|
| Thread: Chinese couples now allowed two children. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted November 05, 2015 01:48 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:52, 05 Nov 2015.
|
@JJ
You claimed there was I not a single non-religious reason not to use birth control. I listed four reasons a couple may wish to have as many children as possible, none of which involved religion.
You then said "any form of austerity is against human nature." I refuted that with a simple example that has nothing to do with religion.
If you want to continue to believe "religiondoneit" is the explaination for any place that has overpopulation or starvation you will not hear anything that contradicts your beliefs.
@EnergyZ
I see nothing wrong with the need for labor as being a reason for parents to have more children. Decent humans will love their children no matter what motivated them to have children.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 05, 2015 02:01 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
@JJ
You claimed there was I not a single non-religious reason not to use birth control.
Actually he wrote family planning, not birth control. They aren't exactly the same thing.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2015 08:38 AM |
|
|
And actually, he is starting again to debate completely beside the points - his economic reason to "have as many children as possible", is actually the worst kind of example for "family planning", because part of the family planning involved has been to "dispose of" female (babies) - a common practice in India, for example.
There is actually nothing to debate, because the facts speak for themselves.
Common sense would dictate that people bring their individual "birth rate" (how many children they have, if any) in line with their personal economic situation - if you are not able to feed yourself properly, how are you supposed to be able to feed additional mouths? In the first world, living on public welfare in combination with an overabundance of available foodstuff and so on, this is absolutely no problem, especially since general birth rate is pretty low.
However, in the 3rd and even 2nd world it is. Nearly 900.000.000 starving people worldwide, with 1% of them starving to death, and a lot more dying because of the consequences of malnutrition (for example greater vulnerability to deseases).
Factually, there are obviously a lot of people who give birth to children, even though they cannot properly feed them. Why would that be?
Reasons are:
1) No or low education; people are simply ignorant about the bigger picture;
2) Women generally considered as something to boss around;
Religion is counter-productive as well, either supporting the 2nd point (especially the Islam, but Christian religion isn't known as a promoter of equal rights for women either) or offering counter-productive education by telling people that sex for sex's sake is evil (which is actually the reason why contraception is considered evil as well, since contraception means you want sex for sex's sake and not allow for the chance to have sex for it's "actual purpose") and that sex before marriage is evil as well.
If this whole nonsense about sex had any grain of truth in it, there would be no sex once a woman was pregnant, because she can't get doubly pregnant, so once a woman IS pregnant, any sex will ALWAYS be sex for sex's sake and therefore evil.
Anyway - this way to go at things doesn't work in our world (for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with the issue at hand), and it doesn't work in the 3rd world for slightly different reasons that are based on 1) and 2) above plus 3), the fact that sex is fun, and everyone wants fun, especially when the rest of your life isn't much fun.
This is a very, very old knowledge - the poor procreate because there is nothing else to do for them; it's that simple.
|
|
EnergyZ
Legendary Hero
President of MM Wiki
|
|
posted November 05, 2015 11:49 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
I see nothing wrong with the need for labor as being a reason for parents to have more children. Decent humans will love their children no matter what motivated them to have children.
Then you fail to see the bigger picture. For no matter how much love you offer to the child, it is still wrong. For similar thing has happened in US, when the people of Africa were brought there as slaves centuries ago. The slavemasters had them give birth to new children, or, as they may have viewed it, as new slaves.
So no, no matter how much love you give to the child, it is still wrong. Although in the example, that was being forced.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 05, 2015 02:10 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 14:12, 05 Nov 2015.
|
JollyJoker said:
If this whole nonsense about sex had any grain of truth in it, there would be no sex once a woman was pregnant, because she can't get doubly pregnant, so once a woman IS pregnant, any sex will ALWAYS be sex for sex's sake and therefore evil.
Not to mention sex after menopause, or sex while one or both partners is naturally infertile.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 05, 2015 02:32 PM |
|
|
|
Yup, exactly, and it's not that difficult to see either.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 07, 2015 08:18 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:41, 07 Nov 2015.
|
Sadly some people enjoy bashing religion and do so with falsehoods.
Christianity does not teach that a married couple having sex for fun is sin. In fact the New Testament says married people should have sex frequently and only abstain from sex if the chose to during a brief fast.
Quote:
1 Corinthians 7:3-5New King James Version (NKJV)
3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
As usual Christian bashers are ignorant of the religion they hate on.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 07, 2015 08:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
contraception is considered evil as well, since contraception means you want sex for sex's sake and not allow for the chance to have sex for it's "actual purpose") and that sex before marriage is evil as well.
Christianity in general does not teach against contraception. Catholicism does but I can't think of another denomination that does and the New Testament does not prohibit it.
I only oppose abortificants, not contraception.
Sure, sex before marriage is sin and can result in many troubles.
I find it quite bizzare that the same people who claim it is a woman's right to snuff out human life in her womb say a woman has no right to give birth unless the government says so
____________
Revelation
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 07, 2015 09:00 PM |
|
|
Elodin said:
I find it quite bizzare that the same people who claim it is a woman's right to snuff out human life in her womb say a woman has no right to give birth unless the government says so
if you are referring to me, i don't care WHERE the enforcement comes from, as long as it puts an end to procreation long enough for humans to get their snow together and improve the state of the planet that sustains them.
"rights" do not concern me in the least. the way i see it, humans don't have a "right" to anything as a species.
rights, being a human idea, should only be used or applied when everything is in balance, between us and the environments of the world. human rights should never be prioritized before the environment, ever.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2015 12:05 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
I only oppose abortificants, not contraception.
Sure, sex before marriage is sin and can result in many troubles.
Yeah, and there we are safely in irrational land: if contraception is ok - why would ANY sex be WRONG (sin)? Makes no sense - none whatsoever. Without contraception - be it forbidden, none available, whatever: sex outside of marriage being taboo makes sense. Right?
|
| |
|
|
