The Moral Case For Abortion and Birth Control:

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 03:02 PM

The Case For Abortion: 500,000 Lost Lives Annually

Quote:

Each year on this planet, according to the World Health Organization, 10 million children under the age of 12 and 8 million adults die of starvation or related diseases. Their lives up to the point of death speak to the inhumanity of humanity toward itself—hopelessness, lack of sanitation, diseases, misery, suffering, hunger, lack of water and a host of horrific consequences.

What drives such fecundity madness? Ancient religions such as the Catholic Church, Islam, Hindus and many others cannot unstick themselves from the 1st and 6th centuries. The Pope stands against any form of birth control along with Islam and other religions. Ancient cultures fail to understand their own predicaments. One look at India’s 1.2 billion people illustrates my point—incredible poverty and misery for countless millions. Most live in denial even while mass starvation continues all around them. Example: 1,000 children die every day in India from dysentery, diarrhea and other water borne diseases. (Source: www.populationmedia.org) Yet, India adds 11 million net gain annually into the population nightmare of their country.

Most abortions that are performed are performed in the first-trimester. At that stage the fetus lacks a nervous system capable of suffering and is not capable of contemplating its existence. The children who suffer and die due to poverty are capable of suffering. You can argue that it is possible to care about both but those who fight against birth control and abortion clearly place the priority of sperm and ovum over the life of the mother. Those who fight against abortion place the priority of the unborn fetus above a living, breathing, feeling person. You can argue that I'm engaging in a false dichotomy but the persistence of poverty, the generational aspect of it, demonstrates that there is a limit to how much we can or will intervene. The availability of birth control and abortion to women who can make informed decisions about their reproduction is proven to reduce suffering.

StankApe · 2nd February 2013, 03:05 PM

Problem seems to be that the wealthy countries reproduce too little, and the poor countries reproduce too often.

I am not familiar enough with Hindu to comment on their doctrines in regards to reproduction, but the Catholic Church bears much of the responsibility for Africa and South/Central America

Mudcat · 2nd February 2013, 03:13 PM

It's precisely because the religious practices of living in the past and encouraging beliefs into such concepts as 'the golden age' and 'the good old days' that I believe that humanity will never be able to step into the future or find peace so long as religion exists.

Bikewer · 2nd February 2013, 03:14 PM

Alas, a tendency towards fecundity seems built-in to humans, and is generally looked on with approval by society.
In "developing" countries, the high birth rate is perhaps conditioned by the extremely high child death-rate.... I listened to one of those NPR "The World" segments where in one African country the villagers don't even name infants until they are one year old...The death rate under a year being so high.

Only sort of related... It seems generally the case that those who warn against overpopulation and it's attendant problems are ignored or shouted down... That any attempt to limit the population is seen as somehow evil or unnatural.

joesixpack · 2nd February 2013, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

Problem seems to be that the wealthy countries reproduce too little, and the poor countries reproduce too often.

I am not familiar enough with Hindu to comment on their doctrines in regards to reproduction, but the Catholic Church bears much of the responsibility for Africa and South/Central America

No, that is completely wrong. Look at the birth rate in affluent Catholic countries vs. poor Catholic countries. Italy has a negative population growth rate, for example. Hell, just look at the birth rate among affluent Catholics.

The difference is in poverty vs. affluence, not in religious leanings.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

No, that is completely wrong. Look at the birth rate in affluent Catholic countries vs. poor Catholic countries. Italy has a negative population growth rate, for example. Hell, just look at the birth rate among affluent Catholics.

The difference is in poverty vs. affluence, not in religious leanings.

I would submit that it is a combination. Educated people and the wealthy, IIRC are far less likely to adhere to religious dogma.

Originally Posted by The Big Picture

More Poverty = More Religion

Religion has a surprisingly high correlation with poverty, according to a Gallup survey conducted in more than 100 countries. The more poverty a nation has, the higher the “religiosity” in that nation. In general, richer countries are less religious than poorer ones.

The biggest exception? The United States, which has the highest religiosity relative to its wealth on the planet.

Tsukasa Buddha · 2nd February 2013, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

Problem seems to be that the wealthy countries reproduce too little, and the poor countries reproduce too often.

By what metric are you basing that judgement on? We know that reproduction rates decrease with prosperity, but how does that make one "more correct"? I would argue that each is doing the rational thing in response to their own environment.

As for the OP, I find the argument to be poor, and borderline Malthusian. Humans make the problem of poor resource distribution and unequal development, therefore limiting the reproduction of the poor is good?

