Chapter 2,,, WHERE HAVE ALL THE CHILDREN GONE?
"And ye shall be left few in numbers, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldst not obey the voice of the Lord thy God.
Why have Europe's nations and peoples stopped having babies and begun to accept their disappearance from this earth with such seeming indifference? Did the wounds of wars or the loss of empire kill the will to live? From the evidence, neither appears to be the case.
The Great War left Imperial Germany defeated and dismembered, with two million dead and millions crippled. Yet the German population grew so quickly after 1919 that France, which had been among the victors, was alarmed. After World War 2, baby booms exploded among the vanquished Japanese and Germans as well as the victorious Americans. From studying the birth charts, we find that something happened in the mid-1960's, in the midst of the postwar prosperity, that changed the hearts and minds of Western women and killed in them the desire to live as their mothers had. But if the reason Western women stopped having babies remains in dispute, how they did so is not. Contraception halted the population growth of the West, with abortion as the second line of defense against the unwanted child.
First, a little history: Only once had the U.S. birthrate fallen below population replacement, during the Depression, when the economy shrank by half and a fourth of America's breadwinners were out of work, many of them out on the streets. Pessimism, a sense of despair that the good times are over and may never come again, can apparently impact national fertility. The Silent Generation was born in the 1930's, a relatively small cohort and the only generation of the twentieth century never to have produced a president.
The postwar baby boom began in 1946, peaked in 1957, and fizzled out in 1964. But just as the World War 2 generation was about done having babies, and the baby boomers themselves were about to begin, a new and more convenient way to prevent pregnancies was discovered.
Historians may one day call "the pill" the suicide tablet of the West. It was first licensed in 1960. By 1963, 6 percent of American married women were using Dr. Rock's invention; by 1970, 43 percent were "on the pill." As Catholics furiously debated the morality of contraception and Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical Humane Vitae--which declared all artificial birth control to be immoral for Catholics, the pill included---suddenly a graver issue arose.
Arizona TV personality Sherry Finkbine, a married mother of four who had taken thalidomide, the drug that caused deformaties in babies in Europe, learned that she was pregnant. Mrs. Finkbine was subjected to threats from some and offers from others to raise the child if only she would carry it to term. As abortion was still against the law, a blazing national debate ensued. But Mrs. Finkbine mooted the issue by flying to Sweden and having the child aborted.
By 1966, however, the Finkbine affair was ancient history, for 6000 abortions were being done every year. By 1970, that figure had leapt to 200,000 as Governors Rockefeller of New York and [b]Reagan of California[/b] signed the most liberal abortion laws in America. By 1973, 600,000 abortions were being done. That year, the Supreme Court, with three of President [b]Nixon's[/b] four nominees concurring, declared that a woman's right to an abortion was protected by the Constitution. Within a decade, the number of abortions had soared to 1.5 million a year, and abortions had replaced tonsillectomies as the most common surgical procedure in America. Since Justice Blackmun's decision, 40,000,000 abortions have been performed in the United States. Thirty percent of all pregnancies now end on a tabletop in an abortionist's clinic.
In 2000, the Food and Drug Administation approved RU-486, a do-it-yourself abortion drug for use in the first seven weeks of pregancy. As no U.S. firm wished to be associated with RU-486 , a China-based company began to produce the drug. Cynics might characterize China's role in producing RU-486 for America as an act of assisted suicide for the one nation blocking Beijing's path to Asian hegemony and world power.
To be continued.
| 2005/12/1 15:49||Profile|
Roe vs. Wade put a constitutional canopy over a woman's right to an abortion. Yet that decision does not of itself explain the sea change in the attitudes of American and Western women. What was it that made them so hostile to the idea of pregnancy and motherhood that they would prefer to have an abortion, an act their own grandparents would have considered a monstrous offense against God and man? In the 1950's abortion was not only a crime, but a shameful act. There was no national clamor for its legalization. Yet, fifteen years later, a Supreme Court decision declaring abortion a constitutional right was hailed as a milestone of social progress. A revolutionary transformation had taken place in the beliefs of tens of millions of Americans. One of two things had happened; either the sixties drove a moral wedge getween us, or the sixties exposed a moral fracture that had existed, but that we had failed to recognize. I believe the former is true. In that pivotal decade of the last century, a large slice of young America was converted to a new way of thinking, believing, and living.
From 1945 to 1965, America passed through what sociologists call "the golden age of marriage," when the average age of first mariages fell to record lows for both men and women, and the proportion of adults woho were married reached an astronomical 95%. The America Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy was a vibrant, dynamic nation. But, as Allan Carlson, president of The Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, writes:
"All the indicators of family well-being abruptly turned in these places (Western nations) during the short 1963-1965 period. Fertility resumed its fall, tumbling well below zero-growth levels; a massive retreat from marriage commenced; and Western societies seemed to lose all sense of inherited family order."
Dutch demographer Dirk van de Kaa traces the phenomenon to four transformations: (A) A shift from the golden age of marriage to the dawn of a new age of cohabitation. (B) A shift from a time of "king-child" with parents to that of king-parents with one child. (C) A shift from preventive contraception, to benefit early children, to self-fulfilling contraception, to benefit parents. (D) A shift from a uniform family system to a pluralistic system of families and households, including single-parent families.
As the drop-off in the birthrate began in the mid-1960's, this is the site to excavate to discover the causes of this tectonic shift in attitude of American and Western women away from having children. What ideas did the boomers bring to maturity? What ideas did they absorb in college?
to be continued
| 2005/12/2 17:19||Profile|
This is a side note. This was sent to me by one of my fellow workers.
Very interesting eye-opener...
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
REPUBLICANS -- and these are the guys SENDING PEOPLE TO WAR:
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ahcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve. (Bush's Machiavelli)
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. Neocon warhawk
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve. Neocon warhawk
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Remember how the Bush campaign trashed him in the Republican primaries in 2000?
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback. (Win one for the Gipper!!)
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base. (Our gift from Austria)
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
It just doesn't seem right that those who have not sacrificed are also those who have spoken out against Congressman Murtha of Pennsylvania when he suggested that America should change coarse.
What do you think? This list really was an eye opener.
| 2005/12/6 11:40||Profile|
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS
| 2005/12/6 13:45||Profile|
| the list|
half of me is angered, half of me is not surprised, another half says........oh boy....thanks for the post brother.
| 2005/12/6 14:48|
| Re: another list|
Very interesting list indeed...however their is one unbearable distortion in one of your headings...
REPUBLICANS -- and these are the guys SENDING PEOPLE TO WAR:
If only things were this black and white. Vote for the Democrats and we would never go to war. Does anyone remember Clinton's military expeditions...or does the press only count casualties under a Republicans admin. Again, I am not a hardcore Republican but in these surreal times I think we should strive to avoid further warping of reality...such as rewriting what actually happened on the way to Baghdad. Here is a list of Democrats also responsible for the present war...
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
| 2005/12/6 19:09||Profile|
There is nothing being rewritten, these are current events. This is a deception to think things are being changed. We are only now beginning to find out the truth.
I read the thoughts of those who voted to go to war. Each one stated that it is a good idea to remove Sadam Hussein from power and to prevent Iraq from using WMD's. This was the stated reason for which they voted to give the executive branch the power to conduct war.
Well, now we know that Hussein has been removed from power. We know that there are no WMD's. So why are we now still fighting. The goal has changed hasn't it. We now want to spread "democracy" all over the world.
The purpose for going to war is no more. Yet, the goals have been changed. The spread of democracy somehow speaks of the religion of humanism.
| 2005/12/7 10:54||Profile|
This is a self defense issue. The United States has chosen to make a stand in Iraq. The radical anti-western position of the terrorists is not a new thing, it has been going on for years. The high jacking of air planes, bombing of innocent people etc. has been going on for well over thirty years. Now, because of oil wealth, we have people that have a lot of money that support people that are trying to bring about their evil control of the world. In recent years the radical terrorists became better organized and trained in Afghanistan.
Years ago Libya bought up much of the world supply of plastic explosives. Tons of explosives that couldn't be identified with x-rays. The material only had a 20 year expected life period and some of this material doesn't go off today when bombs are set. This is why fighters were sent to Libya and why Libya was thought of as a threat to our country years ago. Libya is at, least for now, out of the picture but that material is still very much in the picture because much of the plastic explosives are now in terrorists hands.
Again, this is a self-defense issue. Things that go on today will have an affect on tomorrow. The western world will either get a handle on this today or, just like the plastic explosives of Libya, will have to be dealt with tomorrow.
As I've stated before, it is my opinion that a Christian can not just stand by and let evil happen if there is anything they can do about it. This to me means getting into a war if that is what it takes.
Also, it is probable that Iraq cleaned out its closet before the war. I heard this was going on over a year before the invasion and that it was going into Syria. Iraq had a heads up because we went into Afghanistan.
This is a self-defense issue. Some Christians believe it is wrong to self defend other people or themselves. I believe it is wrong to let evil go on without trying to do something about it when it is possible to interveign.
| 2005/12/7 12:24||Profile|
Brother Gary wrote:
Now, because of oil wealth, we have people that have a lot of money that support people that are trying to bring about their evil control of the world.
My point, although sometimes not to clear, is to search for what is evil and root out the lie in the matters of this world. My question in regards to your response is:
Why didn't the United States invade Saudi Arabia? This nation truly is the source of the terrorism. Wasn't 16 of the 19, Saudi participants in the 9/11 attacks? Aren't the Saudi's the source of money backing the terrorist networks?
We have found that there were no ties between Iraq and Al Queda. What about Saudi Arabia and Al Queada?
These questions are not meant as a rebuttal to your thoughts, rather what are we being led to believe by the propaganda machine that has it's roots in humanism.
Remember, according to Scripture the whole world will be looking for a man to save them.
| 2005/12/7 12:52||Profile|
Does anyone remember the 9|11 report? Do you remember that 28 pages of the report were blanked out which concerned Saudi invovlement?
The Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, which was released in late 2002, included 28 pages that were blanked out, apparently concerning the possible role of Saudi government officials.
| 2005/12/7 13:01||Profile|