Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The taxpayer shortage

(BUMPED; UPDATES BELOW) For years, pro-life activists have warned that abortion and the contraceptive culture were leading us toward a demographic crisis. At least a decade ago, Jim Sedlak of the American Life League was warning: "In order to turn things around . . . young people getting married have to be thinking of having four or more children."

Well, the crisis is now upon us. Today, Conservative Grapevine linked my reaction to Obama's Monday press conference:
Suppose a pipe-dream hypothetical: Somehow, this "stimulus" actually produces a sort of dead-cat bounce in the economy, so that unemployment is down around 5% again by 2012. Is that good? No, not really, because government will have produced that bounce by borrowing massively against the future in a society that's about to sustain a serious demographic shock.
The first Baby Boomers turn 65 in 2011, and every year after that will see more and more retirees going onto the Social Security and Medicare rolls. Even if we raise the retirement age, there is still the net drain of productive labor. The average 67-year-old can't produce goods and services as efficiently as the average 38-year-old and (due to certain legal decisions circa 1973) after 2011, we'll have a growing shortage of 38-year-olds and a growing surplus of 67-year-olds.
We are on the verge of a taxpayer shortage, you see, and what the Democrats want to do is take out a massive loan that will have to be repaid by a shrinking pool of taxpayers, who will be expected to support a burgeoning population of increasingly sickly Baby Boomer retirees.
Yet, even as America reaps the disastrous economic consequences of the Culture of Death, the misanthropic Malthusians continue to scream about "overpopulation." As I've said elsewhere, some people at least have the excuse of ignorance. Others are merely evil.

UPDATE: A 12-year-old pro-lifer speaks:

"I was stunned by how good this video is," says Cassie Fiano. (Via Melissa Clouthier, who isn't sure that 12-year-olds should be voicing their opinions on political issues.)

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin reports that House Democrats have reached a backroom deal on the "stimulus," excluding Republicans from the conference negotiations. Which is good news, because now they've given Republican Senators a valid excuse to filibuster the conference report. This "stimulus" abomination might blow up yet!

UPDATE II: Thanks to the commenter who informs me that YouTube commenters are saying vile things about the girl who made this video. You stay classy, "progressive netroots"!

UPDATE III: Welcome Ace of Spades readers.

UPDATE IV: Allahpundit:
[Y]oung talent in the service of a righteous cause deserves some extra publicity. Worth watching for the sheer precocity of the performance, which suggests she’s destined someday for Hollywood.

Destiny? Kind of a religious concept, eh?

UPDATE V: "She's more articulate than most people I know, and even our teleprompter president." Heh.

"[I]f this girl is this good at 12, just imagine what she’ll be like in high school and college. Politics is clearly in her future." Heh -- and once again, happy birthday, Sarah Palin!

UPDATE VI: Linked at JillStanek.com.

45 comments:

  1. Regarding the YouTube video of the little girl, the comments posted on her video are very telling of the mentality of abortion enthusiasts. Not only are the arguments totally incohorent, but a number of them are directed at the girl herself, containing vulgar language and sexually violent threats toward a child. If this little girl were instead defending the pro-abortion argument, I highly doubt there would be such malicious and predatory attacks. Granted, you may get some weak reactionary remarks, such as, "what if your mother would've aborted you?" But nothing so alarming as advocating child rape. Stay classy, pro-choice movement!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having kids is fine, but the real question is, who is going to pay for them? As a proud childless taxpayer, I pay for YOUR kids to go to school, for their healthcare (under S-CHIP and Medicaid), for their public schooling, for their birth defects, ADD, autism, and other maladies; for their college loans, to imprison the criminals that are borne by families. Mind you, I'm also paying for those kids' grandparents in the nursing home, and for their medication under Bush's Medicare Part D, the worst financial boondoggle ever created.

    If the people who bore those kids would actually pay for them, I'm all for having everyone having more. Just don't punish ME by stealing my hard-earned money to pay for your urge to procreate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Zaine, except for one year of kindergarten -- in 1994-95, when our oldest was 5 -- none of my six children has ever attended a public school. They're not on S-CHIP. Our eldest, now a sophomore in college, is working her way through, and hasn't borrowed a cent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But Robert, you're a conservative (and a minority anymore) and you take care of your own. Let's admit how rare you are, giving how many kids (see previous TOM blog posts) are still having kids as if they're tattoos. Liberals would rather adopt foreign kids than adopt American ones. How messed is that!

    And I hope you didn't think I meant 'your' kids specifically, but generically. I strongly believe people who choose to have kids should pay for them. The politicians' cry of "Let future generations pay for our profligacy!" has bankrupted us all, guaranteeing our children will spend their entire lives under crushing socialism. Obama already sees this as the only out for him.

    It's the consequences of encouraging more children that is dangerous. If for no other reason, the wrong people have them (blacks, mexicans, teens, etc. who believe the father has no place in the home or with their children, unless you put them to jail for not paying child support).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Zaine,

    Who's going to be paying your social security. I'm betting that that would be my children. They're your safety net when you grow old....Think about that a bit. Those who have no child will only make the social security problem worse in the futrue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent point, Anonymous, you got me there. The only key is that those kids get jobs and pay taxes for a lifetime. Seems the American dream has become to get on disability ASAP.

    No male in my family has ever lived past 64, so I'm counting on that same outcome for me, ha!! If I make it to 70, I still won't stop working until my mind is completely blitzed, and even then, I might be able to do something manually to earn a buck, such as working fast food.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Apparently the video is no longer available.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Under normal circumstances I would not think it appropriate for such a young girl to be talking about things. However, I think it's WONDERFUL that we still have young people who are holding life sacred. The only negative I see about this is the horrible things I have seen written about her; personally. I have to agree with the other person who told them to stay classy-their behavior is anything but.

    For the man who said that he is childless; that is your choice. People should be able to have children if they choose to. One day, you will be old and maybe you will have to ask for assistance. Are people going to tell you you shouldn't get old? I hope not.

    God bless this little girl.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That was pretty bad actually. She was reading standard pro-life talking points and clearly didn't articulate those positions herself. If a 12 year old liberal was talking about some liberal issue, conservative bloggers would be shrieking about how liberals are brainwashing ten year olds.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "If a 12 year old liberal was talking about some liberal issue, conservative bloggers would be shrieking about how liberals are brainwashing ten year olds"

    No, the liberal brainwashing is done in public schools, at taxpayer expense -- that is what we're "shrieking about."

    Liberals abort their own children, then try to brainwash everybody else's children.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Zaine, I hope no one ever views the worth of your life based on how much you're going to cost the taxpayer, or your family, or some charity. Even the best of us need help sometimes. You seem pretty confident about your future. Hope nothing disables you, since you don't have any kids to care for you. Of course, the inevitable outcome of the nationalized healthcare that is being shoved down our throats is that we're all going to cost the tax-payers too much at some point.

    It's simply wrong to try to justify abortion because babies "cost too much". The value of human lives cannot be measured in dollars. I'd rather we as a nation go broke than be so unjust to the weakest among us. Even if taxpayers are going to be stuck paying for these children (and that's not a foregone conclusion), it's still better than killing them. God help us if we can look at an innocent child and say "Kill him. He costs too much and his mother is too poor."

    For the record, I'm paying taxes to send other people's children to school, while forfeiting a second income to homeschool and paying for the education of my own children out of pocket. There aren't any tax breaks for refusing educational welfare. You're not alone in that particular frustration.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is no way I'd let my daughter do a video like that and put it on the internet. She's way too young to deal with the kind of abuse she's taking, and it was completely predictable. I wonder if her parents knew she was going to do that?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The girl makes more sense than all the liberal/socialists in Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'd rather hear the children sing the praises of Dear Leader Obama, or visit his Kids for Obama site as he schools them on how to badger their parents and grandparents to vote for him.
    I'd rather see them singing while abortions are done around the globe on our tax dollars. This child will take care of all those who choose not to have children, she will pay the taxes for their social security. Those of her age will wipe their old bottoms, wheel them around, help them shop or deliver for them, fill their prescriptions, stop by and check on them once and a while... as they sit with all they've accomplished and made in life... and are still lonely, unsatisfied and wish they had their children to take care of them.

