You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
The strange death of the liberal West
2005-03-22
By Mark Steyn
I am, as Tony Blair might say, deeply passionately personally deeply personally opposed to abortion. But, unlike him, I think it ought to be an election issue.

Not because of my personal beliefs: I happen to believe a lot of what we call "late-term abortion" is in reality early-term infanticide, but, if you don't accept that that's a human life that's being destroyed, my deeply personal passionate beliefs aren't likely to sway you one way or another. That's where so-called progressive politicians such as Blair and John Kerry have it all backwards: the point about abortion is not that it's a "matter of conscience" for individuals to "wrestle with", but that it's a crucial part of the central political challenge of our time.

Almost every issue facing the EU - from immigration rates to crippling state pension liabilities - has at its heart the same glaringly plain root cause: a huge lack of babies. I could understand a disinclination by sunny politicians to peddle doom and gloom were it not for the fact that, in all other areas of public policy, our rulers embrace doomsday scenarios at the drop of a hat. Most 20-year projections - on global warming, fuel resources, etc - are almost laughably speculative. They fail to take into account the most important factor of all - human inventiveness: "We can't feed the world!" they shriek. But we develop more efficient farming methods with nary a thought. "The oil will run out by the year 2000!" But we develop new extraction methods and find we've got enough oil for as long as we'll need it.

But human inventiveness depends on humans - and that's the one thing we really are running out of. When it comes to forecasting the future, the birth rate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2005, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2025 (or 2033, or 2041, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management, Systemic Racism and Gay Studies degrees). If that's not a political issue, what is? To cite only the most obviously affected corner of the realm, what's the long-term future of the Scottish National Party if there are no Scottish nationals?
Posted by:Steve

#30  Of course the companies don't have a "policy of not hiring mothers".

They just avoid to do it without telling you why.
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-03-22 10:06:29 PM  

#29  And a woman who has kids is unlikely to reach a leading position in her job, or she doesn't get hired in the first place.

And people stand for that?

I mean, here in "primitive, medieval" America, we're quibbling about the salaries of women who return to the work force -- IE, their effect or not on the equivalent salaries of men and women -- and I think you'd see marches in the streets if a company had a policy of not hiring mothers.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-03-22 9:36:00 PM  

#28  I have three, and "our" resource limiations as parents made that a (in retrospect) great decision. After that -*snip*- in utter violation of my Catholic faith....and totally unregretted.

Don't depend on unassimilated immigrants (legal or illegal)to replace citizen levels without bad consequences to your visions.
Illegals have already spit in the face of the nation's laws by crossing illegally - small wonder that further transgressions are so easy to do?
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-22 8:33:44 PM  

#27  4 kids -- definitely not a liberal
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-22 8:17:53 PM  

#26  too true, not only, there are other reasons, for example an environment that doesn't particularily welcome children, a school system, that sends children home at 1pm, preventing single parents (or a married mother) from taking a full time job, expensive housing etc.
And a woman who has kids is unlikely to reach a leading position in her job, or she doesn't get hired in the first place.
The "double income no kids" couples fare so much better.
I have 4 kids btw, all grown up of course.
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-03-22 8:12:12 PM  

#25  Lots to agree with in this thread:

There's a name for all those (legal) immigrant children, too -- Americans. The newer arrivals to the USA have always been more prolific, haven't they? Like first generation Irish, Italian and other immigrants in the past. Whats more, they can be some of the strongest patriots you will find, being a bit more appreciative of what the multi-generational Americans take for granted.

And education is no guarantee of wisdom.

Agree on both accounts. I mentioned the below- replacement birthrate in some parts of our population as a way of suggesting that we are not immune to many of the factors behind the low rate in Europe - we just have other, countervailing factors at work. Of course, it helps if the children of immigrants do assimilate to the culture, as those very patriotic 2nd generation Americans often do.

TGA, I agree with you: Tom was Aris-baiting and Aris as usual rose to the bait.

Re: treasuring children, TGA do you see your society as penalizing parents of more than one or two children in ways other than the heavy financial burden imposed by your tax and regulatory systems?
Posted by: too true   2005-03-22 8:01:22 PM  

#24  NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-22 7:55:14 PM  

#23  actually we Catholics generally have a sense of humor...we have to
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-22 7:52:03 PM  

#22  Note to Ship (easy on thema Papist jokes)
Posted by: Shipman   2005-03-22 7:50:25 PM  

#21  and I'm making my regular paypal to Fred, so EMBO
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-22 7:47:48 PM  

#20  Just for the record, Aris, I have three children -- and two of them are internationally adopted. One of the two adopted children might have been aborted were it not for the Catholic Church that you so despise. The other might have died from malnutrition were it not for an American charity. I am not ashamed of my parenting, the Catholic Church, or America's record on taking care of children.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-22 7:38:16 PM  

#19  Nite Aris! Sleeper Tight!
Another day gone.....

Whener Eliza day.... 21 of May?
Posted by: Shipman   2005-03-22 7:04:24 PM  

#18  I think people who indulge in "Aris-baiting" should not complain when he appears.

Aris, just one thing: I think Americans treasure their children as much as Europeans. It is unfortunate that our society penalizes families with more than one or two children. A family of a regular worker or employee in Germany faces life only slighty above the poverty line when having 4 children (or more).
Posted by: True German Ally   2005-03-22 5:27:47 PM  

#17  http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/_pubs/chusa/chusa_00/page0022.htm

Infant mortality rates from the above link:
Greece - 8.1 per 1,000
USA - 7.3 per 1,000
Posted by: Parabellum   2005-03-22 5:19:45 PM  

#16  study up on Catholics, Puddinghead. Another subject which you flippantly slander without knowing anything about.
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-22 5:19:05 PM  

#15  Be sure to give a lot of money to Fred, Tom the Troll. Everyone knows that money expiates sin and eases guilty consciences. Some Catholic edict long ago; it partly led to Reformation and some such, but no matter.

Aris is more interested in promoting legalized gay marriage than fatherhood -- that's not going to go over well in the European Islamic Union.

Since the thing that right-wing conservatives and Islamofascists have in common is their hatred for family planning, gays, and all kinds of non-conformity to tradition, you should probably not throw rocks when living in a glass house, Tom.

Abolish abortion, then abolish contraception, then put your religious commandments in your courthouses, then finally prepare to join the Caliphate in everything but name, red-state America. In the war of civilisations against all that's primitive and medieval, Western Europe has left you behind in the dust.

You are correct in one thing: It's a liberal thing. We value our children for themselves, and so we have as few as we can afford them so that we may give them our full attention and make sure they lack nothing. You value your children only as possessions to parade or as footsoldiers in your petty causes, and so like money or tanks, you think that the more the better.

And you don't care how many infants die: Child mortality rates -- much greater in United States than in Europe.

Instead of caring about "fatherhood" (not even "parenthood" -- more hidden misogyny from you Tom?), start treating your children as people and start caring about "child protection" instead.

Is this whole post arrogant of me? Ofcourse it is. Is it painting with too wide a brush, and whatever the hell that expression is? Ofcourse it is. But don't pretend that this isn't the kind of comment you wanted to hear from me when you invited me.

No more comments from me on this thread. Make sure to shame yourselves now as much as you did yesterday.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-22 4:55:10 PM  

#14  "set aside the immigrant families here in the States and you'll find similar well-below-replacement birthrates for Americans as well, especially among the well-educated."

There's a name for all those (legal) immigrant children, too -- Americans. The newer arrivals to the USA have always been more prolific, haven't they? Like first generation Irish, Italian and other immigrants in the past. Whats more, they can be some of the strongest patriots you will find, being a bit more appreciative of what the multi-generational Americans take for granted.

And education is no guarantee of wisdom. College graduates tended to swing Kerry's way in the last election, as I recall. I'm one myself, and it took 9/11 and the aftermath to cure me of knee-jerk Democrat voting.
Posted by: docob   2005-03-22 3:53:12 PM  

#13  Why the hell does It keep responding to what It thinks are trolling attempts? If It just ignored what It thinks is trolling, then wouldn't the trolling (if that's what it is) stop?

Or is It unwilling to let anything go by without Its flatulence being injected into the discussion?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-03-22 2:20:44 PM  

#12  Aris is more interested in promoting legalized gay marriage than fatherhood -- that's not going to go over well in the European Islamic Union.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-22 2:20:23 PM  

#11  Frank, works even better than in movie, once will do it.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-22 2:11:21 PM  

#10  invoke the name of beetlejuice and he appears just like in the movie - scary.....not.....pathetic.....yes
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-22 2:05:57 PM  

#9  Tom: From the issue of abortion to trolling in two easy steps.

You couldn't quit your nasty habits even if you tried, could you? Don't you ever get embarrassed at your shamelessness?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2005-03-22 1:52:36 PM  

#8  "The strange death of the liberal West"

I'm sure this is a reference to the book The Strange Death of Liberal England I had to read in my high school History of England class. I don't remember much about the book beyond the title and the cover (an old political cartoon), but I always love obscure references.

/pointless reminiscence
Posted by: Xbalanke   2005-03-22 1:32:24 PM  

#7  "States, however, differ significantly in white fertility. The most fecund whites are in heavily Mormon Utah, which, not coincidentally, was the only state where Bush received over 70 percent. White women average 2.45 babies in Utah compared to merely 1.11 babies in Washington, D.C., where Bush earned but 9 percent. The three New England states where Bush won less than 40 percent—Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island—are three of the four states with the lowest white birthrates, with little Rhode Island dipping below 1.5 babies per woman."
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_20/cover.html

Maybe it's just a liberal thing.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-22 1:21:28 PM  

#6  And so do we. It's not just Europe in this situation - set aside the immigrant families here in the States and you'll find similar well-below-replacement birthrates for Americans as well, especially among the well-educated.

Posted by: too true   2005-03-22 1:13:51 PM  

#5  "Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025"
http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=&D=2/22/2005&ID=57102

Looks like Aris has the choice between fatherhood or memorizing the Koran if he wants to be comfortable in his old age.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-22 1:04:36 PM  

#4  Thanks, DB! Steyn writes so well...and he helps me clarify my own arguments.
Posted by: Seafarious   2005-03-22 12:59:04 PM  

#3  You are so lucky I like you, Sea! ;)

But, I have to admit, as usual Mr Steyn has a good point.

Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-03-22 12:55:34 PM  

#2  So, Blondie...when's the stork coming?

:: duck and flee ::
Posted by: Seafarious   2005-03-22 12:46:49 PM  

#1  Oh, man....I come here to get away from the "so...when's the stork coming?" kind of questions, and you post this, Steve! ;P

Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-03-22 12:24:54 PM  

00:00