The difference is that I am not advocating that some cultures should grow in population while the net population should decrease. You have made a judgement that some cultures are valuable and the members of that culture should ban abortion to increase their population. Since these cultures in your eyes are valuable they are exempt from the population decrease you advocate. The next logical step is then determing the cultures that are not valuable and whos population should decrease. The question of which cultures you think fit this criteria is a perfectly valid one.
You have said in this thread that you reject cultural relativism. If the argument is that certain cultures need to ban abortion to progenerate their better culture then we need to determine which cultures under this argument can ban abortion. What criteria do you use to judge these cultures and in your mind which ones do not meet this criteria and should have their population reduced?
I would look at yourself before you accuse others of taking smug pot shots.
[nitpick] There is very little evidence that Christians were mauled in the famous Flavian amphitheatre aka Coliseum - I tried to find the recent book on Amazon but it’s an academic text and doesn’t seem to be listed. Of course, all sorts of horrible things went down there, just not as we might memorably recall them, as from ‘Quo Vadis’ (which blames Nero, who died before the thing was even built!). [/nitpick]
Sorry, but the OP is just absurd. Setting aside the fact that Aeschines says, “If you want to rehash the standard arguments for either side, please go [to the pit]”, and then proceeds to rehash the standard arguments:smack:, I’m utterly dumbfounded that anyone would believe that the human race is in danger of under-population. I mean, that’s just laughable.
I appreciated your post because I was thinking along these lines but didn’t have the figures.
I would say the 25% is conservative indeed. Many of the other reasons listed (too young, can’t afford, partner not supportive) may also constitute a postponement. Those women won’t always be too young, or unsupported in their relationship. Same with the abortions for medical reasons.
Surely some proportion of those women will go on to have additional pregnancies which will go to term. If they didn’t have abortion as an option, then that would probably figure into their childbearing and birth control decisions in the future, as others have noted.
It’s simply not clear to me how much abortions depress the number of children women will eventually go on to have. They surely do to some extent, but I suspect it’s far less than the OP seems to believe.
This doesn’t sound like a society that needs to be preserved. If it’s as bad as you’re making it out to be (which I doubt it is), then perhaps immigration is EXACTLY what Japan needs to revitalize itself.
#4 is off the mark. I don’t think we “should” restrict abortions. I am merely saying that such a restriction is something we might see in certain societies should population shrinkage exist. Nor does population shrinkage necessarily make the economy worse in the short term. In fact you might have a nice, orderly economy that just happens to have this effect.
I’m not sure we agree on the first half of #3. The models might, in theory, work with a steady-state population but people choose to have fewer children anyway because they don’t value the same things that the models think they will value. But your point is taken in that policy makers (Japan being an example) did think that growth would allow more support of the elderly and other entitlements–growth that hasn’t materialized.
I’m also going to take issue with #5 a bit, because I think a lot of these effects are beyond the control of policy makers. That is we can’t just choose a different form of government or different policies to make things OK. Here’s an example: The kind of medical care that people accept as standard in the US and Japan today is just plain expensive and both labor- and capital-intensive. The government could do a lot to encourage preventive medicine and make distribution of care more fair, but it can’t make the whole system cheap. No matter what, it’s going to suck up more than 15% of the economy. Children, of course, use medical care, so couples know that they can save on a great deal of expense by not having them.
In terms of consumerism as well, if there are no SUVs and McMansions to purchase, then having children doesn’t prevent you from purchasing them. A lot of people opt out of having children simply because they would rather play than not.
Hence, economic policy can certainly help ameliorate the problem. I don’t know if it can get us all the way to a solution.
This is the type of baiting that belongs in the Pit. I’ve specifically cites Japan as a country I’m concerned about. Are Japanese “whities”?
Another drive-by by someone who doesn’t want to expose her own stance on the issues presented, as they are tricky. You might end up saying something un-PC, and what would your friends say?
Also, what my other “unlovely thoughts on immigration”? I don’t think I’ve ever commented on the matter before.
True, I’ve seen pro-life lit that mentioned the possibility of “the death of Western Civilization,” I don’t think it’s a major argument, and it’s not the one I’m making, anyway. I’m talking about any society that faces shrinkage. Must I remind people again that one of my chief examples is Japan?
Maybe so, but did I say that. No. I talked about local depopulation, which is already happening–in certain locales. Read the posts.
After seeing the above exchange, I had to step in for clarification. In third world countries, particularly in countries where disease is often spread by overpopulation, why would having more children be beneficial to those people? Wouldn’t having more and more kids put a significant strain on these populations, both economically and socially?
That’s a pretty standard argument, and one that completely ignores the fact that what constitutes a human life is open to debate.
Have you been to Japan? It’s freaking WALL-TO-WALL people. The population density is over 10 TIMES that of the United States. I assure you they are in no danger of dying out.
As already pointed out, you are in effect arguing that certain cultures are more deserving of reproduction than others, which is a pretty scary argument.
Really, the main problem with your argument is your assumption that any decline in popluation is a problem that needs to be corrected. You ignore the possibility that there are already TOO MANY PEOPLE, and that a reduction in population could be beneficial. Deciding not to have as many children because the world is over-populated is a sign of enlightenment, not a problem to be “fixed”.
Ok, that cleared a few things up in my mind. I thought you were concerned with declining cultures and the effect of declining cultures (e.g economics) on the culture itself. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
So, can you succintly state what you actually are concerned with? A recap, if you will? Because all I’m left with now is that cultures that experience decline will almost certainly ban abortion (or institute forms of birth coercion) in order for that culture to survive. Is this the problem you refer to? Or is your OP just another abortion debate, but side-stepping the whole “is it a life/whose body is it” debacle that normally follows and instead trying to justify banning abortion for the protection of cultures?
Caught red-handed (blowing without reading) and now flailing.
That wasn’t an argument. That was part of my introduction to my perspective. My theory in a debate like this is that I should be open about my underlying position for the sake of clarity and to avoid second-guessing about what I “really think.” Much good it’s done me in this thread.
I lived there for eight years. You’re ignorant–shut up while you’re ahead.
Here we go again–what do you think? All cultures are equal? If some reproduce recklessly and spill over the borders into others, no problem? World history is full of wars and famines that occurred for these very reasons.
And yes, I’ve stated explicity that some cultures are more worthy of respect and preservation than others. But I am not for suppressing anyone’s reproduction; I am saying that developed countries should not let themselves and their cultures die out or be diluted into oblivion through immigration. I also stated explicitly that I am not worried about the US in that regard as our country was designed to be multicultural.
Got a prob with any of that? Feel free to reveal your own opinions, too.
Are you suggesting that local declines in population are due to “enlightenment” or to an altruistic desire to reduce the world’s population for the good of the whole species?
Repeat: Population is BOTH a local and a global problem.
It sounds like you’re misunderstanding now, at any rate.
Hey, that’s pretty good. Algthough I’m not saying they certainly will; I’m saying there is a good chance and, in some cases, it’s already happening (there are European countries with low birth rates that greatly restrict abortion).
I’m very sorry if the content of the thread is outside your talking points.