Skip to comments.If You Are Contracepting, You Are Part of A Very Big Problem
Posted on 01/27/2009 11:06:53 AM PST by NYer
I find that interesting considering the underclass is breeding like rabbits.
Pass it along.
I do not bring children into this world that I can not afford to care for.
in 1900, european people were 1 in 3 people in the world.
then the birth control pill was invented, and so was giving cash to other countries, while our women complain that they don’t have enough money to have another baby
now it is 1 in 7. in 90 years time it is predicted to be 1 in 15
Exactly, the responsible are stuck working like dogs to pay for the irresponsible and their broods. They don’t get to have the children they’d like and have to put off having children.
Some of us remember when births weren’t controlled and pregnancies weren’t planned.
Contraception has been around MUCH longer than you have been alive, unless you’re a Highlander...in which case your population decrease is occuring at a much faster rate than the West’s.
True, I love kids and would have had more if I could have afforded to.
For most of human history the human population of the Earth was less than a billion.
A decline from six billion, by the means of citizens exercising their ability to reproduce or not upon their own recognizance, is nothing to cry about.
Article summary - Have more babies so I can get Social Security and Medicare.
Rather than systematic euthanasia enforced on the old by the young, I see enslavement of the young and working in order to hold on to the dwindling dream of the Ponzi scheme.
As a nation we are better off with the American underclass fecund than with the American underclass replaced by immigrant labor.
Hi. Good article.
Are you sure?
How about some solid statistics and linkable references to back up your contention.
With all due respect, the real delusion is ignoring the fact that population is declining in the *West,* and this will soon begin wreaking serious social problems here.
Check out the data that’s widely available yet still largely ignored: http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html
Watch the trailer to get a sense of what’s going on here.
Contraceptives big problems? Not hardly, many use the small sized ones but won’t admit it.
And yet the population has surpassed 6+ billion people.
I assume the rise in US fertility over the last 20 years or so is due to the fertility of immigrants..
Its a statistical fact that population decline follows a rise in affluence. Eventually the more populated countries will slow down and the ratios will be more static.
Children are a gift from God, not a financial burden. There are natural means of preventing birth. The rest is up to God.
Just thought I'd add that little nugget you seem to have forgotten.
Please understand, I'm not saying social security and medicare are good things. I am saying that it is unfair to expect those who paid into those systems their whole lives to just walk away from that money.
Personally, I'd like to see the money that is SUPPOSED to be in those two programs for those who are still working given to those individuals to invest as they see fit. Of course, we'd have to cut other things to fund social security and medicare for those already on them. I imagine we could do so pretty easily if people of sound mind were given the chance. (Foreign aid, particularly to Islamic and communist nations comes to mind, as does welfare for those who can work but won't.)
Yes. Isn’t it self-evident?
From the Article:
“Some of us remember when births weren’t controlled and pregnancies weren’t planned.
The decline of marriage and the rise of cohabitation. Not surprisingly, in relationships without commitment, people have fewer children. By the way, the left’s contribution to the coming population crisis is to push the one type of marriage (and I use the term advisedly) that can’t conceivably produce children.
“But perhaps, he concluded, the most important factor is a culture (including Hollywood, the news media and academia) that tells people that children are a burden, rather than a joy; that pushes an ego-driven, live-for-the-moment ethic; a culture that tells us that contentment comes from careers, love, friendship, pets, possessions, travel, personal growth - anything and everything except family and children. It’s a culture that can look at Sarah Palin and her beautiful family and ask why she had to have 5 children and why she didn’t abort her child with Downs syndrome.”
Where I think the article needs clarification: it’s misleading to think that people did not plan children in the past; neglects discussion of purposeful planning to cooperate with God in the pro-creative act.
Where I agree: His analysis of the anti-family culture of death is completely accurate.
Anyone interested in examining the data should check out American economist Peter G. Peterson’s book “Gray Dawn” (Random House, 1999). He provides a wealth of statistics and facts to back up his thesis. It’s just one of a number of books and reports that give the hard numbers that tell the story:
Funny there sure seem to be a lot of people here despite using contraceptives. They aren’t always perfect....many people will attest to.
“I assume the rise in US fertility over the last 20 years or so is due to the fertility of immigrants.”
You are correct and I’ve seen the graphs that demonstrate this.
Americans and Europeans, although the richest people on earth, believe that they cannot afford children.
Muslims, on the other hand, plan to dominate the world and are having the children to do it.
Okay, so I’m 51 and intend to have no more children. But less children mean the burden on those alive now will increase as I age. So, what “cost cutting” measure will save taxpayer dollars when I’m 85?
From the Article:
Some of us remember when births werent controlled and pregnancies werent planned.
Lots of guys with defective condoms would tend to strongly disagree with this statement.
So, as people live longer and longer, the solution is to have more and more children, who will grow up and live and longer and longer, but that’s OK because they have more and more children, etc.
Somehow that doesn’t sound like a viable solution.
Yes, I think that’s largely the case. US birth-rate numbers seem to be skewed higher because of the higher birth rates among our immigrants.
Definition of "underclass:" Anyone less educated, less cultured, less affluent than I.
It may have been around but ALL Christian Churches banned the used of artificial birth control. That was until the Lambeth Congress of 1930 when the Anglicans tossed that notion and began contracepting. Only the Catholic Church has maintained the ban on artificial birth control while approving natural family planning. Catholics who do not heed this teaching are in a state of sin.
There is a flipside to this argument that nobody cares to mention either.
Today people are selfish for not wanting a lot of kids.
But back 100+ years ago when there was no state welfare and most people were agrarian, they had a lot of kids because they needed help, and they needed someone to take care of them when they got old, and having lots of kids ensured help, and care for themselves because many would survive to make it to adulthood and be able to care for the parents. It’s just as selfish a reason to have them if that’s a contributing factor in your reasons to have kids.
Your statement supports the following (though not in the totality of what I was attempting to state):
Some of us remember when births werent controlled and pregnancies werent planned.”
Immigration cannot be the only factor, because West Europe has immigration as well, especially from former colonies.
Another factor has got to be the higher level of religiosity in the US compared to Europe. Attendant with that are larger families, whether contraception is formally denounced as in Catholicism or simply practiced less.
I can’t afford children. The state of California has me busy paying taxes to support the children of illegal aliens. I’d be mean spirited if I had kids of my own and forced the poor Mexican kids to have to go hungry. [/s]
GOOD history which most are unaware of...
Niuhuru: Are you sure?
Take a look at what's left of Europe. The Italians, French, British ... and others, reduced their birthrates through contraception. With a scaled down workforce, they looked to the Middle East for cheap laborers. The Muslims have settled in nicely, reproducing like rabbits. Do the math ... how long before they outnumber the natives?
Which brings us to the next phase of Europe. The following is a description (slightly modified) from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness.
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs [Europe, Australia, USA and Japan]. Six percent of US prison inmates are Muslim. Like any other minority, they wont integrate, but work to build their own separate community.
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. South Africa's Muslim population is 2%, but they control 35% of the businesses, a large percentage of the banks and have five Cabinet seats while Christians (77% of the population) have none.
They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves (along with threats for failure to comply).
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia; Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world, but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. (Ei: car-burnings in France last October.) Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats.
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning (India, Mindanao, Philippines).
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare [Indonesia].
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya (infidel tax). (Sudan, Kosovo, Lebanon and Egypt).
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide [Western Papua (New Guinea), Iran, Biafra, Turkey and North Nigeria].
100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" - House of Peace - as in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.
Is the U.S.A. not “the West”?
Log on and watch the U.S. population, as well as the world population, CLIMB.
This “can’t afford children” is often an illusion, especially since you mention the tax rate that improves with more dependents. I am in California too and I see 6-8-kid families filling entire pews in church. They are single provider families that often struggle to pay bills, but they are not on welfare. It is a choice: you drive an older car, the kids learn to go without expensive clothes, take care of the little siblings, and share rooms, and are better off for it.
“So, what ‘cost cutting’ measure will save taxpayer dollars when Im 85?”
Simply put: Forced Euthanasia. That’s what will very likely come to the fore as a result of this global aging problem.
When you’re 85, and most likely long before then, you’ll simply be too much of a financial burden on those paying for your food, medicine, etc., and you’ll have to check out. That’s about as basic a “cost cutting measure” as you can get.
I was just making the point that the article statement tends to imply that today all we have are planned and wanted pregnancies. ;)
We haven’t paid into anything. It’s an unsustainable, income tax based welfare program. Current tax revenue goes to pay current retirees. The rest get blown by the government and replaced by promises to tax future generations.
Being almost 45, I’ll never see a dime of it. Welcome to my boat - save or work until you die.
The money to pay projected retirees won’t come from trimming the budget here and there. The amounts are in the tens of Trillions of dollars, although in today’s economy that magnitude doesn’t seem to mean much anymore.
We are lucky we have predominantly Christian Latino immigration, and not Muslim like in Europe, but as a nation we are best maintaining our own ethnic stock, just like for Mexico it is best to maintain Hispanic ethnic stock. It is not a matter of chauvinism or racism, — I am myself an immigrant in the US, — it is simply that nations have a collective talent that is reduced when nationalities mix indiscriminately. Some mixing is fine (just look at my children), mixing to the point of erasing the ethnic characteristic is not good.
But the point of the article is not even about that; having a healthy ratio of worker to elderly is a matter of economic survival. It is best to have indigenous population procreate in robust numbers, but failing that, immigration has to fill the need, at the cost of the loss of national identity.
Everyone I know who “can’t afford more children” has a more expensive house than my family’s. It’s simply a matter of prioritizing.
Unfortunately, that's no longer the case in today's nanny-state society.
When parents lose their rights to raise their children as they see fit (ie. to discipline them without fear of being accused of 'abuse' by overbearing government agencies with police powers), then they are merely the means by which government creates future taxpayers. When you couple that with 'deadbeat dad' child-support laws that are predicated on assumption that all non-custodial fathers are potential criminals, then it's not hard to imagine why more and more people are choosing to remain childless.
Yeah, exactly. And 1.2 kids in it, with $200 sneakers.
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.