    In fairness, they might not want the children they have to be burdened, but a loving child doesn't throw grandma in a home without much heartache.

    I've buried too many who died alone, dead for days and no one knew or cared. It's a shame.

    The least they can do is think before they have sex and take care of their responsibilities and 'privacy' by not having a hand out for others to pay for their 'mistakes' (which they're not).

    I leave you the warning...
    Those who have the kids, rule the world. Look around.

    And to Zaine with the counterpoint...

    Lots of kids were born and came here to build this country (yes, i'm sure people were a heck of a lot more responsible then). The problem is parenting and ethics.

    If you saw the child predators that get away with bringing minors in to hide their crimes, or the mother who finds out her 15 year old wasn't in school but on a slab dead (not to mention what it does to their minds and future actions), you may think slightly different. In our schools and the media, sex is taught and sold.
    This country is dying out as Rome and others before it.

    Oh and you sound Malthusian with a touch of Darwin at the end there.

    Next it will be males who don't produce without blonde hair and blue eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We are on the verge of a taxpayer shortage, you see,

    Not to worry.

    Dave Obey wrote the "Final Solution" language into the porkulus.

    There will NOT be a surplus of old people; they will be dead, sooner.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Zaine, you selfish jerk. Yeah, people have a responsibility to take care of their children. And yes, it is true the government has been far too enthusiastic about taking on those costs and taking the money to pay for them from people like us.

    Your problem is with that governmental action, not with the people having the children.

    And yes, as a childless member of the community, you too have an obligation to help see to the welfare of orphans, widows and children who would otherwise not be well cared for. Sorry. It comes with being human. Or a decent human anyway. Deal.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great post. I can imagine the true hatred she must be receiving from enlightened Liberals. I've interacted with feminists before and do they get nasty.

    ReplyDelete
  18. George in Springfield, MOWed Feb 11, 11:35:00 PM

    The vid won't come up for me either BUT what does it matter when there won't be any jobs left here if some politician doesn't start taxing the crap out of these companies who think about their wallets instead of keeping jobs on American shores! No jobs still means no taxes or am I seeing this wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have to agree. There is NO chance this kid is in public school... she can obviously read.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Could the true author of this script please stand up? Forcing political rhetoric upon a child is simply wrong - regardless of the pomp.

    ReplyDelete
  21. George in Springfield,
    If you owned your own company & had to, sadly, lay off some of your employees in order to stay in business, what do you think higher taxes would do to your bottom line? It would shrink it even more, thus forcing you to lay off even more employees. The net effect is higher unemployment &, ironicly, lower tax revenue for the oh-so-hungry government.

    Careful what you wish for.....you're actually about to get it.
    Ruth

    ReplyDelete
  22. George in Springfield,
    If you owned your own company & had to, sadly, lay off some of your employees in order to stay in business, what do you think higher taxes would do to your bottom line? It would shrink it even more, thus forcing you to lay off even more employees. The net effect is higher unemployment &, ironicly, lower tax revenue for the oh-so-hungry government.

    Careful what you wish for.....you're actually about to get it.
    Ruth

    ReplyDelete
  23. zaine_ridling,
    Allow me to speak for the many other parents of children with autism: you're not paying for a @#$%ing thing. There are only a handful of states that call for private insurance companies to even cover autism. Mine, Georgia, is not one of them. Meaning (and please read this closely) I pay for everything OUT OF POCKET. Unlike the other members of your insurance conglomerate, who will pay for your impending heart problems due to your obesity (a belt no longer fits the bill, huh?), you're not seeing your money used for something that you don't endorse when it comes to health care for kids with autism.

