too much information

I don’t make noise during sex.

I wait until the end.  I hold it all in, and once the deed is done, I unleash a nice, long feral scream.

It’s a great way to clear your throat.  Relieves tension too.  Try it some time.

Is jerking off really that bad? (true forced loneliness?)

Like it or not, genocidal dictators have had the right idea. Problem is, they’ve always had the wrong targets.

Some people do need to euthanized.

Specifically, these people.

I did not watch every one of his videos. I didn’t even fully read through the group’s manifesto. And I don’t have to because after a few seconds, I was able to sum up his philosophy as such:

“I am a total fuck-up in life, and I am responsible, but acknowledging this will make me feel worse. What will make me feel better? Blaming someone else. AH…the key question is who. Who do I blame for my own shortcomings? Society…yes…women…ah ha! Women!”

There is no such thing as true forced loneliness. Every feeling they describe is normal; it’s normal to desire acceptance from the opposite sex, so it’s normal to feel depressed when you face rejection. Hell, it’s normal for bad relationships to completely fuck people over for many years.

It’s normal for people to bullshit themselves too. But to this degree?

They cannot possibly grasp that they are responsible for their own shortcomings. Nor can they begin to understand that they have the ability to change their lives for the better, they are just too cowardly to do it.

These are the same types of guys who pay $2000 to go to a PUA class to learn how to pick-up shallow whores under the delusion that it will lead to true love, only to return with nothing to show for it and worse off than ever.

They look for the quick-fix. Unable to find it, they lie back and sink deeper.

In his manifesto, he attempts to justify his beliefs through personal experience. Referring to a live-in girlfriend whom he overheard insulting him, he had this to say:

“But this is after this same girl took my money, lived in my home, let me keep a roof over her head, ate my food, and let me pay her fines so she wouldn’t go to jail.”

Let you? You CHOSE to, asshole! Stop blaming her for your mistakes! So she’s “out rightly cold-hearted”, huh? A lot of people are. Eliminate them from your life and move on.

Seriously dude, turn off your computer, hit the red light district, and buy a hooker. Have some dignity for once.

You have to start somewhere.

Frequently Asked Questions (part one)

Disclaimer: the opinions in these columns represent(ed) those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect yours.

Here are some questions I frequently ask myself.  Thankfully, I’m here to answer them.

I’ve noticed that you criticize both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.  What is your official stance on abortion?

No stance at all.  I do not care one way or another, and as such, I take no sides in this little squabble.

But, there are little nuances that bug me about both groups that I enjoy deconstructing and poking fun at.  They take themselves too seriously—fanatics of all kinds always do.  With Pro-Life, you have vague religious dogma, no evidence for a soul, little evidence that a fetus and a human being are on the same cognitive level, miscarriages, stillbirths, and with the fanaticism comes insane propaganda and ridiculous behavior.  Do they seriously believe it’s equivalent to genocide? Are they really comparing it to the Holocaust and by extension invoking Godwin? If so, then it provides me with ripe material.  If not…well, they’re postulating such a theory, so it’s still on the target board.

And with Pro-Choice, again, we have fanaticism, mostly fostered out of fear of a male-owned and male-controlled government controlling what women can do to their own bodies.  You’ll note that they do not bring in the father.  They stake claim over the fetus, the baby, the ensouled human being, whatever you think it is, they stake claim over it and exclude the man completely, even if he is a loving, caring, attentive partner.  Why? Because to bring the man’s interests into the argument limit their power—by arguing that it’s an attack on their own bodies, they can appear more sympathetic.  I’m not saying it is or it isn’t.  I’m simply pointing out what it is.

Abortion is not an issue because it will never be resolved one way or another.  It’s ludicrous to believe that the government is going to fully ban abortion.  Even if that happened, it’s not going to stop abortions.  If someone wants one bad enough, they’ll get it.  All abortion does is provide a divide between people, a way to keep the current two-party system in power.  By making it an issue, and by convincing people it’s an issue, they keep  everyone divided and above all else obedient to the system’s current structure.

Which are you? Liberal or conservative?

I’ve covered this before, and I’ll cover it again.  Right now, in fact: neither.  Some people will disagree, but you have to understand: NOBODY falls exclusively on one side of another.  Everyone shares beliefs across both sides, but to pigeonhole yourself into one label, or any label for that matter, is to sacrifice a piece of your individuality for the sake of maintaining the label’s integrity.

