Posted on 12/11/2012 4:04:15 PM PST by Morgana
December 11, 2012 (Pop.org) - Past generations of American pioneers, known for their openness to life, would not have believed it. They would be astonished to learn that, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, a woman’s fertility is not celebrated but discouraged. Women who marry early, leave the workforce, and devote themselves to the birthing and raising of children are not the norm. On the contrary, a woman is expected to pass her most fertile years acting like a man, building up a strong career, and making a lot of money. Only after she is thus “established” and has “enough money” is she allowed to start thinking about having children.
In all of this, of course, there is no assumption that she will abstain from sex. Rather, she is expected to use pills and implants, diaphragms and injections in order to foil conception and escape the “burden of children.” The Sandra Flukes of the world are not, however, expected to pay for their own contraceptives. Our “Contraceptor-in-Chief” has decreed that Obamacare (that is to say, all of us) will bear this burden. Apparently, in the view of some, modern women are helpless creatures who need government assistance to postpone and control their own fertility to keep it from spiraling out of control.
At a recent Family in America conference, Dr. Jennifer Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, spoke of society’s lack of acceptance of women’s fertility. Young women are told they must be just like men if they want to enter the workforce and fit in in the workplace. They are advised not to have children right out of school because that will get in the way of a career. Universities accept ever larger numbers of female students, but only with the unspoken understanding that they will not have children while on campus.
According to Dr. Morse, fertility is not seen as the norm for women but is rather viewed as a problem. And since society’s progressives view fertility as problematic, a government constituted of progressives takes action to curb it. This is evident in the recent HHS mandate, in which contraception is considered “preventive care” and is to be “free.” In other words, as Dr. Morse noted, “pregnancy is seen as a disease, a problem to be solved.” So long as this view of women’s fertility is widely held, the government will continue to find ways to control fertility and keep the numbers of mothers and babies down.
The feminist movement has done a good job of portraying women’s fertility in a bad light. Dr. Allan Carlson, President of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, & Society and Editor of The Family in America, addressed precisely this point at the conference: “Feminists want choices, but don’t want women to choose to stay with kids at home, they might like it!” Instead of catering to these views, according to Dr. Carlson, public policies should allow for more choices. Specifically, policies should be put in place to make it easier for women to choose to stay at home if they so desire.
The government should not stand in the way of a woman’s fertility, but should rather safeguard it. Women should be allowed to choose when to bear children and how to raise their families.
This prescription also makes demographic sense. The birth rate has dropped below replacement in America over the past few years. Despite this birth dearth, fertility is still not seen as a good thing, but rather as a problem to be dealt with. If America is to sustain herself, her people need to start replacing themselves. Given that our present policies discourage childbearing, this will not be an easy task.
A recurring theme at the Family in America conference was how American society as a whole has grown to disfavor fertility and disregard marriage. As the institution of marriage declines, this tends to lower fertility even further. Both trends affect public policy since politicians tend to cater to general societal trends. Charles Murray, author of the recent book Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, who also addressed the conference, pointed out: “Once you don’t have marriage, you need a stronger state. The welfare state is absolutely essential for America’s people.”
While a good first step in promoting marriage and fertility as societal goods is to institute pro-family and pro-fertility policies, this is only a first step. Ultimately, society itself must embrace the idea that men and women are each unique in their own way, and that marriage is a natural means of uniting their unique strengths so that the whole is greater than the parts. We must recover the truth that a woman’s fertility is integral to her womanhood and is something to be nurtured, not thwarted.
Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.
Because Obama wants everyone to take it up the keester.
Identify these two demographics and the answer to the subject question is obvious.
Well I know which group Margaret Sanger was after but that plan seems to be failing.
Because the “intelligentsia” think our world is spiraling out of control with population and insufficient resources to maintain the worlds population thus the homosexual agenda and the abortion agenda both promoted to reduce population.
Reproductive envy.
Culture is a reflection of the majority. There are a lot more humans now than there have ever been. Given the right circumstances the Malthusian theory will come true. The human organism/culture reacts, we (cultural “we”) fear that our offspring may not experience an enjoyable existence in the near future, and it is easier to prevent pregnancy now...true or not, that is how many feel.
Government exists to benefit itself and itself alone, and all of its energy is devoted to its own interests. That includes who will populate this country in the future.
Although I think it can be reasonably charged that they really haven't thought this policy all the way through.
Men's fertility is integral to manhood, too. The assumption is that it's inappropriate for either a man or a woman to have "too many" children, with "too many" being determined by the whim of the person who has decided it's his business how many children other people have. It's politically correct for the individual to claim that he is only concerned about costs to the taxpayer (i.e., himself), but the odium directed at even the most responsible parents of a large family suggests that the real issue is that a lot of people viscerally reject the fact that sex makes babies.
Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for a century now. Those who have understood it best declared that its policies lead to tyranny and oppression.
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. Note the writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Sorry for the triple post!!! Operating with a new computer.
Let’s take a glimpse at what the 4,700 members of the Council on Foreign Relations thinks...
http://blogs.cfr.org/coleman/2011/04/28/family-planning-and-foreign-policy/
“U.S. support for international family planning has long been a controversial issue. Conservatives tend to view family planning as code for abortion, even though U.S. law, dating to the 1973 Helms Amendment, prohibits U.S. foreign assistance funds from being used for abortion. Indeed, increased access to international family planning is one of the most effective ways to reduce abortion in developing countries. Last year, a staggering 35 million abortions occurred in developing countries, some 20 million of which were unsafe abortions resulting in the death of 47,000 women. Studies have shown that meeting demand for family planning would reduce the number of abortions in developing countries by seventy percent.
Increased access to family planning could also reduce maternal deaths by a third, from approximately 360,000 to 240,000. For a woman in the developing world, the lifetime risk of dying from pregnancy is still one of the greatest threats she will face. In developed countries, 1 out of 4,300 women will lose her life as a consequence of pregnancy, compared to sub-Saharan Africa, where that figure soars to 1 in 31, and Afghanistan, where the lifetime risk of dying from pregnancy is 1 out of 7. Providing women with contraception so that they can determine the size of their family and the timing and spacing of their pregnancies reduces the number of high-risk pregnancies and saves lives.”
Perhaps you’d like to become a member of the Council on Foreign Relations to perhaps have some input on their “policy direction”. Let’s review how you’d apply for that:
“A candidate for membership must be nominated in writing by one CFR member and seconded by a minimum of three other individuals (maximum of four). It is not required that seconding letters come from current CFR members, but it is strongly recommended.”
Any questions ?
Try being a mom at 22. I lost some friends when I got married and then lost some more when I started having kids. The disapproval I got from my social circle was pretty amazing to me. It was like I was a traitor for not doing what they were doing.
That was worth reading three times!
My wife and sister know all too well of what you speak. Bear in mind that your friends were most probably afraid of the “growing up” that you were doing.
When my wife and I had our first child about a year after our wedding, the mother of my best man asked her son, “don’t they know about contraception?” That sort of ugly ignorance that either ignores or misunderstands the culture of life is way too prevalent these days.
It used to be about Love and Life.
Now it's about boredom, vacuity, jiggle, twitch, persistent loneliness, The Absurd.
Do you know what the real sign of wealth is? Complete control of your living space. And the only way this can be achieved is by getting rid of all those other people who keep getting in the way. All those people on your beach? They need to go away. Somebody on your favorite hiking trail? They need to go away. Wealth can buy you the biggest yacht, but the true sign of wealth and power is to get rid of those other yachts. The true sign of wealth and power is to get rid of those other people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.