No Babies, No Future: The Latest Evidence

Patriarch of Georgia

Are you worried about massive immigration both legal and illegal coming from south of the border? The problem might be taken care of all on its own. So says Weekly Standard writer Jonathan Last in his very good new book on population and demography.

Last tells a story that would interest any New Yorker who may be forgiven if they believe there was at one time a virtual invasion of their city by Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans came to New York City in a trickle back in the 1920s, “fewer than 2,000 per year. By 1930, there were 50,000 Puerto Ricans living in the city.  This eventually grew to 30,000 per year.

Last explains that the 1950s were a golden age for Puerto Ricans in New York. West Side Story told their story and this movie won the Academy Award and grossed “$440 million in today’s dollars.”   There were so many Puerto Ricans in New York that in 1958 the city changed the name of the Hispanic Day Parade to the Puerto Rican Day Parade and they moved it from Harlem to Fifth Avenue. Then something happened.

While in 1955, 85,000 Puerto Ricans moved to New York, by 2010 that number was down to 4,283. What happened? Did immigration become more difficult? No. If anything it became easier. Did the economic situation in Puerto Rico greatly improve? Maybe a little. It’s not like the population of Puerto Rico dropped. In fact it doubled, from 2.25 million in 1955 to 3.99 million in 2010.

What did happen in that time frame was that Puerto Rico’s fertility rated plummeted from 4.97 births per woman to 1.64 in 2012. This eased the economic need to leave. Last says as this same thing happens all over Latin American, and it is happening, immigration will begin to recede in the same way.

Vast cov_This is just one of many interesting stories told by Last in What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster out next week from Encounter Books.

The Puerto Rican story is about the only good news in this bleak tale.

Fifteen years ago the United Nations Population Division held its first expert group meeting of demographers on falling fertility rates. The demographers, largely from Europe, were truly alarmed by fertility rates that seemed to have fallen off a cliff and fallen down below replacement levels.

A few years later a similar group met at the UN to explore the question, “how low can fertility rates go?” Their answer was unsettling to say the least because, get this, they did not know.

How far we have come from the population bomb days. Those of a certain age will remember a poster hanging in many 1970’s dorm rooms, a painting of people living on the beach, crowded onto the beach from just too many darned people in America! This and other population predictions never panned out for the doomsayers and you don’t hear much along those lines any longer.

What has happened is something that has never occurred before, plummeting fertility rates not caused by war or famine or disease.  As Last explains, this causes profound societal problems as populations begin to age and there are fewer and fewer young people who are needed to keep economies alive and to take care of the needs of the elderly.

Last explains how difficult modern society makes it to have children. Take the car seat. I vividly recall bouncing all over the back seat and arguing about who got to climb into the way back. I grew up in a family of four children. That was an unremarkable number for that time. Today it seems like a troop. And try putting four mandatory car seats in anything other than a very expensive mini-van.

There is also the cost of children. We had our first child seven years ago and my wife left full time employment. I estimate her missed wages in those seven years to be roughly half a million dollars. There’s less coming in and plenty going out. The cost of our daughters’ grade school — we now have two little takers — comes in at $12,000 per year, almost ten times what I spent for yearly college tuition.

Many governments have tried to goose fertility, mostly through monetary incentives. They hardly ever work. Russia, the really sick man of Europe that has an average life span in the upper 60’s and is actually losing several hundred thousand in population each year, has instituted national stay-at-home-and-make-babies day that has not worked.

France and Sweden have had some luck in both monetary transfers and in very liberal stay-at-home-with-baby policies. Their fertility rates have inched up but are still below replacement.

Statistics show that large parts of our world are in the process of simply emptying out. Cities will be left abandoned. It is happening already in Germany. Italy may shrink to half its size by the end of this century. Lots of fantastic villas will stand empty and turn to dust.

Last says American may be an exception, but only maybe. What drives fertility in this selfish child-phobic age is religious belief and practice. As it happens, the US is a very religious country and our fertility rates stand above all the industrialized societies. This may not hold as the US becomes spiritually more like Europe.

The one place in the world that has truly bucked the trend and holds a lesson for us all is the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Where much of the former Soviet Union aborts like crazy and dies early and drunk, Georgia has rebounded largely under the inspiration of Patriarch Ilia II, the longtime head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, who promised that “he would personally baptize any child born to parents who already had two or more children.” No cash offered, only the healing water of baptism by their spiritual father. Georgia’s fertility rate increased by 20%.

Is there a plan here—one we cannot see—that fecund religious folk will inherit the Earth?

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • Gene Carr

    These trends can be studied at various periods in history, the anti-life Gnostic sects, the Libertines and Mattachines of 17th cCentury, the Adamites of 14th Century Bohemia, the early Bolcheviks, etc. They contrcept and abort their way out of history. It seems that not only do the meek inherit the earth, they have always done so with almost monotonous regularity.

    • Clement_W

      Have you noticed that the Libertines and Mattachines of 17th cCentury, the Adamites of 14th Century Bohemia, the early Bolsheviks AND our American ‘Progressives’ all come from the Big Cities?

      • TheodoreSeeber

        The Shakers didn’t- and yet had a similar flaw in their philosophy (though, admittedly, they tried to be a bit more moral about it- not just contracepting, but abstaining).

  • Clement_W

    A statistical study comparing birth rates in rural areas to big urban areas would be a good thing. I have lived in Huge Megalopolises as well as towns as small as of a thousand. While in the megalopolises, it appeared that there were far too many people on the planet and when I moved to the small town, it seemed to me that the earth had too few.

    Our media, Universities and organizations are located in very large cities and it should not be a surprise that the way of thought of a people whose culture emanates from a big city population and its elites have a disproportionate impact on a nation as a whole. The last time I looked at a political map of Red(GOP) and Blue(Democratic) voting results just a couple of months ago and going back 50 years, what stood out most was the little islands of blue in a vast sea of red in the middle of America.

    • Karen

      Those big swaths of red represent empty space. Most of the actual people live in cities. You might consider reading Dorothy L. Sayers “Are Women Human?”

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Yes, but he’s right, families in rural areas are quite often larger. Myself, I blame the pollution of the big cities reducing fertility- especially the now almost universal existence of synthetic estrogen in urban drinking water.

        • crakpot

          I have my suspicions as well about what birth control pills are doing to our water supply – mainly because human-hating environmentalists totally ignore it.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            In Oregon they haven’t totally ignored it, especially since it is also having a noticable effect on cash crop wildlife such as salmon and endangered species such as red-eyed tree frogs.
            But human effects? Oh, no, we can’t notice effects on HUMANS.

          • Bono95

            Exactly, and chemicals from birth control pills can also mess with the reproductive systems of the fish, frogs, etc. that live in the polluted water. The anti-human environmentalists are killing everything and everyone with their bigotry and willful ignorance.

