By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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 18.67%
 
No 59 78.67%
 
Maybe 2 2.67%
 
Total:75
SnesTea on 17 June 2020
PortisheadBiscuit said:

"Downsizing" the U.S. will not make it better. You will still have KKK members, neo-nazis, and alt right conservatives living here

And your Antifa, communists, and liberal rioters.



Around the Network
vivster on 18 June 2020
NightlyPoe said:
vivster said:

Every pimple is exactly as unique and irreplaceable as an egg cell and a sperm cell. The human body is magical, it can just constantly produce new things and just as easily destroy them too. Not sure why something that can be reproduced without effort within a month would be called "irreplaceable".

A pimple is not a unique and irreplaceable human.

And the probability that a woman would remain fertile afterwards does not negate the intrinsic rights of a fetus to life.

A fetus isn't a human, that's why it's called fetus. It's a bunch of cells mushed together that literally any of the 7 billion humans can create out of nothing. It has no brain, no conscience and consists of less human cells than a pimple. I refuse to use that kind of low bar to define something as "human". It is a potential human, but so is every single sperm or egg cell. And we don't arrest all men for slaughtering trillions of potential humans on a regular basis.

Side note: Being unique doesn't make a thing suddenly essential to be preserved. So you can safely stop using that meaningless attribute to try and make your case seem more important than it is.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

JimmyFantasy on 18 June 2020

Yeah.
Immigration in general it's not the actual problem, but overpopulation is.
The equation is really simple: more living beings in a restricted space = less resources for each one.



sundin13 on 18 June 2020
RolStoppable said:
vivster said:

Or even better, undemonize abortions so that some abandoned children stop happening in the first place.

Allowing abortions equates to granting women more rights.

Gross...

Who would want that?



haxxiy on 18 June 2020
NightlyPoe said:
RolStoppable said:

Allowing abortions equates to granting women more rights.

Giving one person the right to arbitrarily end another person's life is not a right that should exist.

To a number of interpretations of Christianity, where that particular morality comes from, maybe, yes.

But to secular Law, no right is an absolute right, not even the right to life. This is why things like the right to self-defense and defense of others exist. Or euthanasia, military necessity, capital punishment etc.



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network
sundin13 on 18 June 2020
NightlyPoe said:
haxxiy said:

To a number of interpretations of Christianity, where that particular morality comes from, maybe, yes.

I did not mention Christianity or any other religion.  There is a sound secular argument that abortion is an act of violence that should not be allowed in a civilized society.

Bringing religion into the matter is trying to create a straw man.

But to secular Law, no right is an absolute right, not even the right to life. This is why things like the right to self-defense and defense of others exist. Or euthanasia, military necessity, capital punishment etc.

Yes, but none of those apply.  I specifically used the word "arbitrarily" for a reason, mainly to short-circuit this argument.  One does not need to believe in "never kill" to believe that giving a person the unquestioned right to kill at will is unacceptable.


Again, this is a straw man

I've been trying to keep out of this conversation because of how off topic it is, but out of curiosity, my first question is, at what point to you believe the unalienable right to life begins?



sundin13 on 18 June 2020
NightlyPoe said:
sundin13 said:

I've been trying to keep out of this conversation because of how off topic it is, but out of curiosity, my first question is, at what point to you believe the unalienable right to life begins?

Conception.

Hm, interesting. I disagree, but interesting.

What quality do you think provides this small bundle of unspecialized cells a right to life, or alternately what harm would be done were it to lose such a right?



sundin13 on 18 June 2020
NightlyPoe said:
sundin13 said:

Hm, interesting. I disagree, but interesting.

What quality do you think provides this small bundle of unspecialized cells a right to life,

The quality that it is a human life.  I see no reason to discriminate and take away the basic right to life based on a person's state of development.

or alternately what harm would be done were it to lose such a right?

The being has lost his or her life.  That is more than sufficient to be worth protecting.

How exactly is "human life" defined? And why should this "human life" inherently be protected?

In this vein, do you consider it abhorrent when the plug is pulled on someone who is brain-dead and on life support?



TheBraveGallade on 18 June 2020

The US is like, literally the only developed nation that has a healthy fertility rate and you guys should be grateful for it.
as for automation when it becomes a big enough problem UBI would be implemented



Immersiveunreality on 19 June 2020
NightlyPoe said:
RolStoppable said:

Allowing abortions equates to granting women more rights.

Giving one person the right to arbitrarily end another person's life is not a right that should exist.

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.

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 19 June 2020