Abortion, Affluence and Annihilation

Abortion, Affluence and Annihilation

Are we in the End Times?

 ProLifeCorner-  By Larry Plachno-

Entire nationalities are starting to disappear from the face of the earth at an Larry-150x1[1]alarming rate. If they were animals, they would be classed as an endangered species. In addition, many of these nationalities and countries are facing major problems in unemployment and their economy. What the researchers are pointing out is that these same countries survived generations and even centuries of war, invasion and other problems because of their strong families. But, they are now disappearing because they no longer have strong families.

We live in an interesting time. Incomes have never been higher and life spans have never been longer. For the most part, people are better fed and better educated than at any previous time in history. However, in spite of all of this, birthrates have fallen to historically low levels. In fact, in some places they have fallen so low that whole populations will cease to exist unless something is done soon.

The reason behind all of this, and most social problems, is that many people have moved away from marriage, family, babies and children. At the same time they have moved away from God and the teachings of Jesus Christ to judge our actions as good or evil and to put others first. These problems have been so drastic and so widespread among developed countries that some people are asking whether we are in the end times.

Other people, including much of the media, do not want to call attention to what is going on in the area of problems over reduced populations. Doing so would bring up the topic of good and evil as well as putting others first. This would put a big dent in the progressive philosophy that there is no good or evil and that everything is a choice.

The demographers point to an interesting difference in our populations. The poorer people are more willing to share what little they have with spouses, children and family. It is the more affluent people who are having fewer children because of abortion, contraception and failure to marry. Ask yourself whether your grandparents came from families with more or fewer children than today’s families. To a large extent this difference is fairly obvious statistically betweens the more affluent nations and the poorer nations.

Pope Francis is a strong supporter of marriage and family; he even schedules special audiences to speak with and bless newlyweds where the brides come in their bridal gowns. Jesus Christ not only came to earth as part of a family but also blessed marriage with his first public miracle at the wedding feast at Cana. It does not take too much thought to realize that Jesus Christ was more likely to visit with and minister to the poor rather than the rich. Today, Pope Francis is following in His footsteps by ministering to the poor. In Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:25 we are told that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why it is that the poor are closer to what God asks of us?

Love of God, Love of Neighbor

To answer this question we need to go back to the basics of Christianity. God sent His Son to earth to suffer and die to atone for our sins. This teaches us that good and evil is a top priority with God and that some atonement is required for doing evil. Jesus Christ gave us two rules to live by: love of God and love of neighbor. We love God by judging our actions as good or evil. We are a follower of Christ by defining “good” as what is best for other people and society. Hence, the typical definition of a Christian is someone who has a deep concern for others.

The reason why this is so important is because when we are faced with a decision or action that can impact others, we have two choices. We can be unselfish and do what is best for others or we can do what we want regardless of whom we harm. This simple decision is not limited to Christians but is shared by many others. It takes very little thought to realize that if we work together and help each other, we all come out ahead. One definition of society is a group of people working towards shared goals. Society is much like a team, if we cooperate and work together, we win.

Some people have suggested that working together with marriage and family is paying our dues to be a member of society like the generations before us. If too many people stop paying their dues, society is in trouble.

What is obvious with current demographics is they tend to show that poor people are the best followers of Christ while the more affluent people have moved away from love of God and love of neighbor. They are statistically less likely to embrace marriage, large families, babies and children. It is fascinating that some people say that marriage and children are evil in spite of the fact that if any of their ancestors felt the same way, they would not be here. As a result, several developed and reasonably affluent nations, particularly in Asia and Europe, are faced with a steeply declining population that could effectively annihilate some nationalities.

Are We in the End Times?

People who put themselves first in making decisions today usually ignore the negative impact tomorrow of their decisions and actions on other people and society. Demographers and researchers are increasingly concerned about our society falling apart but the main stream media tends to ignore these problems rather than acknowledge that good and evil exist and love of neighbor is needed. The demographic implications of a country moving away from marriage, babies and children are obvious if you do the research.

As marriage, babies, and children are reduced a society gets more households and more people in the work force. This results in more unemployment and often more welfare as the government becomes a pseudo-spouse and a pseudo-father.

