Posted on 03/09/2006 12:51:28 PM PST by Rutles4Ever
A seven-month pregnant woman - her belly vast - was at a supper with a friend. He, being of the family type, told her she was very lucky to be expecting a baby. He was the first person who had said such a thing, she told him. [snip]
How is it that in cultures all over the world pregnancies prompt congratulations rather than anxious questions about childcare? How is it that in a culture equipped, materially and medically, to ease child-rearing, we are so reluctant to enjoy new life? [snip]
The answer, I would argue, is that a bias against having babies has permeated our culture. This phenomenon needs a new word - anti-natalism - and it is this that prompts a good part of that pregnancy trepidation. The only consolation to my mind is the spectacular everyday acts of rebellion by which thousands of babies still manage to get born in this country. [snip]
The point is that parenthood is against the grain of all the aspirations of our culture. Go back to the point where I started - the pregnancy anxiety around care. That anxiety is provoked by more than just the logistics of childcare availability, despite what the nursery campaigners argue. It's there because pregnancy sabotages three characteristics highly valued by our culture.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
I'm sure that this doesn't sit well with most posters on this thread, and I expect that I might hear from some but I really have to go to bed now.
Low density populations are at constant risk of encroachment by their neighbors.
I don't think it takes too much population density to maintain a sufficient Navy and nuclear force. So we should be alright. Then there's Cananda and Mexico. Canada is seeing pretty much the same trend we are, and Mexico's never been a military threat to us in all the history of our nation. They currently send over a lot of illegal immigrants, but that is not a military problem, it's a political one.
Besides, it seems a little silly and farfetched to suggest that contempt for the childless is okay because they make us an attractive target for invasion.
The meaning of this is self-evident. Lefties nowadays do not breed, or almost so. Thus the new lefties [at least a significant number of them, excluding the underclass] have to come from the non-liberal family backgrounds. Hence the proper prophylactics of leftism has to take this sordid reality into account. To have conservative parents is not enough. Verstehen?
I beg to differ. I'm a fairly young man, but in the course of my life I have seen changes that still amaze me. How long did it take man to go from hunter-gatherer societies to full agriculture? From agriculture (and thus high-density cities) to industrial socieities (with incredible increases in the standard of living)? Notice a trend?
As for your analogy, I think a more fiting example would be to compare the possibility of finding a misprint in a book of 10 pages versus one of 10,000 pages.
But that's a lot of bananas and monkey crap while we're waiting for the next world-changing marvel.
Of course. The world always presents us with trade-offs, which was my original point to you. The population debate is never so simple as either side tends to make it.
Duly noted. I accept the possibility that I may regret my decision not to have children. But, I've decided that I would be much, much unhappier as an old man knowing that I had brought someone into the world I didn't want, or that I ruined a life through my own poor parenting. That, in conjunction with other, lesser reasons, is why I do not want children. I will try to make a positive mark on the world in some other way.
I'm not saying this to discourage others from having children. I think a lot of people make good, willing parents and derive a lot more joy from childrearing than I might. I wish them well and hope they don't mind picking up my slack :)
God Bless all mothers. God help all fathers!
Family first.
When I was young we used to say that "The one who dies with the most toys wins!" Only the goverment wins there. Now, as a grandpa, I say " The one who dies with the most genetic offspring wins the game of life!"
I used to tell people I worked for my my Uncle Sam or, later, for a company. Now I tell them I work for my family.
My children have taught me more than I could teach them!
Those leftists are in the school systems creating new generations of idiots through indoctrination.
Watch your kids carefully
Darn tooting. Higher population = more variety = more innovation. Of course, it also means a lot more idiocy as well, but innovation perseveres.
No, but the evidence shows that it is strongly transmitted from parent to child. It may not be hereditary, but it is 'close'.
Not much innovation????
Innovation is alive and well. How do you think Moore's Law keeps working? You are just so immersed in its presence, you don't even see it.
Besides, it seems a little silly and farfetched to suggest that contempt for the childless is okay because they make us an attractive target for invasion.
No, I'm not advocating contempt for the childless, I'm just pointing out that certain types of societies are more vulnerable due to their lack of population.
So, you don't think that China's numbers gives them an advantage over us, now that their military hardware and training are improving?
And your neighbors are aware that you have nothing but contempt for them?
Actually, I have nothing but Christian love for them. That's probably why the one Republican on the entire block was elected Block Captain.
Owl_Eagle(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Ok, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. What is your opinion of the childless? And if what you claim is true, what if anything do you propose to address the problem?
So, you don't think that China's numbers gives them an advantage over us, now that their military hardware and training are improving?
Sure, if we wanted to invade China. I don't think they are anywhere near being able to successfully invade and hold U.S. territory.
Given the commitment required to be a decent parent, it should be entirely voluntary. However, people also need to be honest about the larger societal impacts of not having children.
For example, the birthrate of immigrant Muslims versus the native European population does place European civilization at risk, IMO.
That requires European society to make choices (1) encourage childbearing by natives, (2) limit childbearing by immigrants, (3) limit immigration, (4) force integration, or (5) capitulate.
(Sorry this is so late)
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart022806.asp
See this recent Betsy Hart editorial. She hits it right on the head. Not only that different "types" of women shouldn't be sniping at each other, but that the new brand of perennial housewife/mom is giving the children too MUCH attention (actually alot like any1 living w/Spock rules has).
And as for preferences - shouldn't we be grateful, in a way, that many women (esp.) declare they don't want kids? If she doesn't want them, we won't have to deal w/the mess she'd make of them, right? ;-)
It's kind of like insisting some1 who doesn't really appreciate music must sing. Usually, you don't want to sing because you can't sing. It's natural law. Who would want some1 who cannot sing well at all to sing all the time?
I agree. The time to guess about that is... never.
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.