By Mark Steyn I am, as Tony Blair might say, deeply passionately personally deeply personally opposed to abortion. But, unlike him, I think it ought to be an election issue.
Not because of my personal beliefs: I happen to believe a lot of what we call "late-term abortion" is in reality early-term infanticide, but, if you don't accept that that's a human life that's being destroyed, my deeply personal passionate beliefs aren't likely to sway you one way or another. That's where so-called progressive politicians such as Blair and John Kerry have it all backwards: the point about abortion is not that it's a "matter of conscience" for individuals to "wrestle with", but that it's a crucial part of the central political challenge of our time.
Almost every issue facing the EU - from immigration rates to crippling state pension liabilities - has at its heart the same glaringly plain root cause: a huge lack of babies. I could understand a disinclination by sunny politicians to peddle doom and gloom were it not for the fact that, in all other areas of public policy, our rulers embrace doomsday scenarios at the drop of a hat. Most 20-year projections - on global warming, fuel resources, etc - are almost laughably speculative. They fail to take into account the most important factor of all - human inventiveness: "We can't feed the world!" they shriek. But we develop more efficient farming methods with nary a thought. "The oil will run out by the year 2000!" But we develop new extraction methods and find we've got enough oil for as long as we'll need it.
But human inventiveness depends on humans - and that's the one thing we really are running out of. When it comes to forecasting the future, the birth rate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2005, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2025 (or 2033, or 2041, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management, Systemic Racism and Gay Studies degrees). If that's not a political issue, what is? To cite only the most obviously affected corner of the realm, what's the long-term future of the Scottish National Party if there are no Scottish nationals?
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
03/22/2005 11:50:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, man....I come here to get away from the "so...when's the stork coming?" kind of questions, and you post this, Steve! ;P
#5
"Europeâs Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025"
http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=&D=2/22/2005&ID=57102
Looks like Aris has the choice between fatherhood or memorizing the Koran if he wants to be comfortable in his old age.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/22/2005 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And so do we. It's not just Europe in this situation - set aside the immigrant families here in the States and you'll find similar well-below-replacement birthrates for Americans as well, especially among the well-educated.
Posted by: too true ||
03/22/2005 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"States, however, differ significantly in white fertility. The most fecund whites are in heavily Mormon Utah, which, not coincidentally, was the only state where Bush received over 70 percent. White women average 2.45 babies in Utah compared to merely 1.11 babies in Washington, D.C., where Bush earned but 9 percent. The three New England states where Bush won less than 40 percentâMassachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Islandâare three of the four states with the lowest white birthrates, with little Rhode Island dipping below 1.5 babies per woman."
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_20/cover.html
Maybe it's just a liberal thing.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/22/2005 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"The strange death of the liberal West"
I'm sure this is a reference to the book The Strange Death of Liberal England I had to read in my high school History of England class. I don't remember much about the book beyond the title and the cover (an old political cartoon), but I always love obscure references.
#12
Aris is more interested in promoting legalized gay marriage than fatherhood -- that's not going to go over well in the European Islamic Union.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/22/2005 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Why the hell does It keep responding to what It thinks are trolling attempts? If It just ignored what It thinks is trolling, then wouldn't the trolling (if that's what it is) stop?
Or is It unwilling to let anything go by without Its flatulence being injected into the discussion?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/22/2005 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#14
"set aside the immigrant families here in the States and you'll find similar well-below-replacement birthrates for Americans as well, especially among the well-educated."
There's a name for all those (legal) immigrant children, too -- Americans. The newer arrivals to the USA have always been more prolific, haven't they? Like first generation Irish, Italian and other immigrants in the past. Whats more, they can be some of the strongest patriots you will find, being a bit more appreciative of what the multi-generational Americans take for granted.
And education is no guarantee of wisdom. College graduates tended to swing Kerry's way in the last election, as I recall. I'm one myself, and it took 9/11 and the aftermath to cure me of knee-jerk Democrat voting.
#15
Be sure to give a lot of money to Fred, Tom the Troll. Everyone knows that money expiates sin and eases guilty consciences. Some Catholic edict long ago; it partly led to Reformation and some such, but no matter.
Aris is more interested in promoting legalized gay marriage than fatherhood -- that's not going to go over well in the European Islamic Union.
Since the thing that right-wing conservatives and Islamofascists have in common is their hatred for family planning, gays, and all kinds of non-conformity to tradition, you should probably not throw rocks when living in a glass house, Tom.
Abolish abortion, then abolish contraception, then put your religious commandments in your courthouses, then finally prepare to join the Caliphate in everything but name, red-state America. In the war of civilisations against all that's primitive and medieval, Western Europe has left you behind in the dust.
You are correct in one thing: It's a liberal thing. We value our children for themselves, and so we have as few as we can afford them so that we may give them our full attention and make sure they lack nothing. You value your children only as possessions to parade or as footsoldiers in your petty causes, and so like money or tanks, you think that the more the better.
And you don't care how many infants die: Child mortality rates -- much greater in United States than in Europe.
Instead of caring about "fatherhood" (not even "parenthood" -- more hidden misogyny from you Tom?), start treating your children as people and start caring about "child protection" instead.
Is this whole post arrogant of me? Ofcourse it is. Is it painting with too wide a brush, and whatever the hell that expression is? Ofcourse it is. But don't pretend that this isn't the kind of comment you wanted to hear from me when you invited me.
No more comments from me on this thread. Make sure to shame yourselves now as much as you did yesterday.
#18
I think people who indulge in "Aris-baiting" should not complain when he appears.
Aris, just one thing: I think Americans treasure their children as much as Europeans. It is unfortunate that our society penalizes families with more than one or two children. A family of a regular worker or employee in Germany faces life only slighty above the poverty line when having 4 children (or more).
#20
Just for the record, Aris, I have three children -- and two of them are internationally adopted. One of the two adopted children might have been aborted were it not for the Catholic Church that you so despise. The other might have died from malnutrition were it not for an American charity. I am not ashamed of my parenting, the Catholic Church, or America's record on taking care of children.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/22/2005 19:38 Comments ||
Top||
#21
and I'm making my regular paypal to Fred, so EMBO
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/22/2005 19:47 Comments ||
Top||
#23
actually we Catholics generally have a sense of humor...we have to
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/22/2005 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#24
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Posted by: Tom ||
03/22/2005 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Lots to agree with in this thread:
There's a name for all those (legal) immigrant children, too -- Americans. The newer arrivals to the USA have always been more prolific, haven't they? Like first generation Irish, Italian and other immigrants in the past. Whats more, they can be some of the strongest patriots you will find, being a bit more appreciative of what the multi-generational Americans take for granted.
And education is no guarantee of wisdom.
Agree on both accounts. I mentioned the below- replacement birthrate in some parts of our population as a way of suggesting that we are not immune to many of the factors behind the low rate in Europe - we just have other, countervailing factors at work. Of course, it helps if the children of immigrants do assimilate to the culture, as those very patriotic 2nd generation Americans often do.
TGA, I agree with you: Tom was Aris-baiting and Aris as usual rose to the bait.
Re: treasuring children, TGA do you see your society as penalizing parents of more than one or two children in ways other than the heavy financial burden imposed by your tax and regulatory systems?
Posted by: too true ||
03/22/2005 20:01 Comments ||
Top||
#26
too true, not only, there are other reasons, for example an environment that doesn't particularily welcome children, a school system, that sends children home at 1pm, preventing single parents (or a married mother) from taking a full time job, expensive housing etc.
And a woman who has kids is unlikely to reach a leading position in her job, or she doesn't get hired in the first place.
The "double income no kids" couples fare so much better.
I have 4 kids btw, all grown up of course.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/22/2005 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#28
I have three, and "our" resource limiations as parents made that a (in retrospect) great decision. After that -*snip*- in utter violation of my Catholic faith....and totally unregretted.
Don't depend on unassimilated immigrants (legal or illegal)to replace citizen levels without bad consequences to your visions.
Illegals have already spit in the face of the nation's laws by crossing illegally - small wonder that further transgressions are so easy to do?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/22/2005 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#29
And a woman who has kids is unlikely to reach a leading position in her job, or she doesn't get hired in the first place.
And people stand for that?
I mean, here in "primitive, medieval" America, we're quibbling about the salaries of women who return to the work force -- IE, their effect or not on the equivalent salaries of men and women -- and I think you'd see marches in the streets if a company had a policy of not hiring mothers.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/22/2005 21:36 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Of course the companies don't have a "policy of not hiring mothers".
(2005-03-21) -- United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today unveiled a 63-page proposal for revamping the scandal-plagued world body. The proposal, to be considered at a summit in New York in September, calls for ejecting non-free nations and reducing the U.N. staff to six persons.
The following is an excerpt from the executive summary of Mr. Annan's report, titled "UN-Mitigated Freedom"...
-- All nations must immediately re-apply for membership, which will not be granted unless the applicant provides for its people freedom of religion and expression, an electoral process open to all and a free-market economy.
-- Nations with the following types of governments shall not be admitted to the United Nations: totalitarian states, dictatorships, monarchies, "people's republics," "Islamic republics," any nation-state that needs permission or approval from any other nation or organization to elect leaders or approve legislation.
-- Nations which fail to meet membership requirements shall be placed on a list of potential enemies until they meet the requirements.
-- Member nations which cease to fulfill membership requirements shall be ejected on a simple majority vote.
-- Member nations which lobby for special treatment of non-member nations which have not changed their ways shall be ejected on a simple-majority vote.
-- As a condition of membership, nations agree to have no trade relations with non-member states.
-- The United Nations shall be a cooperative service organization with a staff of no more than six persons whose main job is to maintain the United Nations blog and discussion forum.
-- The six employees shall work from their own homes and be provided a notebook computer, a broadband internet connection and a satellite phone.
-- No regular general sessions of members shall be held, and there are no standing committees nor ongoing agencies.
-- Diplomats in member nations who have "grand visions" or "compelling speeches" may post them to the United Nations blog.
-- When collective decisions are needed, member states shall communicate via an open internet discussion forum.
-- Resolutions shall not be considered.
-- Any voting shall be done online for the world to see.
-- United Nations military or peacekeeping action shall not take place.
-- Member states wishing to engage in military action may do so at their own initiative and at their own peril with alliances of their own choosing.
-- The United Nations shall have no jurisdiction in the legal proceedings of any sovereign member nation, nor shall any citizen of a member nation ever face trial outside of his own nation's judicial system.
-- Member nations may intervene to protect life, liberty and other human rights in non-member nations as they see fit, at their own initiative and at their own peril.
-- The United Nations shall not loan or donate money to any nation or individual.
Posted by: Korora ||
03/22/2005 9:42:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You know, this ain't a bad idea at all. Too bad it's parody . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/22/2005 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Pretty sad when the satire makes more sense then the reality.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
I am, as Tony Blair might say, deeply passionately personally deeply personally opposed to abortion. But, unlike him, I think it ought to be an election issue.