NWO Sentryman · 2nd February 2013, 03:41 PM

Contraception, I can fully support, but abortion for socioeconomic reasons? I'm really not sure. It's pretty much saying that life is not worth living from my perspective. What is the point of living if you think that your children will live in a nightmare? You might as well launch every nuclear missile and glass the planet if that were the case.

StankApe · 2nd February 2013, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I would submit that it is a combination. Educated people and the wealth, IIRC are far less likely to adhere to religious dogma.

^^^

this

Life is rarely so simple that we can apply one simple variable as the cause of any given issue. But the combo of poor and Catholic seems to paint the picture of too many chillens.

BobTheCoward · 2nd February 2013, 03:54 PM

A moral case...for speaking to the choir or some moral philosophies.

I see it completely ineffective for those with religious misgivings. For one, reducing suffering at the cost of a soul is not a valid choice.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

As for the OP, I find the argument to be poor, and borderline Malthusian.

This isn't a valid argument. It does not advance the discussion.

Let me state up front that I'm a big fan of Julian Simon. If you are not familiar with his battle against Malthusian thought see this. That said, Malthus has not been rebutted. There is only a finite number of humans that the Earth can sustain. Malthus was wrong in the short term as he failed to factor the ability of humans to adapt. However, they are not likely to be able to adapt to an infinite number of humans. Your use of "Malthusian" is ad hominem. Malthusian isn't Eugenics or Nazism or Stalinsm or any other ism.

Quote:

Humans make the problem of poor resource distribution and unequal development, therefore limiting the reproduction of the poor is good?

I don't see how your question follows from your premises. It strikes me as a non sequitur. I don't even understand your point. But, let me address what I think you are saying. There is no evidence that having nore children will reduce poverty. Empowering women will.

a UN assessment

Cinnamon Life · 2nd February 2013, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Contraception, I can fully support, but abortion for socioeconomic reasons? I'm really not sure. It's pretty much saying that life is not worth living from my perspective. What is the point of living if you think that your children will live in a nightmare? You might as well launch every nuclear missile and glass the planet if that were the case.

Somewhat agreed. Saying that large chunks of 3rd world populations are better off dead could be a dangerous mentality to have. Not to mention callous and defeatist. Especially considering there is such a disparity of resources and equality in general in the world.

I mean apply this to the US, there is a much higher percentage of minorities that are born in broken homes and are involved in crime. Should we encourage those particular groups to have more abortions or discourage them from breeding. It's kind of eugenic.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

A moral case...for speaking to the choir or some moral philosophies.

I see it completely ineffective for those with religious misgivings. For one, reducing suffering at the cost of a soul is not a valid choice.

Humans are not monolithic. I was religious and believed that abortion was wrong. Reason is our only hope. It won't change everyone but if we all discuss and debate reason will win in the end.

Social and moral progress is the equilibrium in an adversarial system (paraphrased) --Michael Sandell.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Cinnamon Life

Somewhat agreed. Saying that large chunks of 3rd world populations are better off dead could be a dangerous mentality to have.

No one is arguing that. I am arguing that birth control and abortion can reduce the suffering of those who are already alive.

Quote:

Should we encourage those particular groups to have more abortions or discourage them from breeding. It's kind of eugenic.

No one is encouraging abortions. I am saying that we should provide women with information to make informed choices and make birth control and abortion available on demand.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Contraception, I can fully support, but abortion for socioeconomic reasons? I'm really not sure. It's pretty much saying that life is not worth living from my perspective. What is the point of living if you think that your children will live in a nightmare? You might as well launch every nuclear missile and glass the planet if that were the case.

No one is arguing this. NO ONE.

I am arguing that policies should be such that abortion and birth control are available on demand and that women should be given the choice and education to make an informed choice.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 04:14 PM

I'm arguing that because of religious taboos many women do not have a choice. I'm arguing that women should be allowed to choose. If you give them that choice and educate them about the options available there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies and less poverty and less crime.

NWO Sentryman · 2nd February 2013, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm arguing that because of religious taboos many women do not have a choice. I'm arguing that women should be allowed to choose. If you give them that choice and educate them about the options available there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies and less poverty and less crime.

What about Russia? It has a very high abortion rate (I think it's higher than their birth rate) yet it is wracked with poverty and crime.

kellyb · 2nd February 2013, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

What about Russia? It has a very high abortion rate (I think it's higher than their birth rate) yet it is wracked with poverty and crime.

