How many children are you allowed to have?

[1Timothy115]

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506

April 24, 1974

National Security Study Memorandum 200
--------------------------------------

TO: The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Deputy Secretary of State
Administrator, Agency for International Development

SUBJECT: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests

The President has directed a study of the impact of world population growth on U.S. security and overseas interests. The study should look forward at least until the year 2000, and use several alternative reasonable projections of population growth.

Policy Recommendations

29. While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000. Compared to the U.N medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.

Note: This recommendation is item 29. from the study memorandum (a lengthy document) which can be read at:
http://wlym.com/text/NSSM200.htm

Also,

[Psalms18_28]

best method is the more children you have , the expensive it gets.

[amblivion]

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506

April 24, 1974

National Security Study Memorandum 200
--------------------------------------

TO: The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Director of Central Intelligence
The Deputy Secretary of State
Administrator, Agency for International Development

SUBJECT: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests

The President has directed a study of the impact of world population growth on U.S. security and overseas interests. The study should look forward at least until the year 2000, and use several alternative reasonable projections of population growth.

Policy Recommendations

29. While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000. Compared to the U.N medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.

Note: This recommendation is item 29. from the study memorandum (a lengthy document) which can be read at:
http://wlym.com/text/NSSM200.htm

Also,

[His by Grace]

We can still have our "quivers full!"...They haven't made us cut down on how many chidren we have YET.... BUT I think from looking at the propsed medical pogram they will AT FIRST push not treatng children born with bith defect's, not treating people in certain age group's (over 55 or 65 or maybe 75 to start??) with certain long-term medical prOBlem's. Just afew example's would be: cardiac failure, dialysis, liver failure, transplant's over any age perhap's because the medication cost are sooo expensive. Young soildiers on the battle field will be triaged differently. Same in the US in the ER's as people arrive from major car accident's. Anyone that would need long-term 24 hr. care would be at risk basicaly. They would be considered a "non-contributing adult" to society and a "drain on 'limited' resources." This may sound really "far-out here" but I can tell you that many medical personnel are thinking the same idea's. In other contries with socialized medicne age limit's are readily set for dialysis, what medication's your cancer will recieve (in other word's how agressive will they treat your cancer based on age just being one consideration) In the US this sound's so barbaric but people don't understand in our country that has been slowly working it's way into medicine. If you don't have the $250-$350 co-pay upfrount (these people have insurance-theses are co-pays) then they just don't give you the treatment. This is a reality for some people (american citizens!) face NOW! Many aren't aware of this alone so since they've gotten away with this in little steps thru the years...do you think people will speak-up on the next one's? I remember listening to a old Jewish gentleman. He said first they came for the gypspies so we didn't say a word.... we all know the end result with Hitler's ideology but will we remember WHY we study history?? Isn't one big reason so we don't repeat the mistake's of the past? I pray that we do remember and "Stand in the Gap!" May the LORD GOD have mercy on us!!!! Only in Christ I Trust, His by Grace

[1Timothy115]

We can still have our "quivers full!"...They haven't made us cut down on how many chidren we have YET.... BUT I think from looking at the propsed medical pogram they will AT FIRST push not treatng children born with bith defect's, not treating people in certain age group's (over 55 or 65 or maybe 75 to start??) with certain long-term medical prOBlem's. Just afew example's would be: cardiac failure, dialysis, liver failure, transplant's over any age perhap's because the medication cost are sooo expensive. Young soildiers on the battle field will be triaged differently. Same in the US in the ER's as people arrive from major car accident's. Anyone that would need long-term 24 hr. care would be at risk basicaly. They would be considered a "non-contributing adult" to society and a "drain on 'limited' resources." This may sound really "far-out here" but I can tell you that many medical personnel are thinking the same idea's. In other contries with socialized medicne age limit's are readily set for dialysis, what medication's your cancer will recieve (in other word's how agressive will they treat your cancer based on age just being one consideration) In the US this sound's so barbaric but people don't understand in our country that has been slowly working it's way into medicine. If you don't have the $250-$350 co-pay upfrount (these people have insurance-theses are co-pays) then they just don't give you the treatment. This is a reality for some people (american citizens!) face NOW! Many aren't aware of this alone so since they've gotten away with this in little steps thru the years...do you think people will speak-up on the next one's? I remember listening to a old Jewish gentleman. He said first they came for the gypspies so we didn't say a word.... we all know the end result with Hitler's ideology but will we remember WHY we study history?? Isn't one big reason so we don't repeat the mistake's of the past? I pray that we do remember and "Stand in the Gap!" May the LORD GOD have mercy on us!!!! Only in Christ I Trust, His by Grace

I agree and see those categories now (sarcasm)...
1- Babies of Christian parents have a birth defect.
2- Aged Christians are not afforded the nationalized health benefits.

New first responder training (sarcasm-mass tragedy):
1- First ask if there are any Christians by having them raise their hands.
2- Make sure you identify those who are Christians.
3- Begin giving immediate aid to non-Christian injured.
Training over.

[Covenanter]

We didn't ask how many we could have .... and we are enjoying our grandchildren now - we contribute quality & quantity to the world.