We should limit child birth, starting NOW


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:

western society is at least trending this way on its own. Europe has a negative growth rate, and so does the US without immigration and the children of immigrants.

Educating women and letting them have careers outside of the home so they have fewer kids and a social safety net so that 10 kids all chipping in isn't your retirement plan may be sufficient without going full on china on people.

Ultimately, this is the most viable solution. It just takes time, resources, and commitment.

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
and,......this 2 minute youtube clip is why in essence the whole "bler bler we should limit child birth bler bler" is a total waste of time. Because Clevon with his iq of 84 doesn't give a crap, and you're not going to run a eugenics control program.

I disagree. When the situation pass a tipping point, an enforced eugenics control program will happen (... along with the brutal totalitarian government necessary to make that work.)


I got that part, but I still don't understand who told what to whom. America has told China a lot of crap. China has told America a lot of crap. So far, so crappy. To which "they", specifically, and to which crap, specifically, was yellowdingo referring when he said, "They only told..."etc.?

Liberty's Edge

Limiting child birth worked so well in China.

Why not start killing off all these older people too ?

And who will decide on who should be allowed to have children ?

Limiting births just goes contrary to what we are in our most basic animal nature.

Also less people means less ideas and progress, which actually reduces our chances as a species of finding a sustainable solution to our current problems. And if we stop evolving, or even worse try to go back, we will just die out.

Nature (including human nature) will deal quite nicely (or not so nicely) with any overpopulation we might have. Just as it as in the past with all such situations for all species.

We are after all just one generation spending our allotted time on this planet. We like to think highly of ourselves, to the point of feeling that we must take responsibility for the whole planet, even though it has lasted billions of years without us (and will do so in the future). I see it as a very interesting and powerful form of hubris.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

The black raven wrote:
Limiting child birth worked so well in China.

Yes. The problem is that downward pressures on population collided with deep seated cultural values (- or more correctly that LACK of value placed on girls).

The black raven wrote:
Why not start killing off all these older people too ?

You would not be the first to propose it.

The black raven wrote:

And who will decide on who should be allowed to have children?

Limiting births just goes contrary to what we are in our most basic animal nature.

It was our agricultural tools that allowed human population to reach such -unsustainable- levels.

The black raven wrote:
Also less people means less ideas and progress, which actually reduces our chances as a species of finding a sustainable solution to our current problems. And if we stop evolving, or even worse try to go back, we will just die out.

Uneducated people however, are very unlikely to have ideas or create progress.

But they still have to be fed, clothed, and housed. Unless you actually DO want nature to resolve the problem for us ...

The black raven wrote:
Nature (including human nature) will deal quite nicely (or not so nicely) with any overpopulation we might have. Just as it as in the past with all such situations for all species.

Yes, but the way nature corrects such an imbalance is rarely very pleasant for the species in question. It behooves us to avoid this solution, because humanity wouldn't like the result very much.

It is also human nature to think. It is also "human nature" to think. To understand the problem, and to implement a solution.

The black raven wrote:
We are after all just one generation spending our allotted time on this planet. We like to think highly of ourselves, to the point of feeling that we must take responsibility for the whole planet, even though it has lasted billions of years without us (and will do so in the future).

Have you ever played Jenga? The lesson of that game is that if you remove too many blocks from the lower tiers, the entire structure will fall.

Humans have directly caused the extinction of many animal and plant species. We have also changed our environment enough that we have indirectly caused the extinction of many more.

If we don't change our ways, the entire structure (the Earth) can still fall apart. Yes, Earth will continue after us, but will that "continuing" include the survival of the human species?

The black raven wrote:
I see it as a very interesting and powerful form of hubris.

We take responsibility, because we "owe it to our children."

And, if you are a person of faith, We take responsibility because We are not the actual owners of the world - and will be held acountable for our abuse of it.

As I see it, NOT taking responsibility is an even greater form of hubris.


