Because they are smart!

#1 What is on TV now, versus the 1950s? What is on the cover of magazines, in movies? What about rates of divorce, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, child pornography, pornography use, out of wedlock births, abortion, sexual assault, unfaithfulness? None of these things are new, but we sure are more coarse about them.

Do you have any assertion that these things are higher now than then (I'll grant you out of wedlock births and abortion) other than your feelings and the 24-hour news cycle blaring them out at every turn? (I'd also challenge your assertion that pornography use is in se harmful.)

#2 Men have always tended towards selfishness. But now they have different reasons to indulge. Sexism has new tools.

I'm guessing you're not the one who said Victorian prostitution was a-ok since it gave men an outlet for casual sex. I'll leave alone your assertion than men are selfish since that cannot be proven or disproven.

#3 Coercive "family planning" policies happen all over the globe, not just China. But it's not just government programs. It's societal attitudes. Children shift from gifts to burdens, accidents, mistakes, choices--their value is tied to their "wantedness," their usefulness, rather than intrinsic. They need to prove their worth to their parents and to society. Are they "planned"? Healthy? Well-provided for? A boy and a girl, no more? Do they fit with their parents' desire for travel, eating out frequently, frenetic work schedules? This shift of thinking is profound, and goes way beyond government-forced sterilizations and abortions.

So pop out as many kids as possible, regardless of the consequences to family life, access to higher education, etc.? Is that all we are, machines to produce children? Is a woman to be defined by how many kids she can birth? (I notice you glide over my statement that sex-selection abortions are an application of traditional values, ones I'm guessing you don't adhere to.)

#4 Sparta was one tiny society. The global impact of dehumanization, combined with technology, is far more profound, and takes their primitive way of thinking to an unfathomable level. Babies can be created and destroyed, harvested and utilized, cultivated and bred, tested and eliminated, all well before birth. People become parts, not persons.

Infanticide was the norm through human history through most cultures (the Jews were regarded as weird for not doing it). Today we just do it at 8-12 weeks gestation; acceptance of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions decreases greatly. In fact, 2nd/3rd trimester abortions are probably more regulated in Europe than here.

But separating sex and procreation corrupts something fundamental to our humanity.

This separation has been attempted through history, as I'm sure you well know.

Since World War II, there's been a steady decline in the number of people killed by warfare every decade. Disease has decreased. Life expectancies have increased.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These consequences of contraception were forecast when it became widely available:

--A general lowering of morality in society
--A general disregard for the physical and psychological health of women by men
--Coercive use of "family planning" by governments and societies
--Dehumanization of persons

1) So we're less moral now than, say, Victorian England, where there were tens of thousands of prostitutes in London alone?
2) So you're saying that men were nicer 100 years ago than today?
3) Outside of China where is this being done? Sex-selection abortions are merely applications of traditional morality using modern tools (ultrasound/abortion).
4) So we dehumanize on the level of say Sparta, where unwanted/apparently weak kids were left out to die? Infanticide has been the norm for most of human history.

we are much less moral than the Victorians. Why is prostitution immoral? It serves a valuable purpose - allowed a sexual outlet to men in days when sex without consequences was not so readily available.

Yeah, aside from the homophobia, racism, and general disdain for the poors, it was A-OK.

And as for prostitution -- I'm assuming you're a different poster than the one to whom I'm replying, since he/she was decrying the proliferation of sex without consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These consequences of contraception were forecast when it became widely available:

--A general lowering of morality in society
--A general disregard for the physical and psychological health of women by men
--Coercive use of "family planning" by governments and societies
--Dehumanization of persons

1) So we're less moral now than, say, Victorian England, where there were tens of thousands of prostitutes in London alone?
2) So you're saying that men were nicer 100 years ago than today?
3) Outside of China where is this being done? Sex-selection abortions are merely applications of traditional morality using modern tools (ultrasound/abortion).
4) So we dehumanize on the level of say Sparta, where unwanted/apparently weak kids were left out to die? Infanticide has been the norm for most of human history.

All of these human failings have been around since humans have been around, but they have all taken on a new depth and breadth:

#1 What is on TV now, versus the 1950s? What is on the cover of magazines, in movies? What about rates of divorce, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, child pornography, pornography use, out of wedlock births, abortion, sexual assault, unfaithfulness? None of these things are new, but we sure are more coarse about them.

#2 Men have always tended towards selfishness. But now they have different reasons to indulge. Sexism has new tools.

