Or just increase immigration.
What are you talking about? Cite, please.
Uh, you’re kidding, right? Was I just whooshed?
You dodge the fact that you express willingness to overlook abortions in the case of “certain genetic diseases”, while condemning others for doing so. That’s a peculiar sense of morality you’ve got there.
Oh really? I was unaware that “a missing limb” is a typical congenital malformation, that cleft lip is routinely detected in utero, or that parents were opting for abortion over surgical correction for minor anomalies.
Cite!
Thanks for clarifying that your contempt for reproductive freedom overrides your “sympathy” for opposing views.
So, proscribing abortion is not an inevitable step that will be taken to equilibrate population, as you suggested earlier. To paraphrase something you previously said, some of the anti-abortion rights folks are so fanatical about their position that I have little doubt that they would rather overlook alternative means to encourage childbearing, rather than accept the maintenance of reproductive freedoms.
No, he was babbling in my direction. I made a Dr. Strangelovian point about his seeming obsession with the dilution of certain races/cultures through immigration, as opposed to healthful population increases. But of course he has assured us that race doesn’t matter to him.
I return the thanks, although I have been pleased with the level of civilization thus far.
And one must remember that all of history is littered also with disaster itself. I don’t suppose you’d make the same point about global warming, would you? Further, the effects of population shinkage in Europe and Japan are today’s problems, not merely predictions.
That just isn’t right. Did societies “cope” during WWII? The Jews of Europe were virtually eradicated and entire cities were leveled. Tens of millions died. During the Black Plague of Europe 1/3 of the population died.
Disasters happen. Some of them are predicted, some are not. Japan is a modern society that is not coping, and it breaks my heart because it could be a jewel of the planet if it got its act together. Japan has all the resources and social institutions it needs to be the wealthiest, more pro-environment, kindest, and most culturally advanced country in the world, but it is pissing it all away through inaction. With its birth rate as it is, it is literally a dying country.
My main fear is that countries will import fecund but culturally foreign workers and be overwheled from within. I don’t fear so much a war scenario. We already see the problem happening in France, which seems to like importing Muslim (thought for no particular reason) and putting them in ghettos and treating them like 2nd-class citizens. Great stuff.
Yes, it’s economic and social pressures. Further, I realize that women used to work outside the home, sometimes in very great numbers. But that work was programmed by society so that the women would also bear children during their fertile years. The big change has been women putting off having kids until their thirties–either for a “career” or because they can’t afford (self-perceived or actual) to have kids until then. Biologically speaking, this is nonsense.
For many of the working poor it would mean something pretty terrible, but for the middle class your point is well taken. And here is where social pressures come into play. Women work more (get more money) and have fewer children (save more money) so that they can help their husbands buy the McMansions and SUVs. Then, as a secondary result, the number of children itself becomes a matter of style, so that it just seems “uncool” or declasse to have a “brood.”
I think motherhood offers most women a better shot of real meaning in life than the “careers” they trade it for. I base this on the simple fact that the vast majority of people out there, men included, don’t really find their jobs all that fulfilling. I cite also the fact that homemakers are put down in our society now (Hillary’s “I don’t bake cookies”); it’s no longer hip to be a mom. On the other hand, sufficiently wealthy people are encouraged to have a few pretty trophy children. At a certain level of wealth, children are a luxury to be flaunted.
No argument there. I do believe, however, that it is a devil’s bargain for most women, the career thing.
The future is now. Poor women already have higher rates of fertility, and their sociological reality makes it more acceptable for them to have the “brood.” Society is happy to absorb the broods because they serve as lower-caste labor, as they grow up not being able to afford the hoop-jumping of college, etc.
There are many, many major problems with your arguments.
Flaw #1- Underpopulation causes societies to collapse
Actually, it is far more likely for overpopulation to destroy a society. Not having enough resouces for your population leads directly to civil unrest, war, and unstable expansionism. This has happened quite often, especially in pre-Columbian America, where there were less resources to begin with. Think of all the great collapsed civilizations you can, and count how many collapsed due to low birthrates. Not a lot, eh?
Flaw #2- Today’s birthrates affect tommorow
Western Europe was seriously depopulated in the great plague, and then again with the double hit of WWI and WWII, and they are doing pretty well. Small tribes are regularly cut to only a fraction of their population due to war, but most continue to exist. It only takes a couple generations to bring a devestated population back up, and I’m sure we could do it if we really needed to.
Flaw #3- There is strength in numbers
Now that we have moved out of the labor-intensive agricultural phase of our society, we simply do not need as much labor to provide a decent quality of life. There is a balance where more people just dilutes the quality of life, not increases it. We arn’t conscious on some global scale. We mostly want to live nicely and perpetuate our own genes. We recognize that isn’t going to happen if we live in a cabin with then kids and there is only future employment for three of them.
Flaw #4- There even is such thing as "a society"
You mourn the impending doom of Japanese society, but what is that really? I doubt you are talking about the Ainu.
It seems most likely that the first non-Ainu in Japan were of Malay/Indonesian/Polynesian origin. Then came a wave of rice growing culture that moved through China, in to Korea, and finally to Japan, picking up social and religious customs along the way. There seems to have been a large amount of Korean immigration in there somewhere that was enough to drastically influence the genetic stock. Then came a period of massive cultural exchange with Korea and China, leading to things like Buddhism (which began in India) and many technologies. Then comes a lot of opening up and then closing again, ending with a huge amount of cultural exchange with America and a few other parts of the West.
Japanese culture is a mass of ideas ranging from the animist traditions of small hunter gatherer tribes, the seafaring culture of the south islanders, the rice-growing traditions of the South Chinese, an Indian religion, Han Chinese techonologies, massive amounts of Korean culture, and a lot of Westernization. Yes, the mix is unique, but it’s not some monlithic singular thing that can be destroyed so easily. They didn’t get destroyed when enough Koreans came in to change the average height. They arn’t going to get destroyed if the start increasing immigration now. They will only change and meld and continue like every other culture on this planet has since the beginning of time.
Flaw #5- The US, Europe, and Japan are "Modern"
For the first part, you forgot to include Canada. For the second part, you forgot India, Australia, Nigeria, Malaysia, Brazil, Fiji and every other country on Earth. All of these countries have a long history culminating in the modern era. While they may be in different levels of industrialization, believe me they all have their favorite TV shows, know the Shwartzenegger is the governor of California, complain that kids arn’t as respectful or religious these days, are excited about the political progress or lack thereof in their own countries and go to Internet cafes when they’ve got the cash. The third world isn’t living in some sort of time warp.
I’m being a bit snarky here, but really, it’s embarrasing to call only the US, Japan and Europe “Modern”.
Flaw #6- Women working is a new thing
Women have always worked, and the idea of a “housewife” is an upper-class idea that the average family could do only for a brief period around the fifties. Before then, women worked on the farm, in cottage industries, in hard labor if they were poor, and of course the very real labor of maintaining a household before we had modern convienences.
Flaw #7- Societies even have this “will” to survive
It seems like the opposite- most societies have a strong need for change. Western culture is being snatched up and modified by other “traditional” societies at breakneck speed. A handful of religions have surged unstoppably through the world. People seem most interested in living comfortable lives, and let’s face it, quite often a bit of change can enable that.
Flaw #8- Abortion is a major factor in decreasing birthrates
It seems like birth control is a MUCH bigger factor, and yet only Catholics and a few fundamentalists seem to care about that. Where is this social perogative? Without access to abortion, people would probably be a bit more careful about getting pregnant. There would also be an unstoppable amount of “DIY” abortions, as there have been since the beginning of time. Then again, we might also see a rise in infanticide, which has been surprisingly popular throughout the ages.
Flaw #9- It’s harder to raise a family nowdays
Nope, our standards have just gone up. Back in the day, it was pretty much expected to lose a few kids. Only the bright ones had a chance at school. Only the eldest could expect to inheret anything. The rest were mostly a matter of having labor on the farm and could look forward to a life as cannon fodder in the military or celibacy in the clergy. Of course parents have always loved their kids, but the idea of providing a good life to each kid is a fairly new one.
Conclusion
This is a seductive but fallacy laden argument that combines not-so-subtle racism (The death of Western culture is nigh! Soon the world will be full of uncivilized brown people, not the geniuses that made Bach and Einstein!) with the subjagation of women (It’s those wiley women wanting to have a life instead of fulfilling their biological destiny that is responsible! The roles of men and women are in the genes dammit, and they are that of 1950s America!) and brings them up in a tidy pro-life package. There are a few seemingly-well researched articles on this out there in the conservative writing world, but the real people that advocate these views are characters you probably don’t want to be associated with. The idea that our culture is the only worthwhile one and it’s up the the women to keep it up is a nasty one.
Strange how the solution that springs to your mind is coercion – me, I’d expect society to try bribery.
After all, most of the reasons advanced for couples choosing to have fewer children are economic. Children are costly. The time demands of raising children impact on the parents’ ability to pursue other career options.
Well, if “having children = lowered standard of living” is causing a dearth of children, it seems reasonable that switching the equation to “having children = increased standard of living” would result in more children.
Suppose we paid a “benefactor to society” bonus of $20,000 per child per year to those who are willing and able to undertake the admitedly challenging role of parenthood?
Suppose each child came with a government paid for allotment of, oh, two hours per day of ‘added labor.’ Said labor could be anything from nannies to help care for the kids directly to an assistant to help do house work or chores or even ‘regular job’ to free them to spend more time with the kids – or for that matter, simply be a ‘credit’ towards work. A couple with 4 children could simply decide to take it as the father getting paid a full time salary while he stays home to raise the children.
Every woman who gave birth (after a pregnancy in which she followed the basic steps of insuring her child is born healthy – no drugs, healthy diet, prenatal care, etc.) could get a nice big “Thank you from society” check.
Make health care for children ‘free’ in the sense of no cost to the parents. Provide housing subsidies to cover the cost of larger apartments/building on of house additions. Make clothing free to those under 18.
Whatever.
If society comes to value having more children, then society will shift how it expends money to reflect that.
And I don’t think it’s at all cynical to say that people will have more children if the economic pressures against them were lightened or even reversed. I have many friends who would have had another child or two or three if they hadn’t weighed the costs and decided that being ‘responsible’ to the future of the existing children meant they shouldn’t have more.
No coercion required. Just trust to good old market forces. 
I am not entirely sure where you think current Americans came from but if we ‘swap’ current Americans with immigrants our culture isn’t going to be destroyed. The majority of American culture (whatever that is) will survive with pieces of the immigrant culture blended in. For example I just finished eating a burrito but I ordered it in English, I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt, listening to Guns ‘n’ Roses and I washed it down with good ole fashion American soda.
That isn’t how culture works though its more akin to setting a grape out in the sun and getting a raisen. Cultures come into contact with each other and blend together hopefully keeping the good of both and discarding the bad.
Europe’s economic status has very little to do with its culture and more to do with its resources. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with Islam.
Yeah I think you need to go ahead and pick up a history book. The Vandals and the Goths certainly weren’t trying to preserve Roman culture by sacking Rome multiple times. Roman culture survived becuase thats the culture people wanted to practice. It adapted and changed incorporating an outside religion in Christianity and eventually giving way to what we know as Itallian culture.
I fail to see the problem here. Latin evolved into Italian so what?
I think the fundamental problem here is that you think that cultures evolving is somehow a problem. You also think that the government should do something about it and banning abortion is the way to do it. The truth of the matter is that culture evolving is good and happens even in the absence of outside influences. The culture of 1850s America is dead. The culture of 1950s America is almost completely wiped out and the culture of 1975s America is barely hanging around.
This is a good thing. If we stayed with the culture of 1850s America slavery would be acceptable and Native Americans would be looked at as subhuman. If the culture of 1950s America lasted then women would be homemakers and racism would largely be acceptable. If we stayed with 1975s culture we would be stuck in the Disco era and rap music would not be (ok maybe rap is a bad thing). The point is that every culture becomes extinct and it happens fairly rapidly.
For the most part these changes are good and that is why they are happening. Cultures die out and are replaced becuase people find the new culture better. I didn’t eat a ham and cheese sandwhich becuase I like the taste of a burrito better. I eat Chinese food becuase I like the taste of it. I listen to Jazz music becuase I enjoy it. More people agree with me than disagree so these have become part of our culture. If one day America is an Islamic country this will be a good thing becuase that means people have found a better way of life and discarded the old.
The government has no business trying to stop these changes and it should not try to. Even if it tried its damndest short of expelling all foriegners and forcibly cutting off communication the culture would still evolve. Banning abortion to stop culture change is like trying to stop a boulder rolling at you by blowing at it.
It would indeed.
They are not and should not be.
Not an apt analogy in this case. A small society is not necessarily a less successful society than a large one, it is true. But if it gets too small, it could be in danger. And if it dies out, well, then it’s not successful at all.
Not really pertinent to my original argument, which is that a society may ban abortion as a means of preventing population loss. The idea of Japan adoptig Fillipinos, though… I guess you’ve never lived in Japan.
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Yep, sometimes you just have to throw down the gauntlet, and command people to breed.
So sad, but enjoyable in a perverse way. :rolleyes:
[quote]
Heh heh, have a laugh, but societies have done this in the past. In fact, it has been a standard society value to breed so as to produce soldiers, etc.
It is most often done by carrot instead of stick, but there until after WWII abortion was taboo for a reason, wasn’t it? It wasn’t, at bottom, a religious reason, was it? Think sociologically.
There’s no parallel at all, because, I REPEAT, population shrinkage is ALREADY A PROBLEM IN SOME PLACES. Whew, I hope you heard me.
Nope, I think your side of the argument is in the hot seat here. The trend is plummeting birth rates with real and troublesome effects NOW. If you want to posit that everything is OK now or that everything will be OK in the future, that’s your argument to make.
Yeah, and when did you stop beating your wife, etc.
Be careful what you ask for:
Cite.
Here is what Wikipedia says about Down Syndrom:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome).
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?
Your perception of how all pro-lifers think seems to be both inaccurate and self-serving (catch-all demonization).
