pronatalist
Sexy Member
As human populations naturally grow, why not "scoot over" a bit and make place for them/us/our children?
Part 3 of 3:
Uh, excuse me. Sewage is quite natural. You're talking of the stuff of when you flush the toilet, where does it go? They say the grass grows greenest, over the septic tank. See? Nature doesn't mind. But because there's naturally now so many of us, of course we have to "help nature out a bit," to enhance the efficiency of formerly more natural processes, in "recycling" such wastes back to nature or whatever nonsense. True, as human numbers naturally rise and densify, the volume of human wastes is naturally rising. But it's not really much a problem when properly accomodated. We hide it nicely beneath our "clean" city streets, in sewer systems and apply proper water treatment processes. Smog? I live in a decent-sized city, and don't see smog. Such pollution was the result of imcomplete technologies, that are being improved all the more, while we speak. Landfills? Landfills shouldn't really be such a big deal. That's what you get when stuff is to be trown away cheaply. If it was of much value, people would be getting rich mining landfills. Rocks and stones and dirt, is similarly almost useless, and just sits around for some time as well. Oil spills? So there's bad weather, things happen, and sometimes humans are too careless. But they say that 2 1/2 times as much oil leaks out of the ocean floor, each and every day, as what the Exxon Valdeze spilled. Face it, the Earth, that enviro-wackos so much want to perversely worship, is a huge ball of mud and dirt, with grass growing on top. It wasn't so clean to begin with. One of the huge things that helps make the earth seem a bit cleaner, is natural gravity. Dirt falls or settles to the ground, while air floats above.
And do you really want to get me started, on what a huge fraud the "Climate Change" contrived "crisis" is? Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindol." I listened to it some time ago, on google videos I think it was? Or go buy the book, that came out earlier this year, "Climate Confusion" by Roy Spencer.
BTW, my own neighborhood doesn't appear to be growing so much at all. Oh, the neighbor across the street had a baby a few years back, and a few houses down the street, maybe 2 Hispanic families appeared to have some 9 small children among them, but I don't even know exactly who's children they all are, out there playing in the yard. But I wouldn't mind for my city to be naturally growing with human population, so long as the neighbors are friendly, and we can elect leaders who plan for and welcome the growth, rather than whine and complain about the "inevitable" and "what must be." I also fear that my neighborhood has a lot of old people in it, who soon may die off, the homes go up for sale, and then certain "undesirable" elements come in, walking around aimlessly with "sagging" pants almost falling off of them, playing their awful Rap-is-crap noise. In comparison, naturally-breeding families and friendly immigrants, and socialable people walking their dogs, are rather desirable.
Is there a correlation here? I don't see one. Do you not get the fact that this thread wasn't so much about a woman experiencing sexual pleasure during childbirth as it was just some kinky guy writing about his kinky fantasy? I'm sure that he wishes it were true that women have orgasms while pushing out a baby, but I'm kinda thinking that they don't.
And what exactly, is the difference? So it was a weird thread to start with. So what? Why did you post onto it then? You think the OP was a weird question, but maybe it's at least slightly, a logical question to ask. Giving birht and sexual intercourse, both involve "penetration." Human bodies naturally "joining" together. And I seem to be hearing, and obviously accepting, that some women really do experience orgasms during birth, and perhaps more would if they could somehow more relax, have more homebirths or waterbirths, or whatever gets away somewhat from the "artificial" sterile hospital unnatural setting, even though probably most women don't have the "pleasure" until after the baby is outside their body, and they can hold and comfort their child.
Why should I give you the citation? Didn't I already maybe say, that the link to that website doesn't work anymore anyhow? That was years ago, and not all websites or personal pages stay around "forever." Our friend Google, is just as accessible to you, as to me. Search it yourself. Why should I have to "prove" anything to you, if you don't want to believe anyway? It's your obligation to believe correctly, not mine to have to "show you the error of your ways," especially after I have made a decent effort in posting my views to you.
I understand why human populations naturally grow and grow, and I happen to agree with most any reason parents could cite for having children, or for having "so many" children. It's seems quite natural and proper to me, to just welcome and let the babies to go on pushing out. There's more things people can do to expand water supply. Build more dams, drill more wells, desalinate ocean water. Water can even be "reused," after proper treatments. Look at all the natural water continually "wasted" by nature, just running down rivers into the oceans all the time. I'm obviously in favor of some level of "deforestation," at least in some areas, to make way for more and bigger cities, full of lots of people. People are far more valuable than trees. Besides, cities have lots of trees too, but they are thinned out, to make more room for people's homes and yards for children to play in. And why do you call my views "fantasy" anyway? Increased human population size and density are hardly "fantasy" but naturally becoming reality. So why not use our supposedly intelligence to prepare for the new arrivals and properly ADAPT?
Last edited:
