After the Christian soldiers of all sides (including the officers) fraternized during Christmas 1914 very well understanding that this slaughter means the end of European culture if it continues, the devils took over, with the result we all see today. And the blessed Emperor Charles came too late.

Atheling, the state already 'enables' and 'disables' people to have kids -- look who is having kids, and look who isn't.

   Babies in the UK are already routinely removed from 'unsuitable' parents anyway, to fulfill the adoption quotas -- for such  parents it is kinder to not allow  reproduction than to cruelly rob them of their kids.  In other words, they do what we let them do anyway already, planned parenthood only pre-empts the social services' involvement.

There is no 'happy' solution, only the lesser evil.

Making parenthood a privilege that you earn is a far better approach, how it's implemented is another question -- are you an anarchist who
hates the state by definition, or are you a democrat? As the latter you would be more comfortable with agreeing to universal rules, even if they are dangerous in principle -- as almost every rule and law  always is when it's abused.  Remember, the difference between democracy and dictatorship is only one election.

As to personal liberty and personal rights -- I'm not understanding you here --  you want to insist on the liberty and right to produce kids that are then tormented throughout their childhood by their dysfunctional parents and siblings for a few years, before they turn into serial offenders and torment others?    How many rape-robbery-assault-murder victims will you accept as a result of your Socialist-Christian 'love' experiment?

Ps.: Given your loving and laudable stance about disabled children, I take it you're are currently preparing to adopt at least one severely handicapped 24/7 care needing child? If not, do me a favour and stop to bang this particular drum -- unless you have 1st hand experience and have demonstrated personally how to do it the right way, it behooves you to leave the decision to abort or not to the parents, who are the very people who have live with the consequences.

***So what are you saying? If you are not advocating abortion, what is
your point, Cinnamon? I think you are being quite dishonest here, so I'm asking you for clarification.

Consider it to be a 'status report' -- and a reminder that the 'good old times' were actually real bad too and not something to be repeated.

I don't like abortion at all, but instead of outlawing it and accepting that it will take place anyway in one form or the other,  I dislike it so much that I would like to see it become obsolete.

What we need is a contraceptive system that works by default on everyone until it is actively disabled, and in order to do that, prospective parents would need to be both willing and show that they can afford to bring up a child, money, time wise and also that they are of good character -- people with convictions for violence should never be allowed to be parents.  This would solve many problems instantaneously, abortions, serial single mothers on the dole, teenage pregnancies, men abused as sperm and alimony donors, dysfunctional families would not be able to add children to their existing problems... etc.

You need a licence to drive and for many other things that could hurt other people if not carried out competently, so why not make sure that people who want kids are actually able to bring them up?

Kids deserve this protection and respect, every child has a right to be wanted and be born into a situation that does not abuse or harm them but allows them to grow up like a human being should.

I'm not justifying nothing, I'm simply stating how it all was and often still is. 

I'm sorry that the reality about history pains you, at no point have I said that cripples should be killed, but I stated that they were (and are) killed.  Even now the world is home to 'throw-away-humans' -- children who start work at 4 at carpets or making beads, and who at 12 are too sick to do anything ever again -- hands and eyes broken beyond repair.  What do you think happens to their siblings who are crippled? (...)

And btw, abortion in those grim places is probably legal, but too expensive for the poor.  Hence the almost unmanagable surplus in humans, hence the little value of them to their society.

You would know this had you read a little more history books and informed yourself of the current affairs in the world, and there are plenty of diaries of various people of all walks of life past and present to be had where you can study what society was really like back then, and still is.

Ebenezer Scrooge never killed anyone -- hunger, bacteria, viruses and war did and still does.  Not to count the number of women dying to childbed fever either, leaving orphans left right and center, who more often than not ended in bonded labour as a result, as it still is the case for many of the contemporary child slaves.

Until you can accept reality as the brutal mess that it is, there is no point in discussing solutions with you because you have no actual problem to solve in your universe of discourse...

In general, women in the goold 'ol times had kids because they didn't have a choice, those grannies you laud that popped 14 did so because it could not be avoided (read Queen Victoria on this particular subject...)  A lot of women died in birth too, something that is often conveniently forgotten.

