300 Million Americans

About the time you read this, the 300 millionth American will have arrived. U.S. population growth is uneven. It is high in many affluent exurbs, among particular religious groups and in some immigrant communities, low in many yuppie cities, such as San Francisco, but the U.S. is unique among developed counties (besides Israel) in that it has a natural fertility rate at replacement level (2.1 births per woman).

The EU manages only 1.47 and even China (at 1.7) will soon see populations decline. Why is America different? Several reasons are possible. One is space. The lowest fertility rates in the world are in Hong Kong (.97) and in the U.S. fertility is related to space - childless San Francisco, burgeoning Utah. Suburbs and space encourage larger families.

Optimism is another possibility. It takes some confidence in the future to bring children into the world. Historically, childbearing has coincided with good times. Related is religion. Birth rates among fundamentalists are significantly higher than among non religious folks. That also explains some of the Israeli fertility.

While we can speculate about causes, the truth is that nobody really knows. Countries have been trying to boost or reduce fertility for many years, with mixed success. A lot depends on factors beyond our understanding (although bad television reception seems to increase fertility.) Demographic shifts are unpredictable. Fifty years ago, places like Italy & Spain were very family friendly and exported population. They now produce few children and if current trends continue, the populations of Spaniards and Italians will decline by half by the time someone starting work this year reaches retirement age.

The other thing that has proven unpredictable is how population will affect well being. The U.S. reaches 200 million in 1967 amid dire predictions that starvation and devastation would follow. Remember the population bomb? In fact we are better off today and our environment is cleaner in most ways even with a third more people.

So how will we (and the world) cope with all these new Americans?

Posted by Jack at October 16, 2006 10:22 PM
Comments
Comment #188493

Jack:
“low in many yuppie cities, such as San Francisco.”

Do you have any idea what the cost of living is here, Jack? What may seem like yuppie wages to you is very quickly eaten up by rent and daily living expenses.

“U.S. fertility is related to space - childless San Francisco, burgeoning Utah. Suburbs and space encourage larger families.”

SF has suburbs too, Jack. I live in one of them — Berkeley. You’ll find plenty of children in Bay Area suburbs. But people do tend to have fewer kids here, it’s true — because of the cost of living I just mentioned. And since this is such a crowded area, we really don’t need them. So many people who live here hail from all over the place, but were drawn to this area because it is a beautiful and wonderful place to live, despite the high cost.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 16, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #188494

Sorry Jack, you must not have time to listen to the news. Nice to hear that you didn’t need to look anywhere to come to your own conclusions. NPR is a great source of information, BTW.

The growth in people came heavily from immigration and large first generation families. This growth pattern is very similar to what got us from 100M to 200M. It is likely that as we restrict immigration, so will our population growth be constricted.

Alos, our environment is cleaner because of ‘envirofascist’ dedication at reducing sources of pollution.

We are fortunate that technology has enabled mankind to continue to supply the added billions with sustenance. The era of petroleum powered growth is about to end, however. Where will we get the fertilizer to grow food for 5-6-7-8-9 billion people? Where will we get the energy for the machines and economies? What will we do with all their waste? The population bomb is still ticking Jack.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 16, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #188496

Dave, well said. I agree 100%.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 16, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #188498

From 200,000,000 to 300,000,000 in 39 years. That’s 2,564,102.57 people a year sense 1967. That’s one hell of a lot of folks. And we still aint as crowed as some countries with 20,000,000 to 30,000,000. Maybe space does have something to do with population growth.
Anyone want to take bets on when we’ll reach 400,000,000?

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 16, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #188501
U.S. population growth is uneven. It is high in many affluent exurbs, among particular religious groups and in some immigrant communities, low in many yuppie cities, such as San Francisco,….


Maybe population growth is low in the Bay Area and other cities because the folks in them places are more liberal and women tend to have more abortions than in more conservative rural areas.
Also most religions don’t believe in abortion so folks that follow them would tend to have fewer abortions than folks that don’t have any religion.
As long as technology keeps pace with population growth, and I think it will, I don’t personally see any need to worry about the population bomb. But if it doesn’t then we’ll be in a whole heap of mud.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 17, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #188504

Yeah Ron, all us godless liberal women have abortions all the time. Each of us have a couple of them every month, just to keep the population down — and just you righties can call us murderers.
All sarcasm aside, you know what else (besides the right to have an abortion) liberal women believe in? Sex Education. Contraceptives. Planned Parenthood. Women’s Health Clinics.
And where they don’t exist, we work hard to provide these things for our communities.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #188505

Most of the comments posted here are so stupid.

First there are a lot of mixed race people and there are getting to be more and more, because it is not looked on quite the same as it used to be. I don’t get many looks when I walk around with my two beautiful girls who are of mixed race.

All those people who used to sit on my street and called me a nigger-lover for dating a black man have surprisingly all had half black babies. I’m sure their parents blame it all on me since I was the first person on my street to date someone of a different race.

We (the people of mixed race) are not so stupid as you might think. We know that there is no party Rep or Dem that is in love with us. What we do know is that we believe we have a right to exist. The Dems (most of them) aren’t fighting to keep us alive, they are fighting to exterminate us. Abortion facilities are largely located in poor areas where minorities live. There was one right across the street from my High School in Cleveland.(we had a 99% black population)
There are also more prominant black people who are trying to get the word out that the abortion industry is not their friend and only want to make money off of killing their babies.
The abortion industry doesn’t give money to Repubs. They give money to Dems and we know that.

Speaking of abortion.
There are genes that are associated with being gay and there are tests that can be done before birth for different kinds of “defects”.
This may come back to bite some gay people in the ass when people who don’t want gay children, start getting amniocentisis to see if their child will be gay and aborting because of it. In North Korea they don’t allow a child born with deformities to live. They kill it if born and abort it if the “deformity” is found before born. You don’t find people with physical deformities there. That could be us with gay people at some point in the future.

Having lived in a very large city I have been witness to a lot of so called “reverse discrimination” (which is really just racism like it would be for any other race).
Black people in Cleveland don’t like white people on a large scale. All of the white kids who went to my school on the east side got picked on for being white. Quite a few just didn’t go to school. RACISM AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE IS REAL. It is not something to make light of. There were plenty of black girls at my school that hated me for being white or kind of white and dating a black guy.

So… got2bfunk…

I will speak for all of us minorities here and tell you that you are clueless as to what is really going on yourself. Yes there is racism. Yes I have experienced it from both sides.
(white people said my lips were too big and asked my mother how she could let “one of those kind of people touch her” to make me, while black people hated me for being too white)
I am still beautiful and worth every moment of pain my mother went through and more.
I am a conservative!
I know I deserve to be here just like everyone else including gays.
I know my children deserve to be here.
I am raising them to be conservatives.
I think that the children of today are going to learn from their not so conservative parents that they did things the wrong way and want to do things the right way.

This is the neo-conservative of today. If you want to say it that way. We see all the stupidity of the past and want to have a good life.

Just because the ACLU fought for me to be able to be married to my husband in every state and it not be a crime back when, does not mean that they are still doing the right thing by people today. I don’t care what some Repubs got notariety for back in the day(racism), today they are fighting for things I believe in and you should too if you are a minority. To do otherewise is to be a Jew overseer in a Nazi concentration camp or a pet nigger for the master that carries out the beatings of the the other slaves or better yet a rival tribe in Africa that captures and sells it’s enemy tribe to the slave traders.

The Wife

I wrote this a while ago, but it seems pertinant to this thread, especially for

ADRIENNE

Posted by: lllplus2 at October 17, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #188514

Oh

My

God.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 17, 2006 3:58 AM
Comment #188515

Ron Brown,

As long as technology keeps pace with population growth, and I think it will, I don’t personally see any need to worry about the population bomb. But if it doesn’t then we’ll be in a whole heap of mud.

Abortions happened even before the word technology was invented. Calling abortion a technology is just showing an anti-science position and an unrelated one in this case.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 17, 2006 4:19 AM
Comment #188518

Adrienne,

Research shows that liberals have less children then conservatives do. There are many reasons for this. Part of it is the birth control strategies you describe. Another part of it is that liberal women are far more likely to put career over children. Not saying that as a judgement of this, but its the case. Another reason is that conservative women are less likely to have an abortion. Bashing conservatives for pointing this out doesn’t change the facts.

The wife,

Good post. I’ve heard a different argument about the roots of homosexuality and that it might be caused by a hormone imbalance during pregnancy. Either way, you make a valid point about abortion being used against homosexuality.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 4:34 AM
Comment #188519

lll2plus wife,

Most of the comments posted here are so stupid.

Yeah, but some are more than all the others.

I am a conservative!

No way, I can’t believe you!

I know I deserve to be here just like everyone else including gays.

Go human rights, go!

I know my children deserve to be here. I am raising them to be conservatives. I think that the children of today are going to learn from their not so conservative parents that they did things the wrong way and want to do things the right way.

I think that the children of today are going to learn from their parents, conservative included, that they did things the wrong way and want to do things the right way too.

Can we call this a tie?

This is the neo-conservative of today.

It will be also the past neo-con of tomorrow. Things change, go figure.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 17, 2006 4:37 AM
Comment #188520

1LTB,

Another reason is that conservative women are less likely to have an abortion.

Agreed. There’s in US higher probability to be raised by a conservative woman than a conservative man or non-conservative parents. There is also higher risk that your conservative parent get divorced, you know.

What the point? Since when humankind should behave like bacterias? The planet will not survive us if we were. Or we won’t survive ourselves. Your call.
Mine. Each of us have free will. This apply also on having or not kid(s).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 17, 2006 4:49 AM
Comment #188521

Anyway, US, congratulations for your 300,000,000th american.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 17, 2006 4:52 AM
Comment #188522

Jack,

So how will we (and the world) cope with all these new Americans?

As we did yesterday, as we do since forverer with Chineses and Indians: trying to live in peace with them on the same old and more and more crowned planet.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 17, 2006 4:54 AM
Comment #188523

1LTB,

Another reason is that conservative women are less likely to have an abortion.

Aren’t conservative women less likely to have sex too? Doesn’t that throw off the equation?

Posted by: Beijing Rob at October 17, 2006 5:29 AM
Comment #188524
SF has suburbs too, Jack. I live in one of them — Berkeley. By Adrienne

That explains so much!! Did you catch the episode of South Park where the San Franciscans were slowly polluting the nation’s air by constantly indulging in the smell of their own farts?

BTW, I’m a closet 49ers fan!!!(no pun intended)

Posted by: Duane-o at October 17, 2006 5:32 AM
Comment #188527

My Name Is Roger:

In 1959 I was doing a resurce for a paper I was writeing, in the resurce it was brought to my attention that there were……………………

[ IN 1959 ]

TWO BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

I do not know what they say the number is now.

If someone does know, it might be interesting to see what the growth has been, and maybe do the math to see what the percentage has been, and if it continued uninterrupted, what it might been in the year 2009 or even better 2059. How much it has grown or will grow in 100 years

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 17, 2006 6:05 AM
Comment #188528

IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS AND CHRISTIANS


Law Would Require Non-Muslim Insignia

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country’s Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

“This is reminiscent of the Holocaust,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. “Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis.”

