|
|
Post by Cambist on Nov 17, 2009 8:59:36 GMT -5
What is your opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 17, 2009 9:07:49 GMT -5
It's hard for me to separate population control from birth control honestly. I don't favor it. It's backfiring like mad in China. It's creating a great imbalance of males to females and ultimately threatens their culture long term.
While it's true highly populated nations contribute a disproportionate amount of pollution into the environment, I believe if we got serious, those issues could be addressed through environmental policy. China, the US, and India just haven't gotten on board yet.
Technology can also address the concerns about the population outstripping the agricultural capacity, creating food shortages. As with most things, there isn't a global shortage, the poor and underpriviledged are facing shortages, not the wealthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Nov 17, 2009 10:23:15 GMT -5
I was wondering if population growth was leading to food shortages or if the "free markets" were contributing to food and water shortages.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 18, 2009 9:39:13 GMT -5
I lean toward free markets
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Nov 20, 2009 12:41:31 GMT -5
Let's see what a supreme court justice had to say. "“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” [1.1] Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Buck v. Bell This is what I find interesting. Radical black groups such as the Black Panthers were the ones who saw the evils of Population Control. Even Jesse Jackson called out this evil until he needed money to run for president. "What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person, and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth. " groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/jackson.html-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Postscript: Though Jackson's view as expressed here is consistent, Jackson himself was not -- later reversing himself for a chance at the Democratic nomination for president, as Colman McCarthhy narrates. swissnet.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/mccarthy_jackson.htmlI guess Jesse missed the part where he was talking about himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Nov 20, 2009 15:14:42 GMT -5
Not a bad piece by Jesse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Nov 20, 2009 23:08:53 GMT -5
Again...stay out of my uterus.
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Nov 21, 2009 8:37:05 GMT -5
Again...stay out of my uterus. Millions of women say this to their children every year. |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Nov 21, 2009 8:40:28 GMT -5
This is a nice piece by Colman " Jackson's Reversal On Abortion by Colman McCarthy The Washington Post, May 21, 1988 In a speech to graduates of North Carolina A&T, Jesse Jackson, class of '64, encouraged the students to battle the odds, as he had done. He told of being ''born of a teen-age mother . . . a teen-age mother who never really had a chance.'' A decade ago, when working in Chicago as head of People United to Save Humanity, Jackson was also publicly and regularly referring to his mother. ''I was born out of wedlock,'' he wrote, ''and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor.'' Two Jacksons are on view. In the 1970s, accounts of his mother and his birth were used to support the Baptist minister's arguments opposing abortion. Today, as a Democrat running for president, Jackson has reversed himself. His tales of mother delete allusions to abortion. He supports federal funding of abortion and says moral positions shouldn't be imposed on public policy. Freedom of choice must prevail. He echoes the arguments that make Democrats the party of abortion. No other candidate this season, fallen or still standing, has shifted positions as radically as Jackson on abortion. Nor has any reversal received less attention. In January 1977, Jackson wrote a 1,000-word essay for the National Right to Life News. It was one of his many statements on the issue, including an ''Open Letter to Congress'' in which ''as a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants.'' He spoke at the 1977 March for Life and asked, ''What happens . . . to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience.'' More than the letter and the speech, the essay was a comprehensive examination of abortion, ranging from moral to political questions. It was widely circulated by opponents of abortion because 10 years ago they were unfairly portrayed as single-issue right-wing fanatics. A few were, but here was Jackson, far left and multi-issue. The essay had intellectual power, written with the clarity and succinctness that remain much of Jackson's vote-getting appeal today. Identifying himself as a person who would have been aborted if medical counsel had been followed, Jackson wrote that ''in the abortion debate, one of the crucial questions is when does life begin. Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm and egg join . . . and the pulsation of life takes place. From that point, life may be described differently (as an egg, embryo, fetus, baby, child, teen-ager, adult), but the essence is the same.'' Now, as then, abortions are legal at 24 weeks. Unlike in 1977, neonatal care can save the lives of 24-week-old babies. If Jackson had not reversed his position, he would seize on that fact and add it to the blunt but accurate language he was using in 1977: ''Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather, they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.'' If Jesse Jackson of the 1970s were to debate the Jesse Jackson of 1988 on abortion, the old would flatten the new and leave him mumbling pro-choice slogans. As Jackson now does: ''Women must have freedom of choice over what to do over their bodies.'' The 1977 Jackson would repeat his still-sound conviction: ''Some argue, suppose the woman does not want to have the baby. They say the very fact that she does not want the baby means that the psychological damage to the child is enough to abort the baby. I disagree. The solution to that problem is not to kill the innocent baby but to deal with her values and her attitude toward life -- that which has allowed her not to want the baby.'' Jackson of 1988 says abortion is acceptable because ''it is not right to impose private, religious and moral positions on public policy.'' The 1977 Jackson handily dismissed the privacy argument: ''If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.'' None of Jackson's six Democratic opponents made an issue of his desertions. Perhaps they saw him ''maturing,'' which is said of Jackson's '88 campaign. A pro-abortion party can embrace Jackson, but it is getting a defective product. Jackson has become the kind of politician he warned about a decade ago, one whose pro-abortion arguments ''take precedence over human value and human life.'' Or as the word master could say: Don't agonize, compromise. " groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/mccarthy_jackson.html |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Nov 21, 2009 12:07:04 GMT -5
Again...stay out of my uterus. Millions of women say this to there children every year. It's "THEIR" not "THERE." You can count some of my friends in these millions of women and it was never a decision made without conscience. If you come down off that high horse sometimes to join with us regular, mistake making imperfect people you would know that. |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 21, 2009 20:06:58 GMT -5
This is a nice piece by Colman " Jackson's Reversal On Abortion by Colman McCarthy The Washington Post, May 21, 1988 Today, as a Democrat running for president, Jackson has reversed himself. His tales of mother delete allusions to abortion. He supports federal funding of abortion and says moral positions shouldn't be imposed on public policy. Freedom of choice must prevail. He echoes the arguments that make Democrats the party of abortion. <---- agrees with the bolded part |
|
|
|
Post by Comedy on Nov 22, 2009 12:49:16 GMT -5
Why is your signature lying? You don't answer shit! NEXT... Again...stay out of my uterus. Millions of women say this to there children every year. |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Nov 22, 2009 14:04:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction. Uh Bun, you can get off your high horse and realize that I am about prevention, realizing I cannot change what someone has already done, which is the exact reason why I say what I say. STAY (present tense, not past).......... Comedy....... |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 22, 2009 18:09:28 GMT -5
Why is your signature lying? You don't answer shit! NEXT... Millions of women say this to there children every year. Comedy... why are you so crazy LOL. You make me smile. I needed this |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Nov 23, 2009 8:17:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction. Uh Bun, you can get off your high horse and realize that I am about prevention, realizing I cannot change what someone has already done, which is the exact reason why I say what I say. STAY (present tense, not past).......... ok...well how about you stay out of everyone's uterus? |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 23, 2009 9:48:42 GMT -5
and says moral positions shouldn't be imposed on public policy. Freedom of choice must prevail. He echoes the arguments that make Democrats the party of abortion. <---- agrees with the bolded part I'm unable to process the bolded statement. That's what public policy is...socially contracted morality. |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Nov 24, 2009 7:59:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction. Uh Bun, you can get off your high horse and realize that I am about prevention, realizing I cannot change what someone has already done, which is the exact reason why I say what I say. STAY (present tense, not past).......... ok...well how about you stay out of everyone's uterus? As so often gets missed in the abortion conversation is the child. This is not all what population control is about. It was once brought up by the Gov't of the country to take your uterus out by force, or to sterilize you chemically without your knowledge. The establishment, the elite, want the feebleminded, imbeciles, and unfit not to reproduce. If they read the many pages here on this board, they would sign you all up to help, or keep you from reproducing. |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Nov 24, 2009 8:10:45 GMT -5
So morality and immorality is legislated, but many here don't seem to get that. So when someone calls on me to "stay out", the WHITE AND "BLACK" ELITE have been all up in uteruses for years, mostly black by percent population.
When a friend of mine had his second child, he and his wife got a call from social services; wonder what they asked?
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Nov 24, 2009 8:30:29 GMT -5
Why is your signature lying? You don't answer shit! NEXT... Millions of women say this to there children every year. First of all, re-read my signature, then comment, NEXT! |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 24, 2009 11:52:24 GMT -5
So morality and immorality is legislated, but many here don't seem to get that. So when someone calls on me to "stay out", the WHITE AND "BLACK" ELITE have been all up in uteruses for years, mostly black by percent population. When a friend of mine had his second child, he and his wife got a call from social services; wonder what they asked? what'd they ask? |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 24, 2009 17:07:07 GMT -5
So morality and immorality is legislated, but many here don't seem to get that. So when someone calls on me to "stay out", the WHITE AND "BLACK" ELITE have been all up in uteruses for years, mostly black by percent population. When a friend of mine had his second child, he and his wife got a call from social services; wonder what they asked? what'd they ask? I'm glad someone asked because I was waiting for more information LOL |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Nov 24, 2009 17:08:06 GMT -5
Why is your signature lying? You don't answer shit! NEXT... First of all, re-read my signature, then comment, NEXT! So is the only way to get a direct answer from you is to call? |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Nov 26, 2009 13:46:25 GMT -5
The question is designed for you to think of some potential things.
Never said that, but this is a message board, and sometimes I answer posts, and sometimes I do not, but please don;t call me Bobby. LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Nov 28, 2009 3:51:48 GMT -5
The chinese may have to adopt a form of polygamy to maintain their culture at the rate that they are going.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Nov 30, 2009 9:32:44 GMT -5
The chinese may have to adopt a form of polygamy to maintain their culture at the rate that they are going. Nothing wrong with that.....  **wait for it.....** |
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on Nov 30, 2009 9:41:53 GMT -5
The chinese may have to adopt a form of polygamy to maintain their culture at the rate that they are going. Nothing wrong with that..... **wait for it.....**Actually, they'd have to adopt polyandry because they have more males females than females.  |
|
|
|
Post by nsync on Nov 30, 2009 9:59:22 GMT -5
Oh okay. I thought they had more females than males. I have heard of cases of them killing the female child in order to try to produce the one male offspring. I just hope that's a rumor.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 30, 2009 10:09:29 GMT -5
That's why they're out of whack Outtie. No one wants that one child to be a female. They are doing away with the girls and everyone has sons. They are either going to have to reverse their one child policy (because folks are always going to want sons to work and take care of them, that won't change) or accept that Chinese men will have to venture outside of China to find wives.
|
|
|
|
Post by LogAKAlly <3'n Keef on Dec 1, 2009 6:59:35 GMT -5
Oh okay. I thought they had more females than males. I have heard of cases of them killing the female child in order to try to produce the one male offspring. I just hope that's a rumor. It's VERY true.  The foster homes are full of girl children - usually tied to chairs wiht pots under them for most of the day. Here...this will break your heart. |
|