When a population ages, its needs change – typically it needs fewer teachers for children and more doctors and nurses for older people. Although there may be unemployment, there typically is a shortage in these positions because divorce and lack of marriage has not only reduced the number of young people but also reduced the moral and financial support for young people who might be interested. Instead of going to college, they want to leave home and  “shack up.”

As this process continues, it affects the economy of the country. An older population is more interested in conservative investments for retirement. Hence, there is less of an effort to create new business and new jobs while there are fewer young people available for them. The result is a declining economy that might add other problems beyond unemployment and increased welfare.

Bear in mind that the people who work in this area figure that a fertility rate of 2.1 children is necessary to maintain the existing population. A fertility rate of 1.1 essentially means that the number of people drops in half each generation. In some places, immigration has helped sagging birthrates but many people point out that immigration brings another set of concerns.

It is obvious that the fertility rate gives you a good idea of where a population is going in numbers. Lesser known is the fact that demographers and researchers have found that the fertility rate is a determining factor in how we lead our lives and make decisions. This got started many years ago when it was discovered that you could predict much of the outcome of American presidential elections based on state fertility rates. The states with the highest fertility rates traditionally voted for conservative candidates and conservative issues while the states with the lowest fertility rates traditionally voted for liberal candidates and liberal issues.

Subsequent research showed that the fertility rate not only splits our society but also polarized it to some extent. States and people with a high fertility rate were more likely to be married, have larger families and attend church regularly. States and people with a low fertility rate were more likely to be single, have fewer children and support abortion. The bottom line is that people who are pro-choice on marriage are statistically more likely to be pro-choice on abortion and statistically more likely to vote for liberal candidates and liberal issues.

What the demographers are now pointing out is that there are numerous countries and nationalities that withstood wars and problems for generations and even centuries because they had strong families. But, today those same countries and nationalities are moving towards annihilation because of reduced marriage, families, babies and children and some are also seeing problems in unemployment and their economy. Following are several examples.

Declining Populations

Although Singapore is a modern city-state with new buildings, impressive health care and low crime rates, it is in trouble with a fertility rate of only 1.1. Even with some immigration, the average age is 39 and climbing.

Hong Kong has a fertility rate of 1.09, even less than Singapore. The government now encourages larger families to reduce population aging. But this does not seem to change the anti-child and small family mentality of the people.

Taiwan is now heavily urbanized and like many city dwellers, they are less interested in large families. The fertility rate has dropped to 0.9 because women are more interested in getting a college degree and finding professional employment rather than be tied down with children.

South Korea’s government is spending billions of dollars on supporting families with children in an attempt to raise its country’s birth rate. In spite of this, its fertility rate stands at 1.15 and shows no sign of increasing significantly.

China is in an unusual position. It has the world’s second-largest economy but the government has had a one-child policy for three generations. In addition to having too few young workers, the gender mix is not balanced because more girls are aborted than boys. If birth rates remain depressed, the Chinese economy may decline because of the lack of younger workers.

Japan is in a particularly difficult situation because of its lack of immigration. The fertility rate stands at 1.1 but Japan is aging faster than any other country in history. Since 2011, more adult diapers have been sold in Japan than baby diapers. By the year 2040 there will be one Japanese citizen over the age of 100 for every baby born. At least part of the problem is the number of single women who live with their parents beyond their late 20s or early 30s, using their disposable income for themselves rather than sharing with a family. These people are often referred to as parasaito shinguru, or parasite singles. Some Japanese blame them for unemployment and economic problems. Japan does have an unemployment problem and reduced its corporate tax rate in 2012 in order to encourage more business and jobs.

A similar situation is found in Europe where most countries are dealing with declining populations. Several European countries like Greece and Spain are already having problems with unemployment, increased welfare and financial issues as expected by the demographers.

The fertility rate in Italy has dropped to 1.4 as young people live with their parents and put off marriage and children. Venice is in trouble because it now has more tourists than permanent residents. When its population declined below 60,000, Venice held a mock funeral for itself but the decline in population continues.

Germany has a similar fertility rate of 1.4 but survives better because its strong economy is attracting immigrants. Even with that, Germany had has to close many schools and its population is starting to age, which may impact its economy.