That doesn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that it would be even worse if there was no birth control and far fewer abortions.

Cainkane1 · 2nd February 2013, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The Case For Abortion: 500,000 Lost Lives Annually

Most abortions that are performed are performed in the first-trimester. At that stage the fetus lacks a nervous system capable of suffering and is not capable of contemplating its existence. The children who suffer and die due to poverty are capable of suffering. You can argue that it is possible to care about both but those who fight against birth control and abortion clearly place the priority of sperm and ovum over the life of the mother. Those who fight against abortion place the priority of the unborn fetus above a living, breathing, feeling person. You can argue that I'm engaging in a false dichotomy but the persistence of poverty, the generational aspect of it, demonstrates that there is a limit to how much we can or will intervene. The availability of birth control and abortion to women who can make informed decisions about their reproduction is proven to reduce suffering.

I have this to say about abortion. If a woman has consentual sex and gets pregnant then I look down on abortion. Notice I said woman as oppposed to girl. Teenage girls might be exempt from this aversion of mine.

This is not to say I believe abortion should be illegal. Women deserve to be in control of their bodies and if they want to terminate their pregnancy they should have the right to do so. I just don't like it personally.

Rape victims or women pregnant with diseased fetuses with problems such as Tay Sachs disease who get an abortion I completely understand.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

What about Russia? It has a very high abortion rate (I think it's higher than their birth rate) yet it is wracked with poverty and crime.

I do not claim that abortion is panacea. Social problems like crime and poverty are complex. I'm arguing that the availability of birth control and abortion on demand is better than prohibitions against abortion.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I have this to say about abortion. If a woman has consentual sex and gets pregnant then I look down on abortion. Notice I said woman as oppposed to girl. Teenage girls might be exempt from this aversion of mine.

This is not to say I believe abortion should be illegal. Women deserve to be in control of their bodies and if they want to terminate their pregnancy they should have the right to do so. I just don't like it personally.

Rape victims or women pregnant with diseased fetuses with problems such as Tay Sachs disease who get an abortion I completely understand.

Thanks. Let me first say that I respect your opinion and think it is light years ahead of many in the Christian Right.

That said, I think you have put your finger on the problem. Our cultural aversion to sex. It's arguable that cultural taboos against birth control and abortion are based in large part on our disgust with fornication. BTW: Not an attack on you or your opinion. I'm simply stating another one.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 04:36 PM

In my opinion, sex is not a sin. It's a cultural construct (mostly religious) and exists to control people.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Mister Earl · 2nd February 2013, 05:01 PM

I'd also like to make the point that the "every life is sacred / abortion is wrong" outlook in Christianity is a manufactured controversy. It is *not* biblically sound. Specifically, god calls for the deaths of enemy children at least once, and if you read the second two thirds of Numbers Five, it actually details how a woman presumed to be promiscious may be given an abortion and even sterilized! By a priest! Inside a church!

StankApe · 2nd February 2013, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks. Let me first say that I respect your opinion and think it is light years ahead of many in the Christian Right.

That said, I think you have put your finger on the problem. Our cultural aversion to sex. It's arguable that cultural taboos against birth control and abortion are based in large part on our disgust with fornication. BTW: Not an attack on you or your opinion. I'm simply stating another one.

bolded mine

yer doing it wrong!

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

bolded mine

yer doing it wrong!

No, you are, you failed to take into account "The Jungian thing".

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

StankApe · 2nd February 2013, 05:16 PM

That Colonel might be the most accurate portrayal of a senior army officer ever caught on film. He's gruff, to the point, but not a demoralizing asshat like they usually are shown.

I wonder if he was an actual retired Colonel and not an actor?

Virus · 2nd February 2013, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

The Case For Abortion: 500,000 Lost Lives Annually

Most abortions that are performed are performed in the first-trimester. At that stage the fetus lacks a nervous system capable of suffering and is not capable of contemplating its existence. The children who suffer and die due to poverty are capable of suffering. You can argue that it is possible to care about both but those who fight against birth control and abortion clearly place the priority of sperm and ovum over the life of the mother. Those who fight against abortion place the priority of the unborn fetus above a living, breathing, feeling person. You can argue that I'm engaging in a false dichotomy but the persistence of poverty, the generational aspect of it, demonstrates that there is a limit to how much we can or will intervene. The availability of birth control and abortion to women who can make informed decisions about their reproduction is proven to reduce suffering.

So you're saying the poor should breed less?

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

So you're saying the poor should breed less?

