Joy Behar Sneers at 'Overpopulating' Moms, Guest Says Parents of Large Families are 'Littering'
By Matthew Balan | November 18, 2010 | 17:32
On Wednesday's Joy Behar Show on HLN, the host asked about parents who are "overpopulating" the world, and guest Helen Fisher, a Rutgers University professor, compared having a large family to littering, "as if we've got too many people on this planet to begin with." Fisher also bizarrely stated that "for billions of years, we [humans] ended up having one or two children per woman."
Host Joy Behar devoted the last two segments of her 9 pm Eastern hour program to how women are trending away from having children. Besides Fisher, she brought on author Rachel Shukert and Laura Scott, who manages the "Childless By Choice Project" blog. Near the middle of the second segment, the host blurred the line between typical large families, most of whom have children by natural means, and celebrities such as the "Octo-Mom" and Kate Gosselin and her family. This is where Fisher made her extreme leftist remark:
BEHAR: What about these people who are overpopulating- the Gosselins, the octo-moms- these people who have been vitro with hundreds of things in there- you know what I mean? What's up with that?
[Video embedded below the page break]
SHUKERT: You know, I think it's so interesting how the way that- like their kids have sort of- like, taken the role of kids in the olden days, when they all had to work as farmhands-
BEHAR: Yeah. Now, they're on reality shows-
SHUKERT: Now, they're on reality shows, instead of in the field.
BEHAR: Yeah, exactly. I mean, what do you make of that?
FISHER: Well, I think it's as if- I mean, now, people regard that as littering, and- you know, as if we've got too many people on this planet to begin with.
SHUKERT: That's true.
FISHER: So, it's interesting that-
SHUKERT: I was thinking how much greener it is to not have kids. That he feels he can have steaks and things because he doesn't have kids. It's like I can drive a Hummer. I don't have a kid.
FISHER: Well, you know, for billions of years, we ended up having one or two children per woman, and we're moving back to that now, one or two children per woman.
One wonders what the professor meant by her "billions of years" remark, as the human species obviously hasn't been around that long.
Earlier, at the beginning of the second segment, Behar asked the Rutgers professor, "Why do you suppose, Helen, people say that there's something odd about not having kid?"
Fisher first touted the obvious genetic disadvantage not having children carries, but then gushed over the innovation of making that very decision: "There is something odd about it- I mean, from a Darwin evolutionary perspective, you're choosing to not pass on your DNA on into tomorrow, and in terms of- you know, genetic survival, you have lost....On the other hand, times have changed so dramatically, and we're finally at a time in human evolution when women can make that choice, and I think that's what's a thrill."
[H/t: Creative Minority Report blog]
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What about Muslim birthrate?
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:54pm.
They will be dominating the EU soon enough. I'm sure they will be willing to listen to her reason and stop, lol.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Anti-Muslim
Submitted by libBuster on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:44pm.
Behars comment is far more anti-Muslim than anything Bill O'Reilly said. Being fruitful and multiplying is a core belief.
Of course for Joy there should be special dispensation.
Don't you get the feeling
Submitted by ozarkian on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 3:54am.
Don't you get the feeling that Behar would approve of large muslim families, as they are staying "true to their culture" rather than assimilating? I think she just doesn't want lots of white babies, which is what most of the left means when they say we have "too many people." You never see them debating that issue with CAIR. (Of course, CAIR is too media-savvy to let their message be diluted by appearing on such a show to discuss such a topic. For that matter, they'd never appear on any show that even hints that some muslim behavior might be questioned.)
I wonder what this person
Submitted by Smartypants on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:38pm.
I wonder what this person would say about the countless single moms who have multiple babies out of wedlock, and, in many instances, with different fathers. Or is it only wrong when a married couple has too many kids?
what a fool
Submitted by holeinthehull on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:40pm.
These 2 women have the brains of a cow patty
Joy Behar never took this advice for sure...
"Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt! ...
Too many people on the planet
Submitted by jdlybrand on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:46pm.
When I watched the video I was looking at four of them.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
FISHER: Well, I think it's as
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:47pm.
FISHER: Well, I think it's as if- I mean, now, people regard that as littering, and- you know, as if we've got too many people on this planet to begin with.Isn't it cute how she switches her wording form I think it's as if... to people (the nameless "some say") regard it as littering.
AS IF we've got too many people already?
Well, do we or don't we?
If you think they're littering, just say so; if you agree with them, say so, you mealy-mouthed coward.
Fisher espouses the Progressive perspective
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:39pm.
