Voluntarily Childless

December 5, 2005

Sunday’s Deseret News reprinted an article from the Chicago Tribune detailing how a "Growing Number of Couples [are] Opting Not to Have Children."  While the choice to have children or not is obviously a personal one and unique to each couple, I am a little disturbed at the implications of the choices which are being made by a growing number of people (especially in light of Erica’s recent post over at T&S regarding the Bishkek Baby House).  While I can understand some of the concerns, outlined below and forwarded by these voluntarily childless couples, which cause couples to decide not to ever have children, I have a feeling that there are more important things at stake.  Things that matter whether you believe in God or not.  But before going on, let’s examine the context here.

Read the rest of this entry »


New Home for a bird’s eye view

December 5, 2005

I originally posted this announcement at our old location but once the MA picked up our new url, the announcement no longer showed up on the MA. We have moved to this new location for our bird’s eye view blogging (hint, you are already here):

ABEV: a bird’s eye view

(http://abev.blogs.com/abev/)

Please update your links accordingly! We hope to see you all around at our new home. The Blogger site will continue to serve as our backup and archives for the last 18 months.


New Home For Bird’s Eye View

December 5, 2005

We are moving to a new location for our bird’s eye view blogging:

ABEV: a bird’s eye view

(http://abev.blogs.com/abev/)

Please update your links accordingly! We hope to see you all around at our new home. This Blogger site will continue to serve as our backup and archives for the last 18 months.


Cornell v. Coulter

December 5, 2005

all-encompassingly provides some analysis of the fight between Lydia Cornell and Ann Coulter. What is especially intriguing about this confrontation is the rhetorical role that p*rn is playing, particularly for Lydia Cornell. She accuses Ann Coulter of the use of political p*rn in her techniques. I am confused about this–is it because when an attractive woman talks politics she is engaging in political p*rn? It is surprising that Lydia Cornell of all people is accusing Ann Coulter of resorting to "political p*rn" to get a message across. After all, it is Lydia Cornell and not Ann Coulter who has raunchy pornographic pictures of herself posted on her website (reproduced by all-encompassingly). This is enlightening considering Lydia Cornell’s holier-than-thou rhetoric in her post about Coulter in which she claims to be "deeply anti-p*rn." What could Cornell possibly be thinking in writing that? I suppose she would say that the pictures of herself are not p*rn.

(cross-posted at Headlife, posted here because Blogger doesn’t accept trackbacks)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.