No. I'm saying that we should make birth control and abortion free on demand, provide proper sex education and let people make informed choice. I'm saying I believe in personal responsibility.
I'm saying that when we provide *comprehensive sex education, birth control and abortion that it will make the lives of women better.

Are you saying you don't want to make the lives of women better?
Are you saying that you are against personal responsibility?

*I should have included comprehensive sex education in the OP. I apologize for failing to do that.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

That Colonel might be the most accurate portrayal of a senior army officer ever caught on film. He's gruff, to the point, but not a demoralizing asshat like they usually are shown.

I wonder if he was an actual retired Colonel and not an actor?

I don't know that but I do know that the Drill Sargent at the beginning, Lee Ermy, was in the Marine Corps and I believe a drill sergeant. He's played at least two drill sergeants that I know of.

Here he is in the same movie. Tell me what you think of his portrayal.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

StankApe · 2nd February 2013, 05:40 PM

I'm a movie junky man. I've seen ever Kubrick film so much i could almost do Rocky Horror type of revue for them!!!

It's a funny story how Ermy got the gig. He was there as a military consultant and when Kubrick heard him giving instruction to the actor riginally hired to play the Drill Sgt he said " why don't you just play the part?"

joesixpack · 2nd February 2013, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

^^^

this

Life is rarely so simple that we can apply one simple variable as the cause of any given issue. But the combo of poor and Catholic seems to paint the picture of too many chillens.

So does poor and Muslim and poor and Hindu. Mostly just poor. Religious encouragement of procreation is mostly post hoc rationalization of what people will do anyway.

NWO Sentryman · 2nd February 2013, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

I'm a movie junky man. I've seen ever Kubrick film so much i could almost do Rocky Horror type of revue for them!!!

It's a funny story how Ermy got the gig. He was there as a military consultant and when Kubrick heard him giving instruction to the actor riginally hired to play the Drill Sgt he said " why don't you just play the part?"

And he was also one of the few actors Kubrick allowed to ad-lib for a script.

NWO Sentryman · 2nd February 2013, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I don't know that but I do know that the Drill Sargent at the beginning, Lee Ermy, was in the Marine Corps and I believe a drill sergeant. He's played at least two drill sergeants that I know of.

Here he is in the same movie. Tell me what you think of his portrayal.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Yeah, the sergeant in FMJ failed as a drill sergeant, since one of his recruits went insane under his watch and he didn't notice it at all.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

So does poor and Muslim and poor and Hindu. Mostly just poor. Religious encouragement of procreation is mostly post hoc rationalization of what people will do anyway.

I don't think anyone has argued that poor people copulate more than rich people. What is being argued is A.) that poor people are more likely to adhere to religious proscription and not use birth control or have abortions. B.) Religious proscription against birth control and abortion are immoral.

Can we stick to the thesis of the thread?

Thesis: Prohibitions against birth control and abortion are immoral.

joesixpack · 2nd February 2013, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thesis: Prohibitions against birth control and abortion are immoral.

Well since I agree with the thesis I have nothing to add.

Virus · 2nd February 2013, 05:55 PM

Frosty Woolridge writes for sites owned by Jeff Rense and David Duke.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

Apparently Frosty Woolridge writes for sites owned by Jeff Rense and David Duke.

Do you have a point? Does that fact invalidate his arguments? Are you attempting to poison the well?

Virus · 2nd February 2013, 06:08 PM

Frosty Woolridge has been a guest on Neo-Nazi radio shows.

RandFan · 2nd February 2013, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

Frosty Woolridge has been a guest on Neo-Nazi radio shows.

So, you are going to refuse to answer my questions and insist on poisoning the well.

I did not post that article to establish any empirical fact.
I posted it for the arguments made.
Can you address the arguments and stop attacking the person making the argument?
Could you please make a valid argument?

Quote:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).

abaddon · 2nd February 2013, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

I'm a movie junky man. I've seen ever Kubrick film so much i could almost do Rocky Horror type of revue for them!!!

It's a funny story how Ermy got the gig. He was there as a military consultant and when Kubrick heard him giving instruction to the actor riginally hired to play the Drill Sgt he said " why don't you just play the part?"

And he actually ad-libbed those rants.