For those who want to bring back the Angelmaker in the back street -- fine, but what will you do with all the unwanted and unloved children that will result?  Forcing women to be mothers doesn't magically turn them into loving parents... ;(

Nowadays, just like back then, only a tiny minority of kids are wanted and born to people who can afford them financially AND have the time to be parents.   What kept the nasty lil' tykes in check was the general no-tolerance approach to annoying children, and I hope you agree with me that beating the stuffing out of kids as we used to is rather uncivilized.

When it came to making a decision whether to have a family or not, I sat down and actually worked it out in terms of finances and time over 18 years.  Sort of like a sanity check, before I bother to get myself into something serious.  I noted mainly negatives -- I don't want to live on the social.  I don't want to be a divorced or unmarried mother.  (Men don't want to marry and of the few marriages that still happen, 60% end in divorce. ) I don't want to have to work and only see my kids 2 hours a day and have them turn feral and so on, the list of bad outcomes was rather comprehensive, and too many potentially bad events were out of my sphere of influence.

I realised that unless I win the lottery, responsible parenthood is simply not possible, I cannot offer a child a proper childhood.  I can't even offer a dog what it would need(I don't have enough time because I work and don't own a house as I'm priced out by the boom), so a child is completely out of the question.  Besides that, first of all I would need to locate a suitable father, which in itself is quite a problem nowadays, you cannot blame men for being reluctant to get married, given the many unfair laws that blatantly discriminate against them.

So be careful whom you call degenerate, a lot of child-free people are simply responsible people who take parenthood serious enough to realise that they would not be able to offer their children an appropriate childhood.

Doing away with woman's equality also isn't an option (I hope you agree there ;)

What you see happen now is nothing but the honest admission of woman how they really feel about motherhood -- it's not only love, but also affordability, a proper 'nest' and a dependable partner that is important to a woman.  All four together create that which is called a 'real family' -- not a dysfunctional moetly crew that randomly accumulated somehow as life bumbles along.

Do you really want a western women to be like an eastern one -- uneducated, submissive and totally dependent?  How about the fact that many eastern marriages are simply matings without love, decided by their elders?  I think that is degenerate, it's a cultural perversion to match young people like farm animals, and children that grow up in such 'families' are damaged from day 1 of their life.

The answer is to make parenthood attractive -- leave people to abort as the world really has enough waifs and strays in it already, but enable normal, sane people to be real parents who can give their kids a proper childhood.  Make people want to be parents, make having kids something that is great fun, instead of being the white-knuckle ride through life that it currently is.

If you think that cannot be done, well, give up now and declare western culture to be broken and equality of women to be a failed idea, however well meant it once was. Because we only did one part of the job to make women equal citizens, it isn't only a question of giving women rights, the pill and women's lib was a huge shift in how society works and the brokenness you see now existed just like that before, but it was hidden under a thin veneer of 'respectability'. And this idea of the nuclear family is a nonsense too -- abandoning your parents to a care home is as bad as offering your child up for adoption, but that is so rarely talked about as yet another casualty of women's lib. Women were liberated, but nothing was put into place to replace all the hard work they did, instead we collectively washed our hands and invented 'social services' instead, to deal with the resulting unwanted/abandoned kids and old folk.

How about the equality of people instead, and a new concept of family that leaves people their dignity but does not shortchange any member of those families?

atheling: So would you deem menstruation as immoral? How absurd! Are you actually fearful of this kind of silliness?

Not really. It would be an extreme position held by a minority if at all.

atheling: You fail to realize that if laws only protect human beings based on "location" or "independence", then those laws will fail to protect those already born who fail to meet those criteria. It's a slippery slope, and I would rather err on the side of caution, which means protection for ALL human beings, whether born or not, than to err on the side of recklessness, which you support.

Actually my posting recognizes the possibility for this "slippery slope". However, are you actually fearful that social toleration of abortion will lead to a resurgence in eugenics policies and programmes? I see no evidence that anyone is seeking to exterminate the diseased, disabled or elderly. Again, it is an opposite extreme position.

atheling: You ask when human life begins. Well we know that it ends when the brain ceases brainwave activity. Perhaps we should use that as a measure for determining when human life begins? (fetal brainwave activity has been recorded as early as 7 weeks).