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical “standard Islamic garments.”

The law, which must still be approved by Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran’s roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

“There’s no reason to believe they won’t pass this,” said Rabbi Hier. “It will certainly pass unless there’s some sort of international outcry over this.”

Bernie Farber, the chief executive of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said he was “stunned” by the measure. “It’s state-sponsored religious discrimination.”

Ali Behroozian, an Iranian exile living in Toronto, said the law could come into force as early as next year.

It would make religious minorities immediately identifiable and allow Muslims to avoid contact with non-Muslims. Mr. Behroozian said it will make life even more difficult for Iran’s small pockets of Jewish, Christian and other religious minorities — the country is overwhelmingly Shi’ite Muslim. “They have all been persecuted for a while, but these new dress rules are going to make things worse for them,” he said. The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures. “This is nothing to do with anything here,” said a press secretary who identified himself as Mr. Gharmani.

“We are not here to answer such questions.”

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has written to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, protesting the Iranian law and calling on the international community to bring pressure on Iran to drop the measure.

“The world should not ignore this,” said Rabbi Hier. “The world ignored Hitler for many years — he was dismissed as a demagogue, they said he’d never come to power — and we were all wrong.”

Mr. Farber said Canada and other nations should take action to isolate Mr. Ahmadinejad in light of the new law, which he called “chilling,” and his previous string of anti-Semitic statements.

“There are some very frightening parallels here,” he said. “It’s time to start considering how we’re going to deal with this person.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis’ “Final Solution.” He has caused international outrage by publicly calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”

Posted by: JOE at October 17, 2006 6:07 AM
Comment #188529

Phillipe,

Recently, there was a study taken that showed political viewpoints influence fertility. Conservatives are statistically more fertile than liberals, probably for the reasons I mentioned in my post to Adrienne. Also, I think that religion plays a role as well. I’m Catholic and part of the blessings done at a Catholic marriage is an invocation to God to bless the couple with children. Also, I think liberals tend to be less inclined to have children for ideological reasons, such as concerns for overpopulation etc.

All this bodes ill for liberals. This same study also discussed the fact that something like 80% of us vote the same as our parents. Since parents are the first teachers of values and beliefs, this tends to make sense. Higher conservative fertility rates, coupled with the fact that liberals aren’t having enough kids to replace themselves means that liberalism will probably continue to be in decline in America.

I’ve never seen a study to show that conservatives are more likely to be divorced, but I suppose its possible. Many conservatives marry younger, so I suppose that this could contribute. On the other hand, I think liberals are more likely to move in together without being married, so that might skew the stats as well.

Beijing Rob,

I think it depends on what type of sex you mean. Conservative women are probably less likely as a whole to have sex before marriage or to be promiscuous, but I don’t think that holds true after marriage. Of course, I’ve also seen a joke that goes like this. Scientists have discovered a food that cuts a woman’s sex drive by 90%. What is this horrid food, you may ask? Wedding cake. I am not and have never been married, so I really can’t say. The fertility rates I talked about in my post above to Phillipe refer only to births. With contraception and abortion, I don’t know if liberal women prevent or terminate more pregnancies than conservative women have, but I’d love to see the research.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 6:47 AM
Comment #188533

Roger,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_population_evolution.png

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 17, 2006 8:02 AM
Comment #188534

1LT B-
I think the most important factor in some liberals having fewer children is more focus on the career and later marriage. Abortions? I think that the same old tar and feathers, the same old attempt to make Democrats and Liberals into villains who have to be defeated.

Personally, I’m against it, but I think the way the Right is going about it might open up the door to government-enforced abortion and sterilization. Medical privacy must be preserved, or worse things might happen.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #188535

Aren’t conservative women less likely to have sex too? Doesn’t that throw off the equation?

And as Robin Williams asks rhetorically: Why are all the women who are opposed to abortion the ones you would never want to have sex with anyway?

Posted by: bobo at October 17, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #188542
Research shows that … Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 04:34 AM
LT, I know you’re capable of rational and thoughtful discussion, I’ve seen it before. But your posted points sound mostly like Limbaugh pulling BS out of his butt. I think its obvious that if liberal families have less children it’s because of their choices. I would take exception to your listed causes. Do you have real peer reviewed data to support your contentions? Or are you just reacting to some opinion article(s) who happen to support your biases against left thinking progressives? Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #188550

The Wife wrote:
A whole bunch of crap and this:
“especially for

ADRIENNE”

Oh my! What a giant honor that you’ve been saving up all that extreme angst and anger that has absolutely nothing to do with Jack’s topic, and nothing to do with me, or anything I wrote.
Maybe you should take a trip out of Cleveland and come see where I live — a place where racial diversity and a “live and let live” mentality are happily paired, and go hand in hand as the sun sets over the Pacific Ocean.

womanmarine:

“Oh

My

God.”

My thoughts exactly!

Duane-o, re: the fact that I live in Berkeley

“That explains so much!!”

Well I just moved here after living in Oakland for many years. But just to put a kink in your stereotype, I’ll confess that I don’t own a single burlap dress, tie-dye t-shirt, or hanging macrame object, nor have I ever worn patcholi oil (aka eau de hippie).

“Did you catch the episode of South Park where the San Franciscans”

Yes, and I thought it was very funny.

“BTW, I’m a closet 49ers fan!!!(no pun intended)”

Come out, Come out, Wherever you are! :^) What do you think of the Raiders?

1 LT B:
“All this bodes ill for liberals.”

:^) You guys are always saying things like this. Meanwhile, liberals are still having plenty of children, and we’re going to absorb a lot of the kids that are raised by conservatives but who later decide to reject their parents rigidity, and/or religion, and/or intolerance. And without a doubt, we will also absorb a large percentage of the gay kids who are rejected by their conservative parents.

“This same study also discussed the fact that something like 80% of us vote the same as our parents.”

Can you provide a link to that study? I’m curious, because about half the liberals I know profess that they were raised by conservatives.

Bobo:
“Aren�t conservative women less likely to have sex too? Doesn�t that throw off the equation?”

Excellent questions.

“And as Robin Williams asks rhetorically: Why are all the women who are opposed to abortion the ones you would never want to have sex with anyway?”

:^D Damn, that’s a good one! Thanks for the chuckle.

Hey, it’s my birthday today — imagine that. Liberals are sometimes born, rather than made later in life.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #188551

Adrienne

I thought of you when I mentioned SF. I only chose it because it has such as low percentage of children. It illustrates the point. Nothing against the city. It is too expensive for most families to live there and many of the residents are (shall we say) not interested in doing the things that may produce children.

Dave 1

I don’t know what you are disagreeing with. I listened the NPR Talk of the Nation re and read an Economist article. That is what got me thinking about it.

Most population GROWTH comes from immigration, but the U.S. still manages enough natural increase that our population would grow (very slowly) even w/o immigration.

If you listened to the NPR program, you also got the nuanced view re immigration and change. The woman interviewed said that births in the U.S. still far outstrip immigration and that most of the births in the U.S. are still to non-Hispanic white women. So the 300th million person was probably a white boy (more boys are born than girls) in one of America’s suburbs. She also mentioned that children will still outnumber old people every year. SO while it is true that our population is getting older and more immigrant, some of the former characteristics still persist and we still DO reproduce ourselves.

I don’t worry much about the population bomb. Rates of population growth are declining worldwide. Some places are beginning to experience negative growth. World population will continue to rise due to inertia of those already born and entering childbearing age. We will have local problems, but the world wide bomb will never go off. Thomas Malthus died a long time ago.

Beijing Bob

You have not known many conservative women (in either sense of the word). As I recall from my college days, liberal women talked more about it. Besides, most sex today does not lead to live births. Being promiscuous does not lead to population growth these days and some of the habits associated with that sort of behavior might lead to early death.

Posted by: Jack at October 17, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #188553

Adrienne,

“Hey, it’s my birthday today — imagine that. Liberals are sometimes born, rather than made later in life.”

Happy birthday.

Another Libra, imagine that.


Jack,

Your mention of San Francisco is curious, as it is one of the few cities in this country that has no more room for growth. It’s bounded on three sides with water, and other cities on the other, and little to no open land available for development.
I would suspect that is one of the reasons it is so expensive to live there.

Posted by: Rocky at October 17, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #188554

Stephen,

I agree with you that career and later marriage are most likely the main causes for a lower fertility rate amongst liberals. I’m not trying to make vilify Democrats, but I think you would agree that conservatives are less likely than liberals to view abortion as a course of action to take in the event of a pregnancy. Based on this, I would think that if abortion is a factor in the lower fertility rates based on political opinion, than liberals would be more likely to be impacted by it.

I think you’re off base about government forced abortions etc. Global overpopulation is a myth, though regional overpopulation is a fact. In the US, we have plenty of space and we grow far more food than we need. Consider that India has only half our land area but over 3 times our population. I’m not saying that we should make a billion people a national goal, but we are far from being in the dire straits that countries like China find themselves in.

Dave,

This is a link to an article from the San Francisco Chronicle upon which I based what I said. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/17/INGEJL45D11.DTL&feed=rss.opinion Below is a cutting from the same article that describes some possible causes:

Limited space is one consideration. Liberals are most concentrated in cities, but such urban dwellers pay more for far less real estate than do rural dwellers — meaning they have less money to pay for the costs of children, and fewer rooms and smaller yards in which to put them.
Religion is another factor. Some of the most ardent conservatives are religious fundamentalists who believe they have been bidden by God to go forth and multiply. These conservatives, now overwhelmingly Republican, see large families as blessings, abortion as sacrilege, birth control as potentially sinful. Indeed people who attend church weekly are twice as likely as those who seldom attend to say their ideal family size is three or more children. (This “relentlessly pro-natal” orientation, Longman contended in a recent issue of the journal Foreign Policy, threatens a not-too-distant future in which zealous Christians and radical Muslims inherit the Earth and usher in “new Dark Ages”).
Conversely, other influences depress the number of children born to liberals. Liberal women are statistically more likely to delay childbirth into later years than are conservative women, and they may also be more open to abortion, although the data is unclear. Gays and lesbians, who vote Democratic by a roughly 4-1 ratio, are much less likely to have children than heterosexuals. And some on the left advocate fewer children as “socially responsible” to lessen the toll on the planet’s finite resources.


I’m sorry you’re so put out, but the research speaks for itself, liberals have less children than do conservatives. I’m not sure why you’re upset, I basically said that this was a result of choices made by both sides. Where one lives, religious devotion, career, when to get married, are choices. So is abortion, I have yet to meet a liberal who refers to himself as “pro-abortion.” Hell, your own term for it is pro-choice! (your in this case meaning liberals, not you in particular.) It would appear that political viewpoint influences fertility by leading to different choices. The article I cited does not say that abortion is a factor, but neither does it rule it out. If it is a factor, would it not be logical to you that viewing abortion as a choice and a right instead of a sin would lead to a greater willingness to have an abortion? I don’t think I’ve been unfair and I did go out of my way to point out that I was not making judgments, just speculating on causes. In point of fact, I don’t need to judge, just get married and have kids like I planned on doing anyways, the rest will work itself out.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #188558

daJack,

The reason #300,000,000 was likely a non-hispanic white suburban baby was because the planes with the immigrants don’t start arriving until the afternoon. I don’t remember the “far outstripping” comment, so now I’ll have to redo on the web.
Anyway, what I disagreed with was your premise that population in a country as large and diverse as ours is a micro effect, i.e. optimism or space and also your application of conservative buzzwords like “family friendly” and “yuppie” and the impugning that “liberals are pessimistic” via your “fundamentalist optimism” quote. Finally, for now, you’re dreaming if you think there are sufficient resources with current technology to maintain even the current world population for more than another decade or two at even close to the current standard of living.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #188559

Don’t know where the “da” came from…

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #188561

Adrienne,

If you look at my post above, it has a link to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle. I found other links, but I figured it would be hard for a liberal to accuse me of biased research and questionable sources with that one.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #188562

How many of the 300,000,000 are LEGAL?

Posted by: MarkG at October 17, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #188564

Rocky:
“Happy birthday. Another Libra, imagine that.”

Thank you, and to you also!

1 LT B:
“And some on the left advocate fewer children as “socially responsible” to lessen the toll on the planet’s finite resources.”

So, what you’re saying is that Liberals are conservative, and Conservatives are liberal when it comes to considering our planet’s finite resources. Maybe when we reach the Soylent Green stage, many “Conservatives” will very suddenly be transformed into Liberals? Just a thought.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #188569

Adrienne
That’s right, All y’all Godless Libs are the same. Y’all have 2 or 3 abortions a month.
Now seriously do you really think that’s what I meant? Fact is more Liberals do believe in abortion than Conservatives. So there will be more abortions preformed in areas that are liberal than areas that are Conservative.
And y’all don’t have the corner on believing in education. Conservatives have been involved in the educational process as long as Liberals.


Philippe Houdoin
I think you misunderstood my last paragraph. I wasn’t calling abortion technology. I wasn’t calling it anything. I was referring to new technology for growing crops and keeping the environment clean as 300,000,000 and more folks will let it be.


Rocky, Adrienne
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
But hate to bust your bubble. Conservatives are born in October too. My baby sister’s and mine was last Friday.
Yeah she’s the sweetest birthday present I’ve ever had.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 17, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #188570

LT,

You stated “research.” You’re referring to an article with hypotheses and making some extrapolations.

Ron said “more Liberals do believe in abortion than Conservatives. So there will be more abortions preformed in areas that are liberal than areas that are Conservative.”
That is not a rational inclusion. How about this: Liberals do a better job educating their children in responsibilty with regards to sex. Liberal areas are therefore more likely to have fewer unplanned pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #188571

not inclusion
meant conclusion

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #188572

My Name Is Roger:

JOE: Somehow we need to make the whole world know, it is happing all over again.

Hitler is dead, but Naziesim is not.

Who would have ever dreamed that this could ever happen again.

QUESTION: What’s next — a computer chip for each person ?

QUESTION: What’s next — no chip — no buy — no sell — NO RIGHTS ?

If they get away with this, there will be other countries that will do it also, and then other countries, and then other countries…. untill every man - woman - and child on this earth will have to have some form of personal chip, so that they can be identified as [ WHAT EVER ].

Will it never end?

Will it never go away?

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

P.S. Will I have To…. One Of These Days… Wear A Badge… To Tell Everone… That I Am A Conservative Christian Rupublican?

Posted by: ROGER at October 17, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #188573

ROGER and JOE:

Oh come on, that stuff about Iran instituting badges for religious minorities is old “news” that has long since been debunked.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252934,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0525/dailyUpdate.html

Please note this story was already debunked in May of this year.

Posted by: Jarin at October 17, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #188576

Happy Birthday Adrienne!

Well I must admit, when a perfectly legitimate and non-partisan topic comes up, I’m rather amazed at how people react to it. They try like hell to put a partsan spin on it: what ideology is breeding faster? who gets more abortions? who has more sex? How does smelling one’s own farts factor into the equation?

WHO CARES?!?

The fact is that we all have sex (hopefully) and we all do it for our own special and highly personal reasons that have NOTHING whatsoever to do with what candidate you send your $5 donation to. I can yack all day about rural people being bored, or about city folks being desensitized. However, experience with reality has taught me that in these matters you can never predict behavoir. I’ve seen all ends of the spectrum: desensitized kids from divorced parents often become conservative christians who force their own kids to take vows of celebacy when they are 9 years old. Similarly, I’ve seen plenty of country bumpkins raised in religious households go completely nuts when the hormones kick in.

Overpopulation is a genuine concern that probably trumps even global warming in its importance. How we handle this will probably be the biggest determination of our future as a whole. We’re up to 7 billion now. That’s a problem. 15 billion is right around the corner (about a generation or so away). A population cap is smart and proactive…its just not very American. So when does pride give way to reason? Maybe around the same time that people take their heads out of their collective asses and stop prefacing what should be a good discussion with “Most of the comments posted here are so stupid.” Then of course immediately using their “superior” knowledge and experience to selectively bash people right down party lines.

IIIplus2, I saw nothing constructive in your post other than giving us yet another unoriginal take on racism in America (as if we don’t get it ad nauseum elsewhere). I’m not saying your feelings aren’t meaningful, I’m just saying they don’t really belong in this thread as they serve no purpose…unless you are playing victim to force people to listen to you (something that is becoming VERY common in America).

The only question here is how much is too much? My take? We’re already there. And I don’t think we are going to, as a world community, have the foresight to do anything until its past the point of no return. Then the question becomes: what act of nature will make this correction on our behalf?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #188578

This is possibly the most insane thread ever. Who the hell is IIIplus2? Do we allow these people to vote? Is there some way we can trick them, maybe give them a shiny object to distract them, or tell them Jesus was just spotted in Toronto, anything to keep their poisoned brains away from the polls?

Posted by: David S at October 17, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #188587

Dave,

You got me. The article refers to the study I discussed but I was unable to find a link to the study itself. On the other hand, the article does pretty much agree with the idea that conservatives have more children than do liberals. Also, maybe Adrienne can help out, but I figure any newspaper from San Francisco is probably liberal as hell and thought you might take its word over mine. In any case, I didn’t say I knew why liberals have less kids than conservatives, just offered some guesses as to why.

Adrienne,

I think what I’m saying is that conservatives have more kids than liberals do. With regard to the planet’s resources, I say again that America does not have a major problem in that area. We have plenty of space and can grow plenty of food. Once we figure out how to use hydrogen or ethanol or whatever it takes to get us off of oil, we really won’t have to worry much about overpopulation for the foreseeable future. Some countries and regions do, but Mother Nature has her ways of dealing with this as well. For example, Southeast Asia has huge overpopulation problems but that’s also where bird flu is most likely to break out. Parts of Africa are overpopulated, but ethnic and tribal warfare are making quick work out of what might be a months long ordeal of starvation. I’m not saying that to be coy or cute, but the fact is that Nature deals with overpopulation. In the absence of anything else, she does so by starvation until enough die that the population is sustainable again. Not pretty but it works every time.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #188596

LT,

Point taken. From what and who I know, people with more kids tend to be more conservative, with exceptions such as some seriously granola hippie types. I think we all have our ideas of why the discrepency. The danger, as always, is acting on, or creating policy on, what we think or feel is real, rather than what we can verify as fact. See: “They will greet us with open arms”

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #188597

1LT B, the larger the population, the larger the police state must become to maintain order. The larger the police state, the less individual freedom. The greater the resistance to loss of individual freedom, the greater the conflict between government and the people.

OK, so much for the semi-theoretical. WATER and WASTE are the two largest challenges facing American population growth. Loss of coastal areas due to oceanic level rise will be another. The cost of waste management in this country is rising nearly as fast as health care. It’s a problem that is going to get national attention in just a few short years as monopolistic waste management practices seek unsound cost cutting measures and increased governmental oversight.

It is long past time we invested in a NON-throw away society of the future.

Also, psychological anonymity is a growing problem as serial killers and rapists seek to outdo each other for headlines and notariety, but, they are just the tip of the iceberg. The psychological health of America is diminishing with increased population and lack of homestead roots and communities and personal ties. The social costs associated with this are going to shock us from our slumber at some point.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 17, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #188608

Ron:
“That’s right, All y’all Godless Libs are the same.”

No Ron, we’re all individual and different — that’s exactly what’s so great about us Lefties! Btw, some of us are even Godly.

“Y’all have 2 or 3 abortions a month.”

T’was a joke only.

“Now seriously do you really think that’s what I meant?”

Well, it was the first thing you mentioned. I was only pointing out that most liberal ladies are far greater advocates of sex education, and the use of contraceptives, and family planning, and decent access to comprehensive women’s healthcare.

“Fact is more Liberals do believe in abortion than Conservatives.”

The right to have an abortion if that is what an individual woman chooses for herself is what we believe in, Ron. And we don’t care whether those women are liberal or conservative, or independent. It’s about freedom and autonomy.

“So there will be more abortions preformed in areas that are liberal than areas that are Conservative.”

Not necessarily. Here is some info if you’re interested:
State Facts About Abortion
Lots of other good data on that website as well.

“And y’all don’t have the corner on believing in education. Conservatives have been involved in the educational process as long as Liberals.”

You need to take a good look at that link. It may begin to tell you another story about the current mindset, and about how attitudes have changed.

“Rocky, Adrienne
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
But hate to bust your bubble. Conservatives are born in October too. My baby sister’s and mine was last Friday.”

Thanks Ron, and right back to you (and your sister)!

“Yeah she’s the sweetest birthday present I’ve ever had.”

Aw! That’s so sweet!

“Kevin23:
Happy Birthday Adrienne!”

Thanks Kevin, btw, good post.

David, excellent points.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #188611

Adrienne,

e-mail me at s_oken@yahoo.com

Posted by: Rocky at October 17, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #188612

Dave,

Glad we see each other’s point. I generally enjoy reading your posts and I was a bit confused at why you seemed so angry at me. Oh well, these things happen, glad to know we’re cool once more.

David,

In a theoretical sense, I think you’re a bit paranoid. In realistic terms, your post is right on the money. We can sustain our growth rates in this country for the foreseeable future, but you make excellent points about water conservation and waste management. If you haven’t read it yet, I recommend the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. It postulates on the catalyst for societal collapses being environmental disasters, I think you’d like it.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 17, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #188614

LT,

I didn’t mean to sound pissed in this thread :-)
It’s just that is so much bogus science being touted by BuchCo and their mouth pieces that I have to point it out. In this case, when I said “being pulled out of Limbaughs butt” I was generalizing. As for the “biases against leftists…” I thought I was just being realistic. In the same why you’d probably be correct if you caught me expressing biases against Bushites…
Apologies for the rhetoric, I’m really trying to rein in the attitude.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #188616

Okay Rocky, I’ve e-mailed you.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 17, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #188619

David Remer-

“…lack of homestead roots and communities and personal ties. The social costs associated with this are going to shock us from our slumber at some point.”

That is a great point that bears repeating. If I can be so bold, maybe even elaboration. I must admit, for as worldly as I’d like to believe I am, I cannot claim to know much about the most overpopulated nations (China, India, ..). I’m afraid the closest I come is having a wife who is half Japanese. Basically I have never seen the effects of overpopulation outside of an urban setting where the population numbers are in a delicate balance with the price of real estate (NYC & SF are the best examples).

