Is it worth trying? Yes. Why not fight for what’s good and right? Otherwise, the bullies win, the overlords win, the tyrants win.
In the case of abortion and birth control, it is telling to see the reactions of children when they learn about abortion. It’s pure horror, not dulled by years of persuasive talk. They see it instantly as a terror against the helpless infant, but also as a fundamental betrayal of the child by the two people in the world who should care most, the father and mother.
CHildren who learn their parents aborted a sibling have their trust in their parents shattered. This creates a profound rift between the generations, an unease that the parents failed their duty to the brother or sister, so how trustworthly are they in any matters regarding the living children?
This isn’t theoretical talk, we’ve heard from plenty of youth who have this problem. They love their parents, yet don’t trust them for what they did. In fact, they hold a deep-seated fear of their parents.
Some of these kids grow up nilistic, but plenty grow up with the attitude of, “I don’t my kids to go thru what I did. I want to raise my family the way it SHOULD have been done.”
So, there’s always hope. And these days, there are plenty of people who are rejecting the ideas that led our culture to failures.

I don’t really understand what you mean by “should we befriend those who are making all the babies?”

We have six kids. Do we count amongst those making all the babies?

I agree with almost everything you just stated in your last post. Most reasonable people would. A guest worker program is an excellent start to solving the immigration issue. Such a program does not necessarily mean amnesty.

I believe English should be our official language and that all potential citizens and those given permanent visas should speak it.

Schools can certainly be improved with a return to the basics and the abandonment of social promotion.

The other issues such as the devaluation of children in society through abortion and birth control is much harder to solve. Try as you must, you cannot change culture. Look no further than the middle east for the application of religion and tradional values into government. Many countries rule with an iron fist, only to be faced with revolution. The US was built on the concept of separation of church and state. Have we gone too far in some cases, you bet. One should never be ashamed or embarassed to utter the words Merry Christmas.

That said, the only conceivable way you put the cultural genie back into the bottle would be to institute some sort of moral censorship on the media, the entertainment industry, the internet, in schools and on the street. Everything would be rated “G”. In a democracy like ours, this would be a tall order indeed. I know I wouldn’t want to live like that.

So is it possible that a free and democractic society has a limited shelf life due to the underpinnings of selfish behavior ? Are we underbreeding ourselves into extinction ? Is it too late ?

Do we need to befriend those who are making all the babies ? Our future is in their hands by default.

The Self-Actualization movement that became noticeable in the 1960s and flourished in the 1970s and onward emphasized focusing on the SELF-fulfillment. Marriage and family responsibilities were considered limiting to one’s self. Avoiding commitment, getting divorced, birth control and abortion freed the self to not invest in marriage and to indulge in sex without off-spring. Children became not “blessings” or “wealth” but “burdens.” It’s an absolutely devastating shift in generational dynamics.

The traditional family unit – grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, parents, siblings, once the common norm, is harder to find. This is the traditional support structure. With divorces, co-habitaton without marriage, these support structures are either not there, greatly weakened or insecure. Raising a family then falls more and more on the parental unit with little extended family support, or to a single-parent household with even less or zero extended family support. It’s not impossible, just harder.

Marriage is to make a life-long team, a man and a woman together as partners to create and nuture children – the next generation on which all society depends. There is an important purpose to it and an acknowledgement that it’s literally decades of commitment. The decision to commit to someone for the rest of one’s natural life thus should never be taken lightly or in ignorance about the person being considered for commitment. That understanding has been denigrated and misconstrued in our current society over the past four decades. Men and women too often enter into marriages with their tickets out – divorce -frivolously and without taking the time or effort to get to know the person in order to make an informed decision about committing to him or her.

Abortion destroys existing life. Birth control doesn’t allow life to begin in the first place. So, of the two, birth control is absolutely better than abortion.

But birth control on its own provokes the moral questions of the purpose of life, the purpose of family, the purpose of sex, the purpose of a man’s proper relationship to a woman and visa versa.

