|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
posted April 03, 2013 12:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
+1.
Thank you.
Quote:
There may come times where contraception of your fourth or fifth kid becomes mandatory by law.
Its far more likely that people will keep on with the current trend and then there will be days where food prices and water prices will literally explode, thus there will be no supplies for poor people.
The reason for this is that governments will be unable to enact such laws. War will probably be inevitable because taking something from one another is so much easier than behavioral change.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 01:04 AM |
|
|
|
Well, I remember about reading about such a law on China but I dont remember the detalis. If it's about survival the penalties will be harsh and most people will voluntarily obey such a law anyway. History has shown us when conditions change mankind's priorities change too, quite fast actually.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 02:02 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 02:07, 03 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Well, I remember about reading about such a law on China but I dont remember the detalis.
China is not a democracy, china does not respect human rights and it is an exception.
Quote:
If it's about survival the penalties will be harsh and most people will voluntarily obey such a law anyway.
It depends on what context it will appear. I dont believe that even western countries will be able to enact such a law because of internal opposition.
Mobs of people will be screaming "THIS IS UNCONSTINUTIONAL" "I WILL NOT LAY DOWN MY GOD/NATURE GIVEN RIGHTS TO HAVE KIDS" or my favorite "GOD/NATURE GAVE US THE RIGHT TO BREED, WHO ARE YOU TO DENY US THIS RIGHT?"
Then there is the problem of enforcing this law. How do you prevent people to breed? Forced abortion? You would have giant mobs of pro-life terrorists attacking everybody supporting the law...
However, western countries do not have this problem(At least on papere).
How would you enforce such a law on undeveloped countries? They would not even be able to understand the problem, let alone the sollution.
The result of this trend is starvation and more poverty and thats because people are uneducated, dumb or suicidal(LET US EMBRACE THE END...)
So yeah, awesome...
Quote:
History has shown us when conditions change mankind's priorities change too, quite fast actually.
Except china, nobody has ever done something on that scale to prevent starvation.
All everyone has ever done, was to alleviate the symptomes and not the cause of starvation.
Ironically, as the population of the world will explode, the people that will suffer will be people from undeveloped countries as just as today, their weather/food condition are not going to get better to. And their population still grows...
Imo, population explosion is an unfounded issue. Soon, antibiotics will be ineffective and there will be mass deaths in coming decades.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 02:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
why didn't we just let the nazi's win? it would have made no difference, anyway. maybe. who knows?
I hope you're joking.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 02:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
the end result is, nothing will change. no matter how much anyone tries to help one to understand the dire reality of the situation we are in, it will not matter. there are too many things keeping people from seeing the result of our impact on the world
I don't see why the decision lies in the hands of the masses.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 02:09 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 02:18, 03 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
the end result is, nothing will change. no matter how much anyone tries to help one to understand the dire reality of the situation we are in, it will not matter. there are too many things keeping people from seeing the result of our impact on the world
I don't see why the decision lies in the hands of the masses.
It does not. Starvation is not going to affect everybody. Poor countries will have famine and richer countries cant be bothered to help them.
As such,population growth may create a condition where there are more people on the planet than the planet can sustain. The end result is death for those without food.
Food prices will explode in the future but I think that rich countries will be able to deal with that, poor countries will die off.
The whole goverment and contraception thing is that goverments or people cannot even enact laws that, logically speaking, would to alleviate the problems of overpopulation, crime and even some diseases.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 02:12 AM |
|
|
I'm certain that I've read somewhere that supermarkets reject/dump a huge proportion of food because they don't look cosmetically correct.
From the BBC:
Quote:
Seventeen million tonnes of food is being ploughed into Britain's landfill sites every year - all because it's cheaper and easier for the food industry to dump it than give it to those in need.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 02:20 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 05:19, 03 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
China is not a democracy
Quote:
there were movements, and things changed. tolerance of other people's ways of life, tolerance of things people might not like(it's even in the u.s. constitution), freedom of speech, and so on and so forth, have created a way of life where everyone is right, no matter what, no matter the outcome.
Maybe I haven't pointed out clearly, I'm talking distant (not very very distant though) future in which overpopulation is an instant threat. There may be a step back from democratic rights there. In case of emergency, those rights are always suspended. Just think of the Patriot Act, one attack on American soil and they pulled back all the constitutional rights. And this happened in the US that identifies itself with those rights. Now imagine worldwide famine, disease and poverty and think of how that can affect the laws or our understanding of democracy.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 05:18 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:45, 03 Apr 2013.
|
|
It's not sarcasm if you point out it's sarcasm.
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 05:28 AM |
|
|
Let me speak frankly on the issues of Abortion, Contraception and Stem cell Research.
Abortion, in my opinion is a heinous, wicked, devious act just as bad as murder and extortion. It is absolutely morally wrong to terminate an embryo just as it is nearing maturity for birth. Therefore, I am 100% pro-life on the issue of abortion.
Contraception is a difficult issue to consider, although I am nominally against it and I am certainly against the liberal use of the pill or the sale of condoms.
Stem Cell Research, I totally oppose for similar reasons to abortion, since it involves the use of aborted fetuses.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 08:19 AM |
|
|
Overpopulation has a lot of reasons, and not the least of it is, that in many countries (male) children are still an economic factor for the parents to take care of them when they are old. Pensions, education, contraception (which would make it necessary in certain parts, for example in Africa to countermand religion).
However, some things take time. I, for example, totally oppose ignorance and moral-based damnation attitudes. LAWS are for everyone, MORALS are quite personal. If, for example, a person wants to enter marriage as a virgin, that's fine. It's as personal a decision as possible, and absolutely within the rights of said person. But the opposite is true as well: if a person isn't interested in these kind of "values" or morals, that's absolutely within the rights of that person as well. It makes no sense to debate, if anyone there is "morally right", "morally wrong", or a "fool" or a "bore" or whatever else people who make different decisions for different reasons may call each other to justify their decisions in the face of a very different one.
Contraception is part of this. It doesn't matter what any church says about it. They stole an authority for themselves they don't have, claiming to speak with the voice of (a) god - the same way priests have done since humans invented gods. Bodies are the sole property of the owners: they have to suffer through every flaw and failure and pain and wound and illness that comes with it, so they can just as well enjoy the pleasures the body offers. When it comes down to it, contraception is nothing else than, say, irrigation: workings of nature are realized and tweaked to suit human needs - and let's face it, sex IS a human need, but who wants to have 25 children?
The same is true for abortion: as long as the fetus isn't able to survive without the mother, other people have no say about it. That changes, when a fetus or baby COULD or CAN survive without the mother (that is, with the help of someone else willing to act as a mother). See that? If you could take a fetus and transfer it into another (even artificial) womb, fine. As long as that is impossible, I do not see a reason to even debate this: mother wants to abort -> her decision, and hers alone.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 08:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me speak frankly on the issues of Abortion, Contraception and Stem cell Research.
Abortion, in my opinion is a heinous, wicked, devious act just as bad as murder and extortion. It is absolutely morally wrong to terminate an embryo just as it is nearing maturity for birth. Therefore, I am 100% pro-life on the issue of abortion.
Contraception is a difficult issue to consider, although I am nominally against it and I am certainly against the liberal use of the pill or the sale of condoms.
Stem Cell Research, I totally oppose for similar reasons to abortion, since it involves the use of aborted fetuses.
So do you have any reasons beside "I don't like it"?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 08:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
When it comes down to it, contraception is nothing else than, say, irrigation: workings of nature are realized and tweaked to suit human needs - and let's face it, sex IS a human need, but who wants to have 25 children?
Although I, myself, am not against it, I can at least understand people having an issue with abortion. Opposing contraception on the other hand can only mean two things:
1- You don't use your own mind and you follow the anachronical doctrine of the Catholic Church word by word.
2- You think sex is evil and should only be tolerated for the purpose of reproduction.
Both are not positions to be taken seriously, let alone have a discussion about.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 10:05 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Contraception is part of this. It doesn't matter what any church says about it. They stole an authority for themselves they don't have, claiming to speak with the voice of (a) god - the same way priests have done since humans invented gods.
It does not matter what any atheist says, murdering an unborn child is immoral.
You seem to love to make dogmatic statements condemning religion and claiming the religion invented gods and that they are liars for saying they have heard from a god. Yet you are making dogmatic statements about absolute truth yourself. I find atheist evangelism to be quite silly. Constantly preaching "the truth" while condemning others for preaching "the truth."
I am not opposed to any contraception unless the contraception kills an embryo. Then it is undeniably killing human life, spoken from a purely biological perspective. The cells of the fetus are multiplying so the fetus is alive. Tissue samples prove the baby is human (as if him being the product of human conception were not enough) so the unborn baby is (from a scientific perspective) human. So we have undeniable human life that is murdered in an abortion.
Of course, anyone is free to reject science and cling to an irrational claim that the fetus is not human life if he wants. Or to claim it is ok for Mommy to kill Baby because Mommy has no responsibility to anyone but herself and she can use her body as she sees fit. I'll address that last part in my next paragraph.
Quote:
The same is true for abortion: as long as the fetus isn't able to survive without the mother, other people have no say about it. That changes, when a fetus or baby COULD or CAN survive without the mother (that is, with the help of someone else willing to act as a mother). See that? If you could take a fetus and transfer it into another (even artificial) womb, fine. As long as that is impossible, I do not see a reason to even debate this: mother wants to abort -> her decision, and hers alone.
I have a right to control my body as long as I don't use my body to harm you. If I use my hands (which I have a right to control) to choke you to death I have become a murderer. In the same way, a woman has the right to control her body as long as she does not use her body to harm others. If she kills her baby then she is a murderer.
Children are not only dependent on their mother in the womb, they are dependent on her for many years after being born. Your position would logically lead to the conclusion that parents should be allowed to murder their young children without consequences. And indeed, there are liberals (and some appointed to office by Obama) who do advocate that position.
Murdering a child because you don't want the child is extremely evil.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 10:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You seem to love to make dogmatic statements condemning religion and claiming the religion invented gods and that they are liars for saying they have heard from a god. Yet you are making dogmatic statements about absolute truth yourself. I find atheist evangelism to be quite silly. Constantly preaching "the truth" while condemning others for preaching "the truth."
The -really simple- difference is he is not trying to prevent religious people from not having an abortion but they are trying to prevent non-religious people from having them. There is no scientific agreement as you claim, to the issue of when does the fetus become human, if there was, then abortion would be considered murder by secular law indeed, but it is not.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 10:39 AM |
|
|
Elodin:
Suppose the mother simply expels the embryo from her body and refuses to support it anymore. No one is killing the embryo - it dies of starvation or inability to survive outside the mother's womb. Is that wrong?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 10:48 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:50, 03 Apr 2013.
|
Quote:
Elodin:
Suppose the mother simply expels the embryo from her body and refuses to support it anymore. No one is killing the embryo - it dies of starvation or inability to survive outside the mother's womb. Is that wrong?
No, he's right on that one. With that logic, you can leave a new born baby on the highway too. It all comes down to "when does a human start being considered a human." Religious people -subjectively- believe the minute you are conceived you have a soul, on the other hand non- religious people think your consciousness is the function of your brain so before basic brain development we are simply not human yet.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 10:51 AM |
|
|
Exactly what artu is saying.
Elodin, the fact of the matter is, that it is completely irrelevant what you think about things that don't concern you, whether it's the question of contraception (none of your business when it comes to other people's behavior) OR abortion, since the fetus will die outside of the mother and there are a lot of ways for a mother to abort "naturally", so there is no way to actively support a fetus - change anything about their fate in any active, meaningful way.
A fetus that isn't wanted is nothing to fight for, because you cannot help them in any active way except by force against the only person that can in fact support the fetus. So what you think about abortion is just as meaningful as what you think about smoking or any other way for persons to harm themselves, since for all practical purposes there is no difference between a person harming herself or harming her fetus (which in turn means, it's irrelevant for the matter whether the fetus is considered living or not).
So you'd be much better advised to fight for those you can actively help, and that's the unwanted fetuses that are indeed born for whatever reasons.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with you having an OPINION on the matter: "If I was a woman I would never abort, because I think it's a horrible crime against life, god and every moral value I have", as hypothetical this opinion may be, since you are no woman - but that's it.
EDIT: @ artu
Quote:
No, he's right on that one. With that logic, you can leave a new born baby on the highway too. It all comes down to "when does a human start being considered a human."