I know its all speculation really because there are much different circumstances and resources available in different regions, but there must certainly be some universal human detriments. The gradual decline of the large family unit in America is probably something everyone who’s been alive for a few decades can see. But what other “social costs” is there good evidence to worry about?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #188621

1LT B,

I don’t think I am being paranoid. Here is a crime stat from the AG’s office. 2005, reported crimes = 21,706,321

Now, mind you, that is reported crimes. The actual number ranging from petty larceny, theft, rape, and assault is larger since many are not reported. This figure does not include all types of crime either, like the voluminous illegal drug crimes.

Last year, 14,094,186 citizens were arrested for crimes. In 1967, when our population hit 200 million, it was still possible to live a life in America without ever becoming a victim of crime. Today, that is virtually impossible.

At the current rate, the total number of crimes in the U.S. exceeds the total population every 10 years, all but guaranteeing every man, woman, and child in this country will be a victim of crime in any 20 year span of time, and many will be victims of crime numerous times in their lives.

The police state grows with population and so do the costs of that police state.

I don’t think I am being paranoid about this issue. There is far too much evidence and data to support the proposition that liberty suffers with population growth both at the hands of criminals and the hands of government police.

I direct you to the government intrusion upon privacy inroads made by our growing police state under the Bush administration. It is hard to make a case for paranoia when overwhelming evidence of reality support the proposition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 17, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #188622

Adrienne-

Your welcome…hope you have a great day.

Thank you for the compliment…I try. I really do. =)

Keep fighting the good fight…I read on one of these recent threads someone’s post that was bashing teachers for being liberal and therefore instruments of the devil or something akin to that. I thought of you. =)

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #188630

Adrienne,

Happy birthday, man!

Everyone,

As a man who was around in 1967 when the pop was 200M, I can say…WE NEED MORE FREEWAYS!

Seriously though, I’ve lived in the OC, California for most of my life. The population density is about 1,500/km2. That’s total pop to total land area. A little more than half of that land is mountainous and undeveloped. There is a lot of parks, open space, etc, and yes, even some small farms. I think it is a very comfortable population density.

The reason I bring this up is that if you were to develop all of Utah to this density, you could put 330M people in there. And have 100% of the remaining land in the US available for cultivation. Worried about further growth? Throw in Nevada for another 430M, Idaho for another 320M, Montana 570M, Wyoming 380M, Colorado 400M…

Mind you, I am not advocating any such thing. I picked these specific states as they have the lowest percentages of arable land (well not true of Montana, Wyoming & parts of Colorado). Sometimes I get the feeling that people never actually look out of the window when they fly cross country. The US does NOT look like Europe (which is extremely highly developed with little room for expansion).

I believe this is the primary reason for the US internal birthrate. As for the liberal vs. conservative thing. I guess someone did a survey that proved(?) a statistical difference, but I don’t think it did more than suggest causes. Seem sas silly to me as arguing whether the number of angels on the head of a pin changes if they’re Catholic or Protestant angels. Maybe Methodists do better because they line up better? Make yar bets..put yar money down here!

Posted by: Martian at October 17, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #188632

hello all, happy birthday adrienne. don’t allow all the people in the overpopulated world take anything away from your birthday.

Posted by: The Griper at October 17, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #188643

Martian-

Interesting perspective. I definately agree that we have, as Americans and especially in the more vast or “wide-open” states, a certain cavalier attitude about land use and certainly about land preservation. Thank god that people are smart enough, even if it is more political than anything, to set aside land in the public trust for future generations to enjoy. Yellowstone, Tetons, Yosemite, Everglades, painted desert, etc, etc.

But being a So. Cal kid myself (Inland Empire mostly…hung out in Huntington Beach a lot though) I recognize the incredible efforts that it took to re-route almost the entirety of the Colorado River in order to maintain the populations in LA basin/SF valley/OC/and IE. This has perminently changed the environment in more than a few states…let alone Mexico.

I also remember the “Keep Tahoe Blue” campaign where activists in Northern CA desperately fought to keep developers grubby hands off the water is Lake Tahoe. Otherwise it may have been Pond Tahoe. Point is, water management and waste management are huge issues in S. CA. The oceans are poluted, rivers and lakes dried up, and mountains cut down. S. CA is drastically different than it was 20-30 years ago. Cities hard up for cash entice developers and then squander the cash leaving nothing but run down residential neighborhoods. Richer cities flatten and develope everything in sight. Old money areas continue to skyrocket in value because they are the only areas left with a degree of nature. I believe this kind of development is bad for everyone in the long run.

Check out cities like Davis, CA where any developement above 4 structures has to be approved by a vote of the whole city. The result is that the only plans that are submitted are highly thought through, and contribute greatly to the city. Or Portland, OR. where there is a physical boundary set by the city, and no development is allowed past that border.

These are very simlple, yet effective solutions. People are starting to notice that long commutes are bad for their health, stress, family, and their cars. There was an estimate in last weekend’s LA Times about the estimated future costs of these things. Astronomical. It is just not worth it just for a short term benefit of a slightly bigger house, or to move away from a school system that needs fixing, not abandonment.

The examples could go on, and on. But in the end, people need homes, and there is limited land. So build smarter, not more frantically.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #188648

Adrienne decided to tell us all once again how proper it is for a woman to have the right to decide what she does with her baby.

I’m wondering when she’ll get enough edumakation to tell us when a baby has any rights? I suppose she’ll have to “dumb-down” to the conservatives level to think a baby would have any rights.

Abortion should only be legal in cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, the fetus is malformed or where the preganancy resulted from rape (and even in these cases a woman should carefully, dare I say prayerfully, consider what is the best course of action for her to take).

Every woman has enough knowledge to know the consequences of sex. Just like every terrorist knows the consequences of suicide. The difference is some pregnant women don’t want to live up to the consequences, and a baby dies because of it.

Tom

Posted by: Tom U. at October 17, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #188650

Tom U.

Get down off that high horse. You’re a man. You commit millions of homicides everytime you read the SI swimsuit issue, or the wife gets that twinkle in her eye. Or are you somehow magically abstinent until that perfect occasion when your assured of fertilization?

Leave the women alone. THEY have to biologically change, as well as physically and mentally exhaust themselves to care for that child. If they are not up to it, who are you to forcefully impose these consequences you know nothing about? The morality police? With all the answers that scientists work tirelessly to find hidden in your beliefs? Are you going to force the world to behave just like you? The line is unclear, and the slope is oh so slippery.

Your consequences and your belief system is good for YOU ONLY! Unless we all agree as a society that something is illegal, your beliefs amount to bupkiss for other people. Get over yourself and get your nose back in your kids’ business where it belongs.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #188658

Kevin23;

Grow up! Become a man and realize that the issues of abortion are cross gender. You can glad hand yourself all you like, but your sperm are only half the equation, although I suppose I really don’t need to instruct you in the biological process of fertilization or your other personal processes.

I will not leave this issue alone. The importance of understanding the impact of these actions on society are complex and very important. One gender is not solely responsible for the creation of life; therefore, one gender cannot hope to be solely responsible for the decision to stop that life.

The burden and joy of pregnancy are properly shared within a relationship between a man and a woman (should I dare suggest here that marriage is the truly ideal relationship for this event?) There are so many implications here, but bottom line is where pregnancy occurs barring one of the reasons sited above, it should be illegal to abort that pregnancy.

Now the question you should really be asking is why? Why should it be illegal or legal to abort a pregnancy that does not endanger the mothers health, where the fetus is not malformed or where the pregnancy did not occur because of rape? And if you answer, because it’s a woman’s body, you’re ignoring your role in the process and ignoring the impact on society.

And I’ll tell you why, because a woman is pregnant with a baby. The creation of both male and female, a living being with limitless potential. What happens to a society that systematically determines life and death to innocent babies so adults don’t have to live with the consequences of their behavior? Now there’s a question for you to chew on!

Tom

Posted by: Tom U. at October 17, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #188662

“Grow up! Become a man”

I’m sorry. Are you regulating age too? You think that government should be in the business of proactively creating morality? That’s stupid!

Their job is to REFLECT the COMMON morality of the WHOLE nation. Not to create it on their own. They are not to be trusted with that important and personal a decision. Ever!

And as for your ranting about my ignoring a man’s role…I think you are tooting our horns a bit much. Men do not biologically change. We don’t instinctively wake up in the middle of the night because a neighbor’s baby cries. Women change forever. You may be more than willing to force this upon someone who lives in a nation of supposed free will, but I won’t. It’s just not my moral code. It’s yours and yours alone. Now go play with your kids before they resent you as much 150 million women do.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #188663

TU,

The point is does the women have the right to chose what she does with her body. In the same way that men have the right to make choices with their own bodies.
There is room for rational debate as to at what point the clump of cells in a womb become a person with rights. But, the right wing refuses to debate, they only demand. So instead of debate we get entrenchment, absurd rhetoric, self-righteous moralizing, and plain old stupidity. End abortion by ending unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, not by controlling people so they are forced to act to your view of whats right. You can not legislate morality. EOS.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 17, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #188667

Kevin 23;

I believe even you know that being a man has nothing to do with age. I’m not in a position to regulate age, I’m pretty sure controlling time is beyond if my abilities so it makes it impossible to “regulate age”. Maturity on the other hand is an individual effort. I suggest that a real man is a family man when that responsibility is his to hold.

Couldn’t agree more with your statement that government should not be in the business of creating morality. Laws are established based on moral principles.

You seem to take the road that we should not even discuss the moral implications of society creating laws that determine life and death to innocent babies so adults don’t have to live with the consequences of their behavior.

The evaluation and review of the decision of Roe v. Wade is a right and responsibility for each individual American to question and answer, because it impacts all of us.

So 150 million women and everyone else can be mad at me if they like, I’ll consider the issue for myself and voice my opinion based on my learning, understanding and knowledge because I have the right.

You don’t like my position in fact you tell me I don’t have the right to hold a position because I’m not a woman. You are wrong.

Tom

Posted by: Tom U. at October 17, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #188668

“You can not legislate morality.”

Well said.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #188671

Tom U-

“You don’t like my position in fact you tell me I don’t have the right to hold a position because I’m not a woman. You are wrong.”

Your lack of understanding for even what is written out in plain english for you is astounding. I said to go preach your position to your kids…not try to enforce it on grown adults, the majority of whom desagree with you, as you did in your first post.

I’m well versed in the case of Roe v. Wade. Seeing as how I actually have legal training, I’m guessing I’ve got a better grasp on its reasoning than even you do with your omnipotent belief system (that was given to you by a man-run organized church mind you).

I’m all for discussing morality, just not in the same tired “take no prisoners” kind of way that you want to approach it. I believe life is not clear cut. It is circumstantial. EVERYTHING in life is circumstantial. It is horrible to murder, but what if it is to protect yourself? It is terrible to rape, but what if it is for necessary procreation? There is an exception to every rule, and people like you have no business presuming you know all those exceptions at the starting gate. Leave government out of it until there is a universal threat and that threat is felt nearly UNIVERSALLY. Only then do you get to retreat to the moral high ground.

“Maturity on the other hand is an individual effort. I suggest that a real man is a family man when that responsibility is his to hold.”

I am a family man, and as a father of two children I agree. But I would never force my wife to sacrifice her ambitions to do what only pleased me. I would respect her decision as even more important than mine. Why? Biology! Simple. They carry more of the load as nature intended and whether you fancy yourself a good helper or not.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #188674

I find it extremely odd that religious people are so desperately adament about outright outlawing contraception, abortion, the death penalty (at least the ones who are consistent in their beliefs are adament about this), and any other form of potential population control mechanism. And yet its basic mathmatics to understand the numbers and the time frames here. Does “God” want us to get to that point? Overpopulation will be the cause of continued breakdown of identity and ability to succeed. Families will continue to break down, and the “values” will follow. Why the paradoxical approach?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 17, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #188701

Dave1-20-09
How about this: Liberals do a better job educating their children in responsibilty with regards to sex. Liberal areas are therefore more likely to have fewer unplanned pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions.

Really?
Why is it then that of the 4 teenage girls I’ve known over the years that’s gotten pregnant 3 were from liberal families and all 3 got abortions. The one from a conservative family took responsibility for her actions and had the baby? Sure sound like the Liberals really teach acting responsible and taking responsibility to me.
I’m not saying that Conservative women don’t have abortions. But with the majority of Conservatives being against abortion and the majority of liberals being for it. It stands to reason which group would have the most abortions.


Adrienne
Thanks for the link. I’l finish reading it later but I did find some interesting info that backs what I’ve been saying. The link give the percentage of abortion in each state. These are 2000 stats.
We’ll start with your state and mine. Remember that GA tends to be a bit more liberal than the other three Conservative states I used.
STATE-POLITICS-%PREGANCIES ENDED IN ABORTIONS
California-Liberal-26%
Georgia-Conservative-17%
Oregan-Liberal-21%
Alabama-Conservative-14%
Ney York-Liberal-33%
Mississippi-Conservative-14%
Illinois-Liberal-20%
Arkansas-Conservative-11%
I’m not using the canidate states went to in the last presidential election. I’m going by how their politics usually are. Also I picked every state but California and Georgia at random.

Aw! That’s so sweet!

My family says that I roar like a lion but I’m really just a big ol teddy bear.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 18, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #188705

Kevin 23,

I find it amusing that you use the slippery slope argument. Conservatives said the same thing when abortion was legalized. I do think men have not only a right but an obligation to speak to this subject as we are affected by it as well. Is it fair that I have no say at all if my wife decides she wants an abortion? Do I not have a right to know if my (theoretical, for the point of the argument) 14 year old daughter wants an abortion? How about if I don’t feel like paying child support, is it fair that a woman I impregnated can leave me no recourse but to shell out child support for 18 years? (Just for the record, I have no sympathy for that guy, just making an argument.)

Abortion as it is today in the States puts men in a position similar to the colonies pre-revolution. In the same manner that the colonies had taxation without representation, so do men nowadays have responsibilities with no rights. Unless I want to kidnap my wife, hold her in a hotel until she goes into labor and delivers the child, assuming I could even deliver a child, I have no recourse if I want the child to be born. If I get a woman pregnant and she decides to have the child, she can demand child support but at the same time deny me any visitation rights. Where’s the fairness in that? Just because men don’t physically bear a child doesn’t mean we are unconcerned or deserve no say.

Another general argument about the role of abortion in liberals v conservatives, Adrienne you might help me out with this. You say, and I would tend to agree, that liberals are more open about sex education and contraception. Do you think that would mean that if these methods fail, ie condom breaks, pill was from a defective batch etc, that liberal women might be more inclined to have an abortion as a form of birth control? I don’t think this was discussed and I’m curious to see what people think.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 18, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #188707

1LT B-

The answer to most of your questions is that you should know your partner. The potential consequences demand it. If you are with someone who cannot have an abortion, you should know that because, as you said, no method of prevention is 100%. There is overwhelming responsibility on the part of the man because there is biological responsibility on the part of the woman. There are many historical reasons for it as well, notably the role of religion in society and the fact that woman had no rights. But many of the specific things you talk about are not accurate. No parent can be denied partial custody of their child without first being shown to be an unfit parent. And even if there is enough evidence of that, they still have to prove it is in the best interests of the child to remove the father from their life. It is incredibly difficult to do if you are, in fact, a good father and you have anything but a complete nitwit for a lawyer.

But that stuff aside…I see your point about the slippery slope argument cutting both ways on this issue. But I’ll truthfully tell you that I’d rather make people responsible for themselves (forcing guys and girls to talk about the potential effects or face possible LONG term consequences). If the child is born, we’re talking about a life here (that’s 18 years then one phone call a week). That’s worth taking some responsibility for. But I also realize that accidents happen, and nothing should ever be forced upon a woman unless there is overwhelming agreement that aborting it is immoral or dangerous. I do not know that the trimester system is the best, but I know that its the best we could do without better information. And people seem to be ok with that, myself included. So I don’t enjoy being told I’m working for satan when I say I understand that having a kid in a crowded world is becoming increasingly more of a drastic decision.

I lived in NYC when my wife got pregnant for the first time. We had a small one bedroom apt. and I had to give up the city altogether in order to provide her with what I thought she deserved. What if I did not have the option to move? What if I had no family to babysit for me? That is not just taking on responsibility, that is giving up your entire life for the sake of another. I don’t feel that many are up to the task. Of course that doesn’t alleviate the responsibility they have, but I’d rather put the burden on communication and mutual respect (knowing the lay of the land before going at it with reckless abandon) rather than on the condom company. I’ll accept the occasional guy getting taken for 18 years of child support by a woman he didn’t know enough about before engaging in inherently dangerous intimate activity. And I’m trading the occasional “oops” … which could literally happen to anyone who is active.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 2:44 AM
Comment #188708

1LT B-

I’m also recognizing that everything in life is circumstantial, and it is usually better to allow people to decide for themselves, based upon their true morality instilled in them by society and family, what to do so long as it is not universally frowned upon.

Making bright line rules only serves to show people that the rules are hypocritical because exceptions exist, and they are therefore unjust. If you have enough of those people, or heaven forbid a majority as we do here, people will lose respect for the law. That is far worst than allowing abortion in most peoples’ eyes, mine included. You only criminalize behavoir when you absolutely know it will be for the benefit of society. Not just those with the right belief structure.

Overpopulation is a serious issue as well. Important enough in and of itself, I believe, to justify our allowing abortion to simply allow people to save resources. Forcing people to live in overcrowded conditions with no hope of getting out because one person must stay home with the children and cannot work without paying the whole check to a babysitter…all because they happen to have had no effective birth control is authoritarian to a degree that is not justified by popular beliefs. So even if you are in doubt about what to do, why take the extreme approach of outright banning a practice that could help people? Instead, put the responsibility to the people. What could be more democratic?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 3:06 AM
Comment #188709

Adrienne and Kevin23

I wrote my disclaimer at the bottom that I had written that post before. I knew that a good portion had nothing to do with this thread. I just cut and pasted.

[IIIplus2, I saw nothing constructive in your post other than giving us yet another unoriginal take on racism in America (as if we don’t get it ad nauseum elsewhere). I’m not saying your feelings aren’t meaningful, I’m just saying they don’t really belong in this thread as they serve no purpose…unless you are playing victim to force people to listen to you (something that is becoming VERY common in America).]
First off, it is LLL not III.
Second, I wasn’t playing victim. As I said above I wrote this before to a different thread.
Third, whether you think it is unoriginal or not it is what happened and my black husband can vouch for that. You might as well have called me a liar cause that is what it sounded like. I agree that people pull out the race card and playing victim when they shouldn’t just to serve their own interests(as Mark Foley did with his “I’m an alcoholic” and “I was abused by a priest” crap), but I wasn’t trying to do that. I was posting it for the abortion portion.

I don’t care if you think it is crap, cause you certainly have wrote a lot of crap yourself. That is what makes us different. I am not sitting on a liberal blog trying to disrespect you, like you do me. I am on a conservative blog. I didn’t expect to come talk to liberals here. After all, why would you “enlightened” libs want to talk to us conservs?

The link that Adrienne gave for abortion facts is a branch of Planned Parenthood. Like they are going to give un-biased info considering they make their money off of abortion.

As for being a lib and Godly;

I know that Jesus would never say it was ever right to tear a baby to pieces and kill his creation no matter how small. He would say it is a sin. He said that if someone should hurt one of his little ones it would be better if a millstone were hung around their neck and they were drown in the sea.

Morality,

it is interesting that people put it in this frame work.

Does that mean that if my neighbor is a burden to my life and I don’t find it immoral to kill him that I would be ok to go ahead and off him.

If my religion says that killing someone if they are certain things is ok then is it ok.

Religion and morality have nothing to do with it.
The Hittites sacrificed their children and that was wrong and sick.

There are always going to be people who disagree and think different. NAMBLA for example. There are people who don’t have a conscience. I find that a good number of people who support abortion do because they have had them and feel no remorse or guilt. They justify and rationalize their actions by telling themselves and others that nothing is wrong with what they did. My mother is one of these people.

I don’t live in Cleveland anymore. We moved away because we wanted better for our kids. Race is not an issue where we live now thanks.

The Wife

Posted by: lllplus2 at October 18, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #188710

LLLplus2-

First off, see above “LLL”

Second, you wrote the first three quarters of your post about the racism you experienced, then immediately went into a tirade about abortion. What is that if not using “victim” status. I didn’t see any other purpose for it.

Third, if telling you that your racism stuff was out of place is the same as calling you a liar, then you are in for a life of constant offense. Be real.

Finally, you’ve got me dead wrong. I am a conservative. A true conservative. The kind who keeps government out of peoples’ lives unless it is absolutely necessary and there is a universal benefit. What is liberal about that??? Nothing. So it just shows me that you have no ability to understand where people are coming from. You simply dismiss it as being “liberal” and therefore immoral. What idiotic logic brings you to that conclusion? You said it disparagingly several times.

And you called planned parenthood some kind of evil money hungry evil entity that overtly lies to people to get them to have abortions. Now how ridiculous is that?

Contrary to what you might think, I’m not trying to disparage you, but point out your rudeness in telling us all something we’ve all heard before.

Finally, if you think I wrote “crap” then how about talking about it. I’ll take it point by point with you if you like. I can stand by all my statements with logic and evidence. Can you? Most certainly not. You are just condescending and judgmental in your irresponsible and ignorant use of labels. Funny, coming from a self proclaimed victim of this very thing.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 3:40 AM
Comment #188711

Kevin 23,

Yes, you should know your partner. The problem is that many don’t want to bother. Our entertainment industry glorifies promiscuity and never speaks to the consequences. Further, how much can you really know? Until someone is in the position, you probably can’t predict with 100% accuracy what they’ll do. Further, does knowing my partner mean that I have the right to know if she’s had an abortion? That’s something I would want to know, but I doubt many women would appreciate that question.