I don't know where she gets her data. Women in past centuries gave birth to more than one or two children. The change over time related to infant mortality and life expectancy: as mankind harnessed the ability to feed and medicate, more and more children survived to adulthood.
Fisher sounds a lot like eugenicist Margaret Sanger. "Overpopulation" is a problem mostly in the Third World, so its totally in progressive character s for Fisher to view those peoples as "litter."
I find it ironic that Public Idiot No. 1 Joy Behar vehemently objects to limiting the number of babies a woman can abort, but has no problem telling women how many children they should have.
Following China's Lead
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 5:49pm.
So these women feel it's fair to judge a woman who chooses to have more than one child, but we cannot judge homosexuality as sinful behaviour?
If a family can provide for their children without government welfare, it is no one's business how many children they have.
Were they refering to minorities of the lower classes with this discussion? I think the Hummer reference rules that out. They want the middle class to stop reproducing.
They should just move to China and see how great it works out there.
Different Moral Calculus
Submitted by dbz77 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:40pm.
Those people have a different moral calculus.
Cut welfare, foodstamps,
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:06pm.
Cut welfare, foodstamps, anchor-baby-policies and public education for illegal's and the problem will be solved. Illegal aliens having six children that are supported by the Federal Government is quite common.
Amen, cut government
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:13pm.
Amen, cut government subsidies and the number of children born will drop.
Of cours it is the job of the
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:33pm.
Of course it is the job of the U.S.A. to support Mexico: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/18/california.student.immigration/?hpt=Sbin
They teach them young in Ca, don't they?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:24pm.
"The 22-year-old who ran on a platform of transparency hopes that his lack of it won't come back to haunt him."
That guy has a future in the Democratic Party!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
"...for billions of years we ended up having one or two..."
Submitted by PrairieSky on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:14pm.
"children per woman, and we're moving back to that now, one or two children per woman."
For billions of years? Well, the last I checked, human beings haven't been on the planet for billions of years...Homo Sapiens have only been on the Earth for about the last 250,000 to 400,000 years or so. Even if we go to the earliest known human ancestor, that only takes us back approx. 6 million years. This Helen Fisher person is supposed to be a professor at Rutgers? That doesn't speak too well of the caliber and intelligence of Rutgers' professors.
Behar's and Fisher's comments about large families are typical of liberal elitists...They generally look down their noses at large families, and consider those who have or come from large families as uneducated, backwater illiterates who haven't managed to master birth control. Large families are great, as long as the parents can appropriately and properly provide for them. There is one family on reality tv though, that has taken it way too far, imho...The Duggars. They are the ones who have 19 kids, and don't appear to be done yet...I think these folks are off their rockers. No one, I don't care how great a parent you are, can possibly give enough attention to 19 children...That is just ridiculous. It's like these two people are in a contest with themselves, to see how many children they can produce, before either the baby or the mother dies during the pregnancy or childbirth. In fact, their last child was premature, and ended up staying in the hospital for a long time before it could come home. The mother is 44...How many more children does she plan to have? Will she continue to have them until she finally reaches menopause? The Duggars remind me of the people who compulsively collect animals in their homes...19 kids? Good Lord.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
If people like Behar are so
Submitted by mattm on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:45pm.
If people like Behar are so concerned about overpopulation, there's always self-imposed euthanasia...
Just a little side note: To reach a population of 8 billion people, starting with 2, the population would have to double 32 times. The current world population growth rate is about 1.17%, which based on the rule of 72 (% rate divided into 72 = number of years to double) means that the population would double every 61.53 years. 32 x 61.53 = 1,968 years. At half the current growth rate the population would double every 123 years x 32 = 3,900 years. Even at 1/100th the current growth rate it would take only 200,000 years to reach the current population.
Is that new math?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:15pm.
"To reach a population of 8 billion people, starting with 2, the population would have to double 32 times."
Is that the new math? It seems to me that the population only needs to double twice to reach 8 billion from 2 billion.
Here's how the old math work: Doubling 2 billion gives you 4 billion. Doubling that again gives you eight billion. That's 2 doublings, not 32.
32 doublings would give you 4,294,967,296 BILLION people.
So, tell me how that new math work?
On Edit: I think I misunderstood you premises. Are you using a total starting population of just 2 people? From the way your sentence was structured, I thought you meant 2 billion.
But, anyways, 32 doublings would only give you a little more than 4 billion people. It would take 33 to achieve more than 8 billion.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:28pm.
I haven't done the math, but I believe he meant "2" as in "2"--not 2 billion.
Jer
edit. Just noticed your edit. Never mind.
But this assumes there are no
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 3:15am.
But this assumes there are no deaths or such and that is not likely.
Mother Teresa once said that
Submitted by vrwc13 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:18pm.
Mother Teresa once said that God wouldn't put one more human on earth than it could hold.
v
The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
Mother Teresa
The burden of life is from ourselves, its lightness from the grace of Christ and the love of God. - William Bernard Ullanthorne
And she was utterly wrong as
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:28pm.
And she was utterly wrong as would let us procreate til teh cows come home even if teh earth could not sustain us.
You are utterly wrong.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:22pm.
YOU are utterly wrong for it takes more than two children per family just to sustain a population, just to sustain a society. It takes three or more children to allow a society to advance, both socially and intellectually. How are we, expected to maintain, and, better yet, advance, as a society if we decide to "breed" ourselves into oblivion by deliberately reducing our population?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Huh? I was saying God would
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:09pm.
Huh? I was saying God would let us procreate until the earth could no longer sustain us. But, mankind would simplify the problem long before we procreate beyond what sustains us. The history of man bears my posit out. We will kill and destroy to maintain a balance in the world ... or what we believe is a balance. War and famine will balance out the herd just as it does in nature.
Would he?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:29pm.
You're saying that God would let us breed ourselves into extinction? You don't know much about God, do you? Where do you think famine and disease come from, random chance? No, it happens far to often for random chance to be a cause. Random chance says that it would happen maybe one or twice in all of human history, not every 50 years or so, as is the case for our history.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
As for war...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:46pm.
As for war, that has nothing to do with trying to control our population numbers. It has everything to do with controlling society itself. We don't fight wars to reduce populations. We fight wars to control societies. The reduction of the population that normally occurs during war is a side effect, caused by the fact that most, if not all, societies resist this type of imposed control, and is not a goal.
Wars have a tendency to increase populations, not decrease them. This is because wars tend to advance societies, and the deaths that occur during wars tend to make people breed even more, to replace their lost populations.. This is shown time and time again, for every war that has existed on Earth has been followed by a large population increase, not a decrease. The Egyptian Wars, The Roman Wars, the World Wars, even our own Civil War, all have been followed by a rapid increase in the general (world) population, not a prolonged decrease.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
By the way, we're not cattle.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:36pm.
By the way, we're not cattle. Nor are we dolphins, bears, pigs, flies, bees, trees, bacteria, nor any other species you can name. We are unique amongst all other species on earth. We, as a species, tend to moderate our population when there is an abundance of resources, and we tend to expand our population when resources are scarce. No other species, that I am aware of, does this.
America is a perfect example of this, as is most, if not all, "modern" societies. As more and more people achieve "prosperity," as more and more people have access to the necessary resources to sustain ourselves comfortably, the less and less our population grows. At a given point, when more than half of the population has achieve "prosperity," is able to fully provide the resources necessary for life, the population will start to decrease, which is opposite of what is "naturally" expected.
Over the last 100 years, especially since the end of WWII, our population has slowly decreased. It's only in immigration, whether legal or illegal, where our population has actually witnessed an increase. For the "domestic" population, we've been witnessing a decrease in population, have been experiencing negative "growth.' We are, in effect, the reverse of what is "natural.'
In nature, a species will breed until they exceed the maximum sustainable levels, and the lack of available resources causes rather rapid population reductions, ether through increased predation or decreased food supplies. Humans are just the opposite.
Humans tend to breed more when resources are scarce, or when predation (especially self-predation) increases occur. The scarcer the resources, the more we breed. The greater the predation, the more we breed. The more we breed, the faster our population increases. This continues until we ether change the environment to suit ourselves, or we become the predator and, through our own increased predation activities, reduce the populations of the former predatory species until they are no longer a threat. No other species does that.
This is because, unlike all other species, humans are extremely depended upon each other for our own survival. We are also uniquely adaptable, able to adapt our own behavior as to adjust to a changing environment, and, most importantly, able to adapt the environment itself to suit OUR needs. If the resources are scarce, we over-breed in an attempt to create the "manpower' necessary to expand into ares where resources are more abundant or change the environment itself as to produce additional resources. Once we have access to those additional resources, we tend to breed less, and we stabilize our populations naturally this way.
No other species on earth does that. We are unique in this. Therefor, it is inappropriate to even try to compare our breeding patters with those of any other species on earth. There is no other species like us in which to make that comparison. We truly are unique.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The underlying message of
Submitted by celator on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 6:29pm.