Haven’t seen anything yet when looking at the shattered lives, fatherless children, bitter and used women, rampant STD, that sells us to get on the self-actualization bandwagon.

Kids in traditional families, father, mother who actively are engaged with their kids are healthy, happy, positive and SECURE. They deal with life’s traps and challenges with confidence because they KNOW their families have their backs.

Indeed, because children are not considered “wealth” as they traditionally were in American society up to the drug-awash 1960s, they have become disposable thru abortion, unwanted thru birth control and less in value to a large house footprint, nice equipped kitchen and the latest in plasma screen TVs.

But, as it has been said, “No one ever said on their deathbed, ‘I wish I’d spent more time at the office.” Likewise who says, “I wish I’d bought three more TVs for my house.”
Nope. At the 20th class reunion, many of our peers – our age-mates with the PC approved 2 kid max – when they heard we had 6 came up sadly and said, “I wish we’d had more kids.”

But life is choices. Free will is more powerful than coersion. CHina forced abortions to one-child, Japan did it freely, convinced it was the proper way to behave. But we heard the anguish of a Japanese mother who had two perfect children, as she was supposed to, then admitted to us her heartache as she faced her aging, she’d aborted five – her own mother and mother-in-law rushing to insist she couldn’t afford those children.

All we can do is argue and debate and defend life and families and children, not mandate whether birth control be used as a club. Birth control is frequently targeted to reduce rival political and ethnic groups all the time, a form of tyranny. No thanks.

Abortion requires the death of a person, that’s a different issue and fight, thru debate, thru law and thru reviving the social CONSCIENCE. And to offer hope to shattered women who think they can’t ever be forgiven for what they’d done to their own babies.

So, wandering back to the question, my solution is to make a logical and common sense guest worker program, return logic and sanity to the legal immigration process, overhauling schools to go BACK what they are supposed to do, skills in reading,writing and arithmetic, restoring pride in American education, American history and the common language to strengthen American cultural understanding and to assimulte immigrants into the common culture quickly. And restore the proper role of marriage, dignified male-female relationships and extended families.

AS usual, if one is serious, these problems and solutions cannot be summed up in one quickie question or shallow sound-bite.

I actually do feel like our immigrant do assimilate to our culture. The first generation immigrant is the least likely to, but their offsprings are generally well integrated. My only issue with words like assimilation is that it is too general. What denotes that you are assimilated? There are New Mexican and Arizona Families that have been in the state for hundreds of years. They speak both Spanish and English, eat many different cultural foods, celebrate both national holidays and send their sons and daughters to the military. The fact that around 20% percent of the military is now Hispanic tells me that assimilation is happening all the time among the Hispanic community.

Well numbers approaching 40 million aborted sure doesn’t help the natural birth rate does it?

Exactly the point, what will America be like in the year 2045?

Here’s yet another difference in the new immigrants, they see no reason to learn something of the new culture and customs of the country they are moving into. History is replete with the consequences of populations that do not assimilate into their new host population.

Abortions have curtailed a population approximately the size of California’s population. I’d say that’s an impact.

Imagine vaporizing California… that would have a huge impact on the United States.

By urban areas I am referring to cities and suburbs collectively. Back in the day they were referred to as SMSAs. To bring it home, I would classify Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Glendale and most of Maricopa County as an urban area.

Immigrants primarily flow across borders for one of two reasons: Economic benefit and/or political persecution.

The biggest irony here is that the majority of people who are immigrating here from Mexico are Catholic and have traditional values. They do not abort and believe marriage is between one man and one woman. In theory, you would roll out the welcome mat and embrace them into the conservative fold. That hasn’t happened. In fact, many asked to leave the country due to their illegal status.

The other wave of immigrants are from Asia who are for the most part not Christian, not much abortion sympathy there.

This paints you into a demographic corner.

The birth dearth is here because of birth control, not abortion. You are barking up the wrong tree. Most people in the suburbs don’t want 10 kids. There are some glorious exceptions, but the norm is two kids for most folk.

K and wanumba, what do you propose we do about this ? I never did get an answer. Ban birth control to those who think and act like us ?

The first wave came here to *become* Americans and brought with them their customs and cultures blending them into the native culture they took to be their own.

The current wave insists on election ballots printed in multiple languages and every phone call asks “… press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish”

And… while reflecting on the differences, I thought of this one too; the first immigrant wave wouldn’t have been caught dead taking ‘charity’ or a hand out while it seems that many of today’s newcomers line up to get everything they can for free.

No, I did not say *all* I said many. There are those whom I will spend Christmas Day with who I would gladly sponsor for U.S. Citizenship in a heartbeat.

Abortion and birth control will not “doom the conservative movement,” rather depopulate the liberal movement. I wish we had better statistics. The so-called “Roe Effect” seems to be happening — if those who find abortion a moral alternative to carrying a child have abortions, then liberals eliminate their progeny while conservatives bear unplanned kids.

Frankly, I’m not sure urban living has anything to do with immigration. It is not a “simple truth” that we’re an urban people, as you say. We’re mostly a nation of the countryside, suburbs and exurbs, not cities.

Though urban living is difficult for traditional families with kids, large, fatherless “families” seem plentiful in impoverished urban areas. Urban living doesn’t dissuade these individuals from reproducing, does it?

Thankfully, the suburbs provide a way out of the city for those who value a more traditional family life. Simply put, traditional families avoid cities. Cities attract singles, the uber-wealthy and underclass, gays, childless couples and rarely, the traditionally formed family.

Suburbs, in contrast, attract traditionalists. A typical three- to four-bedroom suburban home has plenty of space for six to eight kids. So the real question is this: why don’t suburban families have more kids?

Maybe they are. Although its anecdotal, it sure seems like there are more large families lately. Families with four or more kids don’t seem as rare as they were ten or twenty years ago. And most of these families appear to be Protestant — primarily evangelical — and traditional.

I find it amusing, by the way, that you feel large families have a lower “quality of life.” The opposite may well be true. One could just as easily assert that a low headcount represents familial, experiential or emotional impoverishment … just sayin’.

To sum: If those who love urban living don’t reproduce, they’ll be less urban-lovers in the next generation.

If those who approve of abortion don’t reproduce, they’ll be less pro-choicers in the next generation.

If those who devalue tradition don’t bother to reproduce, than mostly traditionalists will bear children.

So logically, the next generation will further devalue dense, urban living and have a positive preference for the suburbs. The next generation may have more large families from both the underclass and middle class traditionalists. Lastly, the next generation may have fewer pro-choice liberals.

Makes sense, no?

K

“I would argue that actual abortions are not a large enough number to make a dent in the population”
………………………
Let’s take a look at that.
It was enough to cut out about 1/4 of the next year’s future graduating class, and the next year and the next.

A very abrupt decline – for the entry level kindergarten enrollment, five years later – 100% to 75%, literally empty seats in the classroom.

With over 1 million abortions a year for the first five years of Roe V Wade, that’s a loss of over 5 million people, five million LESS people 18 years later to enter college, enter the work force.
We’ve been in five-year WARS with less loss of human life than that for our nation and consider it tragedy.
We’re short now well over 30 million citizens who would be alive, and most of whom would have been in their most productive working years.

A growing economy depends on a growing population – to produce and to consume goods and services. The dramatic plunge in population slowed growth by reducing overall demand for goods and services and limited businesses’ expansion – not enough workers to expand production or services.
Legal immigration and illegal immigration absolutely were the quicky solutions to the sudden labor shortage.
The two – abortion and immigration – legal/illegal do indeed have something to do with each other. Unintended consequences.
AMerica is a nation of immigrants, so that in itself isn’t a problem, I believe the point VV was making was that the problem is the potential loss of the “American Attitude,” based on very specific cultural assumptions and expectations. A lot of immigrants are absolutely already American in their thinking before even arriving on our shores. They just want a chance to make something of themselves thru their own hard work.
But unchecked, uncritical immigration will indeed bring in an increasing number of people who do not care to buy into the “American Attitude” and will bring in the practices and problems they should have left behind.