I agree that we should be encouraging more responsibility, but the sad fact of the matter is that almost every aspect of our popular culture seems to discourage it. Its funny to me that both sides agree that there should be less abortions, but the option of it encourages risky behavior, in my opinion. One of the biggest problems I have with the Left is that they are against any restrictions on abortion. I personally feel that its morally abhorrent, but I could be more understanding if it were restricted to say the first trimester. When it gets to point that we allow partial birth abortions, that’s just barbaric and totally uncalled for. I think 3 months is enough time for a woman to decide about having a child, beyond that unless her life is threatened, I feel its irresponsible selfishness. Also, I don’t think you’re referring to me, but I never said you were working for Satan.

I’m glad you acknowledge that circumstances are not excuses for shirking responsibility. I also agree with you that the burden isn’t on the condom companies. Anybody who completely trusts their future to a thin piece of latex is a damned idiot. Once again, though, I think that all of these options make abortion more likely as a contingency solution should they fail. I find it monstrously unfair to an unborn child that just because Mommy forgot to take the pill or Daddy’s condom broke, his life is now forfeit.

Further, we have a truly schizophrenic view of abortion and the unborn in general. I remember NOW protesting the idea that Scott Peterson was being charged with double murder for the death of his wife and her unborn child. I find it to be both logically and ethically untenable to say that as long as its wanted by the mother it’s a child, if not its just a fetus or a bunch of cells. I think that we wrongly arrogate the mother to a position of Godhead in the case of abortion and I find it to be wrong. I think the clearest illustration of this was a rather vulgar t-shirt I saw a baby wearing that said, “Now that I’m safe, I’m pro-choice.” I think that sums it up rather nicely.

I think it was on this thread that I spoke about overpopulation. The sad fact of the matter is that the planet will never get overpopulated, at least not for very long. Mother Nature has plenty of solutions to this, starvation being the most likely. You are correct about birth control being available, as much as I dislike admitting it. It would be helpful if it were more available, and that’s one thing I disagree with my Church (I’m Catholic) about. Once again though, I don’t like the idea of abortion as birth control for the reasons I spoke about earlier.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 18, 2006 3:45 AM
Comment #188712

Kevin 23,

On the flipside of my arguments, I think that there’s also a ridiculous trivializing children as well. Examples of this abound; a female celebrity gets pregnant because its the trendy thing to do this year and no father is involved except in the act of conception, Young girls try and get pregnant before they are ready because they want something to love, etc.

Beyond this is what George Carlin calls a “baby fetish” when children are treated more as a completely vicarious cult objects than independent people of their own inherent worth. We need to assess, as a society, how we treat children and make sure we affirm their inherent human dignity rather than treating thier own good as subordinate to what thier parents think is best for the parents.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 18, 2006 4:10 AM
Comment #188713

Ron Brown,

Indeed, my english skills weakness hitted me again.
Sorry for misunderstood your point about technology. I agree with you, now that I actually understand it.
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 18, 2006 4:53 AM
Comment #188714

Jack,

Being promiscuous does not lead to population growth these days and some of the habits associated with that sort of behavior might lead to early death.

As the lack of promiscuous might lead to serial harasment, brutality against women, rapes and murders. Sexual misery, and more generally, sentimental misery is also an issue for many.
And have some impact on population growth too.

Ask chineses males.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 18, 2006 5:07 AM
Comment #188715

1LT B,

One of the biggest problems I have with the Left is that they are against any restrictions on abortion. I personally feel that its morally abhorrent, but I could be more understanding if it were restricted to say the first trimester.

Interesting. AFAIK, in US women can abort on their own will only during the first trimester, as in France and in many others nations who legalized abortions. Only for medical reasons abortions after this first trimisters are authorized, right?

Or did I miss something about abortion right in the US vs in France?

Back on topic, abortion legalization have an impact on population growth, indeed. But he also have an impact on child abuse and neglect rate. I’m for more kids being loved which start by being wanted vs more kids being borned some among them so not wanted that they’ll be maltreated.
Call me a murder if that’s your name for such preference.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 18, 2006 5:26 AM
Comment #188716

What the point to give life to a kid if its life is hell?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 18, 2006 5:28 AM
Comment #188717

Jarin,
Yeah, I guess saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map was enough anyway to cause citizens of the world to take notice of the HATRED that Iran has for Jews.

Posted by: Joe at October 18, 2006 5:39 AM
Comment #188719

1LT B: Reading your posts above (and keeping in mind some of our previous discussions) suggests to me that you may find Andrew Greeley’s writings of interest. I would recommend him to you not so much for his opinions as for his approach to complex problems. He is both a priest and sociologist. And while I don’t always agree with his conclusions, his science and thinking process are sound. He has an uncanny ability for taking mind boggling, complex questions and organizing them into manageable, coherent ones. I, also, share his love for and frustration with the Church. His website: http://www.agreeley.com/

What you’ve written above suggests that you might agree with this proposition: The abortion issue is a surrogate for more fundamental issues concerning human sexuality.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at October 18, 2006 6:03 AM
Comment #188722

kevin23

as i tried to point out THE POST WAS WRITTEN A WHILE AGO TO ANOTHER THREAD AND I CUT AND PASTED IT. well actually my husband did for me. looking back on yesterday i guess i should have gone through and edited to include only what was pertinant to this thread, but when he asked i declined and said to just go ahead and post as is. i was being truely lazy.
i felt you were calling me a liar by saying that i was using the “victim” ploy. can’t help how it sounded to me.
all the stuff about being a lib wasn’t directed torwards you. i don’t know if you are lib or conserv. i haven’t read your posts to know what i think you are. there are pleanty of repubs and dems that are immoral and pleanty that aren’t. i don’t think lib = immoral. i don’t think moral = Godly. i have my own ideas of what is immoral and they don’t seem to fit either side.

things i think are immoral;
race car driving/the sport/watching/supporting
horse racing
not recycling
racism
murder/killing human beings
fur coats
smoking
drinking
animal abuse
gambling
lying
not helping others
littering
cutting down trees
hypocrisy
adultery

generaly i do think of liberal as being far from my values though. there are libs who are more moral than some conservs. we have seen quite a few examples of that recently. a lot of libs don’t see conservs as good, that is why they call themselves libs. i have been treated in a very condescending way by liberals that blog here as if they are better than me and mine. i also feel that they don’t come here for constructive talk, but to put people down and argue.

Planned Parenthood is evil in my opinion. Yes, they like money. You should do some research on it’s founder Margaret Sanger. She was a racist that believed in eugenics. She wanted to weed out all the “undesirables” of society including the poor and black. They aren’t forcing anyone to get abortions, but they do fight to keep any and all information that might change someone’s mind from being given to them. They fight against all legislation that might be close to saying that a fetus is worth anything or that parents have a right to know what surgery their child might get.

i don’t see how i have been rude. being redundant isn’t rude , just repeating when not needed. good things do need repeating though. smoking is bad for you, don’t drink and drive, drink eight glasses of water a day, use condoms, get tested for hiv. we get things repeated to us constantly. i don’t see how i was rude. like i said i didn’t edit things out, so i wasn’t trying to treat anyone like they were stupid.

[Finally, if you think I wrote “crap” then how about talking about it. I’ll take it point by point with you if you like. I can stand by all my statements with logic and evidence. Can you? Most certainly not. You are just condescending and judgmental in your irresponsible and ignorant use of labels. Funny, coming from a self proclaimed victim of this very thing.]

the post was written to both you and adrienne.
i thought that the two of you would we able to distinguish what i was writing to each of you by what you wrote to me. i didn’t mean to confuse, but obviously i have. i am sorry. this isn’t the first time i have had to apologize for it. adrienne wrote the crap stuff to me, you never used the word crap in what you wrote to me. you have now insulted me, saying that i am irresponsible and ignorant. i thought you said you weren’t trying to disparage me. i must say that now you are being rude and labeling me. if you think i can’t stand by anything i have written i will be happy to explain. again i feel you are calling me a liar some how. as if everything i say is made up. you can ask my husband and he will tell you how i like to hear and tell the truth. it’s this crazy idea of mine that lying is wrong you know.

Posted by: lllplus2 at October 18, 2006 6:34 AM
Comment #188724

Philippe Houdoin

my husband was badly abused by his stepfather and neglected by his mother. he still deserves to be here. he went through hell and is happy to be here.

abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy in the U.S. with no restrictions. some states only allow abortions through the 24th week, but there are some like Kansas that allow abortions till the moment of birth.(George Tiller)

the abuse and neglect of children has gone up, not down since abortion was legalized. the value of life is cheap here in the U.S. if legalizing abortion was supposed to make it so that people who didn’t want children wouldn’t abuse them then it was a failure. i think that someone who would abuse a child would do so whether they wanted the child or not. someone who would not abuse a child, would not abuse it even if they did not want it.

the Chinese men have a problem finding wives because girl babies have been aborted to such a high degree that the ratio of men to women is off big time. the Chinese have had a preference for male babies, but the one child policy has made it where they abort or leave girl babies to die. it is not a lack of sex, but a lack of somone to have sex with. the same is true in India. men are having a hard time finding wives.

the wife

Posted by: lllplus2 at October 18, 2006 7:04 AM
Comment #188741

All,

Do you confirm that basically, thru loopholes or just by laws in some states, abortion in US can happened at mother/parent will *up* to the pregnancy end?

I’m pro-choice, but I’m against late abortions except for therapeutic reasons. 3 months sounds large enough to make an educated choice.

lllplus2 wife,

Sure your husband deserve to live. But so does every human. Even terrorists. Even the worst murder on the planet. Even their families. Even Saddam Hussein. Even all dictators. Even Hitler. Technically speaking, every womem’s eggs should be fertilized by a spermatozoid. Otherwise, we’re just trashing life.

But we do it. Everyday. We kill people, we kill people that we have no doubt they were well alive, that they were self-substained human life, not a life in its first stage. We keep doing it, again and again. I don’t hear the pro-life being very vocal against wars, nukes, torturing to death, carpet bombing or white phosphoring civilians.

Life is everywhere *equally*. There is not unborn babies lives *more* equal than born ones.
You can’t cherrypick the lives to preserve from *your* moral. You can’t have it both way.
Or it’s just hypocrisy.

Indeed, life seems cheap in the US. In and for the US. How much is due to abortion legalization, how much from your culture of violence, power, militarism, guns, winner vs loser?
There is many other western nations where abortion is legal and yet the life is not as cheap as in the US. They also have way less murders. I wonder why…

With 50% of soldiers recruited in the last years being a former American Army video gamer, it’s no surprise they don’t catch that with the reality of giving death anymore.

Yeah, even life have a price in US.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 18, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #188745

Ron said “Really? Why is it then that of the 4 teenage girls I’ve known …”
You misunderstood my point. We each live in a relatively narrow environment that doesn’t neccesarily reflect other peoples environment. What we each think we know or understand is only a minor piece of the eintire puzzle and we need to remember that.
For example, your example is based on people you know. Each of those people have many factors that effect their decisions. Perhaps you know 12 “conservative” girls who had abortions and kept them secret because of career or family image concerns. Meanwhile the 3 “liberal” girls knew they could count on their families support during a difficult time in their life. The short point is that you can assign abortion rates to states based on your interpretation of lib/con, but the real causes and the real people might very well have nothing to do with that.