Basically, you become a sell-out.  The College Republicans and the College Democrats are stunning examples of this.  Not every one of them; just the people who openly declare themselves one or the other.

Trust me, no matter what side people say they fall on, if you dig deep enough, you find a belief that goes against their self-imposed label.

They sacrifice these beliefs because they want to belong.  People love to belong to something, but there are some people who don’t want to belong to anything.  We don’t.  We never will.  And we’re okay with that.  Too bad a lot of people aren’t.

What is your take on God?

I believe that there is reality that we all inhabit and all of us are of the same species.  We live and die, and anything beyond that is simply guesswork.  For instance, I believe we are part of something we have yet to understand, but that’s just guesswork, right?

So is every religion.

“Personal” religion, that is, spiritual beliefs, work well for people.  The problem occurs when they organize and start ordering people and demanding payment.  Demanding obedience.  They do this in many ways, one of the biggest being a reward/punishment in the afterlife, based on an idea that human beings are inherently bad, or sin.  Of course, you can be good, or ‘free of sin’, by doing exactly what we say, right?

Look, if you believe this, fine, but why the organizations? Why the need to tell other people about it? Why not stay home, practice it within your household, and leave it at that?

There is no evidence in favor of one religion or another, and yet, people are utterly convinced that their particular brand name is the right one.  Why?

I think it’s because they receive comfort.  A lot of them need it.

Can you sum up your columns?

Yes. These columns were simply me figuring things out.  I just hope along the way you figured some things out too.

Mary Winkler - role model for women everywhere?

I like to say something positive every now and then, so you have to give this to Mary Winkler: when it comes to ending a marriage, she’s certainly an outside the box thinker.

A freethinker, mayhap.

After Winkler murdered her husband, she got a slap on the wrist. Most women who murder their husbands are locked up for awhile. Most of them receive real punishments.

When her sentence, a three-year prison term, came down, it seemed likely that Mrs, or rather, Miss Winkler was headed for some hard time.

Then she got probation and served some time in a mental institution. After which, trained professionals determined that she posed no threat to herself or others.

Certainly not to her children, according to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which rejected the protests raised by the slain Mr. Winkler’s parents, who did not want the couple’s three children visiting their mother in any capacity.

Though some might call them heartless, I can see their point.

It’ll make dinner conversations a little awkward. And trust me, adolescents are bad enough, even without that whole Mommy-Killed-Daddy blip.

“It should be seen as a sign that the family is healing,” said Winkler’s attorney, Rachael Putnam, who also said the children are “overjoyed”, likely after her paycheck cleared the bank. Well, more like definitely, though one can never be too certain.

I doubt there is much healing going on. In fact, I’m banking on it; earlier, I proposed that in the event of the writers’ strike, the networks need new reality shows. What better formula than this? Put in cameras. Hilarity may not ensue, but rest assured, something will.

Imagine the possibilities. I think I will: how will she discuss the murder with her children? Will it be like that time Uncle Odell got into the whiskey and invited your pubescent daughter into his lap for “story-time”, and every time it’s brought up someone abruptly changes the subject? And Uncle Odell gave her a handsome check at graduation, plus a brand-new car? Maybe not, but close. So damn close.

How about this: What if she remarries? It’s a possibility; she’s apt to get lonely, minus one husband. If her potential suitor doesn’t know, how will she bring up the topic? Right away? Or will he have to find out first hand? At the wedding, how will she react to “til death do you part”?

I personally think the preacher can skip that section, don’t you?

An original idea for reality TV. The newly rebuilt Winkler Household = monumental ratings.

Rated TV-MA.

AP Story on the subject

The “Welcome Back” column for the Daily Beacon - “Logotherapy”

Often we come to that point.

You know the point I’m talking about. That point. The scene in which someone completely unsatisfied with their own life has a choice to make. Often they don’t know the choice. Often they cannot see it through their own bitterness, but the choice is there. In fact, it is always there, always at this point, and it goes as follows.

Either figure out their ‘why’ for being so they can dispose of their malaise and move on, or refuse to figure out their ‘why’ so they cannot move on, and then seize on people who have figured out theirs and attack.