The underlying message of Behar, Shukert and Fisher is an old one we've heard for many years from these maggot infested radical left elitists: "There's just the right number of our kind, but there's far too many of them."
Celator I'm in complete
Submitted by BuffNBone on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 7:38pm.
Celator I'm in complete agreement with you. Assuming children track somewhat along the same philosophical and ideologicial lines as their parents, the pro-life percentage will continue to increase over the pro-death percentage of the population. "Go forth and multiply."
You Nailed It.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:20pm.
That is, after all, why that progressive Margaret Sanger, founded Planned Parenthood -- to eliminate the unwanted others.
Visions and Principles blog
Margaret Sanger...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:55pm.
I'm sure the vast majority of those free-thinking, open minded, tolerant, pro-choice liberals who love to support and defend their beloved Planned Parenthood, have no idea what kind of person Margaret Sanger really was...She was in fact a racist eugenecist, who had very definite and intolerant ideas about what she considered the "undesirables," and what she thought should be done to "deal" with the "problems" that they presented to society....Liberals are such hypocrites.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Joy doesn't even know what an egg is
Submitted by exLib on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 7:38pm.
Joy doesn't even know what an egg is.
She's so disconnected from the miracle of life and how children are born she says
BEHAR: What about these people who are overpopulating- the Gosselins, the octo-moms- these people who have been vitro with hundreds of things in there- you know what I mean? What's up with that?
Hundreds of "things"???? Do they really put "Hundreds" of FERTILIZED EGGS back? I doubt it. Maybe a dozen and they all grow.
This is the ultimate plan i guess. Teach kids at a young age how to put on a condom, how to dial Planned Parenthood, but don't teach them about how those babies are made beyond stopping the birth.
Overpopulation?
Submitted by Tenebrous on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:24pm.
People who believe in overpopulation have never driven outside a major US city, that is obvious. If you ever do, you will find miles and miles and miles of farmland, forest, wild areas, in short -- plenty of land to live upon. We are nowhere near exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth. And you know what? When we do have overpopulation in concentrated areas, disease crops up and eases the problem a bit. There are natural checks and balances, ladies.
But the idea that for billions (!) of years, people had 1-2 children (!) has got to be the stupid leftist quote of the week.
Visions and Principles blog
It's so stupid...
Submitted by jimbo297 on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 10:07pm.
...it must have just been one of those things that sounded good at the time. 1-2 children surviving out of a "litter" of 8-10-maybe that's what she meant. Seriously, how could someone say something so absolutely moronic?? And on a show that is watched on a nightly basis by literally billions of people
One or two what?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 8:42pm.
"Well, you know, for billions of years, we ended up having one or two children per woman, and we're moving back to that now, one or two children per woman."
Man, these ladies, and I use the term lightly, are DUMB!
Hay, you idiot liberal women, the average child per family, the average birth rate, for the majority of human history, was around eight or more children per family. This is because most children didn't LIVE past infancy. Infant mortality was so high, the only way to insure that the family name was carried on was to have as many children as possible. Women birthing 10 to 15 children in their lifetime was not unheard of, or even that rare. It's only within the last 100 years, especially within the last 50, that infant mortality rates are beginning to drop worldwide. It's only recently that women are having only one or two children.
Infant mortality has been a plague upon human society for tens of thousands of years. So, what's your answer to the age old question of infant mortality? HAVE MORE ABORTIONS! What a bunch of fools!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Joy Behar's parents are the true litterers
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 11/18/2010 - 9:29pm.
As she has been spewing garbage for years.
-Dave
Hopefully There is Good News!
Submitted by Poovey on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:28am.
Maybe they won't pass on thier "Liberal" gene!
"...something odd about not having a kid?"
Submitted by Beckiboo on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 12:38am.
How many people complain about someone else NOT having children? (Not counting their Mom who wants grandkids!) For the most part, those of us with lovely children are happy if someone who doesn't want kids doesn't have them. Having children is a huge commitment, and should not be entered into lightly. I'm fine with the couples I know who don't have kids. More power to them.
Its people like Behar and guests who are stirring the pot, worrying about what the rest of us are doing. Leave me and my 4 kids out of it, you shrews. My kids are not litter, and neither are anyone elses!
I bet they masterbate to this
Submitted by Thoreau on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 4:45am.
I bet they masterbate to this too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr8pmOiLNNo
yep
Submitted by Patriot II on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 10:47am.
Its Americas loss that behar...(small h) , that her parents didn't have their tubes tied!!! before they spawned!!
Behar's spiral into insanity continues.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 11/19/2010 - 11:27am.
Behar's spiral into insanity continues.