I disagree with you. While the question, "when does a human start being considered a human", may be interesting philosophically or morally even, practical consideration obviously take precedence. Consider the following case:
You consider a fetus a human being from day X of the fertilization. Now say, a pregnant woman falls down a staircase, breaking an arm, but the fetus is killed/aborted with the incident, happening on day X + Y after fertilization.
That means, a human being came to death, and his or her death has to be investigated. Now, there are only two possibilities here:
a) the fall was voluntarily with the intention to kill the fetus; in that case it's murder. Or
b) the fall was an accident - in that case it was homicide by negligence.
Which would be absurd, practically spoken, since a law has to be enforceable, and this one wasn't.
Which means, practically there is a difference whether you do something with a completely separate being or whether something "happens because of direct dependence".
Practically spoken, human life starts only, when a baby can survive outside/without the mother (and of course technology and society help to make this possible ever earlier). Everything else is simply beside any relevant point.
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 11:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let me speak frankly on the issues of Abortion, Contraception and Stem cell Research.
Abortion, in my opinion is a heinous, wicked, devious act just as bad as murder and extortion. It is absolutely morally wrong to terminate an embryo just as it is nearing maturity for birth. Therefore, I am 100% pro-life on the issue of abortion.
Contraception is a difficult issue to consider, although I am nominally against it and I am certainly against the liberal use of the pill or the sale of condoms.
Stem Cell Research, I totally oppose for similar reasons to abortion, since it involves the use of aborted fetuses.
So do you have any reasons beside "I don't like it"?
Okay, so I'm speaking to a liberal athiest, but the reasons?
Abortion is morally wrong. Besides it causes a lot of pain to get an abortion for the woman. Speaking as a Christian, when a woman gets pregnant, God places a soul in the embryo. In other words, life begins at contraception. Therefore, if you abort the unborn child, you are practically murdering an innocent victim: the unborn child. This is why I am passionately pro-life, why do people like you treat killing a cow for food as murder and yet killing an unborn child isn't? Doublespeak here. (I don't see meat as murder).
While I don't use contraception (I don't have a spouse yet, but even then, I won't use the pill), I am concerned about the widespread use of the pill and condom and believe that it's not a good thing to make them widely available.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research? I don't want to talk about it. Besides it's absolutely disgusting.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 03, 2013 11:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Abortion, in my opinion is a heinous, wicked, devious act just as bad as murder and extortion.
Just because you think or believe it is so?
Quote:
It is absolutely morally wrong to terminate an embryo just as it is nearing maturity for birth.
[/qupte]
It is far worse to give birth to a child that will have no future, will probably die of starvation or become a thug or criminal.
Quote:
Therefore, I am 100% pro-life on the issue of abortion.
Good for you. I dont think you have met people who are suffering right now because their parents gave birth to them just to end up in streets and worse.
Quote:
Contraception is a difficult issue to consider, although I am nominally against it and I am certainly against the liberal use of the pill or the sale of condoms.
And why do contraceptions hurt your feelings now? If you dont like them, dont stop others from using them.
Quote:
Abortion is morally wrong.
That depends on the eye of the beholder. For you it is wrong, for those molested rape victims not at all.
Quote:
Besides it causes a lot of pain to get an abortion for the woman.
Its far less pain than having to raise an unwanted child.
Quote:
Speaking as a Christian, when a woman gets pregnant, God places a soul in the embryo.
....
Quote:
In other words, life begins at contraception.
Fine but that life is not selfaware. I would consider something alive only when its brain has been formed.
Quote:
Therefore, if you abort the unborn child, you are practically murdering an innocent victim: the unborn child.
How can you murder something that is not self-aware?
Quote:
While I don't use contraception (I don't have a spouse yet, but even then, I won't use the pill), I am concerned about the widespread use of the pill and condom and believe that it's not a good thing to make them widely available.
That pill helps women prevent unwanted births.
Abstinence is good for preventing STDs but contraception helps to prevent unwanted births.
Quote:
Embryonic Stem Cell Research? I don't want to talk about it. Besides it's absolutely disgusting.
Embryonic stem cell research is one part of medicine that will allow future patients to their own organs so that they wont have to wait for donors.
Imagine the impact something like that would have for those in need.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
