Posted on 05/23/2019 2:22:23 PM PDT by rogerantone1
Liberalizing abortion rules from 1969 to 1973 ignited vast long-term social changes in America. This discussion might finally provide a chance to evaluate how Roe v. Wade has changed the U.S.
One often misunderstood fact: Legal abortions didn't start with Roe or even with the five states that liberalized abortion laws in 1969 and 1970.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
By Steven W. Mosher
Its happened before.
Writing a century and a half before the birth of Christ, the Greek historian Polybius observed nowadays all over Greece such a diminution in natality and in general manner such depopulation that the towns are deserted and the fields lie fallow. Although this country has not been ravaged by wars or epidemics, the cause of the harm is evident: by avarice or cowardice the people, if they marry, will not bring up the children they ought to have. At most they bring up one or two. It is in this way that the scourge before it is noticed is rapidly developed.
He concluded by urging his fellow Greeks to return to their historic love of family and children. The remedy is in ourselves, he wrote. We have but to change our morals. His advice, unfortunately, went largely unheeded.
The demographic winter of the Greek city-states led to economic stagnation and military weakness, which in turn invited invasion and conquest. After a century of increasing dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean, Rome finally annexed the Greek city-states in 146 B.C.
Will a Europe in the grip of a similar demographic winter come to a similar unhappy end? Certainly Europeans of today, like the Greeks of old, are barely having children. The birthrate across the entire continent is far below the replacement level of 2.1 children per couple. Italy, Spain, Austria, and Germany have total fertility rates, or TFRs, of only 1.4 or so, while Poland and Russia languish at 1.32 and 1.2 respectively. The more or less generous child allowances these countries pay the prolific has scarcely caused these numbers to budge. The birth dearth continues to widen.
Polybius is considered by some to be the successor of Thucydides in terms of objectivity and critical reasoning, and the forefather of scholarly, painstaking historical research in the modern scientific sense. According to this view, his work sets forth the course of history’s occurrences with clearness, penetration, sound judgment, and among the circumstances affecting the outcomes, lays especial emphasis on the geographical conditions. Modern historians are especially impressed with the manner in which Polybius used his sources, and in particular documents, his citation and quotation of his sources. Furthermore, there is some admiration of Polybius’s meditation on the nature of historiography in Book 12. His work belongs, therefore, amongst the greatest productions of ancient historical writing. The writer of the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature (1937) praises him for his “earnest devotion to truth” and for his systematic pursuit of causation.Meanwhile, adherents of pro-family sects such as Islam are moving in, having children, and repopulating historic Christendom. Is this process likely to continue? And to what end?
Most Muslim countries in North Africa and the Middle East have fertility rates two or three times as high as Europe. Afghanistan and Somalia, whose fertility rates are above 6 children (6.62 and 6.4 respectively), may be outliers. But other Middle Eastern countries with above-replacement TFRs include Iraq at 4.86, Pakistan at 3.65, and Saudi Arabia at 3.03. Even immigrants from the most Westernized Muslim countries such as Turkey and Tunisia average nearly twice as many children as the extant populations of most European countries.
While falling fertility may be humanitys general fate, it is this differential fertility that will determine Europes destiny. Although the birthrates of Muslim immigrants to Europe are far lower than they were just a generation ago, they are still far more open to life than highly secularized Europeans. Moreover, these immigrants, once in place in Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., tend to maintain their relatively high fertility for a generation.
As a result of this potent mix of immigration and procreation, the number of Muslims will continue to grow. Europe as a whole, some demographers suggest, will have a majority Muslim population by 2100.
What a strange twist of history! Over the centuries, various Muslim armies have repeatedly attempted to conquer Europe. Time and time again, at Tours, Vienna, at Lepanto, at Malta, they were thrown back. Yet now what their forebears were unable to accomplish by force, their distant descendants will achieve by peacefully winning the Battle of the Cradle.
Whether they will be radicalized or secularized Muslims is the central question. If they are radicalized, then we can expect efforts to impose Sharia law in country after country, along with the growing persecution of the Christian minority. Catholics in Germany, for example, may come to be treated in largely the same way that Coptic Christians in Egypt have been for the last few centuries, that is to say, as second-class citizens, to be maligned, taxed and beaten almost at will.
If, on the other hand, the second- and third-generation Muslims are largely secularized, then the Christian minority will be, presumably, treated somewhat better, though still subject to some level of discrimination. As everyone knows by now, the Secular Left preaches a tolerance that it generally does not practice.
Either way, believers in once-Christian Europe will probably find themselves living in what might be called a pre-Constantine moment. In others words, they will be living under regimes that punish, even persecute, them for their beliefs.
At the present moment, Europeans still control their own destiny. As Polybius, were he alive today, would surely remind them: The remedy is in yourselves. You have but to change your morals.
This article is very thought-provoking. Is there more casual sex because abortion is theoretically available as a backup birth control method? But then when confronted with the unplanned pregnancy, many unmarried women keep the baby so then you’ve created another single parent household?
And when’s the last time any of you heard about a so-called shotgun wedding? Such weddings just don’t happen anymore.
And why is it that so many women are reluctant to give their babies up for adoption nowadays? They would rather be single mothers with all the difficulties involved with such a life, rather than giving the baby up for adoption to people who are better able to raise that child.
Here’s what I wrote on the subject in 2006.
http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/articles/RoeEffect.html
A major factor in population replacement.
Cause, unintended consequence and effect:
Birth Control Pills had a big surge in the 1960s. Now everyone could have fun with no responsibility, no consequences.
But the Pills often didn’t work. They were tested in a lab type setting and people who took them didn’t have sex in a lab type setting. So promiscuous pill poppers got pregnant. There was a surge in these pregnancies. They created a surge in demand for abortions.
The pill has changed our whole culture. They created the cultural norm where we could have fun without responsibility.
This expanded to fun with money without responsibility.
We new need to learn a whole new set of norms and moraes to again become a functioning society.
Here’s a link to an article about a woman who said she was raped and went ahead with an abortion even after her rapist apologized to her.
No “fun” involved here.
She didn’t see giving the baby away or raising the baby as options; she saw killing the baby as the one and only option that would allow her to go forward with her life.
I don’t agree with her decision to end an innocent life. I also feel a lot of sympathy for her; how the rapist had taken her life with many choices and options open to her and suddenly, forcibly narrowed and cut off those paths. He apparently felt no real remorse about what he had done, initially questioned whether the child was even his, and offered to pay for the abortion.
This is one of the hard cases that’s being written about in reaction to the recent Alabama ban on all abortions. The author argues that even if there were a “rape exception” loophole for abortion, most women would not take advantage of it because the trauma of proving the violation wouldn’t be worth it; better to have the abortion option available for all cases, rape or not.
I feel badly for this woman and others like her, who feel that the only way to deal with such tragedy is to take another life.
I feel much worse about the men who impose this sort of pregnancy on women. It’s a few moments of power and pleasure for them and a wrecked life for her. Why don’t they, why can’t they see this?
And the innocent child, conceived under dreadful circumstances, is not an “it” as in “have you decided to keep it.” It is a person, a he or a she, with a face and a name.
Rape is a special, and complicated, case; politically and ethically.
My point was the broader impact on our culture of the pill.
Both men and women saw the pill as liberating them from unwanted responsibility and consequences.
Both men and women saw it as a few moments of fun.
The vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are wanted fun by both temporary partners.
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.