Unsatisfied with your life? Failed to meet the expectations of your parents? Are they disappointed in your major? Perhaps your career isn’t what you thought it would be? Ten years ago, you imagined you’d be happy. Today you’re unhappy. Tomorrow you could be happy.

But today you choose to stay unhappy. So tomorrow you will be unhappy.

Logotherapy is the third Viennese School of Psychotherapy that focuses on a “will to meaning”, that is, our purpose to life is to find meaning in it. Developed by Holocaust survivor Victor E. Frankl, its three basic tenets are:

1. Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
2. Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
3. We have freedom to find meaning in what we do, and what we experience, or a least in the stand we take when faced with a situation of unchangeable suffering.

I find number one to be of particular use. He began to refine logotherapy while in the concentration camps. It was actually the idea of writing his first book, The Doctor and The Soul: An Introduction to Logotherapy that helps him endure his suffering in the concentration camps. When he first arrived, his manuscript was confiscated, but during his time in the camps, he kept notes and dreamed of one day completing his book.

This dream helped him survive. More accurately, this goal, this ‘why’ to his existence, helped him, and not only him, but many other people perserverred in the camps because they had something to look forward to which provided a meaning to their suffering, and to their lives as well. Whatever goal or idea or object they had in mind, no matter how small, no matter how seemingly trivial, helped them survive where many others died.

Yes, concentration camps are an extreme example. They’re also effective.

Effective at showing the importance of having a meaning to one’s life, a goal to aspire to. Without it, people are not only miserable, but carriers of misery. They will attempt to make others’ lives miserable in a hollow attempt to fill the sunken void in their own lives.

Sometimes it’s intentional, sometimes it’s unintentional. Unintentional is worse because the guilty person may believe they have your best interests in mind. And if this person is a loved one, prepare for a hefty guilt trip. At your expense, of course.

It is something to bear, obviously, but not something to dominate your life. To put it simply: do what you want. Find your meaning, your ‘why’, and proceed towards it. Rarely will others have your best interests in mind. Only a select few do. Identify these people. Take their advice. Discard the rest. It can be difficult, but the rewards far outweigh the effort.

Let’s go to the third tenet and note that Dr. Frankl also wrote another book titled Man’s Search for Meaning, detailing his experiences in the concentration camps and serving as an introduction to logotherapy. In it, we discover that “Everything can be taken from a man but …the last of the human freedoms - to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

No matter what happens, no matter what terrible circumstances you find yourself in, there is always something to look forward to on the horizon.

You just have to find where it is first.

Interracial Dating

I support interracial dating.

I do. If you have dated, mated, or procreated (not all three, just one) outside your race, email me right now and I will (probably) send you a prize. Be sure to include your mailing address. Otherwise, you’ll have less to type.

I support it mainly because I do not see the issue with it. Not at all. People have problems with it, severe problems, and me, try as I might, I fail to see the problem it presents. Two people love each other. But it’s not right! Yes, but they love each other. But it’s just not right!

And they love each other. Think harder. What else is bugging you?

Racism? Is it racist to be against interracial mingling? It varies. There are non-racial reasons. For example, if someone is not physically attracted to a member of a particular race, then fine. If someone just doesn’t like the individual in question, then fine, and that’s the key word: individual. Evaluated on an individual basis, fine.

As a whole, that’s a different story.

We’re not talking about something that has historically had widespread support. Even after Loving v Virginia in 1967, American society was not quick to embrace the concept. Even after forty years, they’re still moving slowly.

It can be difficult to date outside your race.

White people who have dated outside their race, particularly the ones who have dated black people, have likely heard the jokes. Heard the comments, most of them coming from friends. I know I have. I have personally heard the following, either towards me or others:

“I can’t believe you’re dating a black girl!”

“Do you really want to get mixed babies?”

What is this? A disease of some kind? Get mixed babies? I hope not, but if so, I sure hope the doctor covers it. And let’s not get started on my insurance premiums. Greedy bastards.

Oh, and my personal favorite, not directed at me but rather at a friend:

“We’re not racist. We just don’t want any half-black grandchildren.”

Oh man.

You have to understand: people utter the above statement and its ilk with serious expressions on their faces. So they are either believe what they just said or are very talented liars. Maybe they’re just stupid, but in any event, what the above quotes have in common besides providing evidence in favor of IQ-based eugenics is that a root cause exists for each one.

A sour truth that our progressive society forces conscientious people to tiptoe around, less they be seen for what they truly are.

