Posted on 03/18/2009 10:58:18 AM PDT by truthandlife
More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation’s history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported today.
There is both good and bad news from the more than 4.3 million births:
— The U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend.
— However, the teen birth rate was up for the second year in a row.
The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend begun years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.
For a variety of reasons, it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University’s S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
The original articles cites no explanation:
“Meanwhile, U.S. abortions have been dropping to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions. Cultural attitudes may be a more likely explanation.”
How would homosexuality result in fewer abortions, though? Theoretically, there would be fewer births, not fewer abortions.
Why? Have they don't anything to hurt you? Yeah, I know leftists go after Sarah Palin's kids and so on but that's what makes them look like the crass lunatics that they are.
Wrong + Wrong <> Right
O’Reilly used to say there was a sure fire way to make certain that you would be poor. Be a teen and have a kid out of wedlock. Poverty follows in most cases like night follows day.
Dude playing fair is going to get us nowhere. It's like when MLK Jr did the non-violence thing. Ok, pretty effective. Good job. But that's only because his enemies were his enemies.
What if MLK Jr did the non-violence thing against Hitler? Suddenly non-violence thing would look pretty stupid as they threw him in the oven or the gas chamber or maybe just shot him in the head.
Or what if MLK Jr did the non-violence thing against Stalin. Oops that didn't go very well...
Just saying the being reasonable and playing fair would've worked 20 years ago-- but against these DailyKos, HuffPo smear machine-- we have no chance playing fair. Look what they did to Palin. They'll do it to every conservative. Sorry rant over.
God’s moral laws and the consequences of breaking them are as immutable as His physical laws.
I said that the other night and had a lib FREAK OUT on me.
Truth does that.
“A lot of C-sections, too - as many as a third of all live births. Fear of lawsuits? Mother’s choice? No reasons given, unfortunately”
This is the real answer.
Childbirth loosens the vagina dramatically. Kegel exercises can help tighten the vagina, but a return to it’s former glory would require a Vaginaplasty.
Optional C’s are covered by most insurance plans. V-plasty’s are not.
Those bastards!
It's not an issue of being fair so much as an issue of not crawling in the mud so you look like just as much of a piece of slime as your opponents. That they'll do anything to win is what makes lefts so slimy and dangerous. If you want to attack Obama, attack Obama. There is plenty there without going after his wife or kids.
The only reason why the left gets away with things like sliming Sarah Palin (and I'm not convinced it was all that successful or will be in the long run) is that the mainstream media covers for them. They don't cover for us. They do the opposite and highlight our embarassments. It's not a level playing field and it is a double standard. But we don't do ourselves any favors by playing into left-wing stereotypes.
Yes, it can feel mighty good to blow off steam and blast away at leftists but that's not going to convince the people who have been convinced that they're wrong and we're right. What's going to get them to listen is conservatives not being anything like the worst stereotypes that liberals have of conservatives because once people realize the stereotypes are wrong, they listen. That's because the leftist steroetypes of conservatives are designed to convince people not to listent (just like their strategy on global warming and so on).
Malthusian fear of overpopulation: Malthus saw two ways to keep population down, "positive" and "preventive" checks. Positive checks were nasty: famine, plague and warfare.
Preventive checks included voluntary actions reasonable people could take. Malthus (a clergyman) identified two types of voluntary action, the moral one of deferring marriage, and a variety of "vices" or immoral steps that included birth control, abortion, infanticide, adultery, prostitution and homosexuality.
The overpopulation elite - Rockefeller, Planned Parenthood and all those types push homosexuality in the schools for a reason. Our very existence offends and frightens them.
Conservatives are fighting really evil people who have plans for us.
I guess she can live in the White House and teach the kids about oppression.
Okay ...but if an elite is attempting to keep population in check, then that would result in MORE abortions, according to your argument. But the statistics show fewer abortions, which results in more live births.
How does homosexuality result in fewer abortions? That was your original position.
By “real answer”, do you mean your belief? Are there any statistics showing that c-sections are primarily the result of mother’s choice, as opposed to doctors’ attempting to avoid potential lawsuits, or mothers’ increasing age?
Homosexuals don’t make babies that need to be aborted. That’s why the overpopulation elites push homosexuality and abortion and the rest. They are all ways to promote non-life.
If the elites can’t get you to abort your babies, they can at least try to make your babies homosexual so you won’t have any grandchildren. If you do manage to get some grandchildren, the elites would like to have them aborted...
Yes. I understand your argument.
You still haven’t explained how the encouragement of homosexuality would result in a lower abortion rate. The article states that there are more live births, in part because fewer women are choosing to have abortions.
I guess I can’t see why someone pushing a “homosexual agenda” would help depress abortion levels, thus resulting in more pregnancies being brought to term. You say yourself that the elites want more homosexuality and MORE abortions, not fewer.
What we actually have is fewer. So the plan of the elites that you argue exits is failing.
Those are anchor babies.
If there are more homosexuals, there are less babies, less abortions.
(Don't forget the sterility from sexually transmitted diseases - less babies, less abortions.)
The U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend.
It’s not healthy when the people having kids are morons. I’d rather see the birth rate stagnant or be reversed, but have married women who are not too young giving birth. It’s this celebrity-obsessed culture we live in. I despise these 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.