. The standard solutions people use for these have several good alternatives.



                    Jim



                    > From: Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:Why_ VHEMT%40yahoogro ups.com> on behalf of JG Miller

                    > Sent: Mon 2/2/2009 3:29 AM

                    > To: Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:Why_ VHEMT%40yahoogro ups.com>

                    > Subject: RE: Why VHEMT? Re: Adoption?

                    >

                    > richardson_mcphilli ps wrote:

                    >

                    > > perhaps I get a bit extreme in my expression. Mao denounced

                    > > incrementalism and warm-feelingism over 40 years ago, truly a man

                    > > ahead of his times. I would add reductionism to that as well, given

                    > > the title and goals of this group.

                    > >

                    > > I'm not firm calling someone 'idiots' is the sort of discussion that

                    > > a group like this is calling for, but everyone has different ideas I

                    > > suppose.

                    >

                    > I take a median position. Personally, I call on people from wealthy countries, which includes

                    > Americans, not to adopt children from

                    > less-consumptive countries. Why? Because it's usually almost as bad as a wealthy-countryite breeding

                    > their own. If adopting from

                    > China into the US, for example, the adopted child moves into a life of approximately 11x the

                    > consumption it would have had in China

                    > (Jared Diamond).

                    >

                    > Yes, by relatively wealthy Americans not adopting such children, they would probably have harder, or

                    > at least less luxurious, lives

                    > in the home country. Unfairness abounds in the world. At the same time, all rich countries need to

                    > pare down their own lifestyles

                    > now.

                    >

                    > Given these realities, I believe that the typical pattern of Americans adopting from countries like

                    > China, where the unwanted

                    > whitish kids abound and are relatively easy to get, does a lot of harm to the biosphere, and worse

                    > still, we allow this kind of

                    > adoption to go unchallenged, and thus the adopters get to feel good about themselves while satisfying

                    > their mommy and daddy urges.

                    >

                    > Adopt a damn cat if you won't or can't adopt nationally, and get on with your lives.

                    >

                    > Jim

                    >

                    > > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:Why_ VHEMT%40yahoogro ups.com> <mailto:Why_ VHEMT%40yahoogro ups.com> , Patty Frost

                    > <frost_patty@ ...> wrote:

                    > > >

                    > > > Please do not think that all of us on VHEMT feel this way. There

                    > > are those ignorant and retarded (socially) on every blog. VHEMT

                    > > believes in population control by attrition and this can not be

                    > > accomplished by spreading insipid banter over the internet. We, as a

                    > > species, should voluntarily work to reduce the worlds population as a

                    > > means of conservation. The idiots that have been writing on this

                    > > thread are not representative of the majority.

                    > > >

                    > > > I have two children myself and my daughter has elected not to

                    > > reproduce but to adopt when the time comes. I believe adoption is a

                    > > very nobel action for anyone and I am happy that you found a home

                    > > when you had none.My children are products of a broken home but are

                    > > very well grounded individuals. I was a single mom and they saw the

                    > > struggles I went through. Neither of them have the need to pass along

                    > > their "blood line" but they want to have a family and offer a child

                    > > the love that they received as children themselves.



                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

                    This e-mail transmission contains confidential information that is the property of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any retention, disclosure, reproduction or distribution of the contents of this e-mail transmission, or the taking of any action in reliance thereon or pursuant thereto, is strictly prohibited. No warranty is given by NYSIF that this e-mail is free of viruses, interception or interference. NYSIF disclaims liability for any unauthorized opinion, representation, statement, offer or contract made by the sender on behalf of NYSIF. NYSIF's delegation of authorities, setting out who may make representations or contract on behalf of NYSIF, is available by contacting NYSIF at mailadm@nysif. com. Jurisdiction for all actions arising out of dealings with NYSIF shall lie only in a court of competent jurisdiction of the State of New York.



























                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.