From one of the links you probably didn't bother clicking.
"Fifty years ago the world average fertility rate - the number of babies born per woman - was five. Since then, this most important number in demography has dropped to 2.5 - something unprecedented in human history - and fertility is still trending downwards."

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Matthew Downie wrote:

From one of the links you probably didn't bother clicking.

"Fifty years ago the world average fertility rate - the number of babies born per woman - was five. Since then, this most important number in demography has dropped to 2.5 - something unprecedented in human history - and fertility is still trending downwards."

But the question is "why"?

I believe that it because women are being empowered. They are (in general) seeking more opportunities that do not involve large numbers of children.

This is a good thing.

Human population will find a new equilibrium. Hopefully one that will be sustainable for the long term.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a massive inflation in how the word "sustainable" is used. As it stands, people use it as a synonym for "good", is my general impression. It means exactly nothing of the sort. Sustainable means "a status quo that can be upheld without modification in perpetuity". As utopias go, I would say it's a pretty s$%%ty dream. The absolute best we can aim for as a civilization, as a species, is having a model we won't have to change, saying nothing of how good it is for people to live in? Second, are people truly so blind that they actually believe any such model exists? Change IS the only constant, and will continue to be so. What works in one paradigm will be impossible in the next. We will have wars for as long as humanity muddles on, and these will change conditions for us enough that "sustainability" becomes a bad joke. There will be other problems, other curveballs from the universe, that will cause the same.

Nothing is good just because it is "sustainable". Worst of all, the idea of sustainability means you believe the world's problems can be solved by setting a variety of limits to various observed statistical numbers - which has never really successfully been done, ever. And when pressed, the people preaching for "sustainability" usually eventually admit that yes, they do want authoritarian control of things, so that "sustainability" can be upheld. You know, like how democracy is fine, but we should take a pause on it, so we can fix things properly and sustainably for a while. One suggestion I saw a TV program about was that a huge mass of lenses should be put into space between the Sun and the Earth, that would limit the amount of sunlight coming in, so sustainability could be upheld regarding global warming. Even assuming the feasibility of such a scheme, would really destroying the possibility of solar power be the best idea in such a situation? Best of all, this program showed the projected results of such a program, which was sharply lower global temperatures, to the point where that would instead be a problem. Even so, the lean and hungry environmental scientist said: "We'd still have to build a society where use of energy is tightly controlled, of course".

Humanity is much more than that. We adapt, we discover, we change the world, and we should dream of higher things than "sustainability".


Lord Fyre wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

From one of the links you probably didn't bother clicking.

"Fifty years ago the world average fertility rate - the number of babies born per woman - was five. Since then, this most important number in demography has dropped to 2.5 - something unprecedented in human history - and fertility is still trending downwards."

But the question is "why"?

I believe that it because women are being empowered. They are (in general) seeking more opportunities that do not involve large numbers of children.

This is a good thing.

Human population will find a new equilibrium. Hopefully one that will be sustainable for the long term.

My son has very recently been studying this at school. It seemingly also correlates to lower infant mortality, i.e. if you have confidence that your first 2-3 children are going to survive to become adults, you're far less likely to have the 4th or 5th or 6th child.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SnowJade wrote:
I got that part, but I still don't understand who told what to whom. America has told China a lot of crap. China has told America a lot of crap. So far, so crappy. To which "they", specifically, and to which crap, specifically, was yellowdingo referring when he said, "They only told..."etc.?

You're attempting to make sense out of a yellowdingo post.

This can't end well.


thejeff wrote:
SnowJade wrote:
I got that part, but I still don't understand who told what to whom. America has told China a lot of crap. China has told America a lot of crap. So far, so crappy. To which "they", specifically, and to which crap, specifically, was yellowdingo referring when he said, "They only told..."etc.?

You're attempting to make sense out of a yellowdingo post.

This can't end well.

