The true crime is unchecked reproduction
Educron
adding more and more to an already overpopulated world. Look
at the quality of life in both India and China, and ask yourself
"Do I want to live like that?" Abortion is murder, but what people
need to do is use condoms, birth control pills, or get sterilized
or their tubes tied. Condoms need to be destributed en mass to not
only India and China, but the entire world including Europe and
America. They need to be of good quality, yet affordable by anyone,
or given out for free in poverty stricken areas. We have to begin
reducing the world population, and the best way to do it is by
ceasing reproduction and allowing a natural die off through old age.
Mhw61
I say we just give all those extra people cars, and encourage them to have sex
while driving.
Max
"I'm raising polecats for peace."
--Ken Shabby
IBegg2Differ
>sex
>while driving.
>Max
LOL! And don't forget to tell them it's a good idea to pee out the door while
doing 75 on the freeway. ;)
Bo Raxo
"Educron" <sorry_this_is_not_valid@#.#> wrote in message
news:jcn1fvkcqd6ohoscq...@4ax.com...
Then you should have a chat with the Pope. The Catholic Church's
opposition to birth control is one of, if not the, major barriers to family
planning in the Third World.
Hester888Mofet
>From: "Bo Raxo" cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com
>Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2003 11:59 PM
>Message-id: <bcu4dp$v33$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>
>Subject: Re: The true crime is unchecked reproduction
>From: "Bo Raxo" cheneys...@nospam.deathsdoor.com
>Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2003 11:59 PM
>Message-id: <bcu4dp$v33$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>
I agree, but are most of the Third World countries with population problems
Catholic? I didn't think so. Maybe because of the influence of people like
Mother Theresa, who supported the idea of no birth control in *India* of all
places. However, I can't see there being a religious problem with abortion in a
place like China. In fact, abortions are encouraged in China. I remember in
college wondering why, in a starving country like India, people were having 12
or 13 children. The prof stated that it's a vicious cycle. They have 12 or 13
children so that one will live to carry on the family name and the kids die out
because of hunger, etc, *because* everyone has 12 or 13 children. Zero
population growth is not a bad thing for the earth, but some races feel that by
stifling their ability to procreate at will, they are being "kept down." By
that I mean there are some who think that if there are 100 times more many
whites than blacks and you agree with zero population growth then there will
*always* be more whites than blacks and therefore there will always be
institutional racism that might not exist were there more parity of numbers.
Hester Mofet
Educron.
And that line of thinking is bullshit. Let's look at the "benefits"
of overpopulation:
1) Life is very cheap. Anybody is replaceable/expendable because it's
very easy to get another person with the exact same qualifications.
People also tend not to give a shit about you because, you are just
an extra person.
2) Because of this, people commit crimes against others, and violent
gangs form. Scince life isn't held to a very high value, and infact
other people are now seen as a burden and a strain on resources, this
gives criminals and ordinary people even less reason to respect
life.
3) Diseases have plenty of places to spread to and survive in.
4) Most people get to live in squalor, because there is just
not enough to go around.
5) Violence goes up. When you jam a whole lot of people in a small
space, tension and stress increases.
6) The chance of famine is extremely high, especialy when
food aid is cut off because of politics or war.
Hester888Mofet
I didn't say I agreed with it, I just said there are some people who think that
limiting procreation is genocidal. It's a *fact* that some people do think
this, whether they are in error or not is another matter.
Hester Mofet
Alan Hope
Conventional wisdom. Poverty, lack of provision for the elderly,
cultural preferences for boy-children and infant mortality are
together far more important, and longer-established. You can't get a
man to limit his family if he needs a son to look after him in his
dotage, and all he has is three daughters and five tiny graves at the
edge of his field.
--
AH
kittenhead
>>>><snip> Abortion is murder, <snip>
Bo wrote:
> >>>Then you should have a chat with the Pope. The Catholic Church's
> >>>opposition to birth control is one of, if not the, major barriers to
> >>>family planning in the Third World.
Hester wrote:
> >>I agree, but are most of the Third World countries with population problems
> >>Catholic? I didn't think so. Maybe because of the influence of people like
> >>Mother Theresa, who supported the idea of no birth control in *India* of
> >>all places. However, I can't see there being a religious problem with
> >>abortion in a place like China. In fact, abortions are encouraged in
> >>China. I remember in college wondering why, in a starving country like
> >>India, people were having 12 or 13 children. The prof stated that it's a
> >>vicious cycle. They have 12 or 13 children so that one will live to carry
> >>on the family name and the kids die out because of hunger, etc, *because*
> >>everyone has 12 or 13 children. Zero population growth is not a bad thing
> >>for the earth, but some races feel that by stifling their ability to
> >>procreate at will, they are being "kept down."
> >>By that I mean there are some who think that if there are 100 times more
> >>many whites than blacks and you agree with zero population growth then
> >>there will *always* be more whites than blacks and therefore there will
> >>always be institutional racism that might not exist were there more parity > >>of numbers.
Educron wrote:
> > And that line of thinking is bullshit.
Educron,
Bo & Hester both wrote very thoughtful, intelligent replies to you,
but I think they were being overly generous -- you don't deserve it.
The only bullshit I smell around here is your moralizing and
oversimplification of a very complex issue.
Educron.
Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying you agree
with that line of thinking, scince that's not what I ment to do.
But I think that it can't be pointed out enough times that unchecked
procreation=suffering and ultimately, mass death. Unfortunately, it's
not easy getting this message to the 3rd world. I won't support
abortion, scince it's murder, but I will support condom usage,
and stopping pregnancies before they start.
I really have to wonder if people who are living in nations
where population growth has slowed or stopped and considered that
as the 3rd world becomes over-crowded, more and more people are
going to be immigrating to those nations, raising the
populations there.
>
>Hester Mofet
Educron.
Uh, read the newest reply. I was commenting on the line of thinking
that they commented about in their post, not the posters' thoughts.
>The only bullshit I smell around here is your moralizing and
>oversimplification of a very complex issue.
See above.
Bo Raxo
"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:tan6fv4980vi01vm1...@4ax.com...
Well, poverty is both a symptom and a cause. Birth control helps to break
that cycle. It isn't the only thing you need to do, but studies
consistently show it is a HUGE step and a neccesary one. Not sufficient in
and of itself, but neccesary.
First, it makes a huge difference in the ability of women to earn money
incomes and to have a far greater degree of choice in their lives. Second,
allowing those families that can afford to send their kids to school (i.e.,
they are able to not have the kids work and can afford the school uniforms,
which is the cost barrier in many third world countries to attending school)
means with fewer children they can afford to invest more resources in each
child.
More resources invested per child means better educated children, and
healthier ones, resulting in adults able to live longer and earn a better
living. Which, in a nutshell, is how you set a country on the road to
growing itself out of poverty.
Birth control touches on infact mortality (resources per child), poverty
(education opportunities and women's income levels), making labor more
expensive which in turn drives local manufacturers to move up the value
chain, all of these are essential to reversing the cycle of poverty.
Of course, the wealthy countries can do fundamental things like build clean
water and sewage systems, cut farming subsidies, reduce or eliminate customs
tariffs, stop selling military-grade weapons to private parties...you get
the idea.
But with one stroke of the pen, the Pope, all by himself, could make one
huge stride in helping the poor. In Latin America and the Phillipines, both
heavily Catholic, that would make a gigantic difference.
There might be poorer places, but these nations have struggled and managed a
bit of growth, and just need the impediments removed.
Bo Raxo