Forums - Politics Discussion - United States should downsize the population by ending all immigration and creating incentives for having fewer kids.

Should united states downsize it's population.

Yes 14 18.92%
 
No 58 78.38%
 
Maybe 2 2.70%
 
Total:74
LuccaCardoso1 said:

And by the way, how do you plan to END ALL IMMIGRATION? Do you want the US to become the next North Korea? If the US bans immigration, their international soft power is gone. You can expect retaliation, and then you can be sure that the economy is fucked.

Umm... what?  How do you get from not accepting more immigrants to North Korea?  You're missing like 90 steps between the two extremes.



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

And by the way, how do you plan to END ALL IMMIGRATION? Do you want the US to become the next North Korea? If the US bans immigration, their international soft power is gone. You can expect retaliation, and then you can be sure that the economy is fucked.

Umm... what?  How do you get from not accepting more immigrants to North Korea?  You're missing like 90 steps between the two extremes.

"United States should downsize the population by ending all immigration and creating incentives for having fewer kids."

North Korea is the one country I can think of that bans all immigration. I'm comparing them based on the immigration policy the OP was proposing.



G O O D B O I

LuccaCardoso1 said:
NightlyPoe said:

Umm... what?  How do you get from not accepting more immigrants to North Korea?  You're missing like 90 steps between the two extremes.

"United States should downsize the population by ending all immigration and creating incentives for having fewer kids."

North Korea is the one country I can think of that bans all immigration. I'm comparing them based on the immigration policy the OP was proposing.

If you're just talking about immigration policies, why would other nations feel the need to retaliate?



NightlyPoe said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

"United States should downsize the population by ending all immigration and creating incentives for having fewer kids."

North Korea is the one country I can think of that bans all immigration. I'm comparing them based on the immigration policy the OP was proposing.

If you're just talking about immigration policies, why would other nations feel the need to retaliate?

Because immigrants come from other countries. Countries nowadays have agreements to facilitate immigration. We live in a globalized world, where most people can immigrate to other countries fairly easily. By banning any immigration, the US would be basically giving the middle finger to every other country.



G O O D B O I

NightlyPoe said:
RolStoppable said:

That's easy to say for men.

Trying to negate an opinion based on a person's inherited traits instead of engaging the argument...

Generally frowned upon in most situations.

Maybe in general, but not in this particular situation. That's because your argument is that a person's right to decide over their own life should be taken away from them; you don't want women to get to make such a call, and that's indeed easy to say for a man because a man is never going to be in this specific situation.

The whole catch about the abortion argument: You can't make it any way that it's fair for everyone, so it's a question of whose life has the higher value. It's either the life of the recently conceived human or the life of the mother that has to have higher value.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
RolStoppable said:

That's easy to say for men.

Trying to negate an opinion based on a person's inherited traits instead of engaging the argument...

Generally frowned upon in most situations.

Immersiveunreality said:

I think it very much should exist everywhere,sometimes it is even selfless to end anothers beginning of living to avoid suffering.

Institutions are full with children of prolife parents that got sick of them afterwards,lonely and suffering till the end.

So we're back to the original idea that orphans are better off dead?

Yeah, I just reject that.

Immersiveunreality said:

Bolded:But what does life being human matter,he has the right to suffer and die after being born instead of being aborted?

Yes, a person has the right to a potentially lousy (and potentially wonderful) life instead of being aborted.

First bold: But you are trying to force your own generalising will unto possible suffering children and females that you neglect because you think all life must live.

Second bold:Orphans are not better of dead,SOME are better of dead but your extremity is pushing them all under the same thought.

Third bold:Sometimes the chance is low or nonexistent to have a wonderfull life,medical equipment exists to be able to see some things very early on.



NightlyPoe said:

sundin13 said:

1) And hence my issue with your original answer. There isn't really any argument within your assertion of "once a life starts it is human".

It's just a scientific fact that conception is when life begins.  I don't know what extra value there is that you want to give beyond that's when a separate entity is created that begins to develop as a unique individual.

I don't know what's circular about it.  It's just a factual statement.

Under the dictionary, a human is basically something with the features and qualities of a human, but a fertilized egg fails to reach even that low bar.

A fertilized egg is human, and therefore has human qualities.  You have a scientist examine a fertilized egg and ask him what species it is, they'll answer, "Human".

How is it alive?"

You're questioning whether a developing organism is alive?  What else would it be?

Again, you are largely missing the question. There is a significant non-moral and non-religious answer to the sanctity of life regarding individuals post-birth. One of the facets of that argument discusses the strength of society. It should be intuitive that a society that considers murder wrong is a lot stronger than a society which does not. However, the same doesn't really apply to abortion. If you consider abortion from a pragmatic viewpoint, it provides many benefits. These include: Increased access to education and increased labor force participation, which are both important factors to reducing poverty and inequality. It also provides agency, rights and control over their body to women and bringing it back to the overall question of this thread, it helps to reduce birth rates in a way which doesn't rely on heavy handed government control.

That's a rather crass utilitarian argument that should be discarded out of hand.  A society benefiting from an unjust action is not absolved.

There are a lot of shenanigans for all sorts of unspeakable evils that could be justified using that sort of logic.

The argument for the wrongness of murder simply doesn't extend to an argument for the wrongness of abortion, which is why such an argument needs to be made independently of the inherency argument.

It need not.  I am not making a utilitarian argument.  Not on such a basic matter.

My purpose in asking this question is because I think it is a discussion regarding the sanctity of life, and it is another situation where ending a life does not produce negative societal outcomes, and in fact may be a positive choice for society.

Again, I reject out of hand the notion that end of life care should be dictated by the positives a death would bring to society.  Jeez.

It is also an interesting parallel as it is a discussion of whether to mandate interference to ensure a human who isn't viable be kept alive. The difference here is that this is done using machines whereas a child is kept alive using a woman's body. I don't mind dropping this particular example though.

It's also not particularly useful.  We don't pull unconsenting people off of life support when we know they'll be able to function on their own in a reliably finite amount of time.

4) Another point of curiosity, do you believe in exceptions to your ban on abortion, such as in instances of incest and rape?

No.  I don't believe in punishing a person's progeny for their crimes.

Though, I will acknowledge that the issue has a few more shades of gray.  Namely that the woman did not consent to the pregnancy in the first place and has no... contract for lack of a better word, with the child for bringing them into life and the responsibility to see them to their birth at minimum that comes with it.

As you seem unwilling to engage in anything even vaguely resembling an argument, I'll be brief.

My qualms over your assertions of "human" and "life" regarding an undeveloped, fertilized egg lie in the fact that these distinctions you are making are functionally useless. If you take a drop of blood and hand it to a scientist and ask "is this alive?" they will look at the cells in the sample and make that determination. I am not asking "if" a fertilized egg is alive, I am asking "how", or "in what sense" is it alive. If the only factor is "the cells are alive", the definition you are providing is far too broad.

Similarly, if you then ask "is this human?" they will then look at the DNA inside the cells and make this determination. In both cases, a drop of blood contains all of the same factors of both being "human" and "life" as a fertilized egg. But is a cell belonging to a human a human, or is it the combination of many cells which makes a human?

Under the assertion that we must inherently protect "human" "life", with such a vague and overreaching definition, that statement stretches far beyond a discussion of abortion. As such, simply leaving it as "it is human life" is fundamentally nonsense.

As for the life support question, if that person, say, is undergoing kidney failure and needs a kidney in order to live, we do not mandate that someone gives a kidney to this individual, because the individual has absolute agency over their own body and this agency comes before even the lives of others. Similarly, a woman should have absolute agency over her own body. The state should not mandate she use it in a certain way, just as the state should not mandate individuals give up their kidneys.



This topic seems like a full on ban trap but hey lol

Downright stopping immigration has a detrimental effect on any country. The more isolated a country is, the more it staggers development and new ideas. Ideally there would always be a good flow of migrants (in and out) of any country. What a sad existence it would be to be born, live and die exactly in the same place.

Having said this, I'm all for stopping incentives to have more kids. Unfortunately the countries where overpopulation is a real issue, show no signs of stopping it. Tends to be poorer countries where kids are seen as a security for people to be "taken care of" in their older years, so the more the better from that selfish perspective. That and the religious angle, but fortunately that one seems to be declining.



Additionally, people born and raised in a specific country not being able to compete for a good job with an immigrant is really saying something. Someone that had to leave everything behind and start a new life, may or may not even speak the language to a good degree. Someone that will already have it harder in life and face discrimination on a regular basis and this person somehow is better qualified for the job you want? Should make you pause and think if the problem is not you.

Disclaimer: Not aiming this post at anyone in specific, more to the sort of people I see complaining about this sort of stuff. The "they took our jerbs" South Park meme type.



LuccaCardoso1 said:
NightlyPoe said:

If you're just talking about immigration policies, why would other nations feel the need to retaliate?

Because immigrants come from other countries. Countries nowadays have agreements to facilitate immigration. We live in a globalized world, where most people can immigrate to other countries fairly easily. By banning any immigration, the US would be basically giving the middle finger to every other country.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't even make sense.  Globalization doesn't mean you need to take another country's domestic policies.  And there's no reason why other countries would feel slighted as long as they weren't being targeted specifically.