            • supineny

              hm…I tried posting a link that addressed this point, but it doesn’t seem to have turned up on the page. Not sure if it got moderated or if the site doesn’t like links. But here was the point:

              The site claimed that, contrary to popular belief, less than 1% of estrogens in the lakes and rivers have to do with human waste (i.e. urine bearing traces of estrogen from pills etc). The other 99+% are from natural estrogens occuring in soy and other animal feeds that get into the water via manure.

              I’m sure a Google search will lead you there quickly if you’d like to do research. If you have sources indicating otherwise, i’d be happy to check them out, but this looked credible.

              • TheodoreSeeber

                So you have ONE site that claims that. The point is that there is a lack of study into this because of the bigotry against children.

                • supineny

                  and you have none. your point is implausible.

            • HeilMary1

              Forced birthers are killing off millions of men, women and children with senseless, avoidable poverty, starvation, wars and diseases.

              • Bono95

                What exactly do you mean by “forced birther”? Are you referring to a woman who must give birth because she has no access to contraception, abortion, or sterilization, or something else? You’re right that so much poverty, starvation, war, and disease can be avoided or treated, but the best treatments are NOT contraception, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia, etc. These things only make the problems worse because they kill off or prevent the conception/birth of countless helping hands, minds, and hearts that could well have fixed up the problems long before now. We don’t need legalized murder to solve the world’s problems, we need faith, hope, and charity to be practiced world wide. We don’t lack resources (food, water, medicine, money, etc.), we lack good distribution and good people.

      • Clement_W

        Those big swaths represent Low Population Density, NOT EMPTY SPACE. As to ‘Most of the actual people live in cities.’, you are absolutely right and that is the exact point I was trying to make, that the Urban environment produces changes in evolutionary biology as distinct from a RURAL evolutionary biology. As to Dorothy Sayers’ ‘Are Women Human?’, I can assure you that I do KNOW that Women ARE HUMAN having been brought up almost exclusively BY WOMEN and being Human, no more, nor less perfect than Men.

        Recently, a study of our favorite topic, ‘Global Warming’, demonstrated that there is much greater per capita contribution to Global Warming by WASTE HEAT from large urban areas and its effects extending for even thousands of miles around each of them. The study done just after 9/11/2001 when airplanes were grounded throughout the United States also had similar conclusions. If we are to confront Global Warming, then, we have to first take the whole picture into account. Smog, for example, is primarily the problem of Urban areas and Urban areas located in geographic ‘bowls’ such as Denver and Salt Lake City. With the much larger political representation of large density urban areas in the legislatures, it is difficult to be objective in the perceptions of the causes on disorders, be they environmental, economic, political, societal, moral and health.

    • Austin Ruse

      The Last book looks at fertility rates rural v. urban and you are right, the fertility rates in cities is smaller. The reason is the cost of land, whcih is something Last explores, too, the amount of space, too…

      • Clement_W

        I admit have not read Mr. Last’s book. In addition to cost of land and amount of space, there is the cost of time and the cost of competition. I did not realize how high a price I paid competing without even being aware of it until I moved to a small town. The first thing I noticed was my blood pressure and pulse going down and enjoying my breakfast!

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    What happened in Japan is very instructive.

    As the population aged, it spent less and saved more for retirement. That is, demand shifted from consumer goods to securities. The price level of consumer goods fell. The price of securities rose, that is, the compensation for waiting for the future declined, and the rate of interest fell. They traded surplus present goods for future goods, that is, they exported goods and purchased securities with the proceeds, shifting the current account balance to surplus. The exchange rate rose.

    That is why Japan, with a public debt to GDP ratio of 230% (most of it held by its own citizens) still has a strong currency.

    So, not all bad news.

    • Clement_W

      What happens to the ‘public debt to GDP ratio’ and the ‘strong currency’ when the people spending and saving it die off?

      A Japan with its dwindling population increasing its wealth and current account balance per capita until there is NO CAPITA!

      • dch

        No, the population of Japan will simply decline and then level off at a very sustainable level. The mid-case projection is a a population of around 100 million in 2050 – down from about 125 million in about 2007. The age imbalance is a one-generation problem that, if handled well, will result is a very sustainable national population in a much more crowded world of 9-billion in 2050. (Meanwhile the Japanese are big into robotics and automation for a reason.) The alternative was a overcrowded island nation competing for offshore resources in a resource constrained world of 2050. They will be fine, its a 3,000+ year old culture that has proven resilient. My Japanese in-laws seem to be OK with this and not terribly worried.

    • musicacre

      That’s short-term survival for the few that are left there, not a recipe of how to continue a thriving country. They also have a policy of not letting outsiders have citizen status. They will soon be extinct.

      • dch

        Nonsense, the Japanese have a 2,000 year old continuous culture. The “few” will be between 80 and 100 MILLION of some of the best educated and technically skilled populations on earth vs today’s 127 million.
        In the living memory of Japan the population of the country was SMALLER then it is projected to be in 2050 when it was 80 million in 1960.

        The Japanese guided this trend. Endless population growth was not a possibility for a island nation state from a sustainable food and energy point of view.

        Its just just a different way to look at things. I’ve lived in Japan and have Japanese in-laws spanning three generations.

        • Bono95

          How is just 80-100 million skilled and smart people better than 127+ million skilled and smart people?

          • dch

            They are hardly going extinct. Go to Japan and you will see why. They have a total land area smaller the CA with 127,000,000 people. Tokyo alone has a population of 35 million. The overall density is compounded by the fact that a lot country consists of rugged mountains in the core with minimal living areas.
            The level terrain is 100% built out or in food production; so much so they have had to build vast landfill areas in coastal areas in the cities to get enough space for people. So 80 to 100 million will live rather well while 127 million is already a strain on the land, water, and energy resources.

            • Bono95

              If I recall correctly from a past geography lesson, not every island in the Japanese archapelego is inhabited. Could people maybe start to move onto some of those islands? Or maybe onto other nearby Pacific islands that are uninhabited and unowned by any countries? Overcrowded living space is a terrible thing, but not as terrible as so many of the means imposed to control it (contraception, abortion, euthanasia, sterilization). All human life is valuable and sacred, no matter how crowded the place a person inhabits is. Humans are the most adaptable species on this planet, therefore, it would be better for everyone if some Japanese people colonized new islands or emigrated to other countries rather than kill of their children and grandparents. (BTW, how many people live in California?)

              • dch

                No, the four main islands are occupied as are the smaller islands of Japan (densely in the case of larger islands Okinawa). Going abroad was tried in the 1930s – that ended really badly for all concerned. There are no unclaimed or unoccupied islands beyond a few tiny rocks in the Pacific Ocean.

                1. The Japanese have not imposed any of the things cited. They don’t “kill their grandparents” (Japanese woman have the longest life expectancy in the world) and their is no forced abortion (its NOT China) and have universal heath insurance. They have the lowest infant mortality rate in the world and the 2nd lowest homicide rate (behind Singapore). Smaller families just means fewer people – not more dead people. Contraception is not an issue and there is no religious objection to contraception there.

                The population of CA is 35 million in an area the size of all of Japan which has a population of 127 million. The Tokyo metro (close in area to greater LA) basin) by itself has a larger population than all of CA.

                The present age imbalance problem will peak in the next 20 years and then they will emerged balanced out and sustainable. The challenge of managing the age imbalance in Japan pales in comparison to completely rebuilding the country after WWII.

                • Bono95

                  There’s no religious objection to suicide in Japan either (except among its small Christian population). Does that make suicide OK?

                  • dch

                    No, but suicide is not a matter national policy. They object to it as well and view it as a problem.
                    Suicide is a big social problem in Japan, but is not due to a lack of specific religious objection. We have a horrific homicide rate despite the obvious social objection.

                    • Bono95

                      It’s not the lack of rejection that’s the problem. It’s the lingering presence of encouragement from Buddhist extremists who teach and practice self-immolation, and the old “honor code” from the days of the Samurai which mandated that the loser of a duel had to commit hara-kiri. Contraception, whether or not it’s widely objected to, causes more problems than it solves. It can act as an abortifacient without the mother ever knowing she carried a child within her however briefly, the drugs often give the mother health problems (increased risk of obesity, fatal blood clotting, breast cancer and other types, and trouble conceiving later in life), and no matter how many people approve of or at least don’t discourage it, not everyone uses contraception or believes that its use can ever be moral.

  • Edward Radler Rice

    Mr. Ruse,

    You wrote, “What has happened is something that has never occurred before, plummeting fertility rates not caused by war or famine or disease.” On the scale that it is currently happening, true enough. However, Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute recently quoted the Greek historian Polybius in relation to Europe’s demographic collapse:

    Writing a century and a half before the birth of Christ, the Greek historian Polybius observed “nowadays all over Greece such a diminution in natality and in general manner such depopulation that the towns are deserted and the fields lie fallow. Although this country has not been ravaged by wars or epidemics, the cause of the harm is evident: by avarice or cowardice the people, if they marry, will not bring up the children they ought to have. At most they bring up one or two. It is in this way that the scourge before it is noticed is rapidly developed.”

  • Charles Lee

    Objectively, it’s pretty clear religion has little to do with fertility rates. Suggest you check out Hans Rosling’s research on the topic. His “Religions and Babies” Ted Talk, accessible on the link below, is a convincing primer.

    What causes birth rates to stay high? High mortality rates, primarily. What causes birth rates to drop? Children who survive, education, access to family planning, escape from poverty.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2012/05/religion_and_bi.html

    • Austin Ruse

      Rosling is an outlier. Even liberal demographer Phil Longman, recognizes that seculars have babies are levels far below religious folk. The best paper on the topic of what what contributes to birth rates is Lant Pritchard of Harvard who shows that education, etc are not the cause. What is the chief indicator of fertility rates is the desire of the mother. This holds true across time, across socio-economic factors, and so on.

      • Charles Lee

        I don’t have a particular quarrel with your statement “the chief indicator of fertility rates is the desire of the mother”. Clearly and axiomatically, this is how it should be. For far too long, across too many cultures, religions, and civilizations, a woman’s desire to bear children has *not* been the paramount factor in the reproductive equation.

        It’s quite clear (and encouraging) that women can manage their reproductive health quite effectively when they escape poverty and gain education. It’s also quite clear the trend towards lower fertility rates is across the board–whether the formation is religious or secular. Even if “religious folk” (your locution) have more babies than “seculars”, taken together, BOTH groups are having fewer.

        Look at Brazil–97% catholic, birth control and abortion prohibited. Nevertheless, birthrate fell from 6+ to 1.9 in something less than 40 years. A common phrase among women of Brazil following the birth of their first or second child: “the factory is closed”.

        http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/girl-power/gorney-text

        • Austin Ruse

          Lant Pritchard discovered that it is the woman’s desire no matter what; no no matter her education, no matter the economy, no matter the time in history. This is not some victory for modern day feminism. It has always been true…, according to Pritchard anyway..

          • Charles Lee

            Check your citation–I’ll assume you are referring to Lant Pritchett.

            I believe you intended a generous and compassionate sense in your phrase “it is the woman’s desire no matter what”, but this construction echoes disturbingly close to the malevolent language of Akin and Mourdock.

            In any case, if there is a victory to be celebrated, I will celebrate: the decline of coerced sex, the decline in infant mortality, and the decline of poverty, and I will celebrate: the rise of equality and egalitarianism between the sexes, the rise in education–particularly for girls, and the rise of access to family planning. If this is what you mean by “modern day feminism”, I fail to see anything wrong with it. These are data driven, fact-based, root causes for the observed changes in fertility rates over the last 40 years. They apply equally to Catholic majority countries as well as Muslim majority countries.

            • Austin Ruse

              According to Pritchett, this has always been the case…no rise of equality brought it about, no egalitarianism brought it about, no decline in poverty brought it about. It has always been thus. An uneducated woman in a hovel in 18th Century France made the same decisions her sister on the Upper West Side makes today. The key indicator of fertility is the woman’s desire for a certain family size.

              • Charles Lee

                Do you honestly believe an uneducated woman living in poverty in an unenlightened time had decision-making power of this magnitude whatsoever? She could choose a mate freely out of love? And then enter into a fully equal partnership in matters of when, where, and how frequently to have sex? Freedom to say “No” to her husband? To any male? How, exactly, could this “desire for a certain family size” be achieved in a society and culture that treated women as chattel?

                In our own country, it’s been hardly more than seven score years since the granting of women’s suffrage, in Wyoming of all places, for crying out loud.

                What publication of Pritchett can you possibly be citing?

                • Austin Ruse

                  Question 1: Pritchett does
                  2. Never said that.
                  3. Roughly.
                  4. Yes.
                  5. ?

                  http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE298/Readings/Pritchett1.pdf

                  • Jeff

                    What publication of Pritchett are you quoting, Mr. Ruse? Or is this article another ruse? No, there are many cultures and sub-cultures where women do NOT have the freedom to say no. Some have born children after being “legitimately raped”. Do you think the women wanted those children? Andrea Yates may not have wanted all those children. She was brainwashed to think she had to have more children than she could cope with, so she drowned them all while in a severe state of post-partum psychosis. Women AND their children do much better all around when family size is manageable and women understand their choices.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      most women who believe in “choices” end up killing at least one child.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I link to the Pritchett paper just above…

            • TheodoreSeeber

              Catholic Majority means nothing. The Bishops are ignored by those who thing Family Planning (which is just code for killing off the next generation so that your generation can be more greedy) is a good thing.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            The victory is in changing what the women desire. Material wealth instead of children.

