Right. Not punishing people for the number of kids they have and certainly not forced abortions or sterilizations.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pro-Life supporters:How do you reconcile overpopulation, climate change and reproductive rights?
- Thread starter Epic Beard Man
- Start date
I wonder why that is? Perhaps it is the understanding that they will have to assume some responsibility for the life they bring into the world.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
In the late 60ś, very prominent scientists were telling us that the over population problems were so insidious, that by the early 90ś society would begin to unravel because of the demand for food. It was predicted that by 2000 famine would haunt the earth, and there would be massive die offs from hunger in all parts of the world.
I don´t recall it happening.
In the 70ś the oil supply was said to virtually exhausted.
Also in the 70ś many of these scientists were predicting a soon coming ice age.
So, it is very understandable that with this track record, the predicted cataclysm of global warming many have some skepticism.
No one paid any attention to the little boy who had cried wolf so many times.
The wolf finally came
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Pro choice is defacto pro abortion. Choosing to have a baby is not controversial, and has no place in the abortion conflict.
Pro life is exactly what it says it is, Just as pro death is exactly what abortionists stand for.
Abortion is killing, no matter the motive, pro life is not killing, no matter the motive.
Language manipulation is right out of 1984, control of the language is to control of the people.
Illegal abortion is a total smokescreen. If you don´t make killing my baby legal, I will do it anyway. So, suffer the consequences.
Using this logic of this position, rape, murder, and robbery should be legal, because people do them any way.
Lets hear the many measures that I don´t support.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I think he may be referencing a number of experiments with rats. They are given perfect conditions, and all the food they want. They run loose in a fairly large cage and breed happily away.
When their population reaches a certain crowded level, they have fights constantly, many are killed. Diseases arise from the overcrowding and many more die, food is at the same level as it was at the beginning of the colony, and many more die from starvation.
When equilibrium is reached, the fights stop, and the diseases go away. They are once again a happy and healthy colony of rats with plenty of food. Nature has done what was required to save the colony.
The cycle begins again
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I have supported supplemented child care for women in school or at work.
The stigma of illegitimate children is what is, You cannot pass a law changing peoples thought processes, as much as you would like to.
Couples having relationship problems is irrelevant to abortion.
Their problems are not so severe as to stop them from doing the prone polka, without birth control measures.
If your relationship is that good, and you are that stupid, the baby is yours, be happy.
I support unlimited abortions in the first trimester, and none after that, except for the physical threat of serious harm to the health of the mother or her life.
If they can´t get their killing done in three months, then it won´t be done at all.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
No,
I am against murder.
Goodman John
Active Member
Overpopulation is a self-correcting problem: if the world has too many people to sustain them all, people will die off until balance is restored. Obviously, we can offset this for a while, but eventually it's going to be dog-eat-dog and there won't be enough dog to go around.
Climate Change is nothing more than repackaged 'Global Warming' and I think it's nothing more than scare tactics and a power grab by agenda-driven people and organizations.
Reproductive rights: For personal and religious purposes, I believe life begins at conception. However, for legal purposes I accept the detection of the heartbeat as sufficient 'proof of life'. I do not support abortion at all.
Climate Change is nothing more than repackaged 'Global Warming' and I think it's nothing more than scare tactics and a power grab by agenda-driven people and organizations.
Reproductive rights: For personal and religious purposes, I believe life begins at conception. However, for legal purposes I accept the detection of the heartbeat as sufficient 'proof of life'. I do not support abortion at all.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
The fact of the matter is, our world is overpopulated. We will be hitting 8 billion perhaps within my lifetime.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
What metrics are you using to determine overpopulation?
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
This is not a research discussion.......
I'm going by scientist who say this planet is overpopulated and that we need to do something regarding the limited resources and land that we have. Overpopulation is one part of the discussion.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
So a rant then. Cool.
Goodman John
Active Member
Well if overpopulation is a threat to everyone's existence, we can certainly eliminate a huge chunk of the world's people through the strategic placement and detonation of a few high-yield nuclear weapons. Combine that with the deployment of bio-weapons and we can chop the population drastically by Christmas.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Apparently even the BBC understood Bernie to be advocating abortion and birth control as a means of population control.
Bernie Sanders in 'population control' uproar
Bernie Sanders in 'population control' uproar
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
No. It's a discussion if you want to debate population statistics and variables and such you can make a topic on that in a math section. This discussion was to talk about the collective issues and the viewpoint pro-life advocates have.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Oh well, Satanic cults exist. The truth is a hard pill to swallow sometimes.
And you think this "climate change" will end the world before then?
Besides, as I pointed out; we likely already have the tech buried in black projects that no one is allowed to know exist. We could change all that but the public is uninformed and dumbed down. So they don't do anything for themselves that they need to do.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
May not end the world but will cause irreparable damage which may force us to think about colonizing other worlds sooner than later.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Global warming and climate change are beneficial to over population whether you take a pessimistic or optimistic approach. If you take a pessimistic approach increased natural disasters will deal with the over population problem. The earth is self healing that way. If you take an optimistic approach, global warming heats the earth. A warmer earth expands the land for farming, both north and south, and also adds more water to the atmosphere. More water in the atmosphere means more rain and more fresh water, for crops and drinking water. This is also how the earth is self healing. Between the two the problem is partially solved.
As far as abortion, this has been staged wrong by the Left. How babies are made is well established by science and therefore it does not have to come to abortion, The need for abortion is due to lack of self control. The left and media promotes sex and sex education in schools, but plays down self control and abstinence, thereby creating the problem they try to solve with abortion.
I am all for spaying and neutering the human dogs who do not or cannot learn the science of prevention. Fixing the perpetrators is more humane then killing the innocent unborn who did nothing wrong. I would allow one abortion and then sterilization of the male and female. This equals zero population growth. No humans die this way.
Another natural checks and balance that deals with over population is sexually transmitted disease. Nature has a way to deal with unnatural human behavior that can lead excessive population growth. The problem is other humans come along and counter the self regulating affect of the natural diseases of the earth, After they undermine mother nature, they then complain about all the extra people. If we had not done anything about AIDS, nature would have balanced things out. Those with self control would have been safe. The future would be have naturally selected based on mental fitness leading to fewer people. If you believe in earth, why not go all in?
Pro-choice really is pro-choice. It's in favour of ensuring that abortion is a safe and available option, but the pro-choice position is just as much about supporting a pregnant person's choice to continue a pregnancy as it is about supporting their choice to end the pregnancy.
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
We've established in other threads that you think it's reasonable to kill a person if they're trying to steal your TV. You are not "pro-life" by any reasonable definition of the term.
The manipulation is all on your side.
"Suffer the consequences." See what I was talking about? The focus is on punishing the pregnant person, not on saving "lives."
Someone whose goal was actually to stop abortions would care just as much about an illegal abortion as a legal one.
... and someone who was actually "pro-life" would be more concerned with an illegal abortion than a legal one because of the increased risk to the life of the pregnant person.
You claim to have been a cop, but you seem not to be familiar with the idea of harm reduction. Weird.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Killing someone because they are stealing a TV ? Where did I say that ? The use of deadly force is justified only when someone faces imminent threat to their life, or others. So your construct is fallacious.
Anyone who chooses to break the law chooses consequences. I do not feel there should be any consequences from the law. The illegal abortionist should go to prison.
The pregnant person? Newspeak? Aren´t women the only humans who can get pregnant ?
Of course I care about about illegal abortions, thatś why a guaranteed prison sentence for the abortionist is required, a word you rarely use, deterrence is the result.
Any woman who has missed the first trimester window for an abortion should have every support in getting her unwanted baby adopted.
Harm reduction is akin to risk reduction. Risks/harm can be reasonably ameliorated, yet they can never be eliminated. Especially when the law is involved. Work places are inspected for safety hazards, and violations of the safety standards are punished, yet the next day someone could die from an accident. Ships are inspected , yet they sink.
The whole reason for the criminal law is to prevent harm, but it doesn't. It reduces harm.
We all are accountable for our own choices. We all make choices that harm us, yet we cannot blame anyone else for our poor choices. The more at stake in the choice the assumption is that the seriousness and potential harm are weighed, and strongly considered in a decision.