The Pro-Life movement has moved so far beyond being merely 'against abortion' that abortion itself is merely the biggest insult to life, not the goal of pro-life. The Pro-Life movement, particularly in blue states and in the Catholic community, has moved into a state of open warfare against the notion that fewer children makes for a happier, more well-adjusted family, a more successful life, and more personal fulfillment.

They aren't fighting anymore the simple 'killing of the innocent' though this is often the easiest rallying cry. They are fighting the notion that more money = more happiness; that happiness is thus easiest achieved in childlessness; and that children are a luxury lifestyle accessory, like a McMansion and a Lexus, that lead to misery when acquired too early or using an adjustable rate mortgage.

Instead, they are moving to the idea that family and community is the point of living (not market and conspicuous consumption). In this rubric, children should ideally enter perfect homes - but a good home is one that welcomes children and raises them to have more children - a foster home, an adoptive home, even - and a home that creates families and marriages - leads to community, builds off of community, etc. The enemy is people who talk about mothers being 'punished with babies' or imagine the 'green' benefits of being barren.

Enter into a community like this and you'll find the change:

There is still a condemnation of unbridled lust and its consequences, but in an age of common contraception, a child isn't the common physical representation of this sin; and when a child comes, in these communities, it is time to band together and redeem the mother, support her, and make sure the child's suffering is minimized. Efforts are made to bring the Dad into the picture and form a family; this is not the time for blanket condemnation - which ideally should have come much sooner and been just as strong whether or not contraception was involved. This is the time to circle the wagons against the threats of economics and the unbridled destructive elements in the rest of the culture.

I've seen this in action with single mothers in otherwise very conservative evangelical churches. A church where a dating couple sleeping together would immediately lead to them being ostracized, a pregnant woman is given a central place, all the support that individuals and groups can muster, father-substitute 20 something and 30 somethings who take the kid to play sports or attend concerts or join group activities with the families. I was a bit surprised at first, but then it sort of made sense. Its the Evangelicals VS the DINKs, and the two have a very hard time communicating.

It also points to the heart of why Catholics and Evangelicals don't accept homosexuality. But that could be another long post.

This is a thoughtful analysis and one I'd say is largely on target. I live in Lubbock, Texas -- a community that was profiled in the documentary "The Education of Shelby Knox" about a teenager who tried to work to change the city school district's abstinence-only education policy (and failed). This is a very conservative community that condemns pre-marital sex and birth control but more or less lauds teen mothers. I've often wondered about this as it seems like a double standard.

However, this laudatory attitude doesn't tend to cross race and class lines. A pregnant, white, middle-class teenager is rallied around by her church community but a pregnant, Hispanic, middle- or working-class teenager is condemned by the same white evangelicals. I can only speak from what I hear from white middle-class evangelicals (Palin's millieu), but they do rally around their own while still condemning and judging the "others".

You paint this as a race issue but I believe it is not.

I believe it is a community issue.

The people you are speaking of do not so much 'rally around' but provide support to, a single mother who appears in their midst, a child who arrives in their community. They know that something unfortunate happened prior to the conception of the child, and they generally know that the mom knows. That's done and is unlikely to be repeated. They are moving foward.

However, they don't approve of the process that led to this condition, and they do heartily disapprove of any situation, system, or culture that makes 'premarital intimacy' a common occurance. They deplore it, even. They don't like the breakdown of a culture of family, they take Cosby's side about deadbeat dads and all of that.

I know some african american evangelicals and churches that do the same thing in middle class areas - where unwed mothers are still in the minority. I don't know much about the poorer african american communities.

However, I have seen church members support minority mothers who show up in the community. I presume that if a white unwed mother showed up in a largely african american middle class evangelical church, they would similarly be supportive.

So its probably the self-segregation in the churches and communities that causes the sort of phenomena you are identifying. They are trying to 'love the sinner, hate the sin' but that means that people who are 'in the abstract' are identified with their primary characteristic - in this case, the sin - and only people local to the community warrant the 'love.' Not hypocrisy but a sort of interesting epiphenomena.

I was one of those children given up for adoption was raised in a christen home and yes people make misstakes and God forgives. My mother taught me that I had to say no because boys don't reap there sexuall conduct. I am very glad to be on this earth try to help others. The word tells us right from wrong and gives us a free will. Oh by the way I am 76rs old

I think you missed the point about Hispanics and blacks. Yes THEIR community churches behave largely the same way - in fact have for a long time. Its more that Palin's churches are willling to embrace their prodigial daughters and forgive them their transgressions, all the while demonizing the same women who are black and hispanic.

If a white woman showed up at a black or hispanic church I have no doubt she would be welcomed with no behind the scenes gossip.

If a black or hispanic woman showed up at a white church, I think the reception would be much more muted and the gossip would be pretty virulent.

Racism is very much alive and well in the white evangelical movement.

That said, I think the rest of your analysis is spot on. Espcially the part about how its a Circle The Wagons mentality.

As 1/2 of a DINK couple, I think you raised some very good points.

My wife and I made the choice not to have any kids and that has been the right decision for us. I happen to believe that there is more than one path to happiness in this world. Some people find fulfillment in having a large number of kids and that's great for them, so long as they can afford to support. It is not the life we wanted for ourselves. Some people aren't suited for parenthood and I think it's better if they recognize that fact before they start having kids.

degsme, I live in Arizona and totally agree with your observations. My family was in this state before it ever became one and so I am of Indian-Mexican descent. I cannot begin to describe how racist and divided the people in these communities are. At least once a week, I will have someone at a store or resturant ask me for help and if I speak English. Although there is no shame in any work, I am not a waitress, nor do I work in Retail. I also quit attending a small Baptist Church here (which was predominently caucasian), when a group of Church Members approached me, after service, to ask me how long I'd been in this Country? Being pregnant was a breeze - I never went anywhere, without my husband by my side (and a big ring on my finger). John McCain voted for maintaing the Confederate Flag in AL; Against enacting a State holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King's Birthday; Stood behind Barry Goldwater's vote against Civil Rights; and now wants to eliminate Afirmative Action in Arizona. I really need to move out of here.....It's very disburbing.... and sad.

The word? From Shiva? Kali? Laimdota? Odin?

which word?

It's true, people who are having children need to recognize that it will be a trade-off; however they choose to think of it, in terms of evolutionary fitness, family perpetuation, cultural contribution, whatever; they need to realize that it will cost them sleep and money, and that even historically, it is something of a misconception that people primarily had children for the financial security. That was propagated by economists trying to make it look like _every_ decision was financial, when in fact many decisions are emotional or even not particularly decisions, but assumptions and accepted norms.

However, I am skeptical about the goodness and sustainability of any society in which having children becomes the exception, the unusual case, with a percieved major sacrifice in ones standard of living. Having the technical and legal means to force children into a convenient little box is hardly the end of the story. This can have all sorts of negative consequences even without a demographic and financial implosion, as is predicted in most nations that have this problem. There are moral and virtue costs as well.

But on an individual basis, I'm glad to hear you are happy and wish you very much well.

degsme:

...Its more that Palin's churches are willling to embrace their prodigial daughters...

Palin has churches?

degsme:

If a white woman showed up at a black or hispanic church I have no doubt she would be welcomed with no behind the scenes gossip.

If a black or hispanic woman showed up at a white church, I think the reception would be much more muted and the gossip would be pretty virulent.

Racism is very much alive and well in the white evangelical movement.

I doubt very much that you are speaking from anything beyond blind stereotypes. Certainly, among cultural and ethic groups there will be a sense of tribalism (which you equate with racism). You do nothing more than arbitrarily presume--"no doubt"--that one ethnic group has a greater sense of tribalism than the other. No, your comments go far beyond implying that minorities are less tribalistic; you say that minorities are incapable of it. It is "noble savage" condescension in its purest.

I would argue that whites, as the majority ethnic group, have a greater moral responsibility to be welcoming to members of other ethnic groups. I would also argue that, as a member of a minority ethnic group, one feels a greater sense of otherness and would therefore be more likely to have a stronger sense of tribalism.

Well, as you know, I live in a coastal city and I always have lived on the East coast, suburbs or urban. So, I don't know that much about how things work in arizona or the deep south or the ozarks or what have you.

And I have seen that when typical community norms are transgressed, even among the nicest of people, there is a period of 'trying to figure it out' communally. Something you might call gossip, that is the community sorting out what it thinks about something. So, if a black guy shows up at an all asian church, for example, there is some talk, some muted warmth, until the situation is 'understood.' Once there is an understanding, people can act in a communal way. Frequently, it takes some time to completely integrate a person who is far outside the norm.

I wouldn't actually call this 'racism' per se, as loaded as that is, but there is a degree of self-segregation that is usual and normal at this time, and when it does not happen, there is the expectation of a reason. That's part of the cost of community, actually. People need to feel safe, or they can't give freely to each other.

However, I am skeptical about the goodness and sustainability of any society in which having children becomes the exception, the unusual case, with a percieved major sacrifice in ones standard of living.

Well, I can tell you from personal experience with friends and family that our society is very far from that. Couples who don't have kids are regarded as oddities. I've been married for 16 yeras and people still ask us when we're going to have kids. To most people, the idea of not wanting to raise kids of ones own is a foreign concept that they just can't wrap their heads around.

I have three nieces and I love them dearly. There isn't anything I wouldn't do for any of them. But I am glad that I don't have the primary responsibility for raising them. I know that most other people view having kids as a vital part of life and that's great for them. It's just not the life we wanted.

As for the economic argument for having large vs. small families, there is some validity to it. When kids are regarded as economic assets (free farm hands), it is a documented fact that people have more children. But as societies move towards a more industrialized societies, it is a natural tendency to have fewer kids.

There have been other factors as well. The high infant and child mortality rates of pre-industrial societies encourages people to have more children. Also, living in a crowded urban environment is not conducive to large families the way that a rural society is.

None of this implies that people don't love their kids or don't want to have any, as evidenced by the fact that industrialized societies continue to have kids. They just have fewer than pre-industrialized societies do.

No MCSAME, you are what might be described as a minority within a minority, and I imagine that this is an awkward position to be in. To be fair, the first thing that strangers learn about you is what you look like, and, because of what they may have experienced from the majority of the minority, they start out with some assumptions when they approach you to find out more information. You complain that people in stores trying to help you will ask to find out if you speak English. I understand how this can be annoying, but do you really expect them to already know that you speak English? When there is a significant population of immigrants that don't speak English, there has to be a way for people offering customer service to find out the language of the customer. We don't want explicitly "English Only" stores, do we?

As far as the congregants of the church you attended, their offense was that they asked how long you'd been here. Again, in the absense of knowledge, well-meaning people ask questions. Sounds like they were trying to be friendly. Should they have already known that your family was well established in the community? Should they have avoided you until they could find out more from the rumor mill?

I understand how your situation can cause people to ask some annoying questions, but nobody's asking you to leave their church or store or restaurant. Cut these people some slack. They are only using clumsy assumptions in the absense of information; they aren't racists.

Well, in my case I'm speaking from my experience with various europeans, particularly Italians, where the rate of having children has really plummeted, due, it seems from conversations, to lifestyle/career issues rather than a simple response to falling infant mortality.

BenK:

Well, in my case I'm speaking from my experience with various europeans, particularly Italians, where the rate of having children has really plummeted, due, it seems from conversations, to lifestyle/career issues rather than a simple response to falling infant mortality.

Falling infant mortality was a factor in such decisions in the 19th and 20th century Europe. Now, economics and lifestyle are bigger facts. As I said, there is often more than one reason for these demographic shifts.

Italy, like much of Western Europe, is an example of a country that IS having too few children. Their population is falling. That is not the case in the USA. Our birth rate is about even with replacement and, when you factor in immigration, we still have a growing population.