the pro-lifer who encourages unwanted pregnancies
In the face of a looming demographic crisis, why do we protect the lives of bugs, rodents, and other endangered species, and not the human being in the womb, when our country is in such desperate need of the human fetus? (Quiner’s Diner)
The folks at Quiner’s Diner are concerned about a potential decrease in the population of the USA, because they judge it would be bad for the economy. Presumably they are anti-immigration, feeling the USA (a country populated by recent immigrants) should not accept new immigrants. Maybe it should only be populated by ‘real Americans’ (the recent immigrants, not new ones, or a return to the indigenous people).
Putting this curious paradox on the issue of immigration to one side, how can you convince a disinterested breeding population to make more babies?
It seems that Quiner would like to force women to have unwanted children by campaigning to make abortion illegal. I hope that doesn’t sound too ridiculous, and I really hope this is just another example of my poor paraphrasing skills.
Let’s have a look at what else Quiner has to say:
The last thing we need is to be more like Switzerland or the Netherlands when it comes to replacement birth rates. Those two countries are dying like most of Europe is. The Netherland’s replacement birth rate is 1.66, and Switzerland’s is even worse at 1.54. Europe is dying using the policies you encourage. It is a matter of decades before these countries are dominated by Muslim immigrants, whose birth rates are nearly double those of the rest of Europe. Demographics is destiny.
What policies am I encouraging, using Switzerland and the Netherlands as examples? Policies that have been proven to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancy and therefore abortion.
So what alternative is Quiner advocating? It really does appear from his post and his comments that he thinks encouraging unwanted pregnancies and then forcing women to give birth to these unwanted fertilised eggs is the best way to solve the perceived population crisis.
I’d like to think this is another case of me misrepresenting someone and that there’s a different interpretation. Any suggestions? Full post for context can be found here.
Can’t help you there, Violet. Demographics is destiny! Must have more babies for the fatherland.
When I grew up they were trying to control women in the opposite way, zero population growth, so having babies was seen as a bad thing. Apparently the population went and corrected itself, so now we have “unsatisfactory replacement rates.”
Maybe you could squeeze another one out? I’m sure it’s not too late. 🙂
Ha! Well as you probably already know, there is nothing I could ever do to please the “demographics is destiny” crowd. They’re mad if you have babies and they’re mad if you don’t.
I once suggested we just pay women to a have babies and look after them both for the next 20 years, but that went over like a ton of bricks.
Then there’s Octomom, Natalie, she had eight all at once,but for some reason the “demographics are destiny” people don’t want to support her either.
How do people cope with large families, especially in poverty? I’m in Argentina at the moment. There’s a family with 8 kids over two generations in the tiny house across the road – they wash cars on the street to make a living, and the children are forced to work at well. There’s constant crying, lots of vicious shouting and some sounds of physical punishment. Are they ‘bad’ people? They are people under enormous stress and pressure, in terrible living conditions. I can’t judge, to be honest, but I feel so sorry for the kids. And this is a ‘better’ part of town. Most people are living in a lot worse conditions. We so often limit the conversations to our own cultures and our own expectations of life. But really, what does denying family planning access do for the majority of families in the world? Children often have to become a way of getting income or there’s no way to feed them, and parents are often too tired and stressed to think rationally. But it’s all a numbers game for people like Quiner, as long as we keep refugee Muslims trying to escape the mess our governments created out of their country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kosovo was majority Serbian, until the Albanians had more babies. Serbia has not seemed particularly freedom-loving, but has a particular culture. Pim Fortuyn’s argument was that the Netherlands, freedom loving, tolerant and accepting of gay people like himself, might change its character if immigration and demographics changed it to a Muslim-majority country.
I sympathise with people who fear change.
However the biggest threat to freedom and western values in the US is in the White House, and the attempt to freeze culture as it is destroys it, turns it into an authoritarian mess. And Quiner is nuts about abortion, he just stops thinking when it is mentioned.
I don’t see how we can halt natural developments like that without draconian measures, such as forcing women to give birth to more ‘Christian’ babies. Find more productive ways of working with Muslim communities? Islam doesn’t have to be the religion of the Jihad, just as Christianity doesn’t have to be the religion of the Crusade. We need serious work into why it’s going that way, why young people are attracted to it, and dig out examples of areas where they’ve avoided it. It surely can’t be that hard!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! First of all. Europe is not “dying out” at all. For example my home country Finland has one of the lowest in replacement rates, but less than a hundred years ago there were some 3 million of us. Now there are closer to 6 million. That means we have doubled our number in less than a couple of generations. This rate of population growth simply has to stop, unless you expect the end of the world to be a good thing. It seems populations do not grow wildly in countries like Switzerland and Holland, where people feel safe, and are economically safe and generally happy regardless of these two countries having distinclty opposite immigration policies within Europe.
If we have far more old people than young, that may become a problem for the economics. But economics are not some natural laws that we need to abide to, like the idealist capitalist seems to think. They are human constructs that we are able to regulate. If we did not, the world would be an absolutely horrible place for the most of us. Like it is to some of us, precisely because the economics are not always being regulated very effectively or at all.
There are millions of immigrants from all over the world, not just from Muslim countries coming to Europe. The only policy problem regarding this issue I see, is that so many of them are being deported back to powerty and even into middle of civil wars (and indeed large sums of money is spent to do this, just because we have people with similarly ridiculous fears like Quiner in Europe too). The Muslims who have immigrated and integrated to the European societies are far less likely to increase the number of Muslims in the world than the ones who were left behind. Wich is it, that the Quiner wants? Is this simply some form of Nimbyism? That is a sorry ideology, if there ever was one and often motivated by prejudices equal to racism. Liberal Muslims who want to awoid the religiously motivated conflicts in their homecountries are just as dangerous as the Liberal Christians already living in secular countries, so their number increasing means absolutely nothing at all.
There was a terrorist attack in Stockholm today, and it was possibly made by an Islamist Extremist, though we do not know that yet. President Trump seems to think he has some sort of animal instinct, that has warned him from taking the Swedish road of integration of the immigrants and he propably thinks such terrorist attacks in Europe somehow prove his prejudice right. The truth of the matter however is, that the Islamists have obviously never felt they needed to strike at Europe at the same level of commitment and havoc as they did against the US. What is the goal of the Islamist terrorists? It is to create a gap of hatred between Muslims and Westerners, because it is not Christianity that they themselves fear about the Western culture. That is just a nother false religion to them. They fear the effects of secularism, reducing the influence of religion on the society in general, and in that sense they are no different from the Evangelical Christians in the US and in Europe. They all fear they loose the control they have over women, ethnic and religious minorities and that all sorts of things they have prejudices or do not know anything about, start to appear at their back yard. They fear they will loose their identity, the base for their baseless beliefs, the different looking people and of the unknown. If we start to deal with all Muslims as potential Islamists, the Islamist terrorists have won by achieving their goal.
Please pop over to Quiner and explain all that, he needs your help.
Do you really think so? I doubt it would do any good. Can you guess wether if she/he is going to argue me, ban me, or simply deny my points without any arguments. Because, I do not see her/him as likely to being convinced by me of anything. When people are as far of the marker as the quotes in your topic post, they rarely have a skill set to evaluate the truth on the issue they were so sadly wrong about. Am I being pessimistic?
For you Violetwisp, and to satisfy my own curiosity, I went to see what the original post was about and possibly to comment on it. I could not. He has propably banned me because of some previous comment I have made there. It does not really matter, as I expect he thinks the end of the world is actually a good thing, while Muslims are a bad thing. While such misconceptions can sometimes be remedied (however unlikely), the level of either insincerity or stupid can not. What I mean is, that he seems to be quite oblivious to the fact that the sea turtle, bald eagle, and tiger are endangered species, while the human being is not, not even the Christian variety of it. Either the picture meme he has orchestrated to make much of his point is a blatant attempt to misrepresent the issue by false comparrisons, or he is a total moron and an especially ignorant variety of that. I trust, that his readers should see through the obvious problem with his representation and think twice on what he actually advocates.
I popped over to Tom’s spot.
In case my comment does not make it out of moderation ….
So, Tom, correct me if I am wrong, the real issue seems not so much ”replacement” but fear of a Muslim take over, and the possibility of ushering in some form of Islamic rule?
Demographically this seems a definite possibility – London has a Muslim mayor I believe?
So for Muslims and …. Everyone Else to try to out-breed each other might see some very interesting developments, and while we were all going at it hammer and tongs the Chinese are slowly but surely exporting a couple hundred million more Chinese Nationals that are currently surplus to requirements?
Surely the logical, humane thing to do is work as hard as we can to do away with religion altogether and strive for a secular humanist society that does not have any religiously motivated breeding program?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll be interested to see if it makes it out of moderation. Religiously motivated breeding programs – groan.