Phillipe,
I heard it said that “preserving life” is not a philosophy, it is a slogan. Why else support war and the death penalty?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 18, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #188746

V (III + 2) said: “abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy in the U.S. with no restrictions.” That’s absolutely wrong and shows no understanding of Roe v Wade

http://www.answers.com/topic/abortion

In Roe, the Court, on a 7-2 vote, found the Texas abortion statute unconstitutional. In its opinion, written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court held that the law violated a right to privacy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court further held that such a right is a “qualified” one and subject to regulation by the state. The state has “legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life” (i.e., the life of the fetus). To specify when the state’s interests emerge, the Court divided pregnancy into twelve-week trimesters. In the first trimester, the state cannot regulate abortion or prevent a woman’s access to it. It can only require that abortions be performed by a licensed physician and under medically safe conditions. During the second trimester, the state can regulate abortion procedures as long as the regulations are reasonably related to the promotion of the mother’s health. In the third trimester, the state has a dominant interest in protecting the “potentiality” of the fetus’s life. A state may prohibit abortions during this time except in cases where they are essential to preserve the life or health of the mother. The Court also cited judicial precedent in holding that the fetus is not a “person” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 18, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #188755

Tom U.
“Adrienne decided to tell us all once again how proper it is for a woman to have the right to decide what she does with her baby.”

Yes, I believe it is quite proper to allow women to decide what they want to do with THEIR own bodies. It certainly isn’t right for YOU and OTHERS for your own personal religious reasons, to tell women that they must become mothers whether they want to or not. You abortion fanatics think that if you can just remove the legality and the safety of having a medically assisted abortion, they won’t happen. But they will. Because many women will still seek out an abortion WHETHER YOU AND OTHERS LIKE IT OR NOT.
That was how it was before Roe v. Wade, and that is what we will have again if YOU and OTHERS on behalf of your religion legislate extremely safe, medically assisted abortions away.
Back Alley abortions often killed the baby AND the woman — and this is what you want our society to return to. It is regressive, controlling, authoritarian, and brutal.

“The burden and joy of pregnancy are properly shared within a relationship between a man and a woman (should I dare suggest here that marriage is the truly ideal relationship for this event?) There are so many implications here, but bottom line is where pregnancy occurs barring one of the reasons sited above, it should be illegal to abort that pregnancy.”

Yes, in a perfect world that is how it would be. And in that perfect world the woman could stay home and mind the children, and the man would have a great job to be able to foot the bill for everything they could possibly need.
However this isn’t a perfect world. Far from it.
But no, you are demanding that your perfect-world fantasy take precedence over other people’s harsh, desperate and often terrible, reality. It’s You and Others who feel they know what is best, what is moral, what is right, what is good and what is proper for everyone. It’s bullshit.

Someone like me just wants women to be able to make their OWN choices according to THEIR reality, and THEIR morality, free of the dictates and authority of people who do not care about their future, or want to help them to pay their bills, or make sure that their child will thrive, but who only want to get up on pulpits and preach at people.

PS. to the wife — your comments are so full of hate and disinformation, you aren’t even worth replying to.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 18, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #188756

Kevin23, Philippe, Dave, very good replies.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 18, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #188765

Ron:
“Thanks for the link. I’l finish reading it later but I did find some interesting info that backs what I’ve been saying. The link give the percentage of abortion in each state.”

Ron, you’re focusing on the wrong thing there. When looking at the state, look at how many planned parenthood, and womens health clinics have disappeared between 1996, and now. That was the point I was trying to make about the difference in education and access to contraceptives. Also, look at how the laws regarding abortions have now changed.

Btw, if you really want to compare stats on a state like California to one like Georgia, you have to take the size difference and the population numbers into consideration.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 18, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #188779

LLLplus2-

Unfortunately when you write a post, you must be extremely careful in making sure you put the emphasis in the right places. Your use of political labels such (lib/conserv) also needs research. If you did not intend to label me at all, I still feel offended by the disparaging way you used them in regards to Adrienne, who did not deserve it. I am pleased to hear you say that morality is not connected to either label, as that was my point too.

But I stand to gain nothing by holding grudges against those who act as if they are genuinely interested in two-way communication. I do get the feeling from you that you are simply trying to do what is right. I would never fault anyone for that. Your tactics and reasoning, however, could use some refining.

First, abortions are only legal after the first trimester in special circumstances such as the mother being in danger. Since this line was drawn by a court who painstakingly analized the best scientific data available to them (and they did in fact do this), I will go with it. Most people in America are ok with this line just where it is. I also agree that partial birth abortions should be extramely regulated. Most people also agree with this as well. The only reason to change our policy is if people learn something they do not already know, or unless you are religious and require an outright ban in order to please god.

Planned Parenthood may have conspicuous roots, and it may have some management who believe some crazy things. But it is a huge organization run by thousands of independent people who, on a daily basis, help women and council women. They do this not for any political or financial reason. They do it because, as Adrienne alluded, it is a tramatic experience, and needs to be done with great care and precision. Those doctors and employees are real people. I’ve heard many woman explain to me that without the counciling and information provided to them by PP, they would have either made an regretful choice, or they would have had an even more tramatic experience. And they play valuable role in promoting safety. I do not find this is be, in any way, evil. To point exclusively to the fact that they are a business and as such is only interested in its future as a business is to arbitrarily impune all of corperate america. I don’t believe that is a good thing at all. Certainly not in line with traditional conservative values.

I used terms like “irresponsible” and “ignorant” solely based upon what was written and referenced it that way as well. Do not take personal offense if it is not called for. Instead, stand up and defend the words I made the references in regards to. And I acknowledge that you have done just that. However, you are still providing a lot of mis-information which you state as fact. That IS lying, and I know you don’t want that label. So please, be careful when making statements in a matter-of-fact sort of way that they are indeed based on fact.

I’ll end by saying that I could never bring myself to ask anyone go through an abortion process. But, I was fortunate enough to not have an “oops” until I was already in a stable and perminent relationship (not marriage, but might as well have been). Some people are not that lucky, and with decisions like these, luck should never be a factor. When in doubt, put the responsibility on the people themselves to do what is best for them. If you feel that people are being immoral, please try and teach you children to buck the trend. If enough people do this convincingly, then you do not need a law. Informal controls work MUCH better than a formal law ever could.

But understand that using scare tactics and misinformation to do the job effectively defeats the legitimacy of the cause. Truth is too easy to find in the information age. Hiding truth is a short term tactic only. Promoting truth and personal responsibility is always better than legislating a clashing of beliefs.

Do you agree?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #188785

Kevin 23,

Good, well written post.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 18, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #188786

1LT B-

I think that you raise a lot of good points. I will tell you, without trying to provide clear answers to murky questions, that absent clear scientific or factual guidance, the buck should stop with whoever bears the ultimate responsibilities. Since women carry it, and forever alter their brains and bodies, I give them priority. Men are not out in the cold, but they do need to realize that they are a vital, not an absolutely necessary part of raising a baby.

This brings us to the main potential injustice: that a man will be tricked by a woman who changes her mind once she discovers she’s pregnant. Because it places responsibility in the right places, I’ll accept that potential injustice for the trade off that lives and relationships will not be ruined by unwanted pregnancies. Forcing morality on people never gets you where you intended to go anyway. It breeds contempt, which is never constructive and could lead to breakups, abuse, neglect, or even worst.

Personal responsibility can definitely cut both ways here. Should people talk first? Yes. Do they? Not always. But they have options in this case, unless the woman vetoes the man. Then of course she risks alienating him and continuing this relationship via monthly checks. If the relationship wasn’t good to begin with, then they are both stupid and I don’t feel sorry for either.

Should a parent be able to know about hid daughter’s abortion? Yes. If a parent must assume a burden, financial and legal, then they need to be informed. If a parent tries to force a child into the world, then I have a problem with it. But this is usually due to religion, or some other non-fact-based belief. If a parent is willing to disown a child because that child was unwilling to take on a child of her own before age 18, then I say the girl should have the choice to say good riddance and goodbye mom and dad. That is just repugnant in my eyes. If you are a good parent to begin with, your kids should listen to you and respect your guidance. But again, truth and genuine concern is the best guidance…not scare tactics and godly lectures.

And we should begin to look at the world as a finite place. Something has got to give. I’d rather see people being selective about which pregnancy to keep than see an overpopulated, under resourced, and inflation ruined world get ravaged by forces of nature (disease, drought, etc.). The earth cannot sustain 15 billion people. At least not well, and not for long. Earth will evict us if we trash the place.

If we are true to ourselves and the values that we believe in, we will shape the future. We need not write laws. Teach people instead. Sex will never go away. Preaching abstinence (although based on fact) is just plain denial. Instead of saying “dont have sex until your ready to carry the burden of a baby”, say “you better know who you are sleeping with…here’s your options…be smart”. Neither is perfect, but one is “luck of the draw” and the other only potentially punishes the most irresponsible.

If merely having the option of abortion CAUSES people to be more risky, then our gauge of morality is wrong to begin with. This you will not change…just like prohibition changed nothing. But I don’t believe that to be the case, generally. I think people are losing respect for marriage and the taboo of sex because of the inconsistencies they have seen in their parents’ generation. They are sick of being lied to about it. So they experiment on their own. This is not the case in places like western Europe. Truth is out there, and people don’t hide it.

In America, we have taken our “protect the children” crap too far. They are now sheltered. And you know what happens to a sheltered child when they get a taste of excitement…they go full boar until they learn a lesson the hard way. Honesty is the best poilicy. Not out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

I’ve not had a chance to hit on everything, but the main point here is that people should be able to make decisions that effect their lives unless the harm will always outweigh the good. Unfortunately, I believe that lack of resources will soon make abortion look better and better to more people as they struggle to live their own lives. Damn, unfortunate. But the people are deciding for themselves, and so isn’t the sheer numbers a more accurate gauge of common morality than anything else? I admit to having a rather hedonistic approach to life in general, but if people are living happier lives, then I think it is a good thing. If abortion is found to cause a breakdown in values, then the truth will come out and people will eventually outlaw it based on universal agreement. Then people will be happier. All in all, it is a better scenario than having legislators taking wild stabs in the dark to begin with.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #188787

lllplus2

things i think are immoral; race car driving/the sport/watching/supporting horse racing not recycling racism murder/killing human beings fur coats smoking drinking animal abuse gambling lying not helping others littering cutting down trees hypocrisy adultery

Interesting list. Especially the order. I don’t care for car racing myself, but immoral? hummm… never thught about it that way. Me, I would of put murder and adultery at the top…

Of course, I tend to follow the Laws the Lord gave us, instead of making up my own…

I suppose I’m fortunate that you are not in Congress trying to legistlate moratily.

Adrienne,
So glad to have you as a Libra!!! I am too!

My birthday is on the 16th!!! Happy belated Birthday!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at October 18, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #188792

Kevin23:

I lived in NYC when my wife got pregnant for the first time. We had a small one bedroom apt. and I had to give up the city altogether in order to provide her with what I thought she deserved. What if I did not have the option to move? What if I had no family to babysit for me? That is not just taking on responsibility, that is giving up your entire life for the sake of another.