Ah. I stand - or, rather, sit - informed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We need should strive for unsustainability. It's guaranteed to fail, but that's a good thing, because if we found things that didn't collapse catastrophically, we might keep doing them, and that would lead to stagnation, which is way worse than apocalyptic disaster.
Also, anyone who disagrees with me is a fascist.

(Am I doing this right? I don't spend much time arguing on the internet but I get the impression this is how you're supposed to act.)


Humanity needs to grow. Humanity WILL grow, unless it is actively stifled by authoritarian politics. And of course, the same authoritarians are preaching limits to what we are allowed. Abase thyselves, do penitence, vile sinners! Your only hope is to limit yourselves and FOLLOW OUR COMMANDS!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

We need should strive for unsustainability. It's guaranteed to fail, but that's a good thing, because if we found things that didn't collapse catastrophically, we might keep doing them, and that would lead to stagnation, which is way worse than apocalyptic disaster.

Also, anyone who disagrees with me is a fascist.

(Am I doing this right? I don't spend much time arguing on the internet but I get the impression this is how you're supposed to act.)

You sir are an inspiration.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

-According to the UNEP, about 30% of all the food produced in the world is wasted every year.

-The top-ten richest countries throw away unopened food in amounts that equal the total food produced by the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.

I think our problem is distribution and inefficient use of resources, rather than overpopulation (which has already been showing decreasing growth rates constantly since the 60's).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Humanity needs to grow. Humanity WILL grow, unless it is actively stifled by authoritarian politics. And of course, the same authoritarians are preaching limits to what we are allowed. Abase thyselves, do penitence, vile sinners! Your only hope is to limit yourselves and FOLLOW OUR COMMANDS!!!

Ah, but where do you intend to grow? Into space? There is no space! It is all a scam to get your hopes up. Those stars are all props. Believe me, I know. Would I ever lie to you?

Look, here is better. We have comfy coal mines; you also get a helmet. Well, you've got to share it with six other people, but we think that promotes companionship! Don't you like companionship? Are you a bad person? We don't like bad people; bad people get turned into sausages.

Do you want to become a sausage?


Wait a minute:
Soylent Sausages?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a smaller population were the answer, we would just have to look back in time to get a glimpse of this utopia. It's estimated that the global population reached one billion in 1805. Any poverty then? Yup. Millions of destitutes. 200 million on the planet in 1 AD. Poverty then? "Ye have the poor always with you." Ancient Greece. Babylon. It seems that in every age, poverty haunts our steps. All along the way, we rationalize our self-centeredness by convincing ourselves there is not enough for everyone to have a fair share. It is my belief that our ecological and socioeconomic problems are not causally linked to overpopulation, but to our own inhumanity.

Greed, ignorance, mismanagement, shortsightedness. These are the environmental killers, the misanthropic characteristics of humankind that threaten us all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
There were some copyright issues. We had to call ours Soiled Sausages

In 2050 the population may reach 9.6 billion, assuming that all other facets of our existence remain the same and no meteors wipe out Europe or some such.

This year we grew enough food for 10 billion.

And everything we've seen suggests that after 2050 the population will start going down. As mentioned there are a number of places that have negative child birth now. Heck, Japan occasionally offers incentives for people to have more children.

Honestly, I don't see a need to limit the number of children unless we want more resources per person. If each person needs a nuclear reactor to run there 200 foot Virtual Reality Entertainment System, an area of land the size of a town to feed there fifty ton corpulent monster body genetically engineered to live forever and the giant floating battle platform for hauling it around then resources are gonna be stretched thin if our population is in the millions.

Honestly, I think we need to focus on making sure we have a more global spread of resources - that the 'civilized' countries aren't sucking them all out of the other areas, such as we currently are to support our current life styles - and focus on renewable resources rather than telling people they can't have kids. Sure, less people will help, but not as much as actually addressing the problems we're currently facing.

Let's be honest - Western countries haven't been sustainable for decades. It's only through exploiting other, less developed countries that we can maintain a life style and population in the seventies. Supporting our current life style is impossible. Therefore, at least in the shorter term, we need to address that issue.