In spite of being a Catholic country, Spain is also facing a declining population with a fertility rate of 1.48. The government has a pro-natal policy promoting births but the benefits seem to be too small to make much of an impact. The situation is made worse by the lack of jobs in Spain, encouraging the young people to move elsewhere to find employment.

Following years of government-supported abortion, Russia has a fertility rate of about 1.2. While the government offers a huge baby bonus, the population continues to decline. Many smaller towns have been abandoned while people move to big cities where it is more difficult to raise a family.

The United States is currently doing better than the other countries mentioned, but at least part of this is due to immigration. What is interesting is that many immigrants to the United States have a higher fertility rate than people born in the United States, but this higher rate tends to disappear with the next generation who are born here. However, the United States is already experiencing the unemployment, increased welfare and lack of health care workers expected by the researchers. If you visit your local hospitals you might find that many of the doctors and registered nurses were not born in the United States. Hence, The United States is already well on the downhill slide.

The United States may ultimately be in more trouble than some Asian or European countries. Ancient Greece and Rome tried to eliminate abortion and Rome made a special effort to increase marriage and families. Many of the countries having population problems are trying to increase marriage and fertility rates. However, the US is moving in just the opposite direction. It has eliminated the family wage and is funding abortion while supporting single people and taxing married people. Hence, it may be better off today but its decline may be more rapid than elsewhere.

Based on the ministry of Jesus Christ and Pope Francis to the poor, we have to ask whether the poor are better Christians and more likely to accept marriage, family, babies, children because they are not blinded by wealth.


 Please note in the comment section below,  clarification by the author Larry Plachno

Editors Note:   Larry Plachno is a successful businessman, publisher, author, and composer of an incalculable number of articles relating to family, life issues and associated problems and solutions. This barely scratches the surface of what Larry really is. His love of God, family and country is inspiring.

For years now Larry has shared his writings with us here at the ProLifeCorner and we are truly humbled by his generosity.

Larry is also an ardent blogger and is a prolific writer.  You can follow his work at:   www.unselfish.org

One thought on “Abortion, Affluence and Annihilation

  1. I DO NOT understand the following paragraph

    “As marriage, babies, and children are reduced a society gets MORE households and MORE people in the work force. This results in more unemployment and often more welfare as the government becomes a pseudo-spouse and a pseudo-father.”

    IF there are LESS marriages, babies, and children HOW CAN that create “More households and more people in the work force” ?????

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you for your concern. We will draw this to the author’s attention and get a response for you.

    A Note From Larry Plachno-

    Let me take the blame for the lack of clarity in this paragraph. I have been dealing with the numbers surrounding social problems for 25 years now and in this situation I took too much for granted. If you bear with me I will try to clarify the situation.

    To begin with, many people do not understand how much our actions and decisions are interconnected although the demographers and researchers have figured this out. One example is that you can predict much of the outcome in American presidential elections by the fertility rate of each state. An obvious example of a decision today that impacts tomorrow is that if we let kids do what they want and avoid school and eat candy and cookies, they will grow up uneducated and malnourished.

    Both demographics as well as a tomorrow impact for today’s decision surround family and marriage. Here are three simple models to illustrate. I use 50 men and 50 women simply because that works better with percentages.

    Model one is what might be called the traditional model. The men and women are married and mom stays home taking care of the kids. Since we have 50 workers, each household gets an average of two percent of the available wages.

    With model two, people have moved away from families and the family wage and now both the dad and mom work while mom no longer has much time to spend with the kids. Since you now have 100 workers but two per household, each household still gets an average of two percent of the available wages. However, if you step back and look, you will see that the big winners are the employers who now get two workers for the price of one and the big losers are kids and society because they lost much of their parental supervision and support.

    With model three, people have moved away from marriage. The men and women have either not married or have divorced and everyone works. Hence, we now have 100 households each getting an average of one percent of the available wages. Kids live in broken homes.

    This third model also has a number of other negative features. Single people are statistically more likely to be homeless and live in poverty. Moreover, growing up without a father is statistically the biggest indicator that someone will end up in prison.

    While I understand that the above examples are clean and tidy in comparison to the reality of our society, you can see what happens as people move away from family and marriage.

    I would be happy to provide more details in these areas if anyone is interested.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *