Most Liberals Say American Morals Getting Worse

According to a new Gallup poll, the vast majority of Americans believe that "the state of moral values in the country as a whole is getting worse," including self-identified social liberals, who had thought just the opposite the year after Barack Obama was elected president.

For background, read Most Disgusted with American Morals, Yet Favor Sin

-- From "Majority in US still say moral values decaying: poll" posted at Global Times 6/8/15

According to Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll released recently, 72 percent of Americans continue to believe that the state of moral values in the United States is "getting worse," while only 22 percent show certain optimism.

Apart from the their perception of the direction in which morals are headed, 45 percent of Americans call the current state of moral values in the country as "poor," with less than one in five rating the state of values as either "excellent" or "good."

Americans' pessimistic views about the nation's state of moral values reflect a belief that there is a deteriorating collective moral character, the poll said . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Most Americans Think Our Morals Are Going To Hell" by Millie Dent, The Fiscal Times 6/3/15

Unsurprisingly perhaps, social conservatives have consistently been most likely to tell pollsters that the nation’s moral values are deteriorating, but the latest Gallup findings showed an uptick from 2014 to 2015 among social moderates and social liberals who believe moral values are regressing.

Gallup also found that Americans’ views of the moral acceptability of a number of key issues has been shifting to the left since 2001. The largest shift was on gay or lesbian relations, with a 23 percentage point increase in the share of people who say that behavior is morally acceptable. The change coincides with a sharp increase in support for same-sex marriage.

Sex between unmarried people has also become more acceptable, as has having babies outside of marriage. Polygamy and divorce are also now acceptable to a greater portion of the population than in 2001. On the other hand, the views of married men and women having an affair haven’t changed much, with just 8 percent of Americans saying it’s morally tolerable.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gallup: As Americans Shift to the Left, 72% Also Believe Moral Values Are In Decline" by Gabrielle Cintorino, CNSNews.com 6/8/15

In two separate surveys conducted during the week of May 6-10, Americans were asked to comment on social issues and morality in the U.S.

According to the first survey, “Values and Beliefs,” Gallup reports that “89% of Americans believe that birth control is morally acceptable, 63% believe that gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable, 56% believe that doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable, and 45% believe that abortion is morally acceptable.”

Even previously taboo behaviors, such as suicide, polygamy, and cloning human beings, have become more socially acceptable in recent years, Gallup reports.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Majority in U.S. Still Say Moral Values Getting Worse" by Justin McCarthy, Gallup 6/2/15

Across most demographic groups, clear majorities of Americans have consistently said the country's morals are deteriorating. . . . with upward of 80% of social conservatives consistently saying the state of morals is getting worse. . . . But social liberals [briefly] turned sharply less negative upon Democratic President Barack Obama's taking office in 2009, while social conservatives' views have changed little since 2004.

Social conservatives tend to be the most likely to describe the state of U.S. values as poor. This view has increased from as low as 42% in 2003 to a high of 63% in 2013. Currently, 57% of social conservatives say the state of moral values is poor. Social moderates, too, have increased in this view over time, reaching a new high this year of 46% -- up from a low of 31% in 2003.

Social liberals, meanwhile, have had less movement in their views of the U.S. being in a state of poor moral values, ranging from a low of 26% in 2011 and 2013 to a high of 36% in 2006 . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Infanticide for the Disabled Pushed by Bioethicist

Udu Schuklenk, Professor of Philosophy and Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics at Queen’s University, who headed the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making, is advocating what he calls "postnatal abortion" for imperfect babies not wanted by his/her parent(s).

“Once we have concluded that death is what is in the best interest of the infant, it is unreasonable not to bring about this death as painlessly and as much controlled in terms of timing by the parents as is feasible.”

For background, read how American attitudes regarding "defective human beings" are trending toward that of Belgium where doctors kill months-old infants who are deemed deficient.

-- From "End-of-life debate turns to newborns: ‘Postnatal abortion’ morally acceptable in some cases, ethicist says" by Tom Blackwell, National Post 12/7/14

[Prof. Schuklenk] wrote the opinion piece after being invited to debate the newborn issue at a conference of the American Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in Toronto earlier this year.

Euthanasia would even be preferable to “terminal sedation,” where food and liquids are removed from a dying patient, because it would save parents and medical staff the distress of seeing a baby waste away over days or weeks, said Prof. Schuklenk.

The Netherlands does permit euthanasia of some newborns. . . .

[Schuklenk] rejected the notion that allowing euthanasia in such cases would lead to a slippery slope where the idea is applied increasingly broadly. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Should severely disabled infants be euthanased?" by Michael Cook, BioEdge 12/6/14

After dismissing arguments drawn from human dignity, sanctity-of-life, and the principle of double effect, Schuklenk still has to explain why a suffering infant could not be simply sedated so that it would not suffer, thus avoiding the need for euthanasia. The answer he says, is that parents and doctors and nurses would suffer unnecessarily.

The unnecessarily prolonged dying of their infant son would extend a severely distressing situation for the parents. They would have to witness the deterioration of their infant son over a period of days, possibly weeks. Some of the attending health care professionals would undoubtedly also find it psychologically difficult to watch the child die foreseeably an unnecessarily slow death. …. Given that a terminally sedated infant would have no surviving interests to speak of, the interests of these other parties matter. If his prolonged dying is harmful to them, a further quality-of-life based argument in favor of terminating the infant's life is established.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The 'Quality of Life' Slouch Toward Infanticide" by Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online 5/15/14

[Udu Schuklenk writes in his] “What We Should Do About Severely Impaired Newborns?”

If we merely go by the newborn’s quality of life and life prospects it seems indeed best to end the unfolding tragedy sooner rather than later, but probably a decision should be arrived at with parental consent as opposed to against the unfortunate parents. It turns out that one can reasonably answer the rhetorical question of whether one would want to live in a society that terminated the lives of certain severely impaired newborns if one held the view – as I do – that the newborn’s current and future quality of life is all that matters here. I could live in such a society where empathy for human suffering trumps religious conviction.

Don’t be fooled by the “parental consent” nonsense. First, parents shouldn’t have the power to have their babies killed. Beyond that, if we owe a duty to the baby to kill him, then parental rights become irrelevant and it’s veto time. Relevantly, back in the late 1990s, The Lancet reported that 27% of infanticides in the Netherlands–all based on a supposedly “unlivable life” occurs without parental consent.

If the parents’ reason for wanting to love their baby as long as he lives can be viewed as religious–strongly hinted by Schuklenk as the only reason anyone could oppose, it’s really veto time!

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Doctor-assisted Suicide Morally Wrong: Poll

A new Gallup poll shows that more Americans oppose “doctor-assisted suicide” (48%) than those who consider it morally acceptable (45%).

-- From "Poll: Doctor-assisted suicide divisive" by UPI 5/31/11

Doctor-assisted suicide was the most controversial cultural issue in Gallup's 2011 Values and Beliefs poll, results indicated.

The three most controversial issues -- doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, and out-of-wedlock births -- were separated by fewer than 15 percentage points between participants who said they considered the issue morally acceptable from the percentage considering it morally wrong, the Princeton, N.J., polling agency said.

At least 8 in 10 U.S. adults interviewed in the survey said extramarital affairs, polygamy, cloning humans and suicide were wrong, while least six in 10 people surveyed said pornography and cloning animals were morally wrong, results indicated.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Assisted Suicide Support Drops to Lowest Level in 8 Years" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 5/31/11

Gallup found 51 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents and just 32 percent of Republicans who say they find assisted suicide morally acceptable. When looking at an age breakdown, the views of Americans are largely consistent with just 46 percent of those 18-34, 45 percent of those 35-54 and 43 percent of those 55 and older saying assisted suicide is morally okay.

Had Gallup used the term “assisted suicide” without including the word, “doctor,” support likely would have decreased further.

The Gallup poll also found strong opposition to human cloning, but support for embryonic stem cell research. Some 84 percent of Americans say human cloning is not morally justified but 62 percent of Americans say it is morally acceptable to engage in “medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos.” Another 62 percent were morally opposed to cloning animals — making it so the objections Americans have to cloning on any level is quite clear.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Suicide for Elderly Billboards Going Nationwide

Plain black billboards reading "My Life My Death My Choice FinalExitNetwork.org" are being placed by Final Exit Network, claiming to help people with the pain of incurable illness.


-- from "National campaign guiding ill adults to end lives advertises on Hillside billboard" by Steve Strunsky, New Jersey Star-Ledger 7/14/10

The [New Jersey] billboard, along with one in San Francisco and another planned for Florida, anchor a national campaign by the network to raise awareness of itself and its mission. Members say the locations were chosen for their reputations as socially progressive and, in Florida’s case, for its elderly population.

Jim Goodness, a spokesman for the [Catholic Church] Archdiocese of Newark, said the message "cannot be condoned."

Therapists called the billboard "irresponsible," arguing it could serve as a "tipping point" for troubled teens or others at risk of suicide.

The network does not advocate physician-assisted suicide . . . Instead, it recommends suffocation by donning an air-tight hood and inhaling helium pumped in through a tube.

Thomas E. Goodwin, a physician who founded the network in Florida in 2004, is facing criminal charges of violating Georgia’s law against assisted suicide in the 2008 death of a 58-year-old man at his home near Atlanta. Network members face similar charges in Arizona. New Jersey also prohibits assisted suicide.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Global Warming Adherents Shoot Children

Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.

-- From "Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents' 'global warming suicide pact'" by Gerard Couzens, London Daily Mail 3/1/10

A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

[The] parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Baby survives shootings in Argentina" from UPI 3/1/10

The baby was found after neighbors informed authorities of a strong odor emanating from the family's residence in the city of Goya last week, the Latin American Herald Tribune reported Monday.

The Herald Tribune said a note found in the family's home led authorities to suspect the deaths were the result of a apparent suicide pact brought on by concerns about global warming.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Liberal 'christians' Praise Montana Euthanasia Ruling

Montana Supreme Court clears path for third state to allow physician-assisted suicide, to the satisfaction of local 'church' leaders

-- From "Doctor-Assisted Suicide Gets OK in Montana" Associated Press 12/31/09

Patients and doctors had been waiting for the state's high court to step in after a lower court decided a year ago that constitutional rights to privacy and dignity protect the right to die.

The Montana Supreme Court opinion will now give doctors in the state the freedom to prescribe the necessary drugs to mentally competent, terminally ill patients without fear of being prosecuted, advocates said.

Oregon and Washington state allow assisted suicides for terminally ill patients, with Oregon adopting America's first "death with dignity" law in 1997. [Kathryn L. Tucker, the legal affairs director for Compassion and Choices,] said Montana doctors should now feel comfortable adopting procedures that doctors in the other two states use.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Baxter v. Montana: euthanasia finds support among Pro-Right-to-Die Christian Authority Figures" by Mariya Starchevsky, Newark Religious Issues Examiner 1/4/10

The moral stigma of suicide dates back to Christianity’s proliferation through Europe. Although the Bible does not condemn suicide explicitly, the view of “committing” suicide as a legal crime and a moral sin was adopted from St. Augustine and later by St. Thomas Aquinas. Pages 4-5. In history, suicide was a spiritual offense, because it was thought to mess with the Almighty’s plans.

. . . [The case included an amicus brief filed by religious groups and representatives.] Making their plead for a right to die from a religious point of view were Rev. Canon Gary Waddingham (Episcopal Priest) Rev. Steve Oreskovich (Episcopal Priest), Rev. Meg Hatch (M. Div, UCC) Chuck Heath (M. Div. LCPC, Chaplain), Reverend John C. Board (Episcopal Deacon) Rev. Jean Collins, (Episcopal Priest), Rev. John R. Payne, Journey BE (Disciples of Christ) and Dr. L.A. Kemmerer (Professor). These authorities then list approximately 70 other religious figures from the United Church of Christ, the Church of England, the Unitarian Universalists Association of Congregations, the Methodist Church, etc., all who support euthanasia when concerning competent, terminally ill adults.

These religious amici stress that end-of-life decisions are deeply personal.

“Those who do not share in the religious beliefs and doctrines of groups opposed to aid in dying see this as an unwanted intrusion into what should be a private decision making process between patient and physician." - Deric Weiss, M.D.,Billings, Montana.

“An overriding theme in the [Bible] is ‘free will.’ That is, the reasonable belief that God granted human beings the ability to distinguish between good and evil and to make choices concerning both. - Rev. John C. Board, Episcopal Deacon.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, But Not Treat Cancer Patient

Medication prescribed that would slow the growth of cancer not covered by Oregon Health Plan

From "Oregon Offers to Pay to Kill, But Not Treat Cancer Patient" by Tim Waggoner, posted 6/4/08 at LifeSite.com

SALEM, Oregon, June 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Lung cancer patient, Barbara Wagner, was recently notified that her oncologist-prescribed medication that would slow the growth of cancer would not be covered by the Oregon Health Plan; the plan, however, she was informed, would cover doctor-assisted suicide should she wish to kill herself.

"Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan," read the letter notifying Wagner of the health plan's decision.

Wagner says she was shocked by the decision. "To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," she told the Register-Guard. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"

This past Monday morning, however, Wagner had reason to rejoice. A representative from the company that manufactures the treatment called the cancer patient to say they would give her the medication for free.

"I am just so thrilled," she said. "I am so relieved and so happy."

Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, which administers the Oregon Health Plan, attempted to defend the health plan's decision. "We can't cover everything for everyone," he said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people." Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. "There's some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile," he said, "or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care." (Emphasis ours)

Read the rest of this article.

Switzerland: Suicide Clinic Being Evicted from Building

Neighbor says "We call it the house of horrors. This is meant to be a residential flat but some days you'd think it was a morgue."

From "Neighbor's Complaints Succeed in Evicting Dignitas from Residence" by Elizabeth O'Brien, posted 7/17/07 at Lifesite.org

The Swiss assisted-suicide group Dignitas has been evicted from its operation site in a suburban area due to growing complaints from neighbors.

For nine years the assisted-suicide clinic at Gertrudstrasse 84 received people who wanted to kill themselves, Spiegel News reports. The organization took up two apartments of the apartment block; but recently the owner cancelled their lease because residents were horrified by the stream of body bags that were carried out on the elevator and are frustrated by the police and ambulances that constantly come to the door.

The landlady has given Dignitas until September to find a new residence. The eviction is especially significant, reports Spiegel, because the landlady is a cousin of Ludwig Minelli, the head and primary launcher of Dignitas.

55-year old resident Gloria Sonny started the eviction movement, gathering signatures to petition against Dignitas. She told Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung that the place had become a "house of death." Last year Sonny was also quoted in UK's Telegraph, "We call it the 'House of Horrors'. This is meant to be a residential flat but some days you'd think it was a morgue."

She also noted that not all of the people who came with a one-way ticket were old. She said, "The look in their eyes haunts me, particularly if they are young."

Other residents complained that their children were constantly exposed to the dying and dead bodies. One woman was quoted in the Guardian Unlimited, saying that she changed her household chores in order not to "bump into a corpse while I'm taking out the rubbish."

Read the rest of this article.

Academics Now Advocating Suicide for the Mentally Ill

From "Death on Demand" by Wesley J. Smith, posted 7/5/07 at The Weekly Standard

SHOULD LAWS AGAINST assisted suicide be rescinded as "paternalistic?" Should assisted suicide be transformed from what is now a crime (in most places) into a sacred "right to die"? Should assisted suicide be redefined from a form of homicide into a legitimate "medical treatment" readily available to all persistently suffering people, including to the mentally ill?

According to Brown University professor Jacob M. Appel, the answer to all three of these questions is an unequivocal yes. Writing in the May-June 2007 Hastings Center Report ("A Suicide Right for the Mentally Ill?"), Appel argues in that assisted suicide should not only be available to the terminally ill, but also to people with "purely psychological disease" such as victims "of repeated bouts of severe depression," if the suicidal person "rationally might prefer dignified death over future suffering."

Given the emphasis assisted suicide advocates and the media normally give to the role of terminal illness in the assisted suicide debate, it might be tempting to dismiss Appel as a fringe rider. But he most definitely is not. Over the last several years, advocacy for what is sometimes called "rational suicide" has been growing increasingly mainstream, discussed among the bioethical and academic elite in mental health publications, academic symposia, and books. Indeed, it is worth noting that Appel's essay appeared in the world's most prestigious bioethics journal...

You may be tempted to dismiss this but please don't. The philosophies generated in our universities and institutions of 'higher learning' eventually make there way down to our children's and grandchildren's classrooms, shaping the future for generations to come.

Academics ultimately rule the world from the grave...

Read the whole commentary.

Patients Who Would Choose Assisted Suicide Would Do So Not Because of Pain, but Depression/Fear of Being a Burden

From "Patients Who Would Choose Assisted Suicide Would Do So Not Because of Pain, but Depression/Fear of Being a Burden" by John Jalsevec, posted 6/11/07 at Lifesite.net

According to a recent study that interviewed 379 Canadian patients who were receiving palliative care for cancer between 2001 and 2003, over half of those patients (62.8%) believed that assisted suicide should be legalized.

But of the 238 participants in the study who argued that assisted suicide should be legal, only 22 (5.8%) said they would actually exercise the option right away if it were legal, and over half of those 22 said they would do so, not because of heightened levels of pain associated with their illness, but because they felt they were a burden to their family or the health care system.

The study, entitled “Desire for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in palliative cancer care” was published in the most recent issue of Health Psychology, a journal of the APA.

Dr. Keith Wilson, the lead researcher on the study, commented to the Canadian Press on the issue of the 22 patients who said they would have chosen assisted suicide were it legal.

“It turns out for those 22 people we’re talking about, the issues were much more complicated than pain,” said Dr. Wilson. “They didn’t tend to have any more pain than the people who didn’t want assisted suicide. But they did tend to feel sicker, they did tend to feel weaker. They were more likely to be depressed, and they felt that they had become a burden to others.”

Read the rest of the article.

Liberals Ask Themselves, "Why Don't Liberals Procreate?"

UPDATE 8/10/14 - The Extinction of Abortion Advocates: They Don't Procreate

From "Making moms: Can we feed the need to breed? -- Canada has a baby deficit. Will paying women to have more kids help?" by Lianne George, posted May 28, 2007 in Macleans

Canada's fertility rate has been in a free fall for decades. In recent years, though, it has hovered at an all-time low of roughly 1.5 children per woman (we need 2.1 if we're going to replace ourselves). Social analysts pin it on some jumble of female education and fiscal autonomy, secularization, birth control, Sex and the City, a heightened desire for personal freedom, and increasing uncertainty about bringing a child into a world plagued by terrorism, global warming and Lindsay Lohan. [Oops, forgot to mention abortion!] In a hyper-individualistic, ultra-commodified culture like ours, motherhood, for better and worse, is less a fact of life than just another lifestyle choice.

All over the developed world, the same pattern is apparent. Russia, Britain, Ireland, Australia, Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries are contending with fertility rates well below replacement levels. Forty per cent of female university graduates in Germany are childless. In Japan, where the birth rate has sunk to a record low of 1.26, family planning groups are blaming the Internet, charging that fertile men and women are spending too much time online, and not enough having sex.

In Canada, economists and demographers are already noting dysytopian, Children Of Men-tinged scenarios. Across the country, women on average aren't having their first child until the age of 31. Elementary schools and daycare facilities, without enough kids to fill the nap mats, are closing for business. Ontario's Ministry of Education predicts that, by 2010, total elementary and secondary school enrolment will drop by nearly 100,000 students from 2002 numbers. In New Brunswick, the province's death rate has overtaken its birth rate. And the economic implications of a disappearing population are substantial: analysts are estimating a shortage of 1.2 million workers by 2020. "For every two people about to retire in the coming decades," says Linda Duxbury, a professor at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business, "there will be less than one person to take their place, which will put significant strain on the health care system." Alberta, B.C. and the Maritimes are already feeling the crunch. "Demographers have known for ages this is coming," she says. "An issue like this takes decades to solve and we've really pushed the envelope on starting to deal with it."

In a quest to hold on to older workers, the Canadian government expunged the mandatory retirement age in December. But this move alone will not avert a labour crisis. Who, after all, wants to work a full-time job much past the age of 65? (Currently, only about six per cent of Canadians do so.) . . . Nor will immigration be the solution. At the moment, Statistics Canada reports that Canada's average of 240,000 new Canadian immigrants per year more than compensates for our dismal fertility rate. However, those studying long-range trends say this is nowhere near enough, particularly as global competition for skilled labour becomes more aggressive in the coming decades. "The numbers that we're talking about are phenomenal," says Duxbury. "Half a million to two-thirds of a million per year. I wonder, where are we going to get those immigrants from? Because most of the industrialized world is going through this same set of problems we are."

Faced with this odd conundrum -- a supply-and-demand crisis in which the suppliers (women) theoretically have the capacity to meet demand (for babies) but are opting not to -- economists and demographers are left scratching their heads. By now, just about every country in the developed world has implemented some policy or monetary incentives, ranging from baby bonuses to tax breaks. Still, the numbers fall. Short of establishing a Handmaid's Tale regime, they're wondering, what will it take to make women have babies? (And they're not talking just one.) . . . Exacerbating the financial hit for women is the fact that they, unlike men, lose income when they have a child -- a phenomenon David Ellwood [a professor of political economy and dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University] calls the "motherhood penalty." In a study he co-authored, Ellwood tracked women's income over time, beginning in 1979, and determined that the salaries of university-educated women plateau after childbirth, resulting in a loss of 15 to 20 per cent in income during the subsequent 10 years. Men's wages, on the other hand, don't appear to be affected. "Why are the most educated women postponing children the most?" says Ellwood. "The answer is, it's not because they can't afford child care. They're in a better position to afford it than most people. I think a lot of it is more fundamental than that, which has to do with what having children does to their own economic futures and opportunities."

Disparities at work are no longer a male-female issue. These days, they are most explicitly expressed between the women who have children, and those who don't. Kids are the new glass ceiling. According to U.S. economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founding president of the Center for Work-Life Policy, only 74 per cent of "off-ramped" women seeking to rejoin the workforce are able to, and only 40 per cent of those return to full-time, professional jobs. A Cornell University study found that mothers are 44 per cent less likely to be hired than non-mothers with the same resumé, experience and qualifications. "It's no accident that the majority of male senior executives have kids and the majority of female senior executives don't," says Ellen Bravo, a renowned American feminist and author of the newly published Taking on the Big Boys. "It's a requirement for the job."

But it's not only women's lost income that policy wonks are going to have to consider. It's also that, although child-rearing is a multi-pronged job which, if done properly, benefits the family, the nation, and everyone in between, the bulk of the responsibility for undertaking the whole thing still sits squarely on a mother's shoulders. Even as we bemoan our plummeting birth rate, and the grim economic future it may bring, everything about the way we've organized our culture is designed to force women to choose between work and kids -- and to penalize them if they choose kids. [Liberals view it as a penalty, others view it as a blessing!] And so, these days, it's not just a matter of a woman wanting children; it's a matter of wanting them at the expense of everything else she's worked for. . . . In Vienna, researchers at the International Instutite for Applied Systems Analysis have developed a disquieting hypothesis called the "low fertility trap," which suggests that the causes of low fertility are self-perpetuating. They foresee the potential for the baby bust to spiral out of control for three reasons: first, negative population growth means there will be fewer women of child-bearing age in the future to produce more children. Second, young people have been socialized [a.k.a. "brainwashed"] to believe that the ideal family size is a small one, which means fewer couples will have more than one child. Finally, the aging population will place tremendous financial strain on younger cohorts -- who have been raised with higher material aspirations to begin with -- which will translate into fewer children, or none at all.

"In the next 20 years," says Harvard's Ellwood, "there will be no net new native-born workers in the so-called prime age of 24 to 55 in the United States. The only new workers will come from two places: older workers and immigrants. And most immigrants in nations like the U.S. have been low-skill. Canada has had more higher-skill immigrants." The issue is made more difficult by the fact that, among Americans in particular, there is wide-ranging discomfort with a liberal immigration policy right now. "[Immigrants] are in a world where there's concerns about terrorism, and worries about jobs being sent abroad. So it's a real challenge."

Here is where we bump up against the dark underbelly of the demography discussion: the fact that it's not so much about urging women to have babies as it is about urging the right women to have them -- and to preserve Western civilization in the process. As it happens, the group whose fertility rates are declining the fastest are those with the greatest social and financial prospects. That is, Western (well-assimilated, if not white) professionals with university degrees. [Any conservative who would make such statements would be in the unemployment line along with Don Imus.]
. . .
It's this type of economic reasoning, paired with an underlying xenophobic angst, that is spurring pro-fertility policy initiatives in developed nations around the world. In Poland, where the population has fallen by half a million since 2000, the government has begun offering up a modest sum of 1,000 zlotys (roughly $400) for each child a woman produces. In Italy, officials are offering a reward of $1,500 for each second child -- and even toying with the possibility of paying women not to go ahead with abortions.

Amazingly, the evidence suggests that the most successful policies have one thing in common: they don't try to pay women to procreate. Rather, they facilitate the careers of working mothers. They are premised on the idea that, the more value a society places on women's work inside and outside of the home, the more likely she is to want to contribute meaningfully in both spheres. In other words, take some of the load off of her shoulders and spread it around so that children become everybody's responsibility. Who would have thought that the most economically sound solution to a fertility crisis would be rooted in good old-fashioned feminism?

The liberals just don't "get it!" They'll be asking themselves the same question (in the title of this Blog posting) until they're extinct.

Read the rest of this article.

California "Elder Suicide Rates Sound Alarm"

From "California Elder Suicide Rates Sound Alarm" by Wesley J. Smith, posted 3/26/07 at Secondhand Smoke

Well, what do you know: Two reporters have connected a few dots about the assisted suicide issue. In this story, byline John Simerman and Cassandra Braun of the Contra Costa Times, note that while California is debating assisted suicide, we have a brewing elder suicide crisis on our hands. From the story:

Beneath a simmering debate on a proposal to legalize assisted suicide in California for some terminally ill patients lies a muffled truth: Seniors-- and particularly older white men--kill themselves at a higher rate than any other age group.

The theories vary, but not the phenomenon. It runs across the country and through Contra Costa County, where every three weeks another senior ends his or her life. Older men swing the balance. They make up 5 percent of the county population but 16 percent of confirmed suicides, county health data show.

Assisted suicide is more fuel for the flame, because when legalized the state is telling its citizens that suicide is an acceptable answer to the problems of human suffering and difficulty. (Oregon has also declared an elder suicide crisis.) And mark my words, once people accept the premise of assisted suicide, advocates will begin agitating for expanding the license to include the elderly and others--and using the same arguments we hear today for the terminally ill. It has already happened in the Netherlands where elderly are euthanized and a former Minister of Health advocated suicide pills for the elderly who are tired of life.

Read the whole blog post at Wes Smith's site.

Vermont House Rejects Assisted Suicide - "Incredible Victory" Says Anti-Euthanasia Leader

From "Vermont House Rejects Assisted Suicide - "Incredible Victory" Says Anti-Euthanasia Leader" by Gudrun Schultz, posted 3/22/07, at LifeSite.net

The Vermont House of Representatives voted against a proposal yesterday that would have made the state the second in the country to permit physician-assisted suicide, following Oregon.

House members voted 82-63 against the measure euphemistically entitled "Patient Choice and Control at End of Life," after a week of impassioned debate on the issue, the Associated Press reported. The legislation would have made it legal for a doctor to assist a patient with a terminal illness to commit suicide by prescribe lethal medication.

"In my view, (the bill) goes too far in enforcing one group's preferences on the traditional values of others," said Rep. Harvey Otterman.

Read the rest of this article.

All laws force SOMEONE'S 'preferences' on others...

Vermont May Be the Next State to Legalize Assisted Suicide

From Vermont May Be the Next State to Legalize Assisted Suicide, by Gudrun Schultz, published Feb. 23rd, 2007, by LifeSite.net

BURLINGTON, Vermont, February 23, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vermont legislature is set to begin a week of debate on assisted suicide, following the introduction of a House bill that would see Vermont follow Oregon in authorizing doctors to prescribe lethal medication.

A bill mimicking Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law was presented in the House early in the 2007-2008 legislative session. Entitled “Patient Choice and Control at End of Life,” House Bill 44 was signed by five sponsors including two Democrats, a Republican, a Progressive and an independent.

Debate on the volatile issue will open Friday with presentations from leaders on both sides of the argument before a House committee, the Associated Press reported earlier today, as well as a public hearing to gain a sense of public opinion on the issue.

Advocates for the disabled have been among the strongest objectors, led by the Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights.

Read the rest of this article.