Much has been made on this forum,by Global village idiot and others, of the threat of muslim extremists. There is sound reason for this;as they certainly represent a "clear and present danger."
I personally consider unsustainable population growth to be one of
the greatest difficulties we face in the world today. Most of you probably
already know where i'm going with this. In any case, many christians seem to do everything they can to encourage unsustainable population
growth. Conservative Catholics,like the current and former pope, seem particularily inclined in this regard.
They usually can rationalize everything they do one way or another.
Perhaps they may suggest that if everyone "merely" followed the church's teachings regarding abstinence,pre-maritial sex,"natural family planning"
etc…there would be no problem with over-population.Ofcourse,even if this
would control population growth,it is a wholly unrealistic expectation. They will then proceed to blame all those who reject the church's teachings in these matters and continue to object to and try to prevent; contraception,abortion,or just about any means of controlling population.
It goes without saying that these policies can lead to far more human misery and environmental holocausts than all other church policies regarding gays,divorce,human sexuality in general, or most other issues.
I do not single out the catholic church or even christianity in general. There are others,probably even some atheists or agnostics who object
to contraception and/or various kinds of population control. I don't think
it's unfair however, to consider christians,if nothing else the most vocal
opponants of many, or any sort of pop control. With the possible exception
of the unrealistic aforementioned methods.
There is a recent book entitled "freakanomics". The author(whose name
currently eludes me) is a trained economