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

Forums - General Discussion - Live in Indiana? Give the gift of Abortion!

appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Oh my, what have I done? :)
If overcrowding really is such a problem, I think either imposing limits or even sterilization would do. That would circumvent the moral objection, for me.

 

Interestingly I am against both on moral grounds.

I think that both compulsory sterilization and legal limits on the number of children you can have violate the rights of parents. However optional (and free, or perhaps even with incentives) sterilization and incentives for having fewer children are decent ideas for controlling the population in my opinion.

 

Mm, perhaps the second option would be better.

@Samuel

Nevertheless (if abortion wouldn't stunt economic growth), it would solve the possible more pressing problem of overpopulation

 

 Abortion wouldn't have anywhere near the long term impact as sterilization of mass cutdowns in birth. Overpopulated areas tend to sort themselves out, if you get what I'm saying.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith said:
appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Oh my, what have I done? :)
If overcrowding really is such a problem, I think either imposing limits or even sterilization would do. That would circumvent the moral objection, for me.

 

Interestingly I am against both on moral grounds.

I think that both compulsory sterilization and legal limits on the number of children you can have violate the rights of parents. However optional (and free, or perhaps even with incentives) sterilization and incentives for having fewer children are decent ideas for controlling the population in my opinion.

 

Mm, perhaps the second option would be better.

@Samuel

Nevertheless (if abortion wouldn't stunt economic growth), it would solve the possible more pressing problem of overpopulation

 

 Abortion wouldn't have anywhere near the long term impact as sterilization of mass cutdowns in birth. Overpopulated areas tend to sort themselves out, if you get what I'm saying.

I don't necessarily mean huge amounts of sterilization, just smaller amounts.  As Rath suggested, perhaps just make it voluntary.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Rath said:
appolose said:
Oh my, what have I done? :)
If overcrowding really is such a problem, I think either imposing limits or even sterilization would do. That would circumvent the moral objection, for me.

 

Interestingly I am against both on moral grounds.

I think that both compulsory sterilization and legal limits on the number of children you can have violate the rights of parents. However optional (and free, or perhaps even with incentives) sterilization and incentives for having fewer children are decent ideas for controlling the population in my opinion.

 

I understand what you are saying, but let's just put this in perspective.

There isn't a food shortage in Africa because of a lack of food to feed them.  There is foot shortage because dictators steal the food that UNICEF and other humanitarian organizations deliver to them... they do it because they want to starve rival tribes.  Africa is a tribal continent (one of my close friends is the son of a leader of one of the dominant tribes, so I know a thing or two about this subject)

And even more importantly is this:

We are not running out of land or resources on planet Earth contrary to popular belief.

The state of Texas alone has 172,044,800 acres in it.  Considering the average home is on a .12 acre plot, that means approximately 8 families of four (which is a global average) can fit on a one acre plot comfortably.

Therefore, 32 people can comfortably fit on a one acre plot (with a front/back yard and average size home).

Now, take 32 and multiply that times 172,044,800 acres, and you come up with...

5,505,433,600 people can COMFORTABLY fit in the state of Texas alone... in other words, 5.5 BILLION people can fit comfortably in Texas alone, leaving only 10% more people to fit into the rest of the globe.

There are a total of 36,480,000,000 acres on planet Earth... yes, that means that Texas only encompasses 0.4761% of the Earth total space.  So if the entire planet can fit on less than 0.5% of the Earths land, how is that we are running out of room?

Silence is golden.



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431

XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya

Comrade Tovya said:
arsenicazure said:
marciosmg said:
YOu are saying that a baby with downs is worth less than a baby without it?

I know you probably didn´t mean it. But you appear to be saying that the mother wouldn´t have a problem if the baby didnt have downs. So, a child with a genetic disorder is a 2nd class citizen. THAT is a nice utopia you got there

 

Yea my apologies if it sounded like that. I work at a hospital and I deal with children with genetic disorders all the time. Ofcourse they have a right to live. But in every case, you can see the parents suffer.Diseases where its treatable- thalassemia etc is fine but stuff like, Downs, spina bifida, cerebral palsy almost kill these parents in the long run. They love their kids no doubt but im sure they would rather not see their children suffer with such illnesses. If medical technology allows us to scan for such genetic disorders Im all for it. Again its not a baby till it breathes on its own, its a fetus. Everyone has a right to be happy.

 

Okay, now you've hit a sore spot with me.  My parents adopted my little brother Isaac who was literally a crack-baby.  He was born without a chin, left-shoulder, a curved spine, no voice-box, his trachea is closed up, and his legs were bowed so bad he couldn't stand.

Instead of having him aborted, my parents paid the lady to have the kid and then she gave him up for adoption.

He is now 5 years old, and the doctors swore he would be dead before his 2nd birthday.

My parents have spared no expense in helping him lead a normal life.  After countless surgeries and physical therapy, he now has straight legs, a good spine.. and while there is still work left to do, he uses sign language to communicate with us and gets fed from a tube (and he has a trach for breathing), he is largely a normal child... and he is the happiest darn kid you'd ever meet.. He loves life and everything in it.  He especially looks up to me, and always wants to be around me.

He plays and goes to school with my kids, they play video games, and he plays outside with them... and by the time he is an adult, the doctors have changed their evaluation and now believe they will be able to completely finish his bodies recontruction, and with the exception of some scars and he'll have to learn to speak vocally....

(above) my son, and brother's Matthew & Isaac

long story short, my little brother deserved to live, and he did and will continue to.  Just because he was born into a situation of poverty and genetic deformities doesn't mean he's less of a human being than anyone else... he's just special in his own way, and we all love him dearly.  He's just the sweetest boy you'd ever know.

Im really happy for your baby brother and the good cause your parents have contributed to. But not everyone is able to afford treatment or provide such a quality of life. Now imagine if your brother was born to a family that couldnt afford any of this and he had to lead a life without half the therapy or treatment he has recieved, would you condone that?

My folks did want to have me aborted since i was an unplanned pregnancy and honestly it did hurt when my mom said that my father wanted to have me aborted but Im sure if they did, they would have thought long and hard and done what was best for them. My cousin has CP and honestly it breaks my heart everytime I meet him. Its not an easy life and not for everyone.And people should honestly be given the option to decide. Especially teenage girls who have no idea what they are getting themselves into.Sometimes it is easier to abort than to give away a child you gave birth to.If society frowns on abortion it also frowns on preganant teenagers. thats a little hypocritical isnt it? Early onset pregancy raises chances of cervical cancer as well, so there is some medical fact to it.

 



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

@Comrade Tovya.

Overpopulation isn't population density on its own, overpopulation is a state in which the land cannot provide the resources necessary to maintain the amount of life currently inhabating it.

The US has a lot more resources per square kilometre than any African country, therefore, it can sustain a lot more life per square kilometre, meaning that a greater population density in the US has less impact than one in the before mentioned African nation.

A good example of this is China and the UK. The UK has roughly 100 more people per square kilometre than PR China, however the UK has the resources to maintain life, moreso than PR China. When was the last time you heard of the UK government restricting births to one per couple?



Around the Network
Comrade Tovya said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Oh my, what have I done? :)
If overcrowding really is such a problem, I think either imposing limits or even sterilization would do. That would circumvent the moral objection, for me.

 

Interestingly I am against both on moral grounds.

I think that both compulsory sterilization and legal limits on the number of children you can have violate the rights of parents. However optional (and free, or perhaps even with incentives) sterilization and incentives for having fewer children are decent ideas for controlling the population in my opinion.

 

I understand what you are saying, but let's just put this in perspective.

There isn't a food shortage in Africa because of a lack of food to feed them.  There is foot shortage because dictators steal the food that UNICEF and other humanitarian organizations deliver to them... they do it because they want to starve rival tribes.  Africa is a tribal continent (one of my close friends is the son of a leader of one of the dominant tribes, so I know a thing or two about this subject)

And even more importantly is this:

We are not running out of land or resources on planet Earth contrary to popular belief.

The state of Texas alone has 172,044,800 acres in it.  Considering the average home is on a .12 acre plot, that means approximately 8 families of four (which is a global average) can fit on a one acre plot comfortably.

Therefore, 32 people can comfortably fit on a one acre plot (with a front/back yard and average size home).

Now, take 32 and multiply that times 172,044,800 acres, and you come up with...

5,505,433,600 people can COMFORTABLY fit in the state of Texas alone... in other words, 5.5 BILLION people can fit comfortably in Texas alone, leaving only 10% more people to fit into the rest of the globe.

There are a total of 36,480,000,000 acres on planet Earth... yes, that means that Texas only encompasses 0.004% of the Earth total space.  So if the entire planet can fit on less than 0.5% of the Earths land, how is that we are running out of room?

Silence is golden.

8.8% of the worlds land( thats china and india) houses 1/3rd of the world population(1.3+1.1billion).The problem isnt land itself but disparity in the distribution of land. Russia/Canada/Australia have 23.4% of the worlds land but only around 200 million of the world population(thats barely 3% of people who have 1/4th the world land area). Africa has food problems partly becuase of illetracy and how the west has exploited it- the french with rwanda, the US with somalia/libya etc. and debeers with every diamond producing nation there is. Giving countries oil for food is not a way to save them. Its a means to weaken them to the point where they have to beg for basic resources to give up whatever natural resources they have.

 



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

SamuelRSmith said:
@Comrade Tovya.

Overpopulation isn't population density on its own, overpopulation is a state in which the land cannot provide the resources necessary to maintain the amount of life currently inhabating it.

The US has a lot more resources per square kilometre than any African country, therefore, it can sustain a lot more life per square kilometre, meaning that a greater population density in the US has less impact than one in the before mentioned African nation.

A good example of this is China and the UK. The UK has roughly 100 more people per square kilometre than PR China, however the UK has the resources to maintain life, moreso than PR China. When was the last time you heard of the UK government restricting births to one per couple?

 

Well we can get into that if you'd like.  I actually just read that the United States alone can feed the Earth 5 times over considering the amount of arable land in this nation alone, but the Feds are still paying farmers NOT to till the land.  Russia for instance, although it doesn't take advantage of it, has nearly twice the arable land of the United States.  And Europe has some of the most furtile soils in the world as well... nearly equal in size to the U.S.

And land that is considered "unfarmable" is also a big myth.  The brilliant Israelis have been proving that for 60 years.

When the first Jews re-settled there, they literally turned a 100% desert nation into a fertile nation capable of self-sustainment.

And land can be made fertile with the proper irrigation and rotation techniques.  We are not cavemen.

The problem with Africa and SE Asia is that they are too busy oppressing themselves to change.  They are their own worst enemies.  They are more concerned with tribal warfare and ancient hatreds than sustaining themselves.  World poverty & hunger will be destroyed when the poor bastards in 3rd world countries say that enough is enough and stand up and fight for freedom.  And the rest of the free world should march behind them and support this.



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431

XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya

It's not just food, wat about water? Drinking water is a scarcity in many parts of the world and the cost of turning salt water into drinking water is through the roof. You then have to consider healthcare, and nations gain more resources through economic growth, which requires education.

None of this stuff comes cheap.



SamuelRSmith said:
It's not just food, wat about water? Drinking water is a scarcity in many parts of the world and the cost of turning salt water into drinking water is through the roof. You then have to consider healthcare, and nations gain more resources through economic growth, which requires education.

None of this stuff comes cheap.

Once again, it has been proven, by the Israelis, that de-salting ocean water can be done in a cost effective fashion.  I am not against conservation by any means.  I am an ardent environmentalist...

The problem we have now is not a lack of resources, but a serious wasting of resources. 

On top of this, the Nile River alone discharges 300 million cubic metres of water everyday into the Mediteranean Sea.

There are 33814 in a cubic meter... so the Nile River ALONE discharges 10,144,200,000,000-oz. (yes, that's over 10-trillion ounces of water a day)

The average human is recommended to drink 32-oz. per day.  That means that the Nile River ALONE can sustain the drinking needs of 317,006,250,000 people.  (that's over 317-billion people).  And that's only one river amongst tens of thousands of rivers across the globe.

So the myth that we are running out of water is also wrong... there's plenty to go around.

 



MarioKart:

Wii Code:

2278-0348-4368

1697-4391-7093-9431

XBOX LIVE: Comrade Tovya 2
PSN ID:

Comrade_Tovya

Comrade Tovya said:
SamuelRSmith said:
It's not just food, wat about water? Drinking water is a scarcity in many parts of the world and the cost of turning salt water into drinking water is through the roof. You then have to consider healthcare, and nations gain more resources through economic growth, which requires education.

None of this stuff comes cheap.

Once again, it has been proven, by the Israelis, that de-salting ocean water can be done in a cost effective fashion.  I am not against conservation by any means.  I am an ardent environmentalist...

The problem we have now is not a lack of resources, but a serious wasting of resources. 

On top of this, the Nile River alone discharges 300 million cubic metres of water everyday into the Mediteranean Sea.

There are 33814 in a cubic meter... so the Nile River ALONE discharges 10,144,200,000,000-oz. (yes, that's over 10-trillion ounces of water a day)

The average human is recommended to drink 32-oz. per day.  That means that the Nile River ALONE can sustain the drinking needs of 317,006,250,000 people.  (that's over 317-billion people).  And that's only one river amongst tens of thousands of rivers across the globe.

So the myth that we are running out of water is also wrong... there's plenty to go around.

 

 

And I thought mass depopulation was by hawkish right wing nutjobs ;)  OT, it any guy can become a dad.  It takes a real man to become a father.  Trust me, I know how it is..