I might agree here, however, I cannot claim to be an expert on pregnancy and therefore could not speak to whether or not a pregnant woman could 'miss' her pregnancy until after the seventh week.

atheling: Your refusal to accept that abortion is a major contributing factor to the demographic decline in Europe (your splitting hairs about Eastern and Western Europe notwithstanding) only indicates that you have your head in the sand. Any reasonable person can assume that if 70% of pregnancies end in abortion (as they do in Russia), that would certainly contribute to its demographic decline.

Yes, but is this the fault of abortion doctors and legislators, or are there certain socio-economic and cultural trends that are causing Russian women to abort the majority of their pregnancies? Perhaps these same factors are responsible for Russian women becoming the modern face of prostitution and sexual slavery. Furthermore, neither Russia nor Vietnam are the hedonistic, amoral and liberal societies that are the Netherlands, etc.

atheling: However, in your obstinate refusal to accept the facts because you're a moral relativist, you can blame no one but people like yourself for the sinking ship that is Europe.

It if makes you feel better to say so...

If you truly want to find culprits for the Western demographic crisis, perhaps you should concentrate some effort on increasing per capital income and wealth, and rising education levels.

atheling: ...and I use the term "layman" because as a woman, I am not offended by the term. I have always understood that the use of "man" can mean woman as well in these cases, and I prefer brevity.

Rising to the bait again?

I. I agree that there is a continuum of potential human life wherein the units of measure are development and independence, both of which are of course, inextricable from one another. At one end of the continuum is the fully developed and independent, albeit not necessarily adult, human being. However, I observe two problems. Firstly, what is at the other end exactly i.e. where does potential human life begin? Secondly, should morality regarding potential human life reflect this continuum and, if so, is this dangerous for children, the elderly and the ill or disabled? If this area of morality is equalized such that unborn foetuses and adult human beings are held in the same esteem, will this expand beyond reason i.e. whereby the destruction or wastage of individual sperm and eggs is considered immoral.

II. Though it was initially amusing to have other posters seize upon my remark to traveller, it has now reached the point of annoyance. However, I knew you would appreciate the reference to beer goggles. I often wonder how humanity could ever propagate itself without the aid of alcohol, given that human aesthetic and physical beauty are scarce resources.

III. Tolerance does not necessarily imply acceptance or support. Though I agree with you in the main, individual decisions regarding the abortion of one's foetus are not at issue here: the moral equivalancy of foetuses and human beings, and therefore abortion and homicide is.

IV. I disagree that abortion is a "significant factor" in the demographic crisis faced by Western societies. According to scientific research into the incidence of abortion:

• Eastern Europe as a region has the highest incidence of abortion; Western Europe has the lowest
• In states where abortion is legal, Vietnam has the highest incidence; Belgium and the Netherlands have the lowest
• Abortion rates are not affected by either the legal status of abortion or whether or not the state in question is developed or developing
• The decriminalization of abortion in the United States correlates with a decline in crime rates

Perhaps it is true that the "best defense is a good offence" i.e. have more children. As for the remainder of your comments: speak for yourself. Imperfection cannot exist without perfection. Unless you can enlighten me on what the latter is, than human nature just is.

@ Kapitein Andre

1) I am referring to both, the born and the unborn. But, I will grant you, that the moral dilemma is 'easier' the closer one still is to 'conception'. The unborn, too, has the potential for full autonomous life, and the recently-born are still very 'dependent' (as the unborn obviously are). In that sense, potential autonomous life is a continuum, and it should always deserve 'respect', and not be cavalierly dismissed.

2) "Sarcasm" seems to become for you an all-purpose excuse when you are told that you have made an invalid and ridiculous comparison. Also, whatever different religious doctrines may hold or say about sexual practices, this is pretty tangential (almost irrelevant) to the more basic moral requirement of respecting human life (which is almost universally shared by major religious doctrines). Your feigned concern about "wastage of sperm" suggests a lack of seriousness, which is the hallmark of postmodern relativism. It reminds me of (the disappeared) PVDH, and it suggests that you too are re-acting against specific past frustrations and possibly tenets of one particular religious doctrine in your past, instead of doing some serious thinking about morality. The latter is not easy, and does require difficult (and, no doubt, imperfect) judgements about the difficult questions you raised about "autonomous" and "full" human life. However, one thing is very clear in my mind, and that is that sarcastic comments, about "donning beer goggles" and the like, do not reflect a proper disposition for (trying to) act morally.

3) As always, your postmodern relativism remains as blind as a mole in the ground. Yes, different people can and will have different "moral convictions" or opinions, about numerous different moral dilemmas, including the abortion one. However, whether any of these opinions is correct or not does NOT depend on the self, i.e. on who is doing the opinionating. There is a right and a wrong in any given moral dilemma, which is totally autonomous of "personal convictions". But, whether you and I will get it right or wrong is a very different matter! This distinction is of the utmost importance. It makes the difference between a serious person and a dismissive one or, if you will, between an honest moral person and an a-moral (perhaps immoral) one. Translation (for the victims of postmodern relativistic education systems): it does not matter so much what you decide; what really matters is how honest you are in recognising your own intentions (or true motivations) when framing the difficult contours of a moral dilemma that you are facing. At least, ask yourself why you think something, rather than choosing convenience behind the excuse of "well, that is my opinion".

4) Abortion is definitely a significant factor behind "demographic decline" in modern western civilisation. Your denial of that shows a lack of common sense, or a refusal to make (unpleasant) empirical observations. However, this has nothing to do with whether any particular abortion is morally right or wrong. UNLIKE abortion, "demographic decline" is not in and of itself a moral dilemma. It does not concern the moral quality of a specific action of any human individual. Now, "demographic decline" DOES present the sort of question, where 'right or wrong' depends on convictions or opinions. The trouble with you moral relativists is that you treat all questions in that manner, i.e. you claim that they are just a matter of "convictions". Hence your 'dismissal' of the necessity to make a distinction between culture and race (i.e. an individual's behavior as opposed to his/her race), or your cavalier attitude vis-a-vis maintenance of the freedom of (political) speech for the human individual, etc... You make yourself the moral 'arbiter' of human values. Of course, in a superficial sense, you are that arbiter, because only you can be acting for you. But in a more fundamental sense, you are not the arbiter of human values, you do not make any particular human action (of yourself and of others) morally good or bad, although you sure will have opinions about that. In short, you do not have the luxury of being a fundamentalist, i.e. of holding belief-with-certainty (about your opinions). You are 'condemned' to live in uncertainty, and hence require humility w.r.t. the moral character of human actions. Such is the human's imperfect nature.

marcfrans: A "baby" is a human life.

I hope you are referring to one that has been born and is exists outside of its mother's body.

marcfrans: A "single sperm or egg" is not human life, just like your sweat is not human life, or any other 'expendable' part of your body.

As noted below, I was being sarcastic. However, religious doctrine with regard to sexual practices seems opposed to any and all activities that are not necessary to procreation, albeit procreation within the confines of the institution of marriage, which has crucial ramifications for social stability and economic relations (esp. property ownership). If abortion and "free love" are frowned upon than so too should be the wastage of sperm, for the same reasons.

marcfrans: A baby, even an unborn one, normally has the clear potential for autonomous full human life.

Do not sperm and eggs have the clear potential to be combined (after painting the town red with your mates and donning the beer goggles), which have the "clear potential for autonomous full human life"? Moreover, where do "potential", "autonomous" and "full human life" begin and end?

marcfrans: Morally speaking, you must make the effort to frame the moral dilemma as honest as you can, in any given situation, and come to a judgment. You cannot simply dismiss it.

What moral dilemma are you referring to? Abortion? It depends on one's personal convictions. Some individuals believe that abortion and contraception in all instances are immoral; others believe in full and unlimited use of both; and still others hold positions somewhere in between these.

Certainly abortion is a moral issue and I do not "dismiss" it, however, it should not factor into the discussion on demographic decline which is caused not by abortions but by socio-cultural and economic trends towards smaller families. Abortion's effect on demographics is statistically insignificant compared to that of infant mortality in the past due to famine and disease, and yet prior generations in the West (i.e. Europe and its settler populations) expanded at geometric rates then.

traveller: The loss of 2 million congolese people is no news at all. The loss of the people in Darfur is no news and the loss of 2000 white South African farmers in South Africa, murdered by ANC thugs is also no news for the left.

Are you referring to the 'genocide' that occurred under the auspices of Léopold II and the Force Publique? On the contrary, the Left is very incensed by the ethnic cleansing and genocidal goings-on in the Sudan. In fact, alongside 'ethical' financial instruments are ones that do not invest in companies whose operations at all benefit the regime in Khartoum. Moreover, the turning of the tide in the rainbow society is not concealed.

traveller: An unborn baby is not the equivalent of a sperm, for you perhaps but not for me.

I was joking; ever seen the Monty Python skit 'Every Sperm is Sacred'? And an unborn foetus is not the equivalent of a human being. Therefore, abortion cannot be equated with homicide.

atheling: I'm no scientist, but...a layman

No disagreement there. It may be advisable to adopt the new lingo i.e. layperson instead of layman.

atheling: Your obtuseness comes from the fact that you're a moral relativist, who sees no value in human life.

Wrong. I merely am challenging the concept of morality as applied absolutely, often by religion. If someone is taking a stance, I should be able to critique it. However, criticism does not necessarily imply diammetric opposition. Therefore, your attempt to ascribe these polar opposite positions is a logical failure. Moreover, obtuseness is not synonymous with sarcasm.

atheling: human beings have intrinsic dignity and value that cannot be measured by mere dollars.

How so? To whom? Some people's pet animals, material possessions and intangible things such as rituals, metahpors, symbols, etc. appear to have a higher "intrinsic dignity and value" to the individual in question than the vast vast majority of human beings. In fact, every individual in the advanced economies that provides shelter, food and medical care to a pet animal is placing that animal above hundreds of millions of human beings that live in squalor. 

atheling: Frankly, I find your attitude disgusting and perverse; your comments even worth less than the bandwith they encompass. It's sick people like you who contribute to the denigration of the value of human life, indeed, human sex trafficking, prostitution, child prostitution, all those vices are supported by people whose values mirror your own.

Yes, it is easy to blame the 'world's problems' on a random blogger against whose arguments you can only hurl vitriol like so many ignorant, burqa-clad, effigy-burning denziens of Karachi.

It is rather telling that the "denigration of human life" revolves around prostitution and sexual slavery. These have little to do with homicide or abortion. And your emphasis on trafficking and slavery belies the fact that increasing prostitution has more to do with attractive women wanting financial 'independence' and 'freedom' than with Romanian girls being smuggled across borders in lorries (see http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=2366).

F.Y.I. Interesting pros-and-cons chart on legalizing prostitution at the First Post: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=10990. Related article on the vastly incr

@ Traveller

While I do believe that every "killing" must always be judged in a context of moral dilemmas - only fundamentalists deny moral dilemmas and hold beliefs with absolute certainty - it would appear that it is the Kapitein here who is the "hardcore" fundi or the extremist. 

@ Kapitein Andre

A "baby" is a human life.  A "single sperm or egg" is not human life, just like your sweat is not human life, or any other 'expendable' part of your body.  A baby, even an unborn one, normally has the clear potential for autonomous full human life. 

Morally speaking, you must make the effort to frame the moral dilemma as honest as you can, in any given situation, and come to a judgment. You cannot simply dismiss it.

If you can not tell the difference, that would be worrisome, and gruesome too.  

marcfrans: It isn't fair to blame the "little lady" for the cultural degeneration of recent decades.  It would be fairer to blame the 'elites' (aristocratic and otherwise)...

I am not certain that any "blame" actually needs to or could indeed be laid for Western demographic decline. Certainly there are those individuals and groups that promote cultural values and socio-economic systems that are not conducive to either population stability or expansion, and these could be regarded as 'opponents', but the process is generally an unprecedented and highly sophisticated and complex development.

marcfrans: I certainly would agree that the 'epidemic' of abortion is an important indicator (but only 1) of degeneration.