2nd February 2013, 03:02 PM	#1
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	The Moral Case For Abortion and Birth Control: The Case For Abortion: 500,000 Lost Lives Annually Quote: Each year on this planet, according to the World Health Organization, 10 million children under the age of 12 and 8 million adults die of starvation or related diseases. Their lives up to the point of death speak to the inhumanity of humanity toward itself—hopelessness, lack of sanitation, diseases, misery, suffering, hunger, lack of water and a host of horrific consequences. What drives such fecundity madness? Ancient religions such as the Catholic Church, Islam, Hindus and many others cannot unstick themselves from the 1st and 6th centuries. The Pope stands against any form of birth control along with Islam and other religions. Ancient cultures fail to understand their own predicaments. One look at India’s 1.2 billion people illustrates my point—incredible poverty and misery for countless millions. Most live in denial even while mass starvation continues all around them. Example: 1,000 children die every day in India from dysentery, diarrhea and other water borne diseases. (Source: www.populationmedia.org) Yet, India adds 11 million net gain annually into the population nightmare of their country. Most abortions that are performed are performed in the first-trimester. At that stage the fetus lacks a nervous system capable of suffering and is not capable of contemplating its existence. The children who suffer and die due to poverty are capable of suffering. You can argue that it is possible to care about both but those who fight against birth control and abortion clearly place the priority of sperm and ovum over the life of the mother. Those who fight against abortion place the priority of the unborn fetus above a living, breathing, feeling person. You can argue that I'm engaging in a false dichotomy but the persistence of poverty, the generational aspect of it, demonstrates that there is a limit to how much we can or will intervene. The availability of birth control and abortion to women who can make informed decisions about their reproduction is proven to reduce suffering.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd February 2013, 03:05 PM	#2
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Problem seems to be that the wealthy countries reproduce too little, and the poor countries reproduce too often. I am not familiar enough with Hindu to comment on their doctrines in regards to reproduction, but the Catholic Church bears much of the responsibility for Africa and South/Central America
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

2nd February 2013, 03:13 PM	#3
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,679	It's precisely because the religious practices of living in the past and encouraging beliefs into such concepts as 'the golden age' and 'the good old days' that I believe that humanity will never be able to step into the future or find peace so long as religion exists.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

2nd February 2013, 03:15 PM	#5
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,381	Originally Posted by StankApe Problem seems to be that the wealthy countries reproduce too little, and the poor countries reproduce too often. I am not familiar enough with Hindu to comment on their doctrines in regards to reproduction, but the Catholic Church bears much of the responsibility for Africa and South/Central America No, that is completely wrong. Look at the birth rate in affluent Catholic countries vs. poor Catholic countries. Italy has a negative population growth rate, for example. Hell, just look at the birth rate among affluent Catholics. The difference is in poverty vs. affluence, not in religious leanings.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

2nd February 2013, 03:34 PM	#6
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by joesixpack No, that is completely wrong. Look at the birth rate in affluent Catholic countries vs. poor Catholic countries. Italy has a negative population growth rate, for example. Hell, just look at the birth rate among affluent Catholics. The difference is in poverty vs. affluence, not in religious leanings. I would submit that it is a combination. Educated people and the wealthy, IIRC are far less likely to adhere to religious dogma. Originally Posted by The Big Picture More Poverty = More Religion Religion has a surprisingly high correlation with poverty, according to a Gallup survey conducted in more than 100 countries. The more poverty a nation has, the higher the “religiosity” in that nation. In general, richer countries are less religious than poorer ones. The biggest exception? The United States, which has the highest religiosity relative to its wealth on the planet.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 2nd February 2013 at 03:44 PM.

2nd February 2013, 03:14 PM	#4
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	Alas, a tendency towards fecundity seems built-in to humans, and is generally looked on with approval by society. In "developing" countries, the high birth rate is perhaps conditioned by the extremely high child death-rate.... I listened to one of those NPR "The World" segments where in one African country the villagers don't even name infants until they are one year old...The death rate under a year being so high. Only sort of related... It seems generally the case that those who warn against overpopulation and it's attendant problems are ignored or shouted down... That any attempt to limit the population is seen as somehow evil or unnatural.

2nd February 2013, 03:41 PM	#7
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,883	Originally Posted by StankApe Problem seems to be that the wealthy countries reproduce too little, and the poor countries reproduce too often. By what metric are you basing that judgement on? We know that reproduction rates decrease with prosperity, but how does that make one "more correct"? I would argue that each is doing the rational thing in response to their own environment. As for the OP, I find the argument to be poor, and borderline Malthusian. Humans make the problem of poor resource distribution and unequal development, therefore limiting the reproduction of the poor is good?
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

2nd February 2013, 03:41 PM	#8
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,769	Contraception, I can fully support, but abortion for socioeconomic reasons? I'm really not sure. It's pretty much saying that life is not worth living from my perspective. What is the point of living if you think that your children will live in a nightmare? You might as well launch every nuclear missile and glass the planet if that were the case.
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East

2nd February 2013, 03:43 PM	#9
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by RandFan I would submit that it is a combination. Educated people and the wealth, IIRC are far less likely to adhere to religious dogma. ^^^ this Life is rarely so simple that we can apply one simple variable as the cause of any given issue. But the combo of poor and Catholic seems to paint the picture of too many chillens.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

2nd February 2013, 03:54 PM	#10
BobTheCoward Muse Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 699	A moral case...for speaking to the choir or some moral philosophies. I see it completely ineffective for those with religious misgivings. For one, reducing suffering at the cost of a soul is not a valid choice.
BobTheCoward Muse Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 699

2nd February 2013, 04:00 PM	#11
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha As for the OP, I find the argument to be poor, and borderline Malthusian. This isn't a valid argument. It does not advance the discussion. Let me state up front that I'm a big fan of Julian Simon. If you are not familiar with his battle against Malthusian thought see this. That said, Malthus has not been rebutted. There is only a finite number of humans that the Earth can sustain. Malthus was wrong in the short term as he failed to factor the ability of humans to adapt. However, they are not likely to be able to adapt to an infinite number of humans. Your use of "Malthusian" is ad hominem. Malthusian isn't Eugenics or Nazism or Stalinsm or any other ism. Quote: Humans make the problem of poor resource distribution and unequal development, therefore limiting the reproduction of the poor is good? I don't see how your question follows from your premises. It strikes me as a non sequitur. I don't even understand your point. But, let me address what I think you are saying. There is no evidence that having nore children will reduce poverty. Empowering women will. a UN assessment
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 2nd February 2013 at 04:01 PM.

2nd February 2013, 04:02 PM	#12
Cinnamon Life Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Syracuse NY Posts: 277	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman Contraception, I can fully support, but abortion for socioeconomic reasons? I'm really not sure. It's pretty much saying that life is not worth living from my perspective. What is the point of living if you think that your children will live in a nightmare? You might as well launch every nuclear missile and glass the planet if that were the case. Somewhat agreed. Saying that large chunks of 3rd world populations are better off dead could be a dangerous mentality to have. Not to mention callous and defeatist. Especially considering there is such a disparity of resources and equality in general in the world. I mean apply this to the US, there is a much higher percentage of minorities that are born in broken homes and are involved in crime. Should we encourage those particular groups to have more abortions or discourage them from breeding. It's kind of eugenic.

2nd February 2013, 04:04 PM	#13
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward A moral case...for speaking to the choir or some moral philosophies. I see it completely ineffective for those with religious misgivings. For one, reducing suffering at the cost of a soul is not a valid choice. Humans are not monolithic. I was religious and believed that abortion was wrong. Reason is our only hope. It won't change everyone but if we all discuss and debate reason will win in the end. Social and moral progress is the equilibrium in an adversarial system (paraphrased) --Michael Sandell.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd February 2013, 04:05 PM	#14
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by Cinnamon Life Somewhat agreed. Saying that large chunks of 3rd world populations are better off dead could be a dangerous mentality to have. No one is arguing that. I am arguing that birth control and abortion can reduce the suffering of those who are already alive. Quote: Should we encourage those particular groups to have more abortions or discourage them from breeding. It's kind of eugenic. No one is encouraging abortions. I am saying that we should provide women with information to make informed choices and make birth control and abortion available on demand.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 2nd February 2013 at 04:12 PM.

2nd February 2013, 04:11 PM	#15
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman Contraception, I can fully support, but abortion for socioeconomic reasons? I'm really not sure. It's pretty much saying that life is not worth living from my perspective. What is the point of living if you think that your children will live in a nightmare? You might as well launch every nuclear missile and glass the planet if that were the case. No one is arguing this. NO ONE. I am arguing that policies should be such that abortion and birth control are available on demand and that women should be given the choice and education to make an informed choice.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 2nd February 2013 at 04:12 PM.

2nd February 2013, 04:14 PM	#16
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	I'm arguing that because of religious taboos many women do not have a choice. I'm arguing that women should be allowed to choose. If you give them that choice and educate them about the options available there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies and less poverty and less crime.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd February 2013, 04:18 PM	#17
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,769	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm arguing that because of religious taboos many women do not have a choice. I'm arguing that women should be allowed to choose. If you give them that choice and educate them about the options available there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies and less poverty and less crime. What about Russia? It has a very high abortion rate (I think it's higher than their birth rate) yet it is wracked with poverty and crime.
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East

2nd February 2013, 04:24 PM	#18
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman What about Russia? It has a very high abortion rate (I think it's higher than their birth rate) yet it is wracked with poverty and crime. That doesn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that it would be even worse if there was no birth control and far fewer abortions.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

2nd February 2013, 04:27 PM	#19
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,189	Originally Posted by RandFan The Case For Abortion: 500,000 Lost Lives Annually Most abortions that are performed are performed in the first-trimester. At that stage the fetus lacks a nervous system capable of suffering and is not capable of contemplating its existence. The children who suffer and die due to poverty are capable of suffering. You can argue that it is possible to care about both but those who fight against birth control and abortion clearly place the priority of sperm and ovum over the life of the mother. Those who fight against abortion place the priority of the unborn fetus above a living, breathing, feeling person. You can argue that I'm engaging in a false dichotomy but the persistence of poverty, the generational aspect of it, demonstrates that there is a limit to how much we can or will intervene. The availability of birth control and abortion to women who can make informed decisions about their reproduction is proven to reduce suffering. I have this to say about abortion. If a woman has consentual sex and gets pregnant then I look down on abortion. Notice I said woman as oppposed to girl. Teenage girls might be exempt from this aversion of mine. This is not to say I believe abortion should be illegal. Women deserve to be in control of their bodies and if they want to terminate their pregnancy they should have the right to do so. I just don't like it personally. Rape victims or women pregnant with diseased fetuses with problems such as Tay Sachs disease who get an abortion I completely understand.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

2nd February 2013, 04:29 PM	#20
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman What about Russia? It has a very high abortion rate (I think it's higher than their birth rate) yet it is wracked with poverty and crime. I do not claim that abortion is panacea. Social problems like crime and poverty are complex. I'm arguing that the availability of birth control and abortion on demand is better than prohibitions against abortion.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd February 2013, 04:33 PM	#21
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 I have this to say about abortion. If a woman has consentual sex and gets pregnant then I look down on abortion. Notice I said woman as oppposed to girl. Teenage girls might be exempt from this aversion of mine. This is not to say I believe abortion should be illegal. Women deserve to be in control of their bodies and if they want to terminate their pregnancy they should have the right to do so. I just don't like it personally. Rape victims or women pregnant with diseased fetuses with problems such as Tay Sachs disease who get an abortion I completely understand. Thanks. Let me first say that I respect your opinion and think it is light years ahead of many in the Christian Right. That said, I think you have put your finger on the problem. Our cultural aversion to sex. It's arguable that cultural taboos against birth control and abortion are based in large part on our disgust with fornication. BTW: Not an attack on you or your opinion. I'm simply stating another one.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd February 2013, 05:01 PM	#23
Mister Earl Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,116	I'd also like to make the point that the "every life is sacred / abortion is wrong" outlook in Christianity is a manufactured controversy. It is not biblically sound. Specifically, god calls for the deaths of enemy children at least once, and if you read the second two thirds of Numbers Five, it actually details how a woman presumed to be promiscious may be given an abortion and even sterilized! By a priest! Inside a church!

2nd February 2013, 05:06 PM	#24
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by RandFan Thanks. Let me first say that I respect your opinion and think it is light years ahead of many in the Christian Right. That said, I think you have put your finger on the problem. Our cultural aversion to sex. It's arguable that cultural taboos against birth control and abortion are based in large part on our disgust with fornication. BTW: Not an attack on you or your opinion. I'm simply stating another one. bolded mine yer doing it wrong!
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

2nd February 2013, 05:16 PM	#26
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	That Colonel might be the most accurate portrayal of a senior army officer ever caught on film. He's gruff, to the point, but not a demoralizing asshat like they usually are shown. I wonder if he was an actual retired Colonel and not an actor?
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

2nd February 2013, 05:17 PM	#27
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,198	Originally Posted by RandFan The Case For Abortion: 500,000 Lost Lives Annually Most abortions that are performed are performed in the first-trimester. At that stage the fetus lacks a nervous system capable of suffering and is not capable of contemplating its existence. The children who suffer and die due to poverty are capable of suffering. You can argue that it is possible to care about both but those who fight against birth control and abortion clearly place the priority of sperm and ovum over the life of the mother. Those who fight against abortion place the priority of the unborn fetus above a living, breathing, feeling person. You can argue that I'm engaging in a false dichotomy but the persistence of poverty, the generational aspect of it, demonstrates that there is a limit to how much we can or will intervene. The availability of birth control and abortion to women who can make informed decisions about their reproduction is proven to reduce suffering. So you're saying the poor should breed less?
	__________________ "The folks who proclaim their sensitivity, nuanced thinking, therapeutic concern for the tender sensibilities of others, and open-mindedness have always been the most vicious, bigoted, narrow-minded, crude, dogmatic, conformist people on the planet." - Victor Davis Hanson.

2nd February 2013, 05:31 PM	#28
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by Virus So you're saying the poor should breed less? No. I'm saying that we should make birth control and abortion free on demand, provide proper sex education and let people make informed choice. I'm saying I believe in personal responsibility. I'm saying that when we provide comprehensive sex education, birth control and abortion that it will make the lives of women better. Are you saying you don't want to make the lives of women better? Are you saying that you are against personal responsibility? I should have included comprehensive sex education in the OP. I apologize for failing to do that.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd February 2013, 05:40 PM	#30
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	I'm a movie junky man. I've seen ever Kubrick film so much i could almost do Rocky Horror type of revue for them!!! It's a funny story how Ermy got the gig. He was there as a military consultant and when Kubrick heard him giving instruction to the actor riginally hired to play the Drill Sgt he said " why don't you just play the part?"
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

2nd February 2013, 05:43 PM	#31
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,381	Originally Posted by StankApe ^^^ this Life is rarely so simple that we can apply one simple variable as the cause of any given issue. But the combo of poor and Catholic seems to paint the picture of too many chillens. So does poor and Muslim and poor and Hindu. Mostly just poor. Religious encouragement of procreation is mostly post hoc rationalization of what people will do anyway.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

2nd February 2013, 05:46 PM	#32
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,769	Originally Posted by StankApe I'm a movie junky man. I've seen ever Kubrick film so much i could almost do Rocky Horror type of revue for them!!! It's a funny story how Ermy got the gig. He was there as a military consultant and when Kubrick heard him giving instruction to the actor riginally hired to play the Drill Sgt he said " why don't you just play the part?" And he was also one of the few actors Kubrick allowed to ad-lib for a script.
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East

2nd February 2013, 05:48 PM	#34
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by joesixpack So does poor and Muslim and poor and Hindu. Mostly just poor. Religious encouragement of procreation is mostly post hoc rationalization of what people will do anyway. I don't think anyone has argued that poor people copulate more than rich people. What is being argued is A.) that poor people are more likely to adhere to religious proscription and not use birth control or have abortions. B.) Religious proscription against birth control and abortion are immoral. Can we stick to the thesis of the thread? Thesis: Prohibitions against birth control and abortion are immoral.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 2nd February 2013 at 05:49 PM.

2nd February 2013, 05:52 PM	#35
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,381	Originally Posted by RandFan Thesis: Prohibitions against birth control and abortion are immoral. Well since I agree with the thesis I have nothing to add.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

2nd February 2013, 05:55 PM	#36
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,198	Frosty Woolridge writes for sites owned by Jeff Rense and David Duke.
	__________________ "The folks who proclaim their sensitivity, nuanced thinking, therapeutic concern for the tender sensibilities of others, and open-mindedness have always been the most vicious, bigoted, narrow-minded, crude, dogmatic, conformist people on the planet." - Victor Davis Hanson. Last edited by Virus; 2nd February 2013 at 06:05 PM.

2nd February 2013, 06:05 PM	#37
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by Virus Apparently Frosty Woolridge writes for sites owned by Jeff Rense and David Duke. Do you have a point? Does that fact invalidate his arguments? Are you attempting to poison the well?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

2nd February 2013, 06:08 PM	#38
Virus Master Templar Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Australia Posts: 6,198	Frosty Woolridge has been a guest on Neo-Nazi radio shows.
	__________________ "The folks who proclaim their sensitivity, nuanced thinking, therapeutic concern for the tender sensibilities of others, and open-mindedness have always been the most vicious, bigoted, narrow-minded, crude, dogmatic, conformist people on the planet." - Victor Davis Hanson.

2nd February 2013, 06:12 PM	#39
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,106	Originally Posted by Virus Frosty Woolridge has been a guest on Neo-Nazi radio shows. So, you are going to refuse to answer my questions and insist on poisoning the well. I did not post that article to establish any empirical fact. I posted it for the arguments made. Can you address the arguments and stop attacking the person making the argument? Could you please make a valid argument? Quote: Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith