It’s a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future—one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids. Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-13-babybust_x.htm

Can one talk about liberal vs. conservative ideals without bringing religion into the discussion?

ABORTION destroys the next generation.....

liberalism... supports abortion.

-MT

ABORTION destroys the next generation.....

You assume, incorrectly, that women who have abortions do not go on to have just as big a family as they would have had otherwise.

OH COME ON NOW.... SERIOUSLY... who believes that?
-MT

You assume, incorrectly, that women who have abortions do not go on to have just as big a family as they would have had otherwise.
No. Clearly they will have at least ONE less child. I know a women who put off having a child and now is in her forties trying to adopt a Russian and is considering moving to Russia for a couple years to get it done.

You abort a child because it's inconvenient. Guess what? It's always inconvenient. Next thing you know it's too late or maybe you have time to have one child before the ovaries stop pumping out eggs.

I started a thread on this before, it's called the Roe Effect http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51979

ABORTION destroys the next generation.....

liberalism... supports abortion.

-MT
And when selfish interests are at stake conservative, G*D fearing, etc. women resort to abortion as readily as ungodly "progressive" (whatever that means) do :) Words are cheap.

It’s a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future—one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback,
Some would argue that matriarchy is a way more traditional value. Keep fantasizing about golden (gosh, you know something about history???) era of traditional values. Earth is raped of its resources, it cant subsist 3,500,000,000 of 12 kids families, populace is educated more or less to accept any hierarchichal scheme (except maybe wealthbased one) with unquestionable veneration.

Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists.

Sure, Christians, especially those of the protestant creed, believe that God created this planet for them to exploit/plunder and that Lord command them to multiply like rabbits. So Bible says. Anyway, most of them don't want to multiply much either. Mormons by far the most prolific religious group in the USA. By your logic: secularists are bad because they don't make many children, mormons are good because of the opposite. Thus, Southern Baptists not speaking of methodists, etc. are somewhat lower on the perch of righteousness than mormons. I will not mention Muslims :)

[quote]As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.[/qoute]

What are those conservative values? Whatever it's. It's mostly declaration. Home consumucus lives according to the standartized values of the survival with maximum comfort in the modern capitalist society independently of his/her idealized "values".

Clearly they will have at least ONE less child

Rubbbish. Weather or not someone has an abortion will change their life in one direction.

Having a child early on could stop someone wanting any family in the future

anyway i thought we wanted to control the population growth

. Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world.

"progressive" it is - only in their sick minds.

ES

ABORTION destroys the next generation.....
liberalism... supports abortion.-MT
As I have said, not the abortion only is in play.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53472

Love deficit is the root

ES

Having a child early on could stop someone wanting any family in the future
Could would should... It is a lie. Having abortion brings more abortions later.

anyway i thought we wanted to control the population growth
"We" - meaning nitwits that should vacate our planet as soon as possible then.

e :cool: s

?????

This thread has descended into stupidity almost as quickly as those in the Philosophy section do...

Rubbbish. Weather or not someone has an abortion will change their life in one direction.
Having a child early on could stop someone wanting any family in the future
anyway i thought we wanted to control the population growth
Get out of the seventies, dude. Most first world countries need more population growth. Spain's fertility rate is one, meaning that their population decreases by half every generation. Very few first world countries have a fertility rate even at replacement levels.

Now, as to your statement regarding abortion having NO EFFECT on fertility rates:
MADRID, -- November 1999 -- Spain's Ministry of Health and Consumption's latest report on "voluntary interruption of pregnancy" reveals that the number of Spanish girls -- who are legally minors, who have an abortion has increased by 60% since 1990.

In 1997, the number of abortions carried out was 49,578 or 2.7% less than in 1996, for which abortion facilities reported having performed 51,002 abortions. While the total number of abortions has decreased in relation to last year, there is a 60% increase of 19 year-olds or younger who have aborted.

Moreover, if this data is compared with that of 1990, in which 37,231 abortions were recorded, the number of women who seem to have aborted in 1997 has increased 30%. Abortion has certainly lowered the Spanish birth rate -- which is 1.15, the lowest in the world.

Get out of the seventies, dude. Most first world countries need more population growth. Spain's fertility rate is one, meaning that their population decreases by half every generation. Very few first world countries have a fertility rate even at replacement levels.

Good, it'll drive Europian reality prices down.

I wish we had some of that low birth rate stuff going for us here in the US. I'm in Phoenix, and we're running the hell out of water!

Liberalism will not destroy the generations to come.

The perception of social conservatism, which maintains high consumption of resources for the human race in general and the gap between the few wealthy elites and the masses of poor destitutes, will be far more likely to degrade the state of the planet.

It might be worth citing some info published in the book, "Freakonomics" (http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php) which shows a pretty direct correlation between Roe v. Wade and the drastically dropping crime rates throughout the past 20 years or so. Seems that all those unwanted children born to mothers who can't support them aren't being born and raised in poverty and neglect, and as such aren't turning to lives of crime, and aren't stealing your car stereo or breaking into your home to kill you so they can pawn your stuff to buy heroin. Now I know that doesn't really justify it on a moral scale, but it's something to consider.

But that also requires that you buy into the idea that parents do a better job of raising kids when they plan it out and actualy wait 'till they have the means, and are mentaly prepared (or at least think they are).

The perception of social conservatism, which maintains high consumption of resources for the human race in general and the gap between the few wealthy elites and the masses of poor destitutes, will be far more likely to degrade the state of the planet.

Just to point out, how flawed is your logic, just supposing your wrong premise is true:

If "masses of poor destitutes" get wealthy, or just affluent, would not it greatly increase the resouces being consumed - you are talking "masses" after all.

Get real, Marx is dead.

ES

But that also requires that you buy into the idea that parents do a better job of raising kids when they plan it out and actualy wait 'till they have the means, and are mentaly prepared (or at least think they are).

This is a half truth, that is worse than lie.

The "liberal" nitwits destroy family.
Then they claim that for the family sake we need abortions.

e :eek: s

Well first off I'd contend that there's no such thing as a Liberal in the American politicalscape these days - but as for those who are less right-wing than some others, I don't think I've ver seen anyone running on a platform of destroying the family.

In other words, the theory only works if you can see through your own infuriatingly irrational self-serving rhetoric.

Well first off I'd contend that there's no such thing as a Liberal in the American politicalscape these days - but as for those who are less right-wing than some others This is sort of lie that commies spread around, as they push their agenda in disguise of "liberals".

ES

Extrasence, why do i get the impression that your a christian?

Extrasence, why do i get the impression that your a christian? To be a Christian is a good thing.
Without Romantic Love and Christian Love, we are pretty much doomed.

es