    Educate yourself, please. Jackass.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Eating when your hungry is of course just common sense,but continuing to stuff yourself after you are overweight is foolish and self destructive. The world is obese with people. Basic biology shows what happens to any population when it over-populates it's environment. The organism never slows down it population growth until the predictable disaster forces it. We are doomed. But till then, party on. I don't care who's kids occupy this world as long as they have values that make it a place of decency. People should adopt more and birth less. Abortion however is an abomination.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Very impressive little girl, but her numbers are wrong. She states' "...that 115,000 abortions occur every DAY." I believe that she meant to say, "every month" since there are nearly 1.3 million abortions per year.

    ReplyDelete
  26. She states' "...that 115,000 abortions occur every DAY."

    And she's absolutely right -- worldwide, there are 42 million abortions per year, which works out to 115,000 per day.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I share Zaine's irritation with regard to programs that relieve parents of the duty to care for their children, but I think parents do deserve a tax break.

    At least to that extent, everybody ought to make allowances for those with the "urge to procreate" as Zaine rather crassly puts it.

    Before I started to realize the consequences of opting out of reproduction, I had a pretty relaxed attitude about it. Now, religious teaching aimed at people embracing the imperatives of nature (within civilized constraints) seem a lot wiser than the elevation of consumer choice to all matters, including whether there will be a next generation or not.

    A country without children is certainly without the associated expenses. However, it's also without people. How self-absorbed have we become when we overlook this stark and now ominous consequence of opting out of the generational ebb and flow?

    Years ago I read something C.S.Lewis wrote many years earlier to the effect that contraception gave one generation a novel and somewhat sinister control over future generations. It struck me as quaint then. It doesn't now.

    -Idler

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm a Republican,(with Libertarian leanings) and I've read all of the comments thus far. I'd like to add a few of my own.

    Abortion, Adoption, and Birth Control:
    I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. Years ago, there were two options for a woman: back alley abortions, or if you were wealthy, a discreet doctor. Teenaged girls were ostrasized and forced to leave town. Now that it's available and affordable for everyone, there's moral outrage. Late term abortions should be illegal, unless there's a severe medical condition or the life of the mother is in danger. This is because by that stage of the pregnancy, she should have determined whether or not she would carry it to birth. As far as abortion for minors, the parents should be informed and must ultimately make the decision.

    As for adults: If you don't like abortion, then don't ever have one.

    Abortion foes tend to lose concern for the child after it's born, regardless of neglect and abuse.

    Adoption:

    There are thousands of kids needing adoption, and very few takers. People look for the "perfect" child to reflect what they envision as what might have been conceived if it were their own. They want perfect little infants, not an adolescent or a teen, which are the bulk of the children needing adoption. This is one area where the state and local governments need to get involved. If these kids are placed in foster homes or state-run homes, they need care and attention by people who actually give a damn about their well-being. It's virtually impossible to replicate a "normal" family environment, but staffing the facilities with qualified people, even asking people in the community to volunteer their time to these kids would help them to become productive, well adjusted members of society.

    On the subject of birth control: There are mental midgets out there who seriously believe that it is a form of "abortion", because you're preventing the fertilization of an ovum and sperm, and therefore, "killing" potential life. I'm not kidding. It stands to reason that if birth control and protection are practiced, abortion, unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases would be rare. Make birth control free and readily available to all people, including teenagers. Look, parents are either not talking enough with their kids, or the kids are simply (typically) tuning them out and doing what they want.

    For those of you parents who have kids and say "Not my teenager", you better think again. Teenage pregnancy has gone through the ozone. Sex education in the public schools should include (if it already hasn't) the responsibility of the teenage boy, as well. Too many of them get off scott-free.

    I'm for personal accountability and responsibility. No one ever bailed me out of my screwups but me. I've run my own life since the age of 18 (I'm now 51). I'm a retired Army Sergeant First Class and war veteran. I pay taxes and I take care of the family home. Last I checked, I don't require the advice of a 12 year old. People shouldn't be obsessed with the reproductive choices of others, as long as it doesn't interfere with their choices in life, or dig into their own pocketbooks. Alot of you who are so concerned about reproductive habits need to be more angered by women with a crapload of children who thrive on tax-payer supported welfare.
    Case in point: NADYA SULEMAN. She's the poster child for birth control.

