The Jan. 29-Feb. 5 issue of U. S. News & World Report included this in an article by Lewis Lord, "A conqueror more lethal than the sword" :
Experts believe that in 1492 perhaps 10 million people lived above the Rio Grande - twice as many as may have inhabited the British Isles at that time. The hemisphere's population possibly exceeded 15th-century Europe's 70 million. But by 1650, records suggest that only 6 million Indians remained in the New World. The catastrophic loss of native life, wrote Alfred Crosby, author of The Columbian Exchange, "was surely the greatest tragedy in the history of the human species."
That is incorrect. With regrets that they in actuality win the title of Greatest Tragedy in the History of the Human Species, babies aborted worldwide have surpassed the one billion mark.
This according to the Guttmacher Institute, research arm of Planned Parenthood, which estimates 46 million babies are aborted around the world each year. So this statistic is just for the past 20 years. The U. S. Census Bureau estimates the world's current population is almost 6.6 billion, so no other comparison can possibly come close.
[Painting: Picasso's "Tragedy"]
I hope you die.Posted by: Yu Suk at January 31, 2007 10:47 PM
Yu Suk, I take it you're not pro-life?Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 2, 2007 6:08 AM
I can't believe you actually are comparing genocide of native americans to abortion i hope you burn in your made up hellPosted by: Minny at February 3, 2007 6:55 PM
I'm perplexed... the two are not even alike. Millions of Native Americans died of disease, that is not disputed by historians; however, the argument you are offering is based on personal opinion. Abortion will not be showing up in history books anytime soon, and if you have to use ethics (or religion) to prove your argument, it has no real basis in the academic arena.Posted by: Leah at February 3, 2007 9:30 PM
I'm perplexed as well. How do comparisons between two human tragedies resulting in millions of deaths not equate?
And how is my argument just "personal opinion"? How does abortion not result in human deaths? What is being aborted?Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 6, 2007 7:54 PM
There are many people who do not consider fetuses to be living human beings. Whether they are or not is, in today's world, a personal opinion. There is so much debate surrounding that issue itself that it would be impossible for professionals to make a definite answer without offending someone. Because of this, abortion cannot be equated to the deaths of millions of Native Americans: no one is debating whether or not Native Americans existed, but abortion is a completely different issue.
Also: at that time period in history, such a loss of life was devastating to the Native American culture. How can abortion compare with that, considering how many humans are alive worldwide today?
Furthermore, if you think that abortion is more devastating than the loss of millions of Native Americans, do you feel the same about events such as the Holocaust?
Many people think many wacky things. But there is truth. When do medicine and science say human life begins? This isn't a matter of "personal opinion," or I could simply decide you're not human either. What makes you human? I'm curious, when do you think human life begins?
Are you saying preborn children do not exist?
And are you seriously going to argue that just because there are more people on the planet makes the loss of human life any less devastating? Ok, I'll go there. If 1 billion children have been aborted worldwide in just the past 20 years, and the population is currently 6.5 billion, I'd say abortion is devastating.Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 7, 2007 3:46 PM
Are you serious? Right, because we need another billion people in this already overpopulated world. I will go ahead and argue for Leah that yes, because there are more people in the world, the loss of one life is insignificant. And in the case of abortion, it isn't even a loss of life, it is a prevention of life. What's more devastating, preventing a person from ever living or subjecting them to a life of misery - because their parents weren't psychologically or financially ready to rear a child or because they were given up for adoption and were simply bounced around from family to family, abused and often times unwanted. Abortions, in many cases save a lot of people a lot of misery. What happened to the Native Americans was devastating because it caused a loss of culture and identity. These people are still feeling the effects of what happened and will most likely never regain what they have lost. How can you even make such a comparison?Posted by: Ashley at February 7, 2007 5:14 PM
This discussion isn't a matter of when human life begins; however, since you seem really interested, I'm pro-choice. I actually used to be pro-life, but I realize that we don't live in a perfect, idealistic society. I've heard people say that life begins at conception, and obviously life exists if the cells have a nucleus. However, women should be allowed that choice for personal reasons, and it's not up to me to make that choice for anyone.
Now, let's get back to the reason I started posting here: the article and world history. I am not saying that the loss of human life today is any less devastating than it was then, but the two are simply not equal. Native Americans died from disease, specifically smallpox and measles. They lost their land, their livelihood, their culture and way of life. Under these circumstances, the losses from abortion have to be viewed differently. I'm sorry we don't feel the same about abortion, but you have to admit that the two are different.Posted by: Leah at February 7, 2007 5:31 PM
Thanks, Ashley- you said it better than I did!Posted by: Leah at February 7, 2007 5:32 PM
Ashley, overpopulated? You haven't been paying attention to the news. Many countries, particularly in eastern and western Europe, have threatening unpopulation crises. Google it.
Abortion is not "prevention" of life. Life can only be prevented before conception.
Your theory, which is basically "every child a wanted child," has proven false since abortion was legalized. Child abuse has increased over 300% since abortion was legalized. And why not? Once a mother crosses the line to kill a child prenatally, it is easier to cross the line postnatally.
Loss of culture and identity? Ashley, Leah, if you are under the age of 34, you are abortion survivors, and 1/3 of your generation, your own youth culture, has been killed by abortion. I don't know how you could possibly trust the very people who tried every way they could to ensure you were never born.Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 7, 2007 6:36 PM
Well, yes, I am under 34, but I have never seen myself as part of a culture like that. And I'm not quite sure I understand why I shouldn't trust people. My parents wanted me, so I'm here. If my mom's life would have been threatened, though, she would have aborted me and my twin sister. I can't say that I hate her for it; I respect her more because she was able to be honest with me about the issue. Self-preservation motivates people to stay alive, no matter what the costs, and I would not have wanted to live on in this world at the sacrifice of another. I know that is only one instance in which one would consider an abortion, but I thought I'd throw that out there.
And population isn't declining in poorer areas of the world, such as South Africa and other countries in that region. People are dying from AIDS, but more people are born in those countries every day as well. What about China and their population explosion? The reason birthrates are so low in Europe is because people use birth control and have abortions; these are not available in huge countries like China or poorer ones either.Posted by: Leah at February 7, 2007 7:00 PM
First of all, unpopulation? Yes, that is definitely a crisis. Oh no, we have more than enough resources to support our population, better have more kids!! I don't know where you're getting your 'facts' but our world's population is ever increasing and we definitely don't face underpopulation. The only reason some places don't have a lot of people is that no one wants to live there. Hell, you could say there's a huge underpopulation crisis in the sahara but it's not because of abortion. The point is, millions...billions of people are starving today, and it sure as hell isn't due to the fact that there aren't enough people, it's because there are too many people and too few resources. Anything we can do to reduce our growth rate (ie abortion and to some extent homosexuality - not that I'm saying everyone should go gay) is alright in my book. If we don't slow it down soon, something will slow it down for us (such as a horribly devastating disease or starvation, etc) which to me sounds much worse than preventing an unborn child the opportunity to live in this entirely messed up world. Why is it so easy for people such as yourself to simply believe in something without thinking about the facts? Oh wait, you can ignore them and just make up your own!Posted by: Ashley at February 8, 2007 3:16 AM
Oh by the way, yes I am under 34 but that does not make me an abortion survivor. I would consider myself a survivor of masturbation, oral sex, and the menstrual cycle before a survivor of abortion. Just because it was legalized 34 years ago doesn't mean it didn't exist before hand, it was just more dangerous before. And wow, how can you say that abortion is a 'loss of culture?' Our culture is going to persist with or without those aborted fetuses, what happened to the Native Americans was a DESTRUCTION of their culture, their history, their livlihoods. But, I guess I can't really argue with ignorant logic.Posted by: Ashley at February 8, 2007 3:37 AM