I don’t know if this dreck is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or what, but I got queasy while reading it. From my vantage point, San Francisco Gate columnist Mark Morford is an irreligious, anti-God, anti-family San Francisco liberal with a warped sense of humor and a foul, gratuitous mean streak. I almost lost my temper reading his scribblings, and again while writing this post, so I’ll stop before I say something I’ll regret.
The only reason I’m linking is to expose liberal hatred at its rawest. If you can take it, here it is: God Does Not Want 16 Kids.
Addendum: I wonder what this liberal would say about single, welfare-dependent women who have children they can’t afford with different men who don’t want to marry them? I get the feeling Morford wouldn’t touch it. But an intact Christian family is fair game.
Update: “Morford and the Insane Left are jealous. Their aggressive promotion of the three B’s – birth control, buggery, and ‘bortion – means they’re being out-bred by couples like the Duggars. It burns their toast that they are the party of sexual liberation, yet it’s people like Jim Bob and Michelle who are obviously, well, pretty damn liberated.” — The Crusty Curmudgeon
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 49 comments }
I love it when people tell you what God wants and don’t know the first about what he wants.
O.K., you won’t say it, and I understand as you are a lady so I will…This guy is an idiot! Plain and simple. His poor attempts at sarcasm were lost on me as he came off more as being full of anger, confusion and resentment towards anything that has a semblance of good and right, I could almost visualize the vain popping from his forehead as he wrote this junk. The simple fact that he would even pick up a pen or grab a keyboard and type this crap is good indication that he is not only mentally unstable but has no understanding of the basics of what actually works as a family structure. It would seem that he simply has no ability to grasp the notion that because these two people remain married, actually value their children and maintain a Godly home environment, it makes having as many children as they do completely possible and practical. If anything, the existence of such a family is a slap in the face to those touting that traditional families don’t work, that non-traditional families are as valid as any other, or that women who have too many children contribute to poverty, and worse yet who imply for the most part that children really can’t be wanted by a woman.
What really got me is that this “man” referred to God as “her”! Then claims to know that “she” woudn’t want more children. Wow! This guy needs to grow some gonads and get a clue. Amazing!
When I got past the poorly written and awkward first paragraph, I actually found it a hilarious read. But you know me, La Shawn. This is my kind of junk.
La Shawn:
I don’t want to read Morford’s trash.
He is clueless – conservative women have more children – they don’t use abortion to control their family.
In contrast, Leftist’s excessive use of birth control and abortion has caused such a decline in birth rate that Americans and Euros are importing people to sustain the economy – with obvious consequences.
He won’t touch it LB because a welfare mother of 5 kids with different daddies fits into the platform for progressive liberals.
On the other hand, a family (who just happens to be white) who leaves their procreating capabilities in the hands of the Lord (to provide for their family) is disgusting to people who reject God (and is utter foolishness).
Not surprising at all anymore.
On another note…I think France is trying to PAY their native born people (meaning non african and non muslims) to have babies.
I remember in a not so distant past, that a “liberal” was someone who embraced new ideas and was tolerant of people from different back-grounds and beliefs, and didn’t stereotype folks that they hadn’t met. This Morford is as illiberal and intolerant as anyone can be.
What a bitter man. His words reveal a very bitter angry man. He has become what he knows he should not be (a hateful bigot). He turns one case into blanket generalizations that are hurtful, not helpful.
I bet his sphere of influence loved it and are reinforcing his groupthink with lots of kudos and parroted justification for being “mean” in their definition of the “right” way to be mean.
One has to wonder what kind of hurt is driving that bitterness.
My guess is that this guy is an extremist member of the homosexual movement, and this is his disgusting way of lashing out at the nuclear Christian family. I myself would not want to have 16 kids, but if the Duggar family does, God bless ‘em! The whole family seems well cared for and like they’re getting by alright, so what’s the big deal?
There are few homosexuals in our extended family, and this is exactly the same tripe they leveled at my family for years, simply because we are rural conservatives who try to be good Christians. The 16 kids thing is just an extra excuse for this guy to lose it, because my parents only had 2. I don’t know what it is about some of these people, but they seem to harbor a tremendous amount of contempt for regular hard working decent people, especially if you’re from the country and they don’t think you’re sophisticated enough for their tastes.
These relatives of ours actually used to ask us why we weren’t staying out late and partying, getting drunk, or having premarital sex! This was back when were about 15 and 13. Can you imagine it? We used to avoid them as much as possible and in recent years, have pretty much cut them out of our lives. Good riddance.
I have 9 kids, and am expecting #10 in March. Trust me, this guy is not alone. You’d be surprised what people will say, straight to my face and in front of my children, about the number of children we have. Once, when I went to the store, the cashier looked at my children, then turned to the bagger and said, “See…this is why I believe in abortion!” I mean, really, whatever someone thinks about large families…why would you say something like that right in front of the kids??? I guess some people have such anger and bitterness toward intact, loving families that they feel it is fine to lash out.
I have eight children, and I’ve heard a few rude comments, too. But that column was way beyond anything I’ve ever heard or read. The funny/sad thing is that he laments the dearth of large families brought up by social liberals and realizes that they may soon be in the minority if they keep killing their own babies. So the only “solution” is to tell the conservative Christian families to quit having so many babies. He could move to China where they outlaw more than one; I’m sure he’d love that liberal, free-wheeling society.
It’s obvious he’s very, very bitter and I can make an educated guess as to why. And getting mad about it is just playing into his miserable game–look at the first quote on his bio page.
Due to birth control and a change in ideals, the birth rates in this country have fallen considerably, and overpopulation will not be a problem in the future.
However, if everyone was to have 16 babies, we would have a population crisis, and there would be a scarcity of resources to go around. The lack of resources would lead to reckless wars and loss of human life.
If overpopulation was a serious problem, and everyone was having 16 kids, would you consider allowing the goverment to regulate how many children a women could give birth to?
If declining birth rates lead to underpopulation, would you favor allowing the goverment to regulate how many children fertile women MUST give birth to?
Interestingly, the second scenario is much more likely, but I believe the constitution gives women the liberty to have as many children as they want to, and I think the goverment should respect that reproductive autonomy.
Our children, are constantly exposed to sexual imagery in society, and that is teaching them to desire unrealistic traits in their partners. Unfortuantely, since these traits don’t naturally occur,young children turn to internet porn or other forms of sexual and emotion satisfaction, and don’t have to worry about finding the perfect person and face the reality that they really don’t exist.
I read recently that middle aged women who aren’t married, yet desire kids, are going to sperm banks in order to conceive and fulfull their dreams. As one women put it, “I couldn’t find the 6′2 Blonde Haired Blue Eyed husband I always desired,” but I was able to obtain sperm for invitro fertilization of an individual who had similar characteristics.
Although the progressive movement has succeeded in removing the stigma from raising children without a partner, I also blame the individualism, materialism, and greed that often results from Capitalism.
#10 Julie- Congrats on your latest baby, and may God help you continue to keep your cool in the face of rude people.
At a restaurant about 10 years ago, I was seated next to a table where a family of 9 had just finished their meal. If I remember correctly, this couple had 7 lovely & well-behaved daughters. Dad had just brought lollipops from the cash register and handed one to each child. They each said thank you and happily ate their candy. None of them fought over the sweets, the older ones helped their younger siblings with the wrappers, and parents never had to raise their voices. I was very impressed by this idyllic family scene because with the number of children present, the potential for chaos was high. I was single at the time, but I wanted my future family to be just like that one. (fast forward: Even with the few young kids I have now, dining out has sometimes been traumatic for all involved!)
Now, this family happened to be black so do we suppose this Morford fellow would sling the same type of venom at them as the did to the family he targeted in his article? Ugh! Maybe he’s an affirmative action venom-spewer…as if that’s some kind of comfort.
The attack on families is exactly what’s destroying civilization. A family is a person’s foundation so once it’s destroyed, of course people will flounder.
LaShawn,
Did you read this post at WizBang a few weeks ago?
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/007229.php
It’s about a Boston Globe article that tells the story of a pregnant Katrina survivor, Dionne White, who gave birth to her son while residing in a Boston refugee center.
Unfortunately, this was her 13th child; she bore her first when she was 15. Her story is almost unbearably tragic, yet so typical among poor blacks.
You’re right LaShawn, “good liberals” like Mr. Morford wouldn’t touch her story with a ten foot pole.
If you ever wondered why the birth rate is so low in W Europe and blue state America you have to understand the nihilism that guys like this represent.
To me, the underlying essence of what this person expounds is a hatred of God Almighty, the same God who gave his mother “him”. And even though I may want to, it’s not for me to question why in the world God decided to do that.
Yes Dave it is clear this person hates God (and may actually have been “turned” over as Romans 1 states). Personally, it’s not big families he’s against (as La Shawn asks if he would talk about a welfare recipient with the same amount of kids in the same way)…
it’s the biblical model for a family he is against (a God fearing father and mother who adhere to the role’s that God has assigned)
I also detect (as a previous poster did)… the possibility that this is someone who believes in any sort of relationship imaginable and with anyone and anything imaginable (just as long as it’s not a married man and women together).
Ok, I am done with this one. The Lord already warned me about these folks so why be surprised anymore
In meeting up with the likes of Mark Morford, it is convenient to recall something W.C. Fields said: Sometimes you take the bull by the tail in order to face the situation.
Mr. Morford has made his pile, it is not necessary for anyone else to step in it.
You have a nice day, Mr. Morford.
Julie,
I hope you reported that woman to the manager of the store. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to drop a note to the CEO of the chain if this was a chain store.
In addition to my previous comment, I’d like to add that I know conservatives like to go around talking about “political correctness” and other such things. If anything Morford was just being very politically incorrect. And who knows? Perhaps it was just satire. Regarding your addendum, La Shawn, you’re right. That scenario deserves just as much scrutiny or “satire” from the left. And it would be just as “politically incorrect” as the case Mr. Morford makes.
There are 2 lines that this guy is taking. The first is covered by the above posts. The second is the radical environmental view that humans are a cancer on the earth which must be erradicated. Make no mistake, this is what many (dare I say most) in the save-the-earth crowd believe.
This mindset has invaded the church as well. Another mouth to feed is seen as tragic rather than joyful. To the overpopulation crowd, just answer this one question: Which human is the mistake of God’s creation?
The only interesting part of the whole story was the Google Ads near the bottom. Google had some interesting suggestions.
Wow, I just feel sorry for him, actually. He really needs the Lord. His worldview is not at all surprising, though. We can’t expect people who aren’t Christians to think like Christians or act like Christians. Even Mark Morford is not beyond God’s saving grace, and more than anything, we should pray for him.
I read an article recently that said Australians were urged to have more children because of the crisis they are facing of an overaged population. If our oversized government sanctioned having children as a patriotic duty, no doubt Morford would have sadly dispensed diatribe. “Have one for the father, one for the mother, and one for your country.” Find it here: http://suroborus.gnn.tv/blogs/2450/_Go_Home_and_Do_Your_Patriotic_Duty_Aussies_Told
La Shawn:
Another area where Morford and others are clueless:
“The Poor” (mostly Democrats) on average have FEWER children than “Conservative Christians” (mostly Republicans). The “broodmare” as coined by Boortz is the exception, rather than the rule.
I am certain that responsible parents with large families teach their children personal responsibility in a unique way – takin care of youngr siblings can teach responsibility in a way Government can never do – no amount of Government largess can do this – PRICELESS.
His article is another piece of evidence that liberals can be just as intolerant of anyone that does anything outside of their own narrow worldview. Wow! If a conservative had ranted like that, what would he say?
He is a hate monger. But he is a prisoner of his own pathetic world view. He needs prayer.
LS,
As the youngest of six, I don’t know where to start. My wife and I “only” have three, and we get strange looks. I sure would love to know the family placement of some famous people just to shoot the guy down. In the small Catholic world I grew up in 6-10 was normal, and none of us ever felt deprived.
So let’s run down my deprived siblings:
Oldest: PhD from MIT
Second: Producer for major cable channel
Third: Successful business owner of fastest growing company of her size and industry in state
Fourth: Asst. head of major private educational institution.
Fifth: Decorated Catholic grade school teacher.
Me: I just work in venture capital, nothing big.
So, you say I’m bragging. Let’s see:
Friend who is youngest of 10: Just finished his detail with Secret Service protecting Vice President.
Friend youngest of 5: About to take company he founded in college public on NASDAQ.
Friend 3rd youngest of 10: About to head up major non-profit in Chicago.
etc, etc, etc.
This San Fran guy is a genuine moron.
LS:
You summed it up: “none of us ever felt deprived”.
In another PRICELESS column, Julia Gorin, a Russian Jewish immigrant when she was a child, discussed her life in New York. As “poor” as “poor” can get.
But she gained something PRICELESS from her parents – she never knew she was poor.
PRICELESS
Does anyone know if he is gay? It appears to me like the whole “gays can’t adopt” thing is really buggin’ him. The whole article reads like a conversation you would hear outside while on a smoke break.
From reading this article, he strikes me as a bitter, angry person. The kids look like they are well cared for and that is all that matters. Didn’t God say “be fruitful and multiply?”
I used to read Mr. Morford’s column regularly. Then, after Bush was elected, his sarcasm turned bitter and truly ugly. His rantings became repetitive and I stopped reading.
He referred several times to his girlfriend, so I assume he’s not gay. He is a libertine, one for whom “If it feels good, do it!” is kind of a mantra. He has freely admitted that he is open to almost any kind of sexual experience.
From what little I’ve read of Ted Rall, Mr. Morford is a Rall “wannabe” without the national audience.
Seems that the radical left is only pro choice if you are going to kill your baby.
Morford reveals that he knows precious few large families personally with his reference to “cookie cutter” children. My mother had eight children and her sister had twelve of which nine lived to adulthood. “Cookie cutter” would not describe any of them–some even vote Democrat.
This is something I wrote in rebuttal to all the nasty comments abou the Duggars…
I was blessed to be raised in a family of nine. I’m the second oldest of seven children ranging in age from 27 to 6. Growing up, we received more than a fair amount of stares and jeers, but we were never embarrassed or bothered by it. In fact, I can’t imagine life in a small family. My parents are the greatest and I’m so thankful for them. I know so many women who’s goal in life is to the opposite of their mother. I’d give just about anything to be as wonderful as my mom.
A few blessings of growing up in a large family:
We grew up with our own built-in social circle. Anyone who has met and interacted with my family knows that we are all best friends. We are still very, very close today, even though thousands of miles separate some of us.
We learned to work hard and be unselfish. Everyone learned to pitch in and do their part. Everyone had to cooperate, share, and help for life to run smoothly. We also learned to get along with “difficult people.” In a family of nine, you are not always going to get your way. It’s great to learn this while you are young, because this is how life works.
We were well-prepared for life. My mom had each of us take responsibility for laundry, ironing, cleaning, cooking, and so forth, for a time so that we could learn how to do it well. When I got married, I didn’t have to learn anything– I knew how to cook, clean, keep house, grocery shop, budget, iron, do laundry, mend, and so forth. Married life was a very easy transition for me because I’d already been practicing my homemaking skills for so long. I also knew how to take care of children and teach children since I’d had plenty of experience doing so.
Was my family perfect? By no means. Was it hard for my parents to have seven children instead of two? Of course. There were always challenges and difficulties. But, I can promise you that the rewards have far, far exceeded the difficulties. My parents only planned to have two children in the beginning. After my sister and I were born, my parents decided they would have one more, since they really wanted a boy. It was around that time that the Lord changed their hearts to realize that “Children are an heritage of the Lord.” They began praying that the Lord would bless them with many children.
Today, they look back and think how terribly quiet and sad their lives would be if they didn’t still have a house bustling with life and activity. We always laugh about how they would sit at their little dining room table in a completely quiet house. Instead, the dining room table seats 8 and every meal is quite lively– three people talking at once (you should hear us get going when our whole family is together! It’s nonstop chatter!), someone asking for something to be passed, Mom and Dad are constantly up and down getting things, etc. And they love it! They wouldn’t trade their life for anyone’s.
Edit: Please don’t think I am saying that you can only learn these qualities if you have a large family. I’m just saying that it is a lot easier to learn to be unselfish. For instance, when we were going through marriage counselling, the pastor was talking about how we would need to learn to “die to self” and not have things done our way when we got married. He was mentioning how maybe one of us rolls up the toothpaste tube and the other person likes to have it twisted. I chuckled and said, “I share a bathroom with four girls, if we have the lid on our toothpaste tube, we’re doing really good.” Honestly, after sharing a room and a bathroom with 2 or more people for most of my life, being married was a “piece of cake.”
And one more rebuttal…
Our society today has such a low view of children. I’ve been appalled to receive comments from people saying they think the government should limit the number of children people are allowed to have. This sinful, selfish view of life is a direct result of humanistic philosophy which permeates our society and begins in the public education system. People are trained to believe that me, myself, and I are number one. The general consensus I’ve picked up on is that children take so much time, work, and effort and cost so much money, that you should do everything in your power to limit your family size. What a lie!
For one, raising children is the most rewarding vocation anyone could have. It is also the highest and most noble calling you can have in this life — to train and raise the next generation up for the glory of God! If you do not believe this, I urge you to read the Bible through and notice how a multi-generational vision is the pervading message of Scripture. We are to train our children, so they can train their children, who will in turn train their children, and on and on down the line. Of course, it is a lot of work, but the rewards far, far outwiegh the sacrifices.
Secondly, having a lot of children does not have to cost a lot of money. Where does the Bible say that children need to have a lot of things or that parents have to pay for a college education for their children? This is another myth we’ve been fed by humanistic teachers. Children don’t have to cost a lot of money and God will provide what you need for the family size He’s given you. Giving your children love and quality time (and don’t tell me that you can’t spend time with your children if you have 16 of them — Think about it: If a mother stays home with her children and the family is home-centered, she’ll have plenty of time to spend with her children. She will be with them, spending time with them all day every day. On the other hand, women who are gone all day long and who give up their mothering responsibilities to other care providers and then spend the extra available time shuffling children all over town will be guaranteed to spend a lot less quality time with their children, even if they only have one or two.) and teaching them Scripture is the best gifts you can give to your children– worth more than anything money can buy.
There are plenty of alternatives to expensive health insurance. (Check out Samaritan Ministries for one such alternative.) You can grow your own food (and when you have a lot of children, you’ll have plenty of helpers for your garden!), you can sew your own clothes, you can assign your children to find the best buys on household appliances as part of their school projects.
A couple hundred years ago, the more children you had, the wealthier you were. Why? Because all members of the family contributed to the family. It was a joint-effort. Today, parents are expected to pay for everything, and often to give their children allowance and extra spending money on top of that. Children should be taught from birth that they are not an independent free-for-all smoocher. They are an integral, needed asset to the family. They should be taught responsibility by having to earn their own money to pay for their own things. When they are old enough, they should be required to participate in helping to run the household (cooking, cleaning, laundry, ironing, fixing things, and so on). I know of five-year-olds who can cook basic meals, clean bathrooms, wash dishes, and do their own laundry.
In our family, once we were old enough to help, we were required to help. It wasn’t an option. It was just expected. We learned the value of hard work and that by working together, we could get a lot more done. I think it is almost harder for me to run a household of three with just a baby and no help, than it was for my mom. For years, she never did any cleaning, cooking, ironing, or laundry. Her chief responsibilities were to be a wife, spend quality time teaching us and mothering us, and, as she was able, minister to other women. I’m so grateful that my parents gave us the responsibilities they did from an early age. Sure, I didn’t always want to do my chores, but I learned so many valuable life lessons by doing so. My parents were raising us to be responsible adults. And, we got so much more done, working together as a family. We could minister to so many people and do so many things, because we all worked together.