Engaging someone’s debate as a whole is a more edfying way of enjoying this board than looking for little contradictions. Unless you are going for high-school debating club “gotchas.”
Yep, some anti-abortion fanatics are obviously total freaks.
Does it to you? This thread is seeing lots of one-liners but very few really willing to state their positions.
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.
Ah man, that’s great!
If so (and I am dubious of that), immigration should be able to solve this problem.
Do you have any complete sets of numbers to go with your assertions? I dug out the statistics for Norway (from 2003, rounded up to nearest thousand, numbers from this site):
Births: 56 000
Deaths: 42 000
Immigration: 36 000
Emigration: 25 000
Net population increase: 25 000
Abortions: 14 000
(Our total population is 4.5 million.)
Now, this isn’t a perfect example because it’s from a country which has more births than deaths (and which prioritises children pretty highly, both through economic support, and through high tolerance for the demands that children place on parents’ time). It’s also from a country which isn’t very friendly to immigration (although it might be pretty typical for Europe). But it does show that in this case, at least, you’d hardly need huge, dramatic increases in the immigrant population to cover the number of abortions.
Anyway, I’m not completely sure what your stance is, Aeschines. Do you argue that it’s likely that societies will restrict abortions because of these population pressures you describe, or that it would be a good thing for societies to restrict abortions for that reason? In other words, are you trying to predict a specific trend, or arguing in favor of that trend?
I think you are missing important points many people have made that I have yet to see addressed. First, each abortion does necessarily represent one less person that will never be born. Please give me your thought on the following points:
-
Out of the approximately one million abortions in the US, many would have resulted in miscarriages. Miscarriages will happen in about 15 percent of recognized pregnancies. Considering the population of people getting abortions is heavily skewed toward at risk groups (teenagers, drug-users, etc.), the number of babies born (had they not been aborted) would be considerably less. That knocks the number down roughly 15%.
-
Here are some other statistics for you to ponder:
Conservatively, 25% of women getting abortions are postponing having a child (children). For many of these people, the abortion only resulted in a delay, thus no population decrease can necessarily be attributed. Furthermore, if abortions were illegal, many of these women would have children when they were unprepared, and would be less likely to have a stable family in the future. This could actually result in less children being born. I’m 22 right now. If I had a kid tomorrow, I think I’d be less likely to have kids later on in life (when I have the means). Do you think a women who planned on having 3 kids and a house with a white picket fence would pursue that dream if she ends up having to give birth at 16? Does that result in a population loss of 2?
In addition, if you truly made abortion unavailable, people would use other forms of contraception. You would have tons more people using birth control and getting their tubes tied. This would further reduce the population loss (at least, the loss you seem to have a problem with).
-
Taking the previous facts into account, you could attribute maybe 800k “people” lost to abortion. Approx. 4.2 million babies are born each year. This represents about 16% loss. Keep in mind that doesn’t include people who you would allow to have abortion due to rape and health reasons (often cited at about 5%). Sounds impressive. Yet there are plenty of other things that reduce population by larger numbers. Hell, 400,000 people die every year from smoking.
-
There is no special connection between population size and abortion that makes your argument particularly germane. The fact that people go to college more often then they used to has reduced our population too. Is having an educated populace a bad idea because it runs contrary to one of society’s many goals? There are plenty of valid reasons to be against abortion, but the effect it has on population size isn’t one of them.
Well I found yours to be majorly problematic too–so there! Mainly, yours were logically fallacious or completely irrelevent (i.e., arguing where I agreed with you in the first place). Let’s take a look:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Not only did I never say or imply this, but I already dealt with this issue specifically in a post way back. Read the posts.
Isn’t “change” part of survival? Duh.
I provided a numerical cite–where’s yours?
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.
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.
[quote]
with the subjagation of women (It’s those wiley women wanting to have a life instead of fulfilling their biological destiny that is responsible! The roles of men and women are in the genes dammit, and they are that of 1950s America!) and brings them up in a tidy pro-life package.
[quote]
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.
Not really either. I don’t think abortion will be banned in the US, and I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea, despite my dislike of it. What I’m getting at is 1) It’s a possibility in some socities, and, indeed, a reality in some societies (Ireland, etc.); 2) the prerogative of a society to encourage procreation is good food for thought for those who think only individual rights matter.
It’s a subtle position; perhaps it’s fuzzy. I’m not a black-and-white “It’s wrong and Jesus says so” pro-lifer, and I hate to disappoint those who prefer to argue against that type.
Bring them up and I will.
Your points are great and informative. I agree with your logic for the most part. Note that I said previously, however, that I didn’t think there would be a 1:1 relationship between abortions and the effect on the birth rate. I still think the effect would be large, though.
Miscarriage point granted.
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%.
Point granted, but the trade is still between a child now and the chance of having more children later.
I think you’re absolutely right.
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.
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?