But that wouldn't line the pockets of those at the top, so it's not happening. Greed is what will kill us off, not too many kids. Kids are a hope for the future. Greed is someone who can't stand having only three private jets and burning enough fuel to run a country each year flying to there various holiday villas.

Silver Crusade

If we DO need to limit child birth, however, we don't go out and SAY it...

1. Free Vasectomy (and whatever the female equivalent is, couldn't find it) clinic. one every 20 miles or so, so the populace is never far away.

2. Give YOU a bonus for taking this operation based on how many children you have. (Two: Bonus! One: Larger bonus! None: Even bigger Bonus!)

3. Buy one Birth Control/Condom, get one free!

4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.


If that is what you want, go all out. Fully subsidize abortions for those who want them. Drown the schools and unis in condoms. Teach everything there is to know about sex to every single child. And don't discourage casual sex - that's going to happen anyway - make sure to seriously promote every expression of sex that doesn't produce children. Anal, oral, smut in films and magazines. "Non-tactile smut", as it were.

Still want to go on?

Okay. Hold on to your hats. You need to severely limit alcohol, and that's not going to happen without killing the image of it in the media, during a sustained, well-funded effort. Make being drunk about as cool as having a pocket protector. Work to promote EVERY SINGLE type of family constellation that isn't between one man and one woman. Make adoptions excessively simple to go through, and change the laws so it can happen. Give tax breaks to "professional" establishments, because even if there is more sex there, you can expect professionals to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. Give sex workers social protections, pensions and medical coverage, while decriminalising their work (like in New Zeeland), and make sure they get some status through a high-profile TV series (if housewives can be made cool, why not?). Encourage gender equality there as well - the more sex men AND women can get out of their system without someone getting pregnant, the better.

If you can do this, and make sure people don't need children to survive as pensioners, nativity will be at rock bottom.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

lucky7 wrote:

If we DO need to limit child birth, however, we don't go out and SAY it...

1. Free Vasectomy (and whatever the female equivalent is, couldn't find it) clinic. one every 20 miles or so, so the populace is never far away.

2. Give YOU a bonus for taking this operation based on how many children you have. (Two: Bonus! One: Larger bonus! None: Even bigger Bonus!)

3. Buy one Birth Control/Condom, get one free!

4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

Ironically, Nations with a "lot of casual sex" are among those with falling fertility rates.

The method that is working is Empowering Women. (The article that Celestial Healer linked implies that it is working too well.)

As JonGarrett correctly points out, now we need to resolve the other time bomb - Over-consumption.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
lucky7 wrote:
4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

yyyyeah... because abstinence is the way to go. The USA are an incredubly prudish country when it comes to that. Try teaching proper prevention instead and let people have the healthy casual sex they need... and will have, either way.

With modern methods, nobody has to have an unwanted child, unless someoneelse forces them. Not pointing fingers here. Except at conservative religious people.


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:

-According to the UNEP, about 30% of all the food produced in the world is wasted every year.

-The top-ten richest countries throw away unopened food in amounts that equal the total food produced by the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.

I think our problem is distribution and inefficient use of resources, rather than overpopulation (which has already been showing decreasing growth rates constantly since the 60's).

Well, its a lot easier to grow food where water falls from the sky then when you have to pump it or bucket it out of a river that may or may not be there in 5 years (I know.. I've tried!)

A nice, stable government where your crops aren't going to be seized by marauding armies doesn't hurt either.

Liberty's Edge

As a wise man one said, "We have deserts to, we just don't live in them! *Angry scream*".


Krensky wrote:
As a wise man one said, "We have deserts to, we just don't live in them! *Angry scream*".

Angry because a wise man (which wise man) said that, or because they don't live in the deserts? Seeing photos of famine victims in arid regions is kind of discouraging, you know.


Threeshades wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

yyyyeah... because abstinence is the way to go. The USA are an incredubly prudish country when it comes to that. Try teaching proper prevention instead and let people have the healthy casual sex they need... and will have, either way.

With modern methods, nobody has to have an unwanted child, unless someoneelse forces them. Not pointing fingers here. Except at conservative religious people.

There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None. Even if they're used 100% properly, and they're mostly not, they aren't 100% effective.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

yyyyeah... because abstinence is the way to go. The USA are an incredubly prudish country when it comes to that. Try teaching proper prevention instead and let people have the healthy casual sex they need... and will have, either way.

With modern methods, nobody has to have an unwanted child, unless someoneelse forces them. Not pointing fingers here. Except at conservative religious people.

There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None. Even if they're used 100% properly, and they're mostly not, they aren't 100% effective.

True, but providing contraceptives and teaching people to use them properly is far more effective than just trying to teach abstinence.

And if you include the Morning After pill, you can get pretty close to 100%.

Of course, if you include actual abortions, nobody does have to have an unwanted child.


Sissyl wrote:

If that is what you want, go all out. Fully subsidize abortions for those who want them. Drown the schools and unis in condoms. Teach everything there is to know about sex to every single child. And don't discourage casual sex - that's going to happen anyway - make sure to seriously promote every expression of sex that doesn't produce children. Anal, oral, smut in films and magazines. "Non-tactile smut", as it were.

Still want to go on?

Okay. Hold on to your hats. You need to severely limit alcohol, and that's not going to happen without killing the image of it in the media, during a sustained, well-funded effort. Make being drunk about as cool as having a pocket protector. Work to promote EVERY SINGLE type of family constellation that isn't between one man and one woman. Make adoptions excessively simple to go through, and change the laws so it can happen. Give tax breaks to "professional" establishments, because even if there is more sex there, you can expect professionals to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. Give sex workers social protections, pensions and medical coverage, while decriminalising their work (like in New Zeeland), and make sure they get some status through a high-profile TV series (if housewives can be made cool, why not?). Encourage gender equality there as well - the more sex men AND women can get out of their system without someone getting pregnant, the better.

If you can do this, and make sure people don't need children to survive as pensioners, nativity will be at rock bottom.

This. ^^


thejeff wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

yyyyeah... because abstinence is the way to go. The USA are an incredubly prudish country when it comes to that. Try teaching proper prevention instead and let people have the healthy casual sex they need... and will have, either way.

With modern methods, nobody has to have an unwanted child, unless someoneelse forces them. Not pointing fingers here. Except at conservative religious people.

There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None. Even if they're used 100% properly, and they're mostly not, they aren't 100% effective.

True, but providing contraceptives and teaching people to use them properly is far more effective than just trying to teach abstinence.

And if you include the Morning After pill, you can get pretty close to 100%.

The Morning after pill can have (I think usually has) unpleasant side effects, and isn't something to be taken regularly.

I think part of teaching effective use should include the fact that however careful people are there is still a failure rate and some unwanted pregnancies


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

yyyyeah... because abstinence is the way to go. The USA are an incredubly prudish country when it comes to that. Try teaching proper prevention instead and let people have the healthy casual sex they need... and will have, either way.

With modern methods, nobody has to have an unwanted child, unless someoneelse forces them. Not pointing fingers here. Except at conservative religious people.

There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None. Even if they're used 100% properly, and they're mostly not, they aren't 100% effective.

While true, it is a theoretical construct. Someone takes their pills as instructed, and no serious condition or other drug counteracts this, they don't get pregnant. You say it has happened. I say it would be on you to prove they DID take the pills as instructed. There is no simple answer to the question of adherence to a medication. Breast-feeding shuts down pregnancy pretty damn reliably. Several hormonal conditions do the same. Add in day-after pills, and yes, you will be safe. Unless you are that one in a billion person.


And regarding emergency contraception: No. Read up before telling people it has serious side effects and should not be done too often. The side effects of progestin-only ECPs are nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and similar, temporary and minor symptoms. The side effects of becoming pregnant are far, far worse. Various medical organizations that have looked into it have concluded that there is no medical condition where the risks of using ECPs outweigh the benefits, including a history of thromboembolism and similar things. If that is a problem, you REALLY don't want to get pregnant without access to medical help.

No, the reason not to rely on them is very simple: they are about 80% effective. Now please don't spew more anti-contraception b+%$!!%$, Cook.


Sissyl wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

yyyyeah... because abstinence is the way to go. The USA are an incredubly prudish country when it comes to that. Try teaching proper prevention instead and let people have the healthy casual sex they need... and will have, either way.

With modern methods, nobody has to have an unwanted child, unless someoneelse forces them. Not pointing fingers here. Except at conservative religious people.

There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None. Even if they're used 100% properly, and they're mostly not, they aren't 100% effective.
While true, it is a theoretical construct. Someone takes their pills as instructed, and no serious condition or other drug counteracts this, they don't get pregnant. You say it has happened. I say it would be on you to prove they DID take the pills as instructed. There is no simple answer to the question of adherence to a medication. Breast-feeding shuts down pregnancy pretty damn reliably. Several hormonal conditions do the same. Add in day-after pills, and yes, you will be safe. Unless you are that one in a billion person.

The 'perfect use' pregnancy rate for the pill is listed at 0.3% (one of several sources). I've found a figure of 2 million women in the UK taking it: that's 6,000 pregnancies a year with perfect use.

It's compromised by antibiotic medicines or stomach upsets. In the UK women on the pill have their blood pressure routinely measured (about every 6 months I think) so not everyone can take it. (My niece was advised against it when she developed migraine headaches.)


Well, the good news is, with a hormonal IUD, you can have a documented five year failure rate at 0,7%. Add in a condom, and again, you don't need to worry. Besides, condoms protect against STDs, so there is a good reason there too. It is important to understand that these last tenths of a percent depend on various other problems, things like drug interactions and the like. All in all, you CAN feel safe with it, but you need to check certain things.


Sissyl wrote:
Well, the good news is, with a hormonal IUD, you can have a documented five year failure rate at 0,7%. Add in a condom, and again, you don't need to worry. Besides, condoms protect against STDs, so there is a good reason there too. It is important to understand that these last tenths of a percent depend on various other problems, things like drug interactions and the like. All in all, you CAN feel safe with it, but you need to check certain things.

Well that's true. It's mostly my pedantic nature insisting that over 99% effective isn't 100% effective, especially when you're talking about millions of cases.

And the fact that my family has a history of getting pregnant easily, and I don't want my children feeling complacent.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Well, its a lot easier to grow food where water falls from the sky then when you have to pump it or bucket it out of a river that may or may not be there in 5 years (I know.. I've tried!)

Whew, I know what you mean. I grow plants for a living (mostly olives and plums) and the last three years have been unusually dry around here. One of the fields has the luck of being washed by two creeks which in turn are connected to a region of eternal ices, so water's never a problem there, but the one up north and closer to the desertic region of the country has been a truly monumental challenge to maintain.

The government is evaluating building up some new desalinization plants to help with the problem (that region is very important for fruit production), but that will take some years. I'm honestly not sure if that field will be economically viable for olives within 3-4 years.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

yyyyeah... because abstinence is the way to go. The USA are an incredubly prudish country when it comes to that. Try teaching proper prevention instead and let people have the healthy casual sex they need... and will have, either way.

With modern methods, nobody has to have an unwanted child, unless someoneelse forces them. Not pointing fingers here. Except at conservative religious people.

There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None. Even if they're used 100% properly, and they're mostly not, they aren't 100% effective.

There are also post conception methods of birth control. And those are sure to work and only dangerous when you're not given free reign to use them. (people in states/countries where abortion is illegal or in families that forbid them from getting one often resort to "back-alley abortions" which are a serious health risk, as opposed to a proper abortion)

Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:


There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None. Even if they're used 100% properly, and they're mostly not, they aren't 100% effective.

True, but providing contraceptives and teaching people to use them properly is far more effective than just trying to teach abstinence.

And if you include the Morning After pill, you can get pretty close to 100%.

The Morning after pill can have (I think usually has) unpleasant side effects, and isn't something to be taken regularly.

I think part of teaching effective use should include the fact that however careful people are there is still a failure rate and some unwanted pregnancies

Exactly that is what proper sexual education is supposed to do.

As I said, people will have casual sex, teaching abstinence doesn't change that. That is why you do need to educate people about safer sex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And, incidentally, why abortions should always be available for those who want them. Women who are qualified to be mothers are qualified to decide NOT to be mothers.


Sissyl wrote:
And, incidentally, why abortions should always be available for those who want them. Women who are qualified to be mothers are qualified to decide NOT to be mothers.

Unless the qualification you are referring to is purely physical, this would imply that women who are not qualified to be mothers are not necessarily qualified to make that choice...


And... of course... if someone is catatonic, severely mentally ill, severely mentally retarded, they are usually considered to be not capable, or a number of corresponding legal terms. I would say it's pretty obvious that a woman in a respirator can't make any sort of decision, no?


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:

There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None.

Castration, ovary removal, and still living in your parents basement at 30?


Yay! Life panels!


WoW?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Couldn't we just start sterilizing like 30% of the population? I mean what could go wrong with that right?

We can just have some group start randomly choosing people to sterilize. I am sure we can find some very wealthy people who will be entirely responsible to fund this program and they can choose who will be sterilized for the good the good of the rest of the world. Sounds like a great plan and we would solve the over population problem very quickly.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dorian Grey wrote:
Read a modest proposal, this idea comes around every so often for the past 200 years. Strange how Armageddon keeps being postponed.

A Modest Proposal was satire about class disparity, not a real suggestion.


Burning Straw man wrote:

Couldn't we just start sterilizing like 30% of the population? I mean what could go wrong with that right?

We can just have some group start randomly choosing people to sterilize. I am sure we can find some very wealthy people who will be entirely responsible to fund this program and they can choose who will be sterilized for the good the good of the rest of the world. Sounds like a great plan and we would solve the over population problem very quickly.

I WILL CHAIR THE PANEL SPOKEN OF BY THE FLAMING PUMPKIN...NOW LET THE TRIBUTES AND SACRIFICES COMMENCE TO APPEASE ME

Liberty's Edge

SnowJade wrote:
Krensky wrote:
As a wise man one said, "We have deserts to, we just don't live in them! *Angry scream*".

Angry because a wise man (which wise man) said that, or because they don't live in the deserts? Seeing photos of famine victims in arid regions is kind of discouraging, you know.

Angry because kids these days don't know the classics.

Sam Kinison on World Hunger.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
4. Create a culture which encourages a lot less casual sex than say, the US.

yyyyeah... because abstinence is the way to go. The USA are an incredubly prudish country when it comes to that. Try teaching proper prevention instead and let people have the healthy casual sex they need... and will have, either way.

With modern methods, nobody has to have an unwanted child, unless someoneelse forces them. Not pointing fingers here. Except at conservative religious people.

There are no 100% effective contraceptives. None. Even if they're used 100% properly, and they're mostly not, they aren't 100% effective.

Yeah, I got no complaints so far though.


Midnight_Angel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
And, incidentally, why abortions should always be available for those who want them. Women who are qualified to be mothers are qualified to decide NOT to be mothers.

Unless the qualification you are referring to is purely physical, this would imply that women who are not qualified to be mothers are not necessarily qualified to make that choice...

Technically, the logic in the original statement says nothing about about women not qualified to be mothers.

A -> B does not mean !A -> !B.

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / We should limit child birth, starting NOW All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.