It depends of course, on one's definition of 'degeneration'.

marcfrans: it is perhaps not very reasonable to expect much from a song.

Agreed.

atheling: it is indeed a woman's choice when she has an abortion, or refuses to have children: she is NOT a child led about by the State. As I stated in another comment, my generation is one of hedonism and selfishness. Having children is too much of a burden and obstructs the way to pleasure, which seems to be the end all for my peers. And we have no one to blame but ourselves. Both women and men are responsible for this situation.

At least you finally mention men. If men took responsibility for the consequences of sex, abortions would only be rarely sought by women. 

Traveller: I don't see any difference between the killing of an unborn child and a baby...

Think you're hardcore pal? I don't see any difference between the killing of a baby and the loss of single sperm or egg.

Traveller: Killing is not so brutal anymore since we accept killing of unborn children as a "right".

Actually human life has never been held in such high regard as today, which is why the loss of a single soldier makes the news. Your statement is idiotic beyond belief.

@captainchaos:

The minimum number should be 4.

Mes Aïeux: Then your grandmother had three, that was enough for her...

I suppose this depends on one's age and the socio-economic status of one's family.

Mes Aïeux: Your mom didn’t want any, you were an accident...

Speak for yourself.

Mes Aïeux: Now you, my little lady, change partners all the time...

So?

Mes Aïeux: When you screw up you save yourself by aborting...

What exactly is she "saving" herself from?

Mes Aïeux: But there are mornings you awake crying
When you dream in the night of a large table surrounded by little ones.

Apparently not.

Though the lyrics are relevant to the contemporary Western cultural milieu, they are not particularly interesting. They demonstrate a scorn for polygamous sexual relations and an association with these and abortion. Could married couples not "screw up" after they have had as many children as they wanted to initially? Quite frankly, these lyrics smack of male jealousy and envy with regards to sex and relationships. Indeed, the lyrics transition from neutral commentary on demographic decline to abortion and non-marital sex without proving a correlation let alone a cause and effect. Certainly sometimes a song is just a song, but if the BJ is going to use it in a socio-cultural or political context, it should be rightly scrutinized in that context.

White women should have more white children. A minimum of three.

@ Atheling

No, I am afraid that it is probably not "chivalry" that motivates me.   We agree that individuals are responsible for their own actions and are not "children" of the state.  

My focus was not on abortion, but on 'degeneration' and on the article of Coulombe.  But I certainly would agree that the 'epidemic' of abortion is an important indicator (but only 1) of degeneration.

My complaint was about the focus of the song on the "little woman".  While not denying her resonsibility, I do recognise that she does not live in a vacuum, but in a broader 'culture'.  And the responsibility for the fate of cultures is certainly widespread, but NOT equally distributed.  To whom much is given, much......

But, then, it is perhaps not very reasonable to expect much from a song.

@marcfrans:

Perhaps your refusal to blame the "little lady" for cultural degeneration is from a sense of chivalry, which is refreshing.  However, I don't blame any "elites" for her decision to sit at an empty table.  As much as I cringe when I hear the Left squawk about "choice", it is indeed a woman's choice when she has an abortion, or refuses to have children:  she is NOT a child led about by the State.

As I stated in another comment, my generation is one of hedonism and selfishness.  Having children is too much of a burden and obstructs the way to pleasure, which seems to be the end all for my peers.  And we have no one to blame but ourselves.  Both women and men are responsible for this situation.

This is an interesting and refreshing item.  Charles Coulombe is right about the contributions of the New England 'French' to American society and culture.  But his (implicit) 'pining' for the Ancien Regime in France is a bit much for me.

Let's hope that the Quebecois folk group Mes Aieux is indicative of a changing wind in La Belle Province , although I doubt it (I expect a better wind from Western Canada).  

The music is quite catching.  But, like many artistic creations, the lyrics of this song is of course overly focused and unbalanced.  It isn't fair to blame the "little lady" for the cultural degeneration of recent decades.  It would be fairer to blame the 'elites' (aristocratic and otherwise)......