Racists. They’re total racists.

How can anyone disagree? I mean, how is race not involved in that? In any of those quotes? As I said before, there are clear, non-racial reasons for not dating outside your race on an individual level, but when you talk about an entire race, the ship begins to sink. When you start uttering statements akin to our friends above, then how is race not a factor? Hell, how is race not the only factor?

Surprise, surprise, they try to mount arguments against that too.

“We don’t want the kids to suffer the prejudice that mixed children suffer.”

And who do you think is responsible for that prejudice, you idiots? Hint: YOU. Each and every time you see an interracial couple or an interracial child you make snide, racist comments, and then say “We don’t want half-black grandchildren because we don’t want them to face prejudice”

You are the ones responsible for it! You are the ones who are prejudice against them, and then you say you don’t want them to suffer prejudice.

It sounds like a personal problem, doesn’t it?

Note how they don’t assign blames to themselves. Rather, it’s ‘other people’. It’s society.

They dare speak for society as a whole to soften and disguise their own racist leanings. They’re just trying to protect themselves from the taboo of being labeled a racist by projecting their own prejudice onto society as a whole. Well guess what? Whoops, it doesn’t quite work that way. Your whole “argument” sort of falls apart under any type of analysis.

Try again.

Actually, on second thought, don’t.

I for one have heard enough.

Planned Parenthood

I find it a little strange that a place where abortions are performed is named Planned Parenthood.

Doesn’t an abortion itself sort of contradict the whole idea of parenthood, much less the planning of it? To spell it out: parenthood is the state of being a parent. But if you’re getting an abortion, you’re not really “planning” to be a parent, are you?

There is a PLAN allright, but parenthood is nowhere to be found.

What I Believe

What do I believe?

I believe in the universe.  In the laws of nature.  I believe that if there is a God, he left humans to their own fate long ago.  I believe in the power of the human mind to solve any problem, accept and conquer any challenge.  People have this gift; they’d rather trade it in for false security and false hopes.  Why worry about improving your lot in life or trying to make the world a better place when there is an eternal paradise awaiting you in the end?

I believe the concepts of sin and the afterlife are tools used to control people.  Sin is natural human behavior.  The afterlife is a coping mechanism that allows people to deal with the uncertainties of death.  It’s a feel-good story that helps people accept the world as it is rather than thinking for themselves and working to improve it.

I believe people who think Barack Obama truly represents change (or should I say Change™?) are misleading themselves.  Or being mislead, it’s hard to tell.  For the record, I hope I’m wrong.

Also, I believe voting for one of the two major parties can never represent Change™ or just plain ole’ change.  For many years it’s been Republican-Democrat and back and forth and round and round.  To advocate anything resembling change, you would have to vote for a third party.  An independent party.

I believe in free speech.  I do not believe in hate speech or offensive language.  I do not believe in sexist language, such as in the case of a gender-neutral pronoun.  I never use his/hers, he/she, or even she/he, and barring some massive stroke (or the preceding clause), I never will.  With all the problems to worry about, allegations of patriarchal domination via language shouldn’t be at the top of the barrel.  Nor at the bottom or even in the barrel.  They deserve no barrel at all.  Just a dark corner to smother beneath layers of dust.

If it bothers you that much to use “he”, then we have a gender-neutral pronoun: singular they.

I believe the words reverse sexism and reverse racism cheapen both.  Sexism is sexism and racism is racism.  Labeling it as ‘reverse’ degrades the severity of the act, making it seem better when coming from a historically oppressed group.  Being born minority or female does not grant you a free pass to engage in the same behavior you condemn.

I believe people who use terms such as ‘people of color’ or ‘economically disadvantaged’ should be deported.  I particularly enjoy the second one because it seems to allocate blame somewhere…I just don’t know where.

I do not believe in an antichrist.  There is not one here.  There is not one coming.  There will be no antichrist, no tribulation, no Rapture, and  no picnics on clouds 1 – 9 in heaven afterwards.  So don’t bother packing any sandwiches.  If you believe Barack Obama or any politician is the antichrist, then you have a mental problem.

Doctors refer to it as stupidity.  Hopefully it’s not contagious, but just in case, I’m taking precautions and staying in my room this November.

I believe Muslim suicide bombers are the consequences of taking fairy tales too seriously.  The same can apply to all religious fanatics.
I believe there are two types of feminists: ones who suck and ones who don’t suck.  The ones who don’t suck look at the history of feminism and ask themselves, ‘How can I improve on this?’.  The ones who suck look at the history of feminism and see the glory their predecessors receive, and ask themselves, ‘How can I get some for myself’? They fight phantom battles.  Unfortunately, they are far too numerous.

I believe scholarships should award merit.  A 2.75 GPA after 24 credit hours is not merit.  No.  Maybe if you’re a dwarf leper who carries a contagious staff infection and can only emit sharp whistles.  Then, it might be.  Otherwise, it’s not.

If you cannot maintain a 2.75 GPA and lose your Hope scholarship because of this, you do not deserve to be in college.  You do not deserve another chance.  One might say there is no hope for you.

One might say you’re hopeless.

Lastly, I believe all drugs should be legal.  The argument has been repeated many times before, and I believe it goes something like this: if I want to use drugs, fully aware of the consequences, then it’s my choice and concerns no one but me.  I know what’s best for me.  No one else does.

Oh, I also believe streaking is an efficient cardio workout and tan at the same time, but only if you do it in broad daylight outdoors.  Indoors or at night, you are depriving yourself the full benefits.

Every child is a winner

Every child is special. Why? Because the parents never were.

To your average parent, their child is something far beyond the result of sexual reproduction. They are unique, precious miracles. Prodigies who excel in every activity. To suggest otherwise is the equivalent of painting yourself as a purveyor of negativity whose sole purpose in life is to diminish the accomplishments of others.

I feel sorry for anyone who teaches or coaches children. Not only are they shouldered with the responsibility of watching dozens of unruly young people, they also must contend with parents who cannot begin to fathom why their precious little miracle did not win first chair. How could Michael Jordan Jr. not start the basketball team? They are my children. Therefore, they must be perfect.

This mentality leads to repercussions for the adults involved. A disgruntled father takes a swing at the little league coach who chose not to play his little all-star. Angry band parents organize the ouster of the band director. A mother calls foul when her daughter is not selected to receive a scholarship.

No one is a loser. Many little league games no longer keep score because teaching children what it’s like to win and lose hurts too many feelings.

And when they do keep score, everyone remains a winner. The other team did in fact score more points and play a better game, but by the mere act of showing up, the losing team wins too. We have runner-up trophies for the loser in championships so they can have something to be proud of, rather than correcting their mistakes and bettering themselves.

In Connecticut high school football, a coach whose team wins by more than 50 points is suspended the next game. What kind of message is this sending to the players? Don’t do your best — we don’t want the other team to cry.

The whole purpose behind athletic competition is to determine who the best is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with running up the score on an inferior team. If the opposing team cannot stop my players, how is that my fault? The only ones calling running up the score a lack of sportsmanship are the ones who lose. Get better or quit whining.

It was called bad sportsmanship and a bad example to the kids when the New London High School football team regularly walloped weaker opponents (upwards of 90 – 0 in some cases), but when Ellis Tech coach Tim Pantelaekos was ejected for slugging a security officer because his team was down at the half and New London’s coach had just called a timeout, that’s justified? Gloat when you win, you’re a poor sport. Whine when you lose, you become a victim.

“It’s about teaching kids right from wrong,” defends Leroy Williams, chairman of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s football committee. When did a game involving boys hitting each other become an ethics class? As a former coach, Williams says that he “remembers well” the extreme losses his team suffered.

As a coach, isn’t it your responsibility to push your players to do their best? It sounds like a failing with you, not the other team. Plus, his clear inability to get over what happened has pushed him to institute such an unnecessary rule. Oh, the trauma of losing a contest that is (supposed to be) secondary to academics. Thank God you’re in a position to stop others from feeling your pain. Godspeed!

Williams also says, “Try to explain that to the kids” when remembering a time he was down 54 points and the other team called an onside kick after scoring. Okay, I’ll try. You can explain to them that the other team played better, and ask them to examine their play, search for faults and then search for ways to correct these faults so that next time the loss will not be so bad.

Or, take the alternate route and tell them that there is nothing wrong with them, that they are truly winners for showing up, a notion reinforced by the overzealous parents to whom the coach has to answer.

Kids learn that everyone is a winner only to arrive in the real world and suffer shock at discovering the opposite.

But hey, if it stops one soft loser from crying, I guess it’s worth it, right?

Pharmacists for Life? Are there other types?

Like a 103-year-old wheelchair-bound leper hands out spoiled candy to trick-or-treaters, Pro Life belches medical advice.  They have spread the good word to pharmacists who operate under the guise of Pharmacists for Life International.

Pharmacists for Life? Is there any other kind?

To understand the naming choice, you have to understand that these are not your ordinary Ash Wednesday Catholics who don’t believe in abortion but won’t badger other people.  These are your five-day coast-to-coast revival I Alone Serve The One True God™ holy rejects for whom the No Child Left Behind Act should make serious exceptions.

A quick perusal of their website reveals that they are not merely Pro-Life.  No.

“”The Pharmacists for Life International site, for example, in addition to having an incredibly sophisticated web design….” –radical abortoholic website, Feministing, accessed 16 Jun 2008 AD…thanks, girls!” – atop pfli.org

They are Pro-Life…with ATTITUDE.

AD? As opposed to accessing that blog on “16 Jun 2008 BC”?

Abortoholic? Really? What do you all think women do? That they walk around with pills in a bag marked ‘Plan B’ and a coat hanger in another bag marked ‘Plan C’?

A serious detriment to anyone Pro-Choice, pro-intelligence, or pro-stay-the-hell-out-of-my-life, groups of Pharmacists have decided that their spiritual beliefs should outweigh years of schooling and training and the whole goal of their profession, ‘to help folks out (at a jacked up cost)’ in order to create drugstores that refuse to sell Plan B pills, birth control pills, or condoms.  As PFLI founder Karen Bauer puts it, “This allows a pharmacist who does not wish to be involved in stopping a human life in any way to practice in a way that feels comfortable.”

Excellent point.  Because if there is one goal our society strives for, it is the preservation of human life.  See also: capital punishment.

What’s the alternative to contraceptives? More unwanted babies? Would these self-proclaimed Pro-Life Pharmacists want these babies? Perhaps we should see.  If not, then unwanted pregnancies help create abortions.  By refusing to sell contraceptives, you become part of the very problem you wish to fight.

My advice? Buy a bigger house, if you truly care so much.

Other options? Just don’t do it, kids. Great.  Except not everyone is strong enough to resist overwhelming biological urges.  Some people just cannot say ‘no’.  You may have seen some of them.  Chances are, you call them ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’.

John Bruchalski, chair of PFLI’s board of directors, defends these actions, “We’re trying not to leave our faith at the door.  We’re trying to create an environment where belief and professionalism come together.”

This is not a merger of belief and professionalism.  This is the consumption of professionalism by belief, who is fairly ravenous.  His belly never seems to be full.

Of course, belief requires compliance to overrun one’s life.  It is natural to have beliefs, whether it’s from fear of the unknown, fear of the unexplained, or a measure of comfort to which people turn when life becomes a little too heavy.

However, when said belief interferes in your chosen profession, then perhaps it’s time to reconsider your profession.

Ultimately, it isn’t a case of abortion being right or wrong, or the morality of contraceptives.  They have shifted to pharmaceutical diversity.  Should we have such diversity among pharmacies? Loren E. Lomasky, bioethicist at the University of Virginia seems to think so.  After all, if we have “20 different brands of toothpaste, why not a few different conceptions on how pharmacies ought to operate?”

Different brands of a product differ slightly (well, a lot) from the total elimination of certain options in pharmacies, especially one founded on what amounts to a moral objection.  The obligation of anyone in the medical profession is to serve patients’ best interests, not what you think their best interests to be.

They claim they are protecting the mother from harm to due the potential effects of the Plan B pill.  As for the other contraceptives, they claim they are protecting the unborn child and the mother.  But who are they really protecting?

Their power over people.

Their radical beliefs push them to abandon their professional obligations in favor of an unrelated agenda.  The statement “couples do have a choice: to get pregnant” is horribly flawed because it implies that pregnancy is a choice.  For some it isn’t.

And for all, the choice whether or not to risk bringing an unwanted child who cannot be fed and who cannot be taken care of into the world must not be hindered by a vocal, twisted minority.

If they truly want all these children in the world, then give them the kids.  Since they sell Viagra but not contraceptives, they clearly want children.  Give them what they want.

Be generous.