# Abortion: a different take on the debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057 "2005-04-13T00:55:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/61 "2005-04-13T07:04:06Z")
I used the word “modern” only twice: > [@](#): > > Modern society, whether in the US, Europe, or Japan, has created a lethally population-depressing cocktail: > > Japan is a modern society that is not coping… Here I was comparing not modern to un-modern societies, but societies as compared to their pasts. Note that I made no explicit comparison between “modern” societies and their opposite. I will award you 1/3 of a gotcha point, however, because there could have been an implied comparison if you reaaally read between those lines. Another poster was using the word “modern” a lot, however. This happens a lot on SDMB: Someone else makes an argument that you didn’t made, and a few posts down you are attacked for making it. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/62 "2005-04-13T07:06:30Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Developed societies put economic and social pressures on people that make them less fecund. What is society to do about that in reaction? I don’t know if I am just being ignored here or what but you haven’t shown that society has to or should do anything about it. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/63 "2005-04-13T07:11:59Z")
> [@treis](#): > > But outside influence is exactly what made Japan what it is today. In the 1850s Japan largely was still a feudalistic society ruled by a Shogun. William Perry sailed into Tokyo harbor under an American flag that started the chain of events that led to the current Japanese culture. Japan quickly adopted European culture largely abadoning the Samuri culture of its past. When Japan lost WWII the allies deposed the Emperor and transformed Japan’s economic and political situation into what it is today. Funny you should mention it, but in my opinion the “real” Japan ended with the Meiji Restoration, when the shogunate ended. > [@](#): > > By your argument the government of Japan should have done what it could to resist the culture change. Thereby failing to adopt the very social, political and economic institutions that you so admire. You don’t know what I admire. I certainly don’t admire Japan’s social and political institutions. I think Japan’s death has occured in three distinct stages: Rejecting the feudal system, which rarely caused people outside the country harm, to a very bad and militarized despotism. Japan had a chance, though, to reinvent itself and become a cool, westernized country without trading away _too_ much of its past culture. It could also have set itself up to be Asia’s long-term preeminent power. Instead, it did the WWII thing and turned itself into the bitch of the US. But STILL Japan had a chance to a be a pretty cool country with, yes, a horribly bastardized and degraded culture. It did OK in the 1950s and 1960s retained some charm even into the early 1990s. But it screwed up bad economically, destroyed its environment, trashed its culture even more, and failed to learn from its mistakes. It’s in a right sorry state now, and its future looks pretty bleak to me. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/64 "2005-04-13T07:15:27Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I don’t know if I am just being ignored here or what but you haven’t shown that society has to or should do anything about it. Your point? Yeah, a given society or the human race as a whole might dwindle to nothing. I doesn’t “have to” do anything about that. I think it’s common sense that it _will_ try to do something. Should it? I think it should. Do you actually have an opinion on the matter? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/65 "2005-04-13T07:22:13Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > No, but going further with that, postponing by means of an abortion means that an actual child is replaced with merely the _chance_ of having another child, so there would still be a population-depressing effect within that 25%. Well, that 25% are people who explicitly implied they would like to have children later. The number of people who eventually will could, and probably is greater than 25%. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Point granted, but the trade is still between a child now and the chance of having more children later. True. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Not at all the same. Smoking usually kills people _after_ they have reproduced, whereas abortion kills potential reproducers. > Sorry, I don’t think your numbers prove this final assertion. In fact, remember when I speculated that banning abortion would increase the birth rate by 15%–that’s remarkably close to your 16% figure, isn’t it? The figure of which you said, “Sounds substantial.” You can’t hand-wave that away. Yes, smoking does kill people later in life, but it’s still a population loss. I could be wrong, but I thought one facet of your reasoning for wanting a larger population was that we’d have a larger pool of ability and talent to draw from. A 45 year old who dies of lung cancer still represents a loss to society in that regard. If you only value population increase for its own sake, then I see your point. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Your point about college is, in fact, precisely the kind of thing I’ve been saying all along. Developed societies put economic and social pressures on people that make them less fecund. What is society to do about that in reaction? Nothing much, because most people don’t see this as a problem of the magnitude you do. Even those that do don’t typically view it as an abortion issue. There are only 24 hours in a day. The fact that people like Bill Gates decide to devote much of their time to their interests has helped society far more than their decision to have kids. It’s a trade off we are willing to make for good reason. Most people don’t do great things in life in their spare time. Tiger Woods wouldn’t be Tiger Woods if he spent his late teens taking care of his kids. Society would be robbed of some many things if we insisted on everyone doing putting family above everything else. While there may be some concern that people are not procreating at the rate they used to, I don’t see how banning abortion would help in any significant way. Also, the total fertility [rate](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) in the US is still 2.07 children born/woman (2004 est.). No need to panic quite yet. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/66 "2005-04-13T07:38:09Z")
The point is that there aren’t any society’s or cultures dwindling to nothing rather these cultures are evolving from outside influence. This has been happening ever since a culture was developed. It is not necessarily a problem and is definately not something the government should be involved in. Japanese culture may look bleak to you but it does not to the majority of Japanese. The Japanese have adopted the outside practices and retained the traditional ones that they want. What you call a bastardization of culture is in fact an evolution into a new and, for the people that live in it, preferrable culture. If the Japanese at large wanted to retain traditions there is nothing stopping them. The so-called trashing of their culture is in fact just a society as a whole removing the trash from the culture and replacing it with something they see as better. The Japanese may have been forcefully exposed to foriegn culture but by large they willingly adopted it. When cultures are destroyed such as in the case of Native American cultures it is certainly a bad thing. I could see an argument in which a Mayan or Sioux women had a responsibility to progenerate their culture. I would most likely disagree with it but you would have a valid argument. However arguing that there is somesort of reponsbility to breed in order to stop a gradual culture change is not something I can agree with. If Roman culture didn’t evolve from outside pressure we wouldn’t have seen the culture of the Italian Renissance. There is nothing inherently better about ancient Roman culture that it needed to be preserved. Nor is there anything inherently special about Japanese or American culture where drastic measure is needed to preserved it. These cultures are merely evolving into something new and different not necessarily something worse or better. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/67 "2005-04-13T07:52:51Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Well, that 25% are people who explicitly implied they would like to have children later. The number of people who eventually will could, and probably is greater than 25%. Do I misunderstand? That 25% _did_ abort, eliminating one child now, but _might_ fulfill their wishes of having children later? > [@](#): > > Yes, smoking does kill people later in life, but it’s still a population loss. I could be wrong, but I thought one facet of your reasoning for wanting a larger population was that we’d have a larger pool of ability and talent to draw from. A 45 year old who dies of lung cancer still represents a loss to society in that regard. If you only value population increase for its own sake, then I see your point. Two different points. One affects the ability of society to reproduce, one doesn’t. Both lessen the talent pool. Both are regrettable. > [@](#): > > Nothing much, because most people don’t see this as a problem of the magnitude you do. Even those that do don’t typically view it as an abortion issue. There are only 24 hours in a day. The fact that people like Bill Gates decide to devote much of their time to their interests has helped society far more than their decision to have kids. Bill Gates has three kids, BTW. I don’t think the issue is one of free time vs. raising kids, I think it has more to do with economics. Rich people tend to have both the time and money to have kids and pursue their interests. > [@](#): > > It’s a trade off we are willing to make for good reason. Most people don’t do great things in life in their spare time. Tiger Woods wouldn’t be Tiger Woods if he spent his late teens taking care of his kids. Society would be robbed of some many things if we insisted on everyone doing putting family above everything else. While there may be some concern that people are not procreating at the rate they used to, I don’t see how banning abortion would help in any significant way. Actually, most of the greats of history have managed to do both. > [@](#): > > Also, the total fertility [rate](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) in the US is still 2.07 children born/woman (2004 est.). No need to panic quite yet. Not panicking, but that is still below replacement of 2.1. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/68 "2005-04-13T08:18:39Z")
You’re thinking along a culturally relativistic line that I just don’t buy into, but here goes: > [@treis](#): > > The point is that there aren’t any society’s or cultures dwindling to nothing rather these cultures are evolving from outside influence. A shrinking population has pretty much nothing to do with outside influence. > [@](#): > > This has been happening ever since a culture was developed. It is not necessarily a problem and is definately not something the government should be involved in. It depends on the nature of the threat. I think you’re forgetting that things like disease and war can also destroy cultures, and the government definitely does get involved. You may think a shrinking population or complete cultural capitulation (e.g., the Mongolians giving up their script and replacing it with Cyrillic to placate the Soviets) are not a problem, but I do. > [@](#): > > Japanese culture may look bleak to you but it does not to the majority of Japanese. I think I’ve got another law like Godwin’s law: As the length of a thread grows to infinity, someone will eventually make speculations on Japanese culture who knows really nothing about the country. Contrary to what you say, there is a lot of angst in Japan about where the culture is going and what it has lost. > [@](#): > > The Japanese have adopted the outside practices and retained the traditional ones that they want. What you call a bastardization of culture is in fact an evolution into a new and, for the people that live in it, preferrable culture. So, the Japanese _preferred_ to invade China, bomb Pearl Harbor, get the shit kicked out of them, and live in subjugation to the US for 50 years? Was Tokyo being 90% destroyed and rebuilt the form of “evolution” that they chose? There are serious issues at stake here. It’s not all about how Japanese people eat McDonald’s and listen to rap, hah hah hah. > [@](#): > > If the Japanese at large wanted to retain traditions there is nothing stopping them. Sure there is. Once your city is bombed you can’t go back. Certain mistakes are made and can’t be undone. Both Japan and China changed the way they write Chinese characters in the 1950s and onward. Japan’s changes were pretty superfluous and useless (unlike China’s, which were simply disastrous) but those same changes now create a significant barrier to people reading books written just a few decades ago. Not all the changes are made by self-aware, autonomous adults. They are often societal accidents and fuckups. > [@](#): > > The so-called trashing of their culture is in fact just a society as a whole removing the trash from the culture and replacing it with something they see as better. The Japanese may have been forcefully exposed to foriegn culture but by large they willingly adopted it. I don’t sense that you understand the realities involved. > [@](#): > > When cultures are destroyed such as in the case of Native American cultures it is certainly a bad thing. I don’t see any difference between this and the case of Japan. > [@](#): > > I could see an argument in which a Mayan or Sioux women had a responsibility to progenerate their culture. I would most likely disagree with it but you would have a valid argument. However arguing that there is somesort of reponsbility to breed in order to stop a gradual culture change is not something I can agree with. If Roman culture didn’t evolve from outside pressure we wouldn’t have seen the culture of the Italian Renissance. Rome is a different case in that the fall of Rome was pretty much a political thing that didn’t cause wholesale destruction to either the culture or physical artifacts. Of course there will be change and evolution. I’m all for it. But the idea that all changes and directions are equal is nonsense. Europe only got better as time went on. The Middle East went from being the world’s preeminent culture to the trash heap it is today. [quote] ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/69 "2005-04-13T08:53:04Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Fallacious. Just because overpopulation has been a bigger problem in the past has nothing to do with whether underpopulation is a problem now or will be in the future. This is especially so because the causes of the two problems are completely unrelated. Societies in the past did not have access to good contraceptive technology. So, like, this subconscious societal perogative we have not only can magically sense what we as a society need and make them come to life in the form of people with giant pictures of mutilated dolls covered in jam paraded outside of the clinic, but it can also divorce itself from the animal insticts tht have thus far guided our evolutionary past and choose the best path in a decidedly unnatural industrial society? > [@](#): > > Completely off the mark. The birthrate at the time of the Black Plague had nothing to do with the death rate. In fact the two are usually totally unrelated. Europe bounced back from that disaster precisely _because_ it had a high birthrate. Same thing with the baby boom after WWII. You don’t think birthrates have an effect on the future? Then what you said about overpopulation doesn’t make much sense, does it? Um, I’m not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse or not. My example demonstrated that it is easy to repopulate a declining society, and a period of declining birthrates is not something that can doom a population forever. > [@](#): > > When arguing on the SDMB is bad, it gets like this. You might want to read my posts, especially the one where I said I thought the ideal world population was about 2-3 billion, 1/3 to 1/2 of what it is now. So which half of the world do you want to stop reproducing? So far I know it’s not America, Western Europe or Japan. I’m guessing it’s not Canada or Australia, either. > [@](#): > > Pointless lecture _snipped._ Dude, I lived in Japan for eight years and have been associating with the country for thirteen. I have my own concept of what Japan is as a society, and I have my own concerns about its extreme demographics. Try to understand the other person’s POV before you blather up. I’ve seen Afghanistan from the air and had tea with a Brazillian witch doctor, so I’ve got my own concept, too. What you are doing is a common fallacy known as the appeal to authority. You are relying on your experience or expertise to make a point, instead of actually making a point. Please, tell me about why you think that the current changes to Japanese culture are so different than the changes that have come in the last thousand years or so. Otherwise, keep your travelogue in MPSIMS. > [@](#): > > Dude, I used the word “developed,” which refers to a level of economic development, not cultural development. It is the economic realities that make having children profitable or unprofitable. If I used the word “modern” in any of my posts, quote 'em and I’ll give you some zinger points. “Modern society, whether in the US, Europe, or Japan, has created a lethally population-depressing cocktail” And it’s dudette. > [@](#): > > Isn’t “change” part of survival? Duh. I dunno, in your opinion are the changes you see happening in Europe part of “survival” or are they “leaving Mona Lisa out in the rain?” > [@](#): > > This is why it helps actually to _quote_ a person’s arguments and then rebut. I never said it used to be “easier” to raise a family. I said, rather, that there were social and economic pressures that have caused people to view having children as unaffordable. It’s an important difference. People do _in fact_ have fewer children today than they used to (in the developed, not modern, world), so I don’t think there is much to argue about here. Yeah, but you view this as a bad thing caused by some sort of social weakness or something. I view it as the onward march of progress. > [@](#): > > If you want to accuse me of racism, feel free to quote me. Otherwise that’s a pretty strong, reckless, and offensive accusation. Please take it to the Pit next time with the appropriate cites to back it up. I think you’ve said enough about what you think about Islam for the readers of this thread to form their own opinion of your agenda. > [@](#): > > What the _hell_ are you talking about?Hmm, I remember talking about Japan and how I hoped that it didn’t die out. I would be ashamed of your irresponsible post if I were you. Sorry, my friend, I’m not the one who chose to make a serious argument about the sort of material that Pat Buchanan bandies about when he wants to get invited to talk radio shows. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/70 "2005-04-13T09:03:45Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > You’re thinking along a culturally relativistic line that I just don’t buy into, but here goes Really, buddy, please tell us which cultures you think are better relative to others. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/71 "2005-04-13T09:28:58Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > So, like, this subconscious societal perogative we have not only can magically sense what we as a society need and make them come to life in the form of people with giant pictures of mutilated dolls covered in jam paraded outside of the clinic, but it can also divorce itself from the animal insticts tht have thus far guided our evolutionary past and choose the best path in a decidedly unnatural industrial society? Not sure what you mean. > [@](#): > > Um, I’m not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse or not. My example demonstrated that it is easy to repopulate a declining society, and a period of declining birthrates is not something that can doom a population forever. Your examples were of high birthrate societies repopulating themselves after a spike in death rates. They have nothing to do with what happens after birthrates themselves fall. In case you still don’t get it: **Birth rates during the Black Death were high.** > [@](#): > > So which half of the world do you want to stop reproducing? So far I know it’s not America, Western Europe or Japan. I’m guessing it’s not Canada or Australia, either. Non sequitur. Are you still implying I’m a racist? Take it to the pit. > [@](#): > > IWhat you are doing is a common fallacy known as the appeal to authority. You are relying on your experience or expertise to make a point, instead of actually making a point. No, first off I was telling you that your musing on Japan were uninformed crap. And yes, I’m an authority on Japan. What I say is better than what you say about that country because it’s based on experience and study. > [@](#): > > Please, tell me about why you think that the current changes to Japanese culture are so different than the changes that have come in the last thousand years or so. What are you trying to rebut? Quote me, then rebut. I never said that current changes in Japanese culture were unique and unprecedented. > [@](#): > > And it’s dudette. College student? > [@](#): > > I dunno, in your opinion are the changes you see happening in Europe part of “survival” or are they “leaving Mona Lisa out in the rain?” Try to frame an argument, dudette. > [@](#): > > Yeah, but you view this as a bad thing caused by some sort of social weakness or something. I view it as the onward march of progress. Doesn’t quite follow. Try harder. > [@](#): > > I think you’ve said enough about what you think about Islam for the readers of this thread to form their own opinion of your agenda. Did you know that saying you don’t like a particular culture or worldview doesn’t make you a racist? Racism has something to do with, uh, race, right? Sloppy debating, sloppy rhetoric. Have fun arguing “reproductive freedom” with people from that region, thou guardian of the PC Light. > [@](#): > > Sorry, my friend, I’m not the one who chose to make a serious argument about the sort of material that Pat Buchanan bandies about when he wants to get invited to talk radio shows. Dudette, you keep it up and you’ll soon have used every known propaganda trick. What’s that one called? Oh yes, Transfer. I say things like Pat B. Pat B. is bad. What I said is bad. The arguments, dudette, the arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/72 "2005-04-13T09:39:00Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > Really, buddy, please tell us which cultures you think are better relative to others. I like the US. I admire much about China and Japan. I think India has a lot going for it. I visited Finland once and it seemed really cool. I think a lot of the American Indians got things right, too. Ancient Egypt was neato. And I can go piecemeal, too: I don’t know a lot about African cultures, but I admire the music of Africa overall. I admire midaeval Arab thought (Avicenna, etc.). I’ve been studing about Sikhism recently, too–some cool stuff there, too. Bad is rigid, religious thinking. I’m not into either the wingnut Christian stuff or Islamofacism. Self-destructive behavior is bad, genocide too. Few countries are as pathetic as Rwanda in recent decades. If you think that sounds “racist,” well the Germans and the Soviets made Rwanda look pretty good not too long ago. Actually, I’m a pro-life liberal and pretty non-hard-core about my pro-life stance. I’m against the death penalty and most euthanasia. Didn’t you know that tarrring people with the racist brush is pretty damn offensive and pathetic? ---
**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/73 "2005-04-13T11:38:26Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > What you say is all true, but the fact is that there are societies today with populations that are shrinking. In which case their economic system is not demanding enough population growth. Or they may be demanding it and not getting it, such as when oldies demand to be supported by young’uns who, thus burdened, can’t afford to have kids. I think this is what you mean. No, that isn’t what I mean. I will try to explain again (let me know if I get your views wrong) Your argument: 1. (some) Populations are declining 2. Population decline is bad for the economy of societies 3. Abortion affects population size/growth 4. We should tightly restrict abortions so that populations will grow, and the economy (amongst other things) will improve My argument: 1. (some people are concerned that some) populations are declining 2. Population decline is bad for the economy of societies 3. Current economic models require population growth, but individual’s choices are adding up to population decline 4. So, we could change individual’s choices, or change the economy 5. Solution: Rethink our economic models, so that as the population cycles down, it does not cause major economic problems (and remain flexible so that when it cycles back up again, all will be fine) What do you think about that option, **Aeschines**? Or is the economics of population decline not your main concern? ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/74 "2005-04-13T11:47:14Z")
I understand that you are deeply concerned about falling birthrates and loss of cultures. I just don’t understand which culture you want to protect. I happily live in a society that lets me choose what I do with my reproductive organs. Should that culture suddenly change into one where I am forced to be a brood mare, then I will say YAY and wave it goodbye. You have a lovely theory. Your reality would be most unpleasent. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/75 "2005-04-13T12:01:46Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > One point I think you’re missing is that a culture/society like Japan will do something to fight to stay in existence, just as an organism fights to stay in existence. How they respond to a shrinking population is not a matter for future speculation, it is happening now (mostly they are doing nothing, as one would expect of today’s impotent Japanese society). If they succeed in their fight, good for them. If they fail, well, they fail. If Japanese society is impotent, I don’t see what good it will do trying to keep it fertile. Maybe it is destined to go extinct. > [@](#): > > Two points, Americans of the future won’t be there at all unless the population stays at replacement level. If we swap current Americans wholly for immigrants, then, yes, the culture will be gone that way, too. This country is comprised of immigrants, correct? Even the Native Americans migrated over here. Why should we be alarmed at a trend that’s been a part of this country’s history from the very beginning? Why should we try to preserve American culture when 1)American culture has always been an amalgam of different cultures and 2)cultural change is not necessarily a good or bad thing (I can think of many cases in which our culture has changed for the good…even while cultural conservatives dragged their feet about it). > [@](#): > > Second point. Of course we have to work to preserve culture. We don’t set the Mona Lisa out in the sun and rain. We teach our kids to say “please.” We have seen NYC go to hell and back in our lifetimes because of subtle causes that had big effects. Mona Lisa is an artifact, just like the ancient pyramids and the Dead Sea Scrolls. We treasure these things because they are a glimpse of the past and hold sentimental value. But these things aren’t the product of “our” culture. They belong to societies of the past. (And I don’t get the “please” thing. Other languages and cultures have words that mean the same thing. In fact, I bet all of them do.) What should we preserve from our culture? Brittney Spears and bell bottoms? I-pods and hip hop music? Twinkies? Ford Pintos? Why should we worry about the loss of these things? If they’re good, they will survive all on their own. I’m sure fifty years from now, Americans will still be listening to rock music and drinking sweetened ice tea. That they might be wearing saris and speaking Chinese does not alarm me one little bit. > [@](#): > > Having Italy’s population shrink by 1% a year is, in a way, like setting the Mona Lisa out in the rain. There are good things in that culture we want to preserve. Personally, I don’t want to see Europe turn into a generic, impoverished Islamic mess like the Middle East. I wish the best for the people of the Middle East as human beings, but I think they need to solve their issues before they take over other land masses (this sentiment does not pertain to any particular individual, just to mass immigration without any check or order). Migration is what living things do. Environments change. So does the distribution of populations. If populations are shrinking and the areas they inhabit are rife with resources, then it is only natural that other populations will move in. This is how nature works and it doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Not all of Europe is rich and prosperous. Not all of European populations have declining birthrates, either. The Middle East provided the foundation for human civilization. Without it, you would have no developed West. I see nothing wrong with exchanging European culture for Middle Eastern/Islamic/Arab culture, as long as the good and bad from each is kept and lost. > [@](#): > > But one reason that the good things last is that societies struggle to exist even as they are ceasing to do so. The Romans did not passively give up when the “barbarians” broke through the gates. They put up a good fight, thereby earning the respect of their conquerors and hence their desire to preserve the culture of the society they had defeated. Bully for them. But Roman civilization DID eventually decline. We have kept elements of the culture alive, but it does not exist in the same form as it did 1000 years ago. And I’m kind of glad about that. I’d hate to have to watch Christians get mauled to death in the Coliseum for entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/76 "2005-04-13T12:47:42Z")
Read [this article](http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet ____ 6048.aspx), **Aeschines** , and tell me how you think you’re OP reflects on it, if you want. I remember, by the way, that at one point the prime minister was concerned about the declining birth rate of the Swedes, and what did he do … make abortion illegal? No. He simply addressed the nation and \*asked \* the Swedes to have more children. Did that help? I don’t know. But before you consider making abortion illegal a proper measure to solve the incredible, scary, threatening, dangerous problem of a dwindling population, you may first run through a few other stages in the proces, one of which is determining that you actually have a problem, and the next is running through the options you have to do something about it. What you’re doing right now simply reeks of a cheap way to find a justification for something that isn’t really justified, but you simply _want_ it to be. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/77 "2005-04-13T13:39:35Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Be careful what you ask for: > > [Cite](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1439312,00.html). > [@](#): > > Basically, aborting for any big/visible abnormality these days is “no biggie.” I don’t have a lot of stats and statistics on the matter–I may be slightly off in my perception. But do really disagree with this conjecture, or are just calling “cite” for debating points? Yes, I disagree with your “conjecture” that abortion is viewed as an acceptable means of dealing with any “visible” abnormality, and it is an accepted fact of life in GD that controversial assertions are backed up with fact. Your anecdotal cite from the UK lacks key information, but includes the statement from the involved MDs that they considered there to be a significant risk of serious anomalies in the case. You may be unaware of this, but cleft lip and palate may be associated with a variety of syndromes involving multiple birth defects, some of which are considerably more life-threatening. [Example.](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/jablonski/syndromes/syndrome278.html) If you do not have statistics to back up the implication that abortion is a routine way of dealing with cosmetic problems, I suggest that you drop it, as it is misleading, insulting and inaccurate. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Thanks for clarifying that your contempt for reproductive freedom overrides your “sympathy” for opposing views. > [@Aeschines](#): > > Your perception of how all pro-lifers think seems to be both inaccurate and self-serving (catch-all demonization). Um, characterizations of _your_ attitude are not to be confused with generalizations of “how all pro-lifers think”. Some are capable of thoughtful debate without larding it with inaccuracies and sneers about the other side’s beliefs. > [@](#): > > Engaging someone’s debate as a whole is a more edfying way of enjoying this board than looking for little contradictions. When you’re careless with your supporting arguments, your big theory of Culture Doom looks less and less plausible. Even if one accepts current rates of population decline in a few countries as irreversible and long-term predictions as infallible (a dubious proposition), you’re still stuck with justifying a “culture” that depends on coercing its citizens to breed in order to survive, rather than encouraging growth through alternate methods. The value of maintaining such a coercive/authoritarian culture is questionable. > [@Aeschines](#): > > OK, you’re totally for abortion rights. Anything PC, you’re for it. You’re a good liberal, kinda left-leaning, but that makes you cool in the crowd you hang out with. You stick to the party line. Haven’t been paying much attention around here, have you? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/78 "2005-04-13T15:47:08Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > > [@even sven](#): > > > > So which half of the world do you want to stop reproducing? So far I know it’s not America, Western Europe or Japan. I’m guessing it’s not Canada or Australia, either. > > Non sequitur. Are you still implying I’m a racist? Take it to the pit. That isn’t a non sequitur in fact its a perfectly valid question. You say that the world’s population is 1/2 to 2/3 too high yet you argue that abortion should be banned to increase the birth rate. Where should the population decrease come from to fall in line with your desired level? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/79 "2005-04-13T16:27:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That isn’t a non sequitur in fact its a perfectly valid question. You say that the world’s population is 1/2 to 2/3 too high yet you argue that abortion should be banned to increase the birth rate. Where should the population decrease come from to fall in line with your desired level? It’s garbage. Just because I think the world population should be less than it is doesn’t mean AT ALL that I think the reductions should be made among a certain group of people. You’re playing those cards pretty close to the vest, aren’t you? Do you think the world population should be less? Is it fine? Where should those reductions be made? Are _you_ a racist? Some of you seem to think that debating consists of taking smug potshots at an opinion without opening yourself up to counterattack by taking a position yourself. ---
**Author:** ![aurelian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f4b2a3/32.png) [@aurelian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurelian)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057/80 "2005-04-13T16:28:55Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Bring them up and I will. Ok. In my first post, I brought up that the US, for example, does not have an extraordinary (or even adequate) system in place to support parents and their young children. You seemed to agree with that sentiment, but did not address the point: if the US has an interest in producing more children, why is it that we lack not just an extraordinary support system, but even an adequate one? Why would a society deliberately (and I’m not just talking about abortion laws here - work hours, maternal/ paternal leave, day care - all the things I mentioned in that first post contribute) be working against its own interests? Could it possibly be that lots of young children is actually _not_ as much of a need/ necessity as you posit? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-a-different-take-on-the-debate/299057.md?page=5)