    Thanks for your time.

    SFC MAC

    ReplyDelete
  29. Zaine,
    You are absolutely right, for generations families have worked hard, endured hardship, and created a country where everyone can be educated and productive. Creating a country of wealth and prosperity and health.

    All for you.

    You are the one it was all for. This is now your stage, with only your needs and desires to be considered.

    Enjoy.

    For now.

    Because in the not too distant future you will have to pay for the bank executives ingrown toenail and the school principal's wart removal. You obviously do not understand socialized medicine and I urge you to educate yourself. If you begrudge having your tax dollars going to single parent kids, then how on earth are you going to handle covering EVERYONE'S health problems. Go have a heart attack in Canada, and if you make it back, give us your impressions of socialized health care.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The video is totally unimpressive. She memorized a script written by someone else and recited it for the camera. These are the same basic pro-life arguments we've all heard a thousand times. They're not somehow more profound coming from a child. The kids who acted in my 6th grade play (at a public school btw) could have done just as well.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I hate be harsh, but sfc mac's comment is a litany of canards.

    Let's be honest, even if one believes abortion is ever justified calling it a "woman's right to choose" is euphemistic.

    Not sure I understand how "now there's moral outrage" is inconsistent with "teenage girls were ostracized." People are outraged about abortion now for the same reasons they ever were. If they're more less exercised about out-of-wedlock pregnancy it's because A) they've been desensitized by its epidemic proportions and B) they prefer the child go to term than be killed.

    Saying "if you don't like abortions don't have one" makes as much ethical sense as saying "if you don't like slavery, don't have a slave."

    The charge that "abortion foes tend to lose concern" is an ad hominem attack that fails refutes arguments against abortion while makes an unverified nasty and stupid claim.

    How does he know about how much concern people have? He can have no idea what sacrifices individuals make by supporting women, including strangers, who decide to give birth to their children in the absense of a responsible father. That's the nasty part. The stupid part is that it would make no ethical difference if pro-abortionists never did anything to support other people's children. You might as well say that nobody can be against child abuse and neglect unless they're willing to pay for the affected children's upbringing.

    The "mental midgets" argument is a straw man. There are very sophisticated arguments against the use of birth control that have nothing to do with confusing birth control with abortion. Furthermore, teen pregnancy and illegitimacy are really not technical issues, they are cultural ones. There has been far more illegitimacy in a world full of birth control than there was in its absence. I also note this soi disant Republican recommending that the provision of "free" birth control. Hey, let's make sure that includes flavored condoms, that will reduce the illegitimacy rate even more!

    The only thing I agree with is that men, teenage or otherwise, need to be called to account.

    Frankly, if sfc mac had listened closer, he could have learned something from a 12 year old, for her arguments were far more sound.

    We are treated to another "hey, relax" kind of argument with "People shouldn't be obsessed with the reproductive choices other others" spiel. Of course reproduction is the creation of life; abortion is its deliberate extinction. Very different thing. As far as affecting our pocketbooks, an ethic of sexual license, without which illegitimacy wouldn't be "through the ozone" does dig into our pocket books and in ways that go beyond paying for universal "free" birth control. It affects the crime rate astronomically because of the way it impacts the way the next generation is raised, or as has been pointed out here, whethere there will even be a next generation. In any case, it's not about the money. Slavery, as I recall, was rather expensive to abolish.

    True to form, sfc ends with one last super-canard, citing Nadya Suleman as the "poster child for birth control." In fact, Suleyman's behavior is a triumph of birth control. It's unsurprising that sfc mac is ignorant of the fact that the same people who argue cogently against contraception argue against artificial fertilization, and for basically the same reasons. But even agreement with fertility measures by no means implies support for their fiscally irresponsible use.

    A twelve-year-old could have told you that.

    -Idler

    ReplyDelete
  32. A Lesbian ConservativeThu Feb 12, 03:27:00 PM

    That 1% is the ONLY percentage that should be permitted abortions. To the girls who do not want a child, Here is a radical thought...DON'T BE A SLUT! To the men who don't want a child, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS!

    I'm a botched abortion, I had 2 shitty parents, And while I was lucky enough not to be born with any mental abnormalities, I have the great joy of being incredibly frail. I'm being sarcastic of course. I've heard retarded comments like "They lead horrible lives, Dying was the best thing that happened to them, And abortion could have prevented that!" NO! What could have prevented horrible lives, Would be teaching MORALS to their parents. Not saying everyone should get religious, however it's no reason to throw out morals like is being done in the schools.

    I led an absolute horrible life until I was 14, I was beaten daily, And usually had more than a dozen broken bones. I used to think I'd be better off dead, and even tried to take my life a number of times. However now? I'm quite happy I lived, Sure I'm still frail, I can't really do much, and I'm forced to rely on the aid of others.
    Who get's to decide if i'm better off dead? Me, And only me. Nobody else has the right to choose whether someone lives or dies. NOBODY.

    I've heard some stupid anti-war arguments, "PEOPLE ARE DYING!" Well, More people die in car accidents in a single year than they have the entire war in the middle eat, Even even more than that, More children are aborted in a year than EVERY war since the birth of our nation.

    Human life is precious, And should have a chance to live, It's like she said at the end "Even if you can't see or hear them, a life is a life, No matter how small." Everyone deserves a chance to live, Everyone deserves a chance to be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Idler,

    By the way, I'm female and I had an abortion in 1984, after the birth control we used (condom) failed.
    I was 27, and I don't recall asking for your or any 12 year old's advice.

    A good deal of 'litany of canards' can be found in the comments of those who get more upset over a woman choosing an abortion or using birth control, rather than producing 14 illigitimate kids.

    Your comparison of my comment of 'not choosing an abortion if you don't want one' to "if you don't like slavery, don't have a slave." is obnoxiously stupid. How about this: Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy can be interpreted as tantamount to slavery, as well.

    What kind of "sophisticated argument" is there against birth control other than another attempt to tell
    women that they shouldn't be allowed to decide when or if to get pregnant?

    Teen pregnancy and illegitimacy are issues of judgement, responsibility, and some parental guidence thrown in for good measure.
    The (historical) 'absence' of contraceptives aside, obviously they're NOT using the very birth control that would prevent teenage pregnancy are they?

    That's because alot of them think having babies at their age is a cute stautus symbol. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have them using free birth control than creating a need for day care centers in high school at taxpayers expense. Prophylactics and the Pill are a hell of a lot cheaper.

    Nadya Suleyman is a triumph of birth control? Now I know you're certifiably nuts. An unemployed female breeding machine who PLANNED on having even more children beyond the 6 she already had, on welfare, at taxpayer's expense?

    She (and you) need to learn the real meaning of birth "control".

    When it comes to people like her, I argue for contraception and against artificial fertilization.

    Any one with a couple of firing neurons (even a 12 year old) can figure that out.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @idlr

    I think your comments went over the head of sfc mac.

    She doesn't understand that "birth control" works both was...for the "minus" part of family building, and the "plus" side of family building. Reproductive technology is about the manipulation of reproduction, whether is be for preventing or procreating. So yes, Nadya Suleman is a triumph of birth control, as a scientific acheivement, not a moral one.

    I also find sfc mac's comments to be laughable.
    "What kind of "sophisticated argument" is there against birth control other than another attempt to tell
    women that they shouldn't be allowed to decide when or if to get pregnant?"

    Yet, sfc mac is perfectly comfortable doling out directives
    to other women.
    "When it comes to people like her, I argue for contraception and against artificial fertilization.
    "

    sfc mac would make a great policy writer for the new administration, where nothing actually has to make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Your comparison of my comment of 'not choosing an abortion if you don't want one' to "if you don't like slavery, don't have a slave." is obnoxiously stupid.

    I gather you don't even get the point.

    How about this: Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted pregnancy can be interpreted as tantamount to slavery, as well.

    Why stop there? Forcing parents to raise an unwanted child to adulthood could be interpreted as slavery too.

    By the way, they know what causes pregnancy now.

    What kind of "sophisticated argument" is there against birth control other than another attempt to tell women that they shouldn't be allowed to decide when or if to get pregnant?

    Do your own research. If you had done so before shooting your mouth off, you'd know that there is a philosophical position against birth control that is not based on a confusing with abortion or (to shoot through your shifting goal posts) or telling women anything.

    Interestingly, you don't have any compunction in opining about if and when Nadya Suleyman should get pregnant.

    I will admit that I am less outraged at Nadya Suleyman irresponsibly bearing 14 children than I would be if she had killed 14 children, to say nothing of 1400, 14,000 or 14,000,000 children.

    -Idler

    ReplyDelete
  36. Heh. The little girl reminds me of me when I was her age.

    Of course, I am now an ardent pro-choicer. I give her ten years to turn. Fifteen tops.

    -- Feminist

    ReplyDelete
  37. Argh! I'm not a fan of abortion, but I do typically support it. It just never made any sense to me for a woman who doesn't want a baby to have one. It's bad for both parties.

    On the other hand, this young woman spells out that it's not the child's fault that he/she was created. And how audacious must the mother be to snuff out the life that she recently created?

    It's such a tough decision of which side to place myself in. Side with the pro-lifers? Or side with the people who love the freedom to kill their children in the womb if they are inconvenient.

    To you the answer might be obvious. But not to me. I'm a huge fan of freedom, and don't really like kids very much. Complicated, huh.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ack, McCain moderates! Off the blogroll you go, other McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Feminist:

    My wife was like you- opposed to abortion when she was younger. She changed her mind also, when she learned more, and she did have an abortion. But watch yourself ... she is now ardently pro-life again. You also may change your views again when you learn more.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hello,

    Amazing girl.

    I’m working on an information collection of pro-life news stories, op-eds and features & other relevant material, which can be used as a resource in debates and activisms. Or just for personal education. Or even just witnessing.

    Here: pro-life

    If there is some people out there who thinks that might be a good idea, and have a few minutes free now and then (don’t take that much), and would like to contribute, please create an account on BeeQube.com and write here or email me, so I give permission to the collection.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If Zaine's parents held the same views that he does regarding children, we wouldn't be reading his comments today.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just one more response before I leave this thread to the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the anti-choice folks:

    @anonymous:

    "Yet, sfc mac is perfectly comfortable doling out directives
    to other women."

    Negative. The only 'directive' I give is my opinion on those who burden taxpayers with children they cannot afford.

    What's laughable is a conservative Republican like me being lumped in with a socialist administration because I believe in RESPONSIBLE reproductive choices.

    @idler:

    This whole issue of 'pro life' boils down to other people who want a say over a woman's uterus.

    I thought us Republicans were supposed to advocate individual freedom as opposed to big brother government telling us what to do. You want mandatory government oversight of reproductive rights? Do you really want anyone controlling how many kids you should have in a lifetime, whether you like it or not? How do you propose to do this?

    Two extremes:

    In communist China, if prenatal tests indicate a female fetus, then abortion is not just encouraged but in many cases forced.

    On the other hand, the Nazis pushed German mothers to have children not for their own happiness and family, but to advance the Aryan population.

    How would you like it if you were forced to either have children you did not plan for and do not want, or made to spit out as much sperm as possible for the cause?

    Don't force choices on others you wouldn't subject to yourself. I'll fight tooth and nail against any infringement on liberties guaranteed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Isn't that what we stand for? Or is all the anger over the new Socialist-Elect just a charade on the part of faux Republicans?