Sorry for the lengthy comments — I just had to share as this is something very near and dear to my heart!
The irony of the title of his piece floors me. What part of “be fruitful and multiply” indicates to this guy that God is opposed to large families?
Crystal – Don’t apologize. I like lengthy, well-written comments, especially the ones I agree with. Thanks for commenting and for linking to LBC the other day.
The mantra of liberals is that every child should be a ‘wanted’ child..In reality, what we have taught children, as a society, is that we value our possessions, careers, beautiful bodies, liberation, and free time more. Children used to be seen as blessings from God…Now they are seen as encumbrances..less is more…How sad..
How… bizarre. Among his chief complaints is that the Duggar children all look like children, and that none of them is wearing a crop-top and designer jeans. There isn’t a shred of rationality anywhere in his rant.
Suggesting that “liberals” have few kids because they’re concerned about overpopulation is – well, not completely off-base, as I know a few people who would call themselves liberal, and state that as the reason for only having 1 or 2 children, but not really very representative.
Having quite so many children in such a short period of time is likely to be an indication that Mrs. Duggar didn’t breastfeed her children for very long, if at all. I consider that a poor choice, but it’s a choice that Mr and Mrs Duggar are free to make.
Having a large family (particularly in somewhere like America where car driving is de rigeur) has a special set of challenges, but it’s a choice that couples are free to make. It affects Mark Morford no more than whatever Morford’s buddies choose to do with their genitalia affects the Duggans.
…oh, and apparently Mr. Duggar must have “weird motivations” to find his wife sexually attractive after 16 children. Could Morford possibly be any more superficial?
Thanks, La Shawn. You are such an encouragement and an inspiration! I love your blog.
I saw a TV show about the family. They seem like nice people. But I do think they should stop while they’re ahead. They had 15 kids then, all normal and good looking. Every one of them cute. Their luck might run out, especially as Mom gets older. Apart from that, good for them! Liberals are mad because their numbers are dwindling!
Sixteen kids isn’t for me, but as far as I can tell, the Duggar family isn’t asking anyone else to support them. If they can feed and raise 16 kids, good for them.
The population problem in the country and on this planet is not people having too many children, it’s the wrong people having too many children. In many cases, the families capable of supporting children — financially, emotionally, morally — have only one or two kids. Meanwhile, the birth rates are higher in the families that depend on hand-outs and produce children who grow up to be another generation of adults unable to support themselves. (We should be very concerned about this trend, as it means with each generation, the ratio of self-supporting, productive people to dependent people grows lower. Much the same way the ratio of working people to people on Social Security continues to drop.)
But the Duggars appear to be an exception.
And whatever happened to “reproductive freedom”? I thought women were supposed to be free to “choose.”
But that’s not the case, really, pro-abortion forces want women to be free to choose, as long as they choose not to have children. For example, I once heard an educated woman I know make a disparaging remark about “those pro-lifers.” Not much later, when she heard that a (self-supporting) family in the neighborhood had just had a fourth child, she made a face and said, “I have a problem with people having more than two children.”
Apparently, she wants to be able to make her own choice, and, she wants to make everyone else’s choice, too.
Yes, the key to the culture war – really a civilizational civil war – is life-creation. (I could use a colder term like demographics, but life-creation is prettier). We value it and they don’t.
So what do you think is going to happen over time? They’ll only be able to reproduce by conversion, like the Essenes.
#42 – I think they are seen as accessories. They make the family holiday photo complete.
Morford simply repeats the language of disgust and revulsion that is actually fairly common in radical feminism when talking about childbirth and children. And, common too in the gay male culture. It isn’t simply that they are disgusted by large families, but by the very idea that women breed babies. Morford and his ilk find children revolting — pretty amazing to think that the sexual revolution has led us to such a place.
Morford is seriously deranged.
a homosexual liberal who hates God, Christian families, and moral values – there’s something you don’t see every day!
Comments on this entry are closed.