#3 Coercive "family planning" policies happen all over the globe, not just China. But it's not just government programs. It's societal attitudes. Children shift from gifts to burdens, accidents, mistakes, choices--their value is tied to their "wantedness," their usefulness, rather than intrinsic. They need to prove their worth to their parents and to society. Are they "planned"? Healthy? Well-provided for? A boy and a girl, no more? Do they fit with their parents' desire for travel, eating out frequently, frenetic work schedules? This shift of thinking is profound, and goes way beyond government-forced sterilizations and abortions.

#4 Sparta was one tiny society. The global impact of dehumanization, combined with technology, is far more profound, and takes their primitive way of thinking to an unfathomable level. Babies can be created and destroyed, harvested and utilized, cultivated and bred, tested and eliminated, all well before birth. People become parts, not persons.

There is nothing new under the sun. But separating sex and procreation corrupts something fundamental to our humanity. The low European birth rate is just one manifestation of this fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These consequences of contraception were forecast when it became widely available:

--A general lowering of morality in society
--A general disregard for the physical and psychological health of women by men
--Coercive use of "family planning" by governments and societies
--Dehumanization of persons

1) So we're less moral now than, say, Victorian England, where there were tens of thousands of prostitutes in London alone?
2) So you're saying that men were nicer 100 years ago than today?
3) Outside of China where is this being done? Sex-selection abortions are merely applications of traditional morality using modern tools (ultrasound/abortion).
4) So we dehumanize on the level of say Sparta, where unwanted/apparently weak kids were left out to die? Infanticide has been the norm for most of human history.

we are much less moral than the Victorians. Why is prostitution immoral? It serves a valuable purpose - allowed a sexual outlet to men in days when sex without consequences was not so readily available.

Anonymous wrote:These consequences of contraception were forecast when it became widely available:

--A general lowering of morality in society
--A general disregard for the physical and psychological health of women by men
--Coercive use of "family planning" by governments and societies
--Dehumanization of persons

1) So we're less moral now than, say, Victorian England, where there were tens of thousands of prostitutes in London alone?
2) So you're saying that men were nicer 100 years ago than today?
3) Outside of China where is this being done? Sex-selection abortions are merely applications of traditional morality using modern tools (ultrasound/abortion).
4) So we dehumanize on the level of say Sparta, where unwanted/apparently weak kids were left out to die? Infanticide has been the norm for most of human history.

Anonymous wrote:These consequences of contraception were forecast when it became widely available:

--A general lowering of morality in society
--A general disregard for the physical and psychological health of women by men
--Coercive use of "family planning" by governments and societies
--Dehumanization of persons

1) So we're less moral now than, say, Victorian England, where there were tens of thousands of prostitutes in London alone?
2) So you're saying that men were nicer 100 years ago than today?
3) Outside of China where is this being done? Sex-selection abortions are merely applications of traditional morality using modern tools (ultrasound/abortion).
4) So we dehumanize on the level of say Sparta, where unwanted/apparently weak kids were left out to die? Infanticide has been the norm for most of human history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. But thanks for your concern. My father recently died from Parkinson's but my mother kept him home and hired two assistants to help out. Again, thanks for your concern. (sarcasm, btw - b/c you seem a bit too dense to "get it")

If you would look outside of your little world, you'd understand that not all countries are run like the US - and that not all people are as selfish and greedy as we are.

good luck - You'll need it. Most pathetic people do.

So is smugness a typical family value in your generic non-US country? If it's so great and homey and family-friendly there, why are you here?

Glad your mom was able to hire a couple of assistants. Not all of us are, either here or there.

Americans are never known for being smug. I believe you all invented smug.

Anonymous wrote:. But thanks for your concern. My father recently died from Parkinson's but my mother kept him home and hired two assistants to help out. Again, thanks for your concern. (sarcasm, btw - b/c you seem a bit too dense to "get it")

If you would look outside of your little world, you'd understand that not all countries are run like the US - and that not all people are as selfish and greedy as we are.

good luck - You'll need it. Most pathetic people do.

So is smugness a typical family value in your generic non-US country? If it's so great and homey and family-friendly there, why are you here?

Glad your mom was able to hire a couple of assistants. Not all of us are, either here or there.

Anonymous wrote:Not that poster you are talking to but it is kinda a red flag to be that old. You're supposedly independent but living with your parents? Why are you in debt besides educational debt? Unless living with your parents at that age is cultural... But if it is cultural, aren't people in those cultures usually married and have kids way before 28 even if they end up living with their family?

Educational Debt can be substantial. Especially if you get into and decide to attend a "top tier" school. And, yes, while one could forego that for a lesser school for many -MANY- employers, they are credential hounds, plain and simple. They'll take a lesser impressive Harvard or Stanford applicant over an over-achieving Maryland grad any day of the week. I don't personally agree with that (it sickens me, actually) but, having been on multiple hiring panels, I know this to be absolutely true.

So don't discount how burdensome educational debt can be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family is Greek and I have many relatives (my mom and dad's brothers and sisters) living in Greece right now. The financial situation is dire. Many of my relatives were quite wealthy with second and third homes, household staff, luxury cars, etc. Now, they are all hurting.

That said, my married cousins in the 30-45 year old range have two to three children each. Most have two.

My Mom comes from a family of 8 and my Dad from a family of 5. They both grew up in Greece. I do not believe my grandparents practiced birth control. They were also very religious (Greek Orthodox).

For the poster who sites that people in Europe are less religious, I wouldn't say that goes for my Greek relatives. They all are much more religious than we are (we don't go to church) but I know that they are much more modern about their birth control.

So- from my experience I would say that the financial situation has something to do with it as well as "modernization." Most of my Greek girl cousin's work, as well, as their careers are important to them.

clearly your anecdotal evidence is off-target. The majority of greek women are not having "2 to 3" kids. and this has been going on far longer than the current economic struggles - Greek women were having less than 1.5 kids each back in the 90s and 2000s too.

I did not say that all Greek women are having 2-3 kids. This is just what my cousins have. It's not anecdotal evidence. It's my family.

If it just applies to your family, then who cares? Why are you posting here?

I live in Belgium. Last week my OB said that 90 percent of women of childbearing age in the country are on the pill. Life is expensive here and from what I have seen Belgian women are far less concerned, as a group, with what men think of them. The mother as martyr model is just seen as old-fashioned and undesirable unlike in the U.S.

Anonymous wrote:
So women are supposedly constantly sexually available, but they also must be financially independent and must not expect men to share any family/childcare responsibilities??

that is America

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Italy the women don't have children because they know the men will do nothing to help raise the children and will cheat on them.

YES

Therein lies the selfishness, which I firmly believe lies more with the men than the women.

Since contraception and abortion severed sex and procreation, men have been granted more license to give into their most base selfish desires. Plenty of cultures have deeply ingrained machismo, where men can unfairly leave all things childbearing to women. Now sex can be indulged in without the fear of fathering a child...and when contraception fails, well, there is abortion...and if a woman chooses to keep the child, well, that's her choice, but she can't expect him to help.

So women are supposedly constantly sexually available, but they also must be financially independent and must not expect men to share any family/childcare responsibilities?? No wonder women find this man-child model to be disgusting! As for men, what incentive do they have to change? There will always be some women out there who are willing to offer responsibility-free sex (except in countries with female shortages due to sex-selection abortion, but we're talking about Europe right now).

These consequences of contraception were forecast when it became widely available:

--A general lowering of morality in society
--A general disregard for the physical and psychological health of women by men
--Coercive use of "family planning" by governments and societies
--Dehumanization of persons

Not only have all these predictions come true, but worldwide fertility rates have plummeted to a degree no one ever imagined, with consequences never before seen in human history.

At current rates, European population will be halved by 2050. But it's not the overall population decline that is the main problem. It is the composition of the population. We're talking about societies with no siblings, no cousins, no aunts and uncles. We're talking about no one 14 and under, and most people 65 and older. One worker to every 3, 4, 5 dependents--but the dependents will be old, not young.

And it goes back to selfishness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family is Greek and I have many relatives (my mom and dad's brothers and sisters) living in Greece right now. The financial situation is dire. Many of my relatives were quite wealthy with second and third homes, household staff, luxury cars, etc. Now, they are all hurting.

That said, my married cousins in the 30-45 year old range have two to three children each. Most have two.

My Mom comes from a family of 8 and my Dad from a family of 5. They both grew up in Greece. I do not believe my grandparents practiced birth control. They were also very religious (Greek Orthodox).

For the poster who sites that people in Europe are less religious, I wouldn't say that goes for my Greek relatives. They all are much more religious than we are (we don't go to church) but I know that they are much more modern about their birth control.

So- from my experience I would say that the financial situation has something to do with it as well as "modernization." Most of my Greek girl cousin's work, as well, as their careers are important to them.

clearly your anecdotal evidence is off-target. The majority of greek women are not having "2 to 3" kids. and this has been going on far longer than the current economic struggles - Greek women were having less than 1.5 kids each back in the 90s and 2000s too.

I did not say that all Greek women are having 2-3 kids. This is just what my cousins have. It's not anecdotal evidence. It's my family.