I would just like to bring up the often-overlooked option of adoption. As someone who has worked in this field, it it seems so sad to know that children are being aborted while so many couples spend years waiting for a baby to adopt. Many people seem to forget the fact that there is a middle ground between “giving up your entire life for another” and ending another’s life because you are not ready to be a parent.
It is true that 9 months of pregnancy followed by childbirth is an extreme inconvenience and will change a woman’s life forever in some way. But in my experience, many many women find that having an abortion changes them for life as well, and that it is a change they were not prepared for.
Women have choices regarding thier bodies. In most cases, they can choose whether or not to have sex. Is it really that unreasonable to ask that women be willing to be inconvenienced for 9 months in order to give the child that they are responsible for creating a chance to live?
I have the freedom to choose what to do with my body, within reason. If I choose to use my body to punch my neighbor in the face, I am going to have to accept the consequences of my choice. My right to do what I want with my body without consequences stops when my fist hits his nose.
I would also like to point out that many women who “choose” abortion are actually pressured into that “choice” by a boyfriend or parent. If women’s choice is paramount, why does this still happen so often?
Also, not everyone who is pro life is against birth control and responsible sex education. I am not.
And to answer your rhetorical question, Kevin…my husband and I lived in a small one bedroom apartment when my daughter was born. We stayed there, and we did just fine. Space was tight, money was tight, but my daughter didn’t care. There are plenty of people who live with their entire families in one room. Not ideal, but should they start killing each other off for a little more space? Sorry, that is a silly question, but my point is that our cultural expectations affect our percieved ability to be good parents, and that is too bad.

Posted by: Lizzie at October 18, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #188803

Lizzie-

I accept your opinion, but certainly you must recognize there is more to it than 9 months of inconvenience and giving up a little bit of space. For example, I had to climb 5 flights of stairs to get to my apt. With kids, strollers, groceries, etc. That is not easy to deal with on a constant basis. What about transportation? Babysitting costs can easily be more than a women’s paycheck. These are but small examples and there are so many more.

Adoption is an often ignored option. But then again, I wouldn’t do it either. Seems like too much work for too little benefit for most people. Is that sad? Yes. Is it real? Yes. Should we force people to stop believing that? No.

I am deeply sorry for those who feel aborting a fetus is the same as killing a baby. I do not feel that way, at least not completely. But as we take guesses based on beliefs, scientists are actively trying to find answers. I’ll defer enforcing my beliefs on others until I have a sound scientific base to stand on.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #188808

What about all males recieve a plug implanted into their vas deferens at the start of puberty. Once they reach 18, and are of full legal responsibility, the plug is removed upon their request.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 18, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #188818

How about electronic collars that sense when a brain is up to no good and delivers a paralyzing shock?

hehe. But seriously, it is important to remember that with more oportunity comes more responsibility and the need for more self-discipline. I think that means less is more. Child-rearing especially…unless you are absolutely certain you can provide the necessary guidance to make a baby into a good person, I’d recommend seriously questioning putting yourself in the position of having to do just that. I doubt very much that many in NYC can honestly say that they can raise 10 kids and guarantee anything of the sort. Not bashing them at all…they are the most versatile people in America…but you have a whole lot more to worry about there as opposed to a place where you know everyone in town. Stick to what you CAN do, and you shouldn’t be governmentally bound to do what is biologically possible to do.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #188853
Posted by: lllplus2 at October 17, 2006 01:36 AM wrote: I don’t care what some Repubs got notariety for back in the day(racism), today they are fighting for things I believe in and you should too if you are a minority. To do otherewise is to be a Jew overseer in a Nazi concentration camp or a pet nigger for the master that carries out the beatings of the the other slaves or better yet a rival tribe in Africa that captures and sells it’s enemy tribe to the slave traders.

Strange. When did any minority ever think Repulicrooks were protecting their rights?

What’s interesting is the contradiction (above). Just a few sentences above …

lllplus2 wrote:
We (the people of mixed race) are not so stupid as you might think. We know that there is no party Rep[ublican] or Dem[ocrat] that is in love with us.

Well, that’s true.
Bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians only care about securing their own cu$hy incumbency, creating more opportinuities for self-gain (for themselves), and votin’ themselves some more raises and cu$hy perk$.

But, didn’t she just say:

today they [Republicans] are fighting for things I believe in and you should too if you are a minority.

That makes no sense at all.

How can you say Repubs don’t love us, but they are fighting for things I believe in, and you should too?

womanmarine,
DITTO !

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #188855

Regarding population growth …
Americans don’t like it, and for very good reasons.

A poll at the Polling Station asked:
President Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you agree with the President?

N=9,174 Margin of Error +/- 1.0%
……. Yes …… No …. Undecided
Dem ….. 27.6% …. 60.1% … 12.3%
Ind …. 16.5% …. 72.5% … 11.0%
Rep …. 10.9% …. 81.3% … 7.8%

Overall Percentages:
18.4% believe amnesty is a good idea
71.2% do not
10.4% were undecided

So, the voters are united against the idea of giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

The Polling Staiton has asked that very same question over, and over, and over, and over, and asked it in different ways, and the answer is still the same, STOP illegal immigration!

So what the hell is up with do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for, irresponsible incumbent politicians?

Well, there is just one little problem.
It’s the blind-party-loyalist voters.
They are so afraid of the OTHER party, they have failed to notice that not only is THEIR party corrupt; BOTH parties are corrupt, and politicians love it! They love their cu$hy 90% re-election rate.

Politicians have learned that they can ignore the voters and do what ever they please, and the voters will STILL RE-elect them, over and over, which is why they enjoy a 90% re-election rate, regardless.

Tenure corrupts.

Most Americans say Congress is corrupt, but what do those very same voters do on election day? ! ? ! ?

So, voters … you get what you vote for,
If you don’t like it, then perhaps you should quit voting for worthless, do-nothing, arrogant, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way, incubment polticians, eh? ! ?

Keep this up, and we’ll reach 400,000 million in out a few years.

29% of all prisoners in state and federal prisons are illegal aliens.
32% to 46% of illegal aliens receive welfare.
Illegal aliens are voting in your elections.

Now, no one can blame illegal aliens for wanting to come here.

If voters want to be upset, they need to be upset with worthless Congress persons that have sold them out.

And, having done so, they are now (despicably) pitting U.S. citizens and illegal aliens against each other.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #188876

Kevin,

I have a friend in Manhattan who has 6 kids. They are great parents with smart, beautiful, wonderful children. It takes I have to raise my 2.
In the end, I think it all comes down to resources, both financial and emotional. The cliche “anyone can make a baby but it’s hard to be a parent” is very accurate.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 18, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #188885

i belive the rise in pop is because of immergratition to some people who move here from different places have 6 kids compared to 1 in china

Posted by: krista at October 18, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #188895

Btw, if you really want to compare stats on a state like California to one like Georgia, you have to take the size difference and the population numbers into consideration.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 18, 2006 12:08 PM

Percentages are base on how many out of a certain number of folks are or aren’t doing something.
The 26% abortion rater in California means that 26 out of 100 pregnant women have abortions compared to 17 out of 100 in Georgia. So it still backs my claim that women in liberal areas have more abortions than those in conservative.
I personally hope all Planed Parenthood’s disappear. Sorry, but they ain’t there to educate. They’re only purpose it to pressure anyone that goes to them to have an abortion. I ain’t never heard of a Planed Parenthood trying to educate a women about her options.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 18, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #188930

Ron Brown,

Btw, if you really want to compare stats on a state like California to one like Georgia, you have to take the size difference and the population numbers into consideration.

Percentages are base on how many out of a certain number of folks are or aren’t doing something. So it still backs my claim that women in liberal areas have more abortions than those in conservative.

I’m sure Adrienne knows how percentages works!
But I guess she tried to point that one needs to take cost of live differences between these areas into account. Real estate are not the same at all in California and Georgia, as babysitting cost, schools distance from home, etc. Overcrowdedness have an impact on these factors, and more generally speaking on the average cost of live, which, indirectly, also pressure the choice to have a(nother) baby or not.

What’s funny is that overcrowdedness seems to impact people political color in a similar way…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 19, 2006 5:02 AM
Comment #189004

Ron Brown-

“I ain’t never heard of a Planed Parenthood trying to educate a women about her options.”

Well, I’ve never heard of a PP that didn’t educate a woman about her options.

Looks like we’ve got a fundemental disagreement here. Care to compare our experience, or would you like to gracefully bow out?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 19, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #189107

lllplus2:

Great post: 10/17.

You go girl!

Jimmy

Posted by: Jimmy at October 19, 2006 9:06 PM
Comment #189118

Linda H.:
“My birthday is on the 16th!!! Happy belated Birthday!!!”

Thank you, and to you too, Linda!

Thanks also to Martian and The Griper for the birthday greetings.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 19, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #189142

Adrienne
No I haven’t read any pamphlets.
Back about 7 years ago when my youngest was daughter 15 I ran a little experiment. I hand two of my older daughters and her go to a local Planed Parenthood like they were pregant. One actually was. All three were encouraged to abort their babies. NONE of them where encouraged to explore other options. They even offerd to drive my youngest to Flordia where she could have the abortion without her parents having to find out she was having an abortion.
Yeah, they really educate all right.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 19, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #189174

Ron Brown,

I hand two of my older daughters and her go to a local Planed Parenthood like they were pregant. One actually was. All three were encouraged to abort their babies. NONE of them where encouraged to explore other options.

In any good testing, the methodology would have make one of your daughter actually expressing loud and clearly she consider to keep the baby and came to know about raising a baby during teenage.

Do you follow this methodology of your daughter all present to them as lost teenagers being pregnant by accident?

Expose the condition of the testing. Otherwise, it’s hard to extrapolate from it any conclusion.

This being said, I don’t trust totally myself many of these social aid groups, only a few of them being unbiaised.
Hopefully, today’s women have more easy access to information about their body and their rights than before.
Still far from being perfect, but it’s an huge improvment from the last centuries of obscurantism and machism…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 20, 2006 6:38 AM
Comment #189198

Philipe/Ron,

Within any organization the personal experience is based on the person you meet. Single instances, single experiments, mean almost nothing in the whole scheme of things. Also, in Ron’s specific case, there was sampling bias. There was a desired outcome and you can be pretty sure the girls made sure that the outcome would be what they wanted. I.e. make daddy happy.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 20, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #189597
Most of the comments posted here are so stupid.

How true.

Liberals are sometimes born, rather than made later in life.

While political viewpoints are often affected by the circumstances of one’s birth, they are always learned rather than genetically endowed.

Posted by: ubermike67 at October 22, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #189744

phillipe, Yes The cost of Living is much Higher in Ca, I would say a husband and wife team in the san fran area would average over $120,000 a year. ask Ron Brown what a average husabnd and wife team makes a year where he lives, what Ron ?About $28,000 a year or less, Numbers. also another point phillipe can we agree that there are a few more Higher Educated people who live in Northern Ca? than in Ron Browns area in georgia? no offence Ron! Yet the Rate of Abortions are 26% in ca. and 17% in georgia. looks more like a matter of Choice For birth control like Ron was pointing out.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 23, 2006 6:08 PM
Post a comment