This has happened before. Noah Webster saw this problem more than a century ago, and created a standardized school curriculum and standardized American English grammar and dictionary to provide to as many immigrants and AMericans as possible a UNIFIED background and language.
Today, the Progressive Left has argued non-assimilation and separate language programs which actually makes it harder for new people to become part of the American Mainstream, and undermines the American confidence and commitment to American values and culture.

To take VV’s argument to its rightful conclusion immigration (of any type) is the result of abortions. Not enough bodies to fill the jobs ? import workers. That is what you get for being materialistic and selfish.

The simple truth is that we have become a more urban people. On nineteenth century farms and ranches broods of 5-9 or more were common place, the more hands to help the better, not everyone lived to a ripe old age. In the city, smaller families are more common. People decided (as DSW pointed out correctly in another post) that quality of life was more important than headcount. Call it part of the “me” generation.

So will argue this phenomenon will doom the conservative moment as long as the wrong people continue to make babies. The birth dearth if you will.

So lets say that we agree on the future projections, what is your solution ?

Ban birth control ? I would argue that actual abortions are not a large enough number to make a dent in the population (yes, I know, one death is too many, but that is not the point). Perhaps we are a victim of our success.

WHo in America has actually seen with their own eyes a malnourished child? Yet, what humanitarian aid worker in Darfur says, “Oh, this child’s life is so hopeless and miserable, it’s best to just let him die.”
Not a one. Humanitarian work is based on the fundamental assumptions that things CAN get better, to help people thru the rough patches and they’ll prosper later, that people’s lives have VALUE.
Yet fatter, healthier, richer, more comfortable people here have the cold-blooded nerve to argue “hopeless, abortion’s better.”

Let’s say we err in favor of your argument/definition of “wanted.” What if society simply broadened the definition of “wanted” by expanding the age of “it” beyond birth to some arbitrary age of say, 8? And let’s say that society (or some 9-Justice panel) established some criteria that could be used to determine that “it” was not “wanted” or “useful” or “costing us [too much] money?” Then by that broadened definition, we should be able to terminate “it.” (We could even expand that definition to include not having enough food in “it’s” belly; hunger-deprived; too many mouths too feed).

In expanding that definition, we allow a little more time to determine if someone will step forward and make “it” wanted (adoption). Besides, larger or more developed human beings eat and consume more than unborn or newborn babies, right?

Of course, I’m being facetious and absurd to make a point. If being “wanted” was a requirement to guarantee a human being’s right to life, there would be a whole lot of human beings dead.

You see, in order to be consistent, I don’t discriminate against a human being’s basic right to life based on their developmental age or location (in utero). It is a fact that human beings who are further developed tend to consume more and create more biases against themselves. Killing them would obviously eliminate the problem by your logic.

I think we can consider outlawing abortion, when all of the children here are adequately taken care of..

Do you really think we will ever get to a point in society when “all of the children here are adequately taken care of?” And, what is your definition of “adequately taken care of?” Why not just kill off all the children who are having crappy lives right now?

Conservatism is all about providing a safe, positive and healthy environment for FAMILIES to flourish. “Families” means adults taking repsonsibility for caring for, nurturing and educating children of all ages to become happy and productive adults, that would be being good stewards of the NEXT GENERATION. Conservativism is positive,promoting problem-solving that respects the dignity and worth of the individual, from conception to natural death. Conservatives, in high percentages, raise their families, adopt, foster and support other children and families.
It is in stark contrast to the Progressive Left one-size fits all approach of death as a solution to problems. This mind-set doesn’t promote adoption in any manner from rhetoric to deed, because aborting is ostensibly easier. So, any argument that abortion MUST be tied to actions re adoption isn’t morally convincing.