    I also thought Republican aversion to big government extended to the thought of the State throwing our money down the toilet to babysit people who are otherwise capable of taking care of themselves, but are too irresponsible and lazy.

    Bottom line:
    Quite frankly, I don't care how many or how little the number of children anyone decides to have, as long as I don't have to support them through a bloated, overtaxed welfare system. The government no longer subsidizes abortions, but it supports the hell out of illigitimate kids.

    The "Octomom's" brood will be sucking off of the public teat for years.

    "The Suleman octuplets' medical costs have not been disclosed, but in 2006, the average cost for a premature baby's hospital stay in California was $164,273, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eight times that equals $1.3 million.

    For a single mother, the cost of raising 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

    Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

    As for: "Why stop there? Forcing parents to raise an unwanted child to adulthood could be interpreted as slavery too."

    The slavery of taxpayers forced to foot the bill for millions of illigitimate kids and their parents, who are just as allergic to birth control as they are job hunting, goes right over your pointy head.

    Work harder, idler. Millions of welfare recipients depend on you.

    You may enjoy the prospect of your taxes supporting the 14 children of this irresponsible slug in the name of "pro-life", but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit.

    So much for 'triumph'.

    Cheers,
    SFC MAC

    ReplyDelete
  43. sfc mac,
    First, thanks for your service.

    Second, "[T]his whole issue of 'pro life' boils down to other people who want a say over a woman's uterus."

    Typing this as someone who is NOT ardently pro-life: This is also quite an elementary point and you're 'showing your slip' by overlooking it & using the left-wing talking points (seminar caller alert) like "anti-choice" and the 'having control over a uterus' canard: these folks think it's a baby. Agree or disagree, they think it's a baby. Since that's the case, they don't want it killed (or, terminated if you really do prefer the talking points of the left). Setting that issue aside, when in actuality it is the foundation for their argument(s) leaves you berating strawmen. However, if you embrace that remedial concept as the crux of their ideals & arguments and you'll go further in discussing this topic than positing arguments that can be seen on, oh, a few million other blog comments' sections.

    ReplyDelete
  44. SFC MAC,

    First permit me to second RW's expression of gratitude for your service.

    He or she makes the essential point: whatever value you accord to unborn humans, for those who think that killing any human life is problematic, appealing to "choice" is absurd.

    It's not a question of whether one believes in liberty, it's a question of the rightful limits of liberty. Liberty doesn't consist in the right to choose to do anything one pleases to do. In the case of both slavery and abortion, one human is depriving another human of essential rights, respectively of the right to liberty and the right to life.

    For the same reason, saying it's about wanting control over a woman's uterus is misdirection. The issue is control over the life or death of another human.

    It's got nothing to do with government oversight of reproduction; it has to do with government's role in questions of homicide.

    I certainly don't "enjoy" supporting the children of irresponsible parents, and nothing I've said suggests that I do. However, that position is consistent with opposing euthanizing children who are found inconvenient.

    -Idler

    ReplyDelete
  45. I had two "crisis" pregnancies, both of them unplanned, one even *after* surgical sterilization. I was advised to abort, because after all...hadn't I tried hard enough? Those are the arguments I got: you tried hard enough. You couldn't stop it. That makes it okay to kill it, honey. Nobody will blame you. Everyone will understand.

    (I carried one of those pregnancies, despite all difficulties (and there were many). She is now 5, and I cannot imagine life without her. I miscarried the other naturally.)

    Well, if "it" - if that fetus, that pregnancy, that child-yet-to-be is of such null value, why bother even trying to prevent it? If "it" is not even a human, let alone a person, why place any moral value on the act of abortion at all? It's no more immoral than blowing your nose....right?

    And here's another question: If we are so fond of "hope" and "change" at a government level, why are we so opposed to children as our hope and future, and the change they inevitably bring to our individual lives?

    We have no idea what we've killed since Roe v. Wade. Maybe we killed the next Hitler. Or maybe, just maybe, we killed the person who would have found the cure to cancer. We'll never know.

    ReplyDelete