            • supineny

              Well, that reduces the decision to only one issue (“material wealth”). But what of all the other issues? Time, the ability to pay for the kids, the ability to do other things in life that conflict with raising a family.

              My problem with the Church’s ideas about aggressively promoting family life isn’t that it is wrong to see the good of family life. It’s that it assumes it as one-size-fits-all solution. But not everyone wants to have kids, not everyone should have kids. Not everyone has to have kids.

              Meanwhile, of course, the irony is that the Church does its share to inhibit family life by keeping its priests and nuns from marrying. The central icon of the church, Jesus, was unmarried and childless, as were many of the saints. You could almost say that the Catholic education system, often staffed by priests, nuns and brothers, is a big advertisement for living a single, childless life! Often those people seem very gifted and motivated — some of the nuns I studied with as a kid were. One sees that and one might think — well, there are a lot of ways to be in life.

              • TheodoreSeeber

                ” Time, the ability to pay for the kids, the ability to do other things in life that conflict with raising a family.”

                Which one of those isn’t material wealth? The luxury to have time to do other things than survive is only for those with material wealth. The ability to pay for the kids is most certainly material wealth. Time is also a form of material wealth.

                What you are really talking about is being selfish and NOT sharing your life with the next generation- and it does NOT take Church teaching to see it; even many pagan religions know that if the human species is going to continue, there is a time to be a parent.

                “My problem with the Church’s ideas about aggressively promoting family life isn’t that it is wrong to see the good of family life. It’s that it assumes it as one-size-fits-all solution. But not everyone wants to have kids, not everyone should have kids. Not everyone has to have kids.”

                Yep, there are certainly people far to selfish to have children. But the Church has a path for them as well- the contemplative life.

                “Meanwhile, of course, the irony is that the Church does its share to inhibit family life by keeping its priests and nuns from marrying. ”

                And wasn’t that what you were just now complaining about, that there is no place for the contemplative life?

                ” The central icon of the church, Jesus, was unmarried and childless, as were many of the saints. You could almost say that the Catholic education system, often staffed by priests, nuns and brothers, is a big advertisement for living a single, childless life!”

                Yes it is, a life of prayer and service. But that isn’t what you were talking about in the first case- you were talking about material wealth as a reason for abortion. And I’d point out the contemplative life has no room for sex at all.

                ” Often those people seem very gifted and motivated — some of the nuns I studied with as a kid were. One sees that and one might think — well, there are a lot of ways to be in life.”

                Not a lot. Two. The Active Life- which includes sex and children. And the contemplative life- which includes prayer and other forms of sacrifice.

                But to live a contemplative life, you have to forgo sex.

                • supineny

                  You seem to consign to ‘selfishness’ ALL human aspirations — except parenting, or belonging to a religious order.

                  In the world I live in, people serve other people, serve the community, serve humanity, serve the culture in all kinds of ways. A doctor or a teacher might have no children, but they evidently serve others, often at considerable inconvenience to themselves. to the childless, apparently, you universally say ‘They’re selfish!’

                  Writers, scientists, architects, bakers — they may (or may not) get paid for what they do, but they do it in the context of an interconnected world. Humans are social creatures. Even the ‘selfish’ ones tend to only find their satisfaction through others. “Each other” is not the same as the “self”. Since you enjoy broad metaphors, let me suggest that we are each other’s children and we are raising the world.

                  • TheodoreSeeber

                    At one time we lived in a world where people did ALL of that AND had kids. Most Doctors and Teachers had kids. Before, of course, the utter bigotry against parents and against children.

                    I’ve had enough bigotry from the childless to last me a lifetime- they even resent me having ONE child, and keep suggesting that my wife and I should be sterilized because of our own disabilities and the disability of our child.

                    Humans are social creatures, yes, but I find that the secular childless are incredibly bigoted AGAINST humanity- and work very hard to spread contraception, sterilization, and abortion among breeders. Many times they go into the medical and teaching fields to do so.

                    • supineny

                      i’m genuinely sorry to hear that you have been treated so insensitively regarding your child. as for the good old days….i dont know how changing trends really affects my proposition, which is that there are many ways to give of yourself to others besides parenthood. there are very selfish parents out there, and saintly non-parents. the idea that this role is mandatory (for all but priests and nuns) is implausible. even if you met plenty of childless jerks, the category is too big for me to undrstand how you can even begin to lump them together. you complain of bigotry while practicing prejudice.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      The point of the nuns and the priests is proof that one need not be a slave to lust. Which helps married couples as well- the example of the priests and the nuns keeps married people from giving into lust and extra marital affairs.

                      Lust has only a single purpose from evolution- to perpetuate the species. All the other reasons to have sex are based on error prone philosophies.

                    • supineny

                      well i dont see that you’re engaging my point so i’ll drop it.

                    • HeilMary1

                      You must really hate sex. Most people view it as needed human validation from a partner who cares. That’s not lust!

                    • HeilMary1

                      I’m a secular childfree spinster and I support family planning because childbirth ruined my own Catholic mother with deadly obstetric fistulas. She disfigured me as her permanent abstinence excuse. Does that make me “selfish” because her abuse prevented anyone from ever wanting to marry me? I have no problem with your own situation because you got lucky, found a spouse and only had the one child you could manage. But imagine yourself in the Philippines with no health care or living wages and being bullied by pedophile priest sex tourists to pump out more children! — your wife would be dead from additional pregnancies!

                • HeilMary1

                  In the world’s slave labor economy with too many unemployed and overworked, underpaid adults competing for vanishing jobs, what couple barely surviving has the time, money or healthcare access to have children? They don’t personally owe you their further impoverishment and possible childbirth-caused deaths to justify their sex lives, especially if they don’t share your faux Christian religion! And what about unmarriageable disabled and intersex singles who don’t fit into your black and white fantasy world? They don’t owe you abstinence only if they never attract spouses or are unable to reproduce.

                  • Bono95

                    Abstinence is not owed to Mr. Seeber. It’s owed to God and both members of any couple not yet married. The number of out-of-wedlock births has skyrocketed since the advent birth control and these have contributed to the sexual horrors that you speak of. People born out-of-wedlock are fully human and deserve love, respect, and help, but they and all people born after their parents married should strive for their sake and for the rest of the world’s to abstain from sex until marriage and thus help to eliminate the evils that come from the trivialization of sex and reproduction.

              • Austin Ruse

                Supinery, on the one hand you say the Church has only one view of family life but on the other hand you say the Church’s central icon was childless as are priests and nuns, as were many saints….. So, very clearly, the Church does not have a one size fits all view.

                • supineny

                  ok, mr. ruse, two sizes. three if you count being a deity. i’m so sorry you missed my point, which was addressed to the respondent who claimed that everyone except people with a religious calling was duty bound to have children. he called childless people selfish (and he has recently added in no uncertain terms that they are all bigoted). i’m sure it would only be very bigoted of me to suggest that he is making broad categorical, prejudiced, claims. so i can only offer my perspective, which is that childless people can be very good people indeed, and sometimes contribute quite a bit to the common good, so much so that the term ‘selfish’ would be unjust. i realize this is quite irrelevant to your article which is really about economics and i’m sure that if a healthy economy were possible during a population decline, you would be all for it.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    I would tend to agree that those who are married and deliberately choose sterility are likely being selfish.

                    As to waht the Church celebrates. The Church celebrates families of all sizes. The Church celebrates those who choose to remain single and who dedicate their lives to others where they are ordained or not.

                    • supineny

                      to me it seems like aspersions are being cast at those who dont fit your model. one can as easily discover selfish acts by parents as generous ones by non-parents, aand most people are neither utter saints or utter demons. its implausible the we can judge people so easily. who was that long forgotten mystic from the east with that line “judge ye not that ye be judged”?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Judge not refers to judging the status of someone’s soul. We are called upon to judge behavior every day.

                    • supineny

                      Well, it’s also about compassion.

              • Bono95

                What the Church teaches on family life is that married couples must be open to the possibility of conception, whether God chooses to send them 0,1, 2, 3, etc. children. If for whatever legitimate reason the couple is unable to take care of children (unsafe living conditions, ill or injured husband or wife, severe lack of vital resources), they may either practice Natural Family Planning (abstaining from physical consummation on key dates in their fertility cycles until conditions improve) or put their children up for adoption or foster care. If a person knows ahead of time that he or she does not want to or cannot have children, he or she should either follow a religious vocation or become a consecrated single layperson. Marriage, first and foremost, is about a man and a woman becoming one flesh joined till death and conceiving and birthing 1 or more children.

                • supineny

                  i just noticed your reply now, and thanks. are these considered guidelines, or mandates? what has fascinated me here is the spectacle of so many people here apparently furious that there is a trend towards smaller families and the increasing incidence of people that dont have kids. and i’m curious how one gets from church teaching to fury at those whose lives take place outside the context of the church. are they considered sinners? are they irritants because they re non-believers and (sometimes insultingly) skeptical? is it an us vs them moment in the culture wars? curious.

                  • Bono95

                    Unfortunately, sometimes individual Catholics are not as charitable toward non-believers as they should be, but the Church as a whole does not condemn anyone who is skeptical or a militant non-believer. The Church does warn that people who do not join it and follow its teachings will end up in hell, but it does not send people there or officially declare any suspect deceased people to be there. Instead, it calls for everyone to join it and after living a life serving God to enter eternal happiness in heaven. Catholics are called to be witnesses of the Gospel in everyday life, and this includes sometimes telling someone that his or her beliefs or an aspect of his or her lifestyle is wrong. They must do it in a polite, friendly manner and be willing to love the person and forgive them, but they must still be willing to clearly define anything sinful about the person as such. Problems arise when Catholics make the mistake of hating the sinner along with the sin instead of loving, forgiving, and helping the sinner overcome his or her sin. As for the marriage vs. religious life vs. consecrated singlehood, these are guidelines, not mandates. The Church does not force anyone to choose one of these stations in life against his or her will. It does point out that there are certain non-negligible aspects to each station, and encourages people to discern their chosen vocation wisely. And yes, married couple with 2 or fewer kids are not necessarily selfish and sinful. They may be legitimately unable to conceive, practicing NFP, or were simply sent only 1 or 2 children by God. Only God really knows what a couple or individuals intentions really are and only he can judge.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Sounds like a failure instead of a success to me. The failure of feminism to produce women who want to be mothers.

        • Samson J.

          Brazil is not 97% *practicing* Catholic! The link between religiosity and fertility is crystal-clear – but you have to look at people that actually take their faith seriously, not people who are mildly or culturally “religious”.

          The book to read is Shall The Religious Inherit the Earth? (Or watch his talk here.)

    • TheodoreSeeber

      “access to family planning”

      does considering family planning to be evil count for anything in your analysis?

      • rightactions

        Charles Lee calls it “family planning” but it’s really “anti-family planning”. Another attempt to mislead is the phrase “reproductive health” which really means “unhealthy induced sterility”.

        • HeilMary1

          So you think most mothers suffering obstetric bladder and bowel incontinence, multiple deadly organ failures, and daughter-caused cancers is “healthy”?

          • Bono95

            I don’t think that’s what rightactions means, and it is sad that pregnancy and childbirth can sometimes cause awful things like that to happen to mothers, but the risks abortion and contraception entail are far greater.

          • OLO101

            …and uterine prolapse plus weakened pelvic floor muscles.

    • musicacre

      I think religion has every thing to do with it. It was our faith that made my husband and I decide on a large family (6), and faith helped us along the way.( BTW, we both have post-secondary education, so we didn’t make the decision lightly) There are probably good fertility rates in Canada, but women suppress their natural fertility with drugs. And the stats end up reflecting those suppressed fertility families.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        I wonder.

        Iran saw its Total Fertility Rate (the number of lifetime live births per woman) drop from 6.48 in 1980 to 1.67 in 2010 and no one would suggest Iran is a secular society

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Actually, many Sunni Islamics see Iran (and all Shi’a) as secular.

          • Samson J.

            Yes – I don’t think this commenter knows very much about Iran. The country is run by clerics but great percentages of the population are as irreligious as they come. The fertility rates to compare are not secular vs. mildly religious, but secular and mildly religious vs. extremely religious.

  • Dan

    It seems that the only national leader who gets this is Vladimir Putin.

  • Jeff

    There is no cause for alarm. The world population is still growing rapidly and the US non-immigrant population is causing the US population to rise. It’s almost impossible to predict the future, but many experts are concerned about long-term sustainability if population continues to rise. With advances in green energy and food production, it may be that those concerns will ultimately be allayed. One reason for the reduction in growth is progress. Infant mortality rates are down. Families no longer need to have nine children in the hope that two will reach adulthood. Families used to be large because children were needed as workforce in the fields and later in the factories. No longer the case as children are now in school until 17 and often in college until much later. World population is expected to stabilize at some point in the next century. We need to prepare for that eventuality.

    • Bono95

      People throughout history who have had big families did not do so simply in the hopes of having 1 or 2 of them live to reach adulthood. They did/do it because they respect(ed) life and because God chose to send them no less and no more than that number of children. And while earth’s resources are limited, they are not so limited as the eco-alarmists would love us to believe, and really, all created things are limited. Water and natural gas are 2 of the most plentiful resources on earth, and if the world was fair, everybody would have easy access to clean and free drinking water, gasoline would cost 10 cents a gallon, and oil could be purchased for $10 a barrel. Unfortunately, the world is not fair, but dropping worldwide birthrates will not make it more fair. God thought of everything when he made this planet. Only he really knows how many people it can support and we can trust that he wishes all the babies he sends us to be born and loved and that the natural life spans and (hopefully) natural deaths he gives us will be completely sufficient and merciful population control.

      • musicacre

        One thing is sure, when there is an upside pyramid of population where there are more elderly than young to pay taxes, you have a society in a destructive downward spin, socially and economically. Free fall. Scary.

    • crakpot

      No cause for alarm? Your experts only concerned about sustainability? We have our own Expert on the matter:

      “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’ At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when it is dry?”

      You have to wonder what He meant by “when it is dry.” Could it be lower fertility?

  • Patti.RCIA

    “Georgia has rebounded largely under the inspiration of Patriarch Ilia II, the longtime head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, who promised that “he would personally baptize any child born to parents who already had two or more children.” No cash offered, only the healing water of baptism by their spiritual father. ”

    THAT is awesome!

    • Bono95

      And those babies are soooooo cute!

  • Steven Hewitte

    I find this dialogue extremely interesting but quite missing several salient issues. Living in the Philippines as I do and watching the oafish council of bishops attempt to quash the recently enacted reproductive health bill supported by 74% of the people I continue to stand amazed at their reticence to provide basics of family planning information to a growing illiterate and impoverished segment of the population. With our population growing at a rate of 2.3% per annum and our population now exceeding 94 million, we export over eight million of our most able workers abroad just to be able to make ends meet at home. These workers repatriate over $20 billion per year just to help stem some of the poverty endemic here. At current rates, by 2020 our population will surpass 127 million and it is likely that the country will become unsustainable. Given the current incidence of people currently living under bridges in Manila today it is clear that the council of bishops has no intention of attending to the massive increases in poverty stricken, unwanted children with or without the recent RH bill.

    • Austin Ruse

      So, the Philippines was richer when you had 75 million? Richer still at 50 million?

      • supineny

        was china richer when the birthrate was astronomical?

        • Austin Ruse

          The proposition is that China or India or the Philippines only need to have a smaller population in order to be richer and free from disease and hunger etc etc etc.

          • supineny

            you’ve twisted that into a straw man. Who here voices this proposition that one ‘only’ need a smaller population to be ‘richer’? If China has become wealthier while practicing the one child policy, it is in the context of other efforts in the areas of industry, trade, infrastructure, etc.

            But you express skepticism that the Phillipines could be wealthier if they reduced the population, citing its previous, smaller populations. Presumably they were still poor then, so by that logic, there’s no correlation between size of population and wealth.

            But what if it’s not about the sheer size but the speed of growth? The society will make gradual accomodations for its increasing population, and eventually accomodate numbers once considered to be unsustainable. but if population growth consistently outpaces wealth, you could just as possibly have a poor country at 50 million, 75 million and whatever numbers come next.

            You propose in your article that birthrates must increase in order to have healthy economies. Yet China is a good (if not always a savory) example of a country that reduced a problematic birthrate while promoting industry and trade. Clearly they experienced a massive economic expansion while making a strong effort to reduce the population. Their big cities are no longer teeming with beggars on the street — it’s a pretty tangible difference. It would seem to be a strong refutation of your message.

            • Bono95

              China may now have less street beggars, but that has come at a very great price. Because of the 1-child policy and Chinese society’s ages-old preference for sons, baby girls are aborted or abandoned much more often than baby boys are, and it is simply because they are girls that they are so heartlessly dealt with. This has led to a severe gender imbalance that is steadily growing worse, as well as increased molestation and sexual exploitation of women and teenage girls, and to the abominable practices of buying, selling, and/or kidnapping whatever baby girls are born. No economic situation is worth such atrocities. The ideal population level for a country varies from nation to nation, but whatever that number is, there must be a steady number of births in order that there are enough young people to take over jobs when older people die or retire, and this balance must not be messed with by imposed limits on how many children can be born or how long people are allowed to live. Population control never completely eliminates poverty either. The best way to reduce the number of poor people is to institute locally run charitable organizations and to maintain a good economy in the manner described above. More jobs = more workers = less beggars.

              • supineny

                However much you (or I) do not like the way China is getting their birth control and business done, the fact remains: they’ve had a sustained economic surge during a period of sub-replacement rate birthrate.

                And I don’t know if the street beggar thing is to be brushed off quite so lightly — when china was still poor AND everyone was having giant families, there was manifestly a lot more urban poverty.

                The point is that Mr. Ruse’s thesis seems to fall apart completely when we have a look at the world’s biggest example of what he’s talking about: controlling population to improve the economy.

                • Bono95

                  China’s government and general economy may be doing fine, but many of the ordinary citizens are still poor or low working class, and much of the economic growth has been from other countries (most notably the US) outsourcing thousands of jobs to China because labor fees there are cheaper than they are here. This has in part led to the devastation of America’s economy and mass exploitation of Chinese workers, many of whom labor long hours in sometimes unsafe conditions for very little pay.

                  And many Chinese couples would trade everything they have to be allowed to have 2 or more children, and while the government will gladly aggrandize itself further by taking what they have, it will not deign to grant them something it really has no right to grant or deny in the first place; more children.

                  Yet another problem with the population control regime is that it is very ill-defined. Unborn babies are the prime targets, but next come old people, and anyone who is severely handicapped or otherwise “unfit to carry out the governments work or contribute anything useful to society”. By these “standards”, the next victims of the regime may be the remaining beggars. Is a good economy worth beareaucratic ruffians going out and gunning down all the beggars they can find and thus be able to truthfully declare that China’s streets are beggar-free?

                  • supineny

                    “China’s government and general economy may be doing fine,”

                    Well, that’s all that’s needed to disprove Mr. Ruse’s thesis. The rest may color our understanding of the world and of China, but it does not change the basic fact: here is a nation which has practiced population control at the same time as they have had a sustained period of growing their economy.

                    And I think your response shows what’s going on around here — issues like whether birth control has a good or bad effect on any economy are red herrings. You and Mr. Ruse only care about birth control’s effect on the economy when it can be shown (or, at least, hypothesized) to have a deleterious effect on economies.

                    you conclude your argument with idle speculation. The population control is ‘undefined’. You say they might start killing off old people and beggars. It must be admitted that this remains in the realm of conjecture. You don’t seem to have a very strong leg to stand on here.

                    • Bono95

                      To have a good economy, you have to have people. How many you need exactly depends on how big the country is and what its imports, exports, and main trades are, but you do need a decent-sized and steady supply of people to work the jobs. China’s economic growth and population control regime coincided because China is a big country and, as far back as written records go, has always had the most people. The 1-child policy has and is continuing to shrink the population, but at this present time there are still lots of people working long, hard jobs. That, combined with the fact that this growth has been contributed to by corporate fat-cats in the US and elsewhere who are either too miserly to pay a higher wage to workers in their own countries or just don’t have enough workers thanks to the devastation wreaked by birth control and abortion.

                      Eventually, China’s population control regime will catch up to it and its economy will collapse. Right now, it’s working on borrowed time. If the Chinese government doesn’t start showing more respect for human life soon, it’s going to run out of citizens who are able to work on its jobs, and that’ll cause the collapse of not only the Chinese economy and business, but will also contribute to the collapse of America’s. This is already happening in many parts of Europe. No European countries have a population control regime, but too many couples are having 2 or fewer children without compunction, and this lack of local workers is putting more pressure on foreign workers, who will be and are becoming scarcer.
                      When China’s economy goes, and it will unless something big happens to prevent it, the economy of every country that leans heavily on Chinese manufacture is going to go too.

                    • HeilMary1

                      China, India, Africa, Europe and the Americas have millions of unemployed and under-employed adults because of automation and corporate greed. The world simply doesn’t have enough jobs for the existing labor force. Companies force workers to work unpaid overtime to avoid being fired. They could hire more people instead of working the employed to death, but that would mean less profits for spending on elections and think tanks that trash sensible feminists, labor unions and other assorted “selfish sinners”. Smaller families = less unemployment = less slave labor = fewer sexually trafficked women and children = livid corporate CEOs and sex tourists.

                    • Bono95

                      In that case, we need to either start killing the corporate fat-cats instead of innocent (not to mention penniless) unborn babies, OR, more preferably, not kill anyone and see if we can create more new jobs or convince the fat-cats to play fairer and be more generous.

                  • HeilMary1

                    If China didn’t have its sensible one child policy, we would have had a planet-destroying nuclear war by now for limited resources. Moreover, millions more Americans would be jobless as US corporations would exploit China’s additional slave laborers. Overpopulation = slave labor and the sex trafficking of surplus women and kids. A better solution would have been if Christian missionaries pushed family planning on the Chinese 100 years ago just to avoid childbirth deaths and injuries. A slower Chinese population growth would have headed off poverty and maybe even the communist takeover. Didn’t 2 million Chinese starve to death in the 1960s? Family planning from the start could have averted the drastic last minute one child policy today and the preference for boy babies. The sex trafficking of women is also very prevalent wherever women vastly outnumber men — just check out any war-ravaged country where war widows and spinsters sell their bodies for food.

                    • Bono95

                      China does NOT have any surplus people, especially NOT women, thanks to the policy. Also, any family planning policy that involves preventing pregnancy or killing children is completely opposed to true Christian teaching (though unfortunately, many christians still practice them), and even if it wasn’t, family planning 100 years ago would NOT have gotten rid of a preference for sons, a preference that has existed in China for millennia, which is why it is still so prevalent.
                      And sex trafficking depends more on the morals (or lack thereof) that a nation or people possesses than it does on the ratio of men to women. There is sex trafficking in the US where the number of men and women is about equal, and in China where there are more men than women and the gap is steadily increasing, because neither country is following any kind of moral code, christian or otherwise.

                  • HeilMary1

                    Also, Catholic countries are notorious for gunning down street urchins.

                    • Bono95

                      Which countries do this, and is it priests, bishops, and nuns, etc. gunning down the street urchins or is it lay people whose degree and nature of faith is questionable? Also, what percentage of the non-urchin population is guilty?

                    • Bono95

                      And now that I think about it, Muslim countries are rather notorious for killing, capturing, enslaving, or otherwise molesting non-Muslims and any Muslims who leave their faith, and this is more common than false Catholics or non-Catholics in Catholic countries killing anyone.

                • Caritas06

                  The sustained economic surge was not due so much to the sub- replacement birth rate as to American and European consumerism and the exodus f manufacturing jobs to China. China is beginning to feel the effects of “our” recession. Coincidence is not causation.

          • HeilMary1

            How about putting women’s health first so they don’t die in childbirth or live as scorned lepers with obstetric bladder and bowel incontinence? How about letting couples match their family sizes to AVAILABLE LIVING WAGE JOBS? Poverty is always the result of too many unemployed adults fighting for too few jobs. Let population match employment and women’s health.

            • Bono95

              All developed countries, have or should have good enough medical care easily available to ensure the life and health of women and babies (not to mention men and older kids). In less developed countries, every effort should be made to make better health care more available. Abortion is almost never necessary to save the mother’s life. In fact, it can further endanger it by increasing the risk of breast cancer, cause a severe loss of blood, lead to infections and complications, and make conception later in life more difficult or impossible.
              Also, living wages should be sized up to match the needs of families, not the other way around. The reason living wages are ridiculously low is because so many people have subscribed to the anti-family mantra that people who have not are now suffering at the hands of those who have.
              Birth control is NOT going to solve anything. It created or significantly contributed to much of the problems we face today.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Just think what a change it would make to tap into the rich geothermal and tidal energy in the Philippines, instead of sending people away to work, or killing off the next generation for your own greed. There are other options. In a world where energy is king, the Philippines sits on a gold mine.

      • HeilMary1

        No, it’s a corrupt, child-abusing sex tourist haven and you know it.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Here is a curious thing. Ten years ago, when I knew it, there were 100,000 Filipinos working in Hong Kong, an island with no natural resources and a population of 7 million.

      In 1954, as refugees poured into Hong Kong from the mainland, the UN had declared that Hong Kong could not sustain a population of 1.2 million.

  • Pingback: Bishop Sample and the Future of Catholic Music | Big Pulpit

  • Steven Hewitte

    Folks… let’s examine the current reality… the one that smacks us in the face every day. The world’s population is growing seriously. 6-7 Billion today and expected to be 9 Billion by 2050-2100. And it is growing precisely where it is not sustainable… in developing nations. It is growing in poverty creating more poverty. It is growing in the lowest standard of living areas in the world. A recent article noted that in the last few years the fertility of women in Afghanistan dropped from around 6.5 children per woman to around 5.8. Of course infant and child mortality is huge there but that’s where things are growing. Anyone who would argue that Western cities need more babies only need to look to the developing nations and invite them in. (Unless the xenophobes resist on grounds of “they ain’t like us.” Didn’t this theme flow through Germany in the early 40′s?) NINE billion coming up. Many estimates indicate that good old earth can’t sustain that kind of load. Perhaps the estimates that within the next thirty years a pandemic will kill off three or four of those billions will come true. Perhaps good old earth will handle the vermin explosion if the vermin are too ignorant and incompetent to handle it for earth.

    • rightactions

      NINE billion coming up. Many estimates indicate that good old earth can’t sustain that kind of load.
      Steven Hewitte

      Your “many estimates” are wrong and outdated.

      Hint: Human beings aren’t fruit flies. Sure, people come with a mouth but also are equipped with not one but two hands, plus a human mind.

      Relax, the Population Bomb is a dud.

      • HeilMary1

        Except where MILLIONS of children starve to death or sell their bodies for food.

        • Bono95

          What’s needed in places where tragedies like that happen is more food and better child protection laws and measures, not less children.

    • Bono95

      Developing countries have higher birthrates because most of the people who inhabit them have religious beliefs. Not all are Catholic or Christian, but most other religions and attendant cultures also have some respect for life, or at least have more than the secular creeds that plague nearly all 1st world countries today do. 1st world birthrates are plummeting because too many people in them have bought into the overpopulation lies and value wealth, power, fame, “freedom”, “equality”, and “the green revolution” over the children they desperately need to reverse the growing economic crises, gender imbalances, and/or unstable population levels they have created through ignorance and selfishness.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        In Egypt, where religion is a potent force, as we have recently seen, the Total Fertility Rate fell from 5.37 in 1980 to 2.69 in 2011.

        Whilst still above replacement level, it does represent a remarkable fall in a singe generation

        • TheodoreSeeber

          In Egypt, the only potent force is wealth. Religion there is in service to money and power.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      We currently *throw away* enough food in the United States to feed 15 billion. The problem isn’t resources, it is storage and distribution

    • Caritas06

      Why is “good old earth” anthropomorphized and our species – our fellow human beings – regarded as “vermin”? Seems an odd viewpoint.

  • jxramos

    I have always wondered if mainstream globalism’s reach of advertising and push for materialistic gains has had this measurable reach into previously fecund nations. People all over now see in mass media what luxuries are to be had and fall prey to that message rather than embracing the biblical message of what true blessings children are. Maybe folks all over the world are all casualties of conspicuous consumption.

    • HeilMary1

      Isn’t it dreadful that starving, homeless, sickly couples around the world are discovering that having fewer children means fewer dead mothers, sexually trafficked orphans, and unemployed adults? Why every woman aspires to being a diaper-wearing, obstetric fistula-injured, divorced homeless brood mare of TWENTY+ kids who are the molestation prey of priests!

  • Gandalf Farnam

    “the US is a very religious country”: sounds like the Apostle Paul in the Areopagus (Acts 17). Religious, yes, but it’s the religion of Self. That’s why even though Mr. Last speaks truth, I fear that no one will listen.

    • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

      I’d say that the US isn’t a religious country, since it does not produce more religious people, but more secularists.

  • Robert

    America will face this crisis but other nations will not. America will be on its way out soon. The media holds too strong a control over the American mind and it is warping the people in a very disturbing way.

  • Adhemarde

    The elephant in the room is the muslims, who are having huge families and taking over the West. Those few non-muslim babies will either be killed or become dhimmis to the fecund muslims. The West as we know it, arguably the greatest civilization in history, will be lost.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Hardly.

      Between 1980 and 2010, Algeria’s fertility rate fell from 6.91 to 2.24, Iran’s from 6.48 to 1.67, Morocco’s from 5.65 to 2.24 and Tunisia’s from 5.33 to 2.04 and the United Arab Emirates from 5.42 to 1.72.

      Iran, Tunisia and the UAE are actually below the replacement level of 2.10.

      • Adhemarde

        That is not the case when they are overseas. It is a form of jihad.

    • Austin Ruse

      Yes, the dirty little secret is that the Muslims are contracepting like crazy..and their fertiity rates are dropping off a cliff…

      • Samson J.

        No, secular people with a Muslim background are contracepting like crazy. Actual devout Muslims have a much higher birthrate.

        • HeilMary1

          Devout Muslim women who don’t want to die or be grossly disfigured by excessive childbearing and who want to keep their husbands to themselves are contracepting.

          • Bono95

            Contraception is not a good way to guarantee fidelity from your husband. If your husband desperately wants kids and you don’t, he might go out looking for a woman who doesn’t disfigure herself with chemicals. Contraception can give a woman’s body all the negative side effects of pregnancy (weight gain, swollen feet, high blood pressure, etc) without the reward of a baby to love and care for, and whereas pregnancy only lasts 9 months, contraception and its effects last for at least as long as the drugs are taken, if not for quite a while afterwards.

            • Bono95

              And oh yes, contraceptives can kill women too.

  • http://rosarynovice.stblogs.com/ Augustine

    The video that was going to be watched in the synod for the new evangelization in the Vatican (v. http://youtu.be/6-3X5hIFXYU at 5min53s through) had a bit of information that I was unaware of: the fertility rate among American citizens is merely 1.6 per woman, a rate historically irreversible. The oft quoted number of 2.1 child per woman in the US, the video stated, is made up by immigrant women having a much higher fertility rate, e.g., Hispanic women’s is 3.0. Also, I suspect that the offspring of immigrants tends to emulate their hosting culture, when their fertility rate might be more alike their hosts’ than their parents’. So even though the influx of immigrants may make up for sustainability of the US population today, with the fertility rate in Latin American countries plummeting much like in Puerto Rico, if it decreases it might have a deeper impact than otherwise taken for granted.

    I think that confirming the fertility rate of American women and of the children of immigrants would paint a clearer picture of the future of the population in the US.

  • Pingback: FRC Blog » Diapers and Demographics: Jonathan Last on the Global Fertility Decline

  • http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/ steve finnell

    WATER BAPTISM, DO INFANTS QUALIFY?

    Are infants proper candidates for baptism? Do babies meet the requirements to be baptized? The short answer is no.

    Acts 8:26-40 ….36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized? 37 [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]

    Unlike the Ethiopian eunuch; babies cannot believe with all their heart. Infants cannot make the confession, that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. Babies do meet the requirements for water baptism.

    DAY OF PENTECOST

    Acts 2:22-37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

    There were no infants baptized on the Day of Pentecost. Why not?

    1. They could not believe in Jesus the Nazarene.
    2. Infants could not believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
    3. Babies could not realize that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.
    4. Infants could not be pierced to the heart, nor could they ask, ” Brethren, what shall we do?”

    Acts 2:38 Peter said to them,”Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    Infants do not need to repent; because they have no sin to repent from. Repentance means to turn from sin and turn toward God. Infants are not candidates for water baptism.

    Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

    There were no infants added to the church that day. Why not? Because babies could not receive Peter’s word. Infants are not capable of understanding the gospel. Infants are not qualified to be baptized in water.

    THE JAILER AND HIS HOUSEHOLD SAVED

    Acts 16:31-34 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household…..33…..and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 ….having believed in God with his whole household.

    The jailer and his whole household believed before they were baptized. There were no babies baptized. Infants are not capable of believing. Infants are not qualified to be baptized.

    THERE IS NO BIBLICAL RECORD OF ANY CHRISTIAN THAT WAS BAPTIZED BEFORE THEY BELIEVED.

    INFANTS CANNOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST. THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE IMMERSED IN WATER.

    YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com

  • Aramis

    So I don’t have kids…and this helps contribute to a cataclysmic problem in about 100 years….conveniently I’ll be dead…so why do I care what happens to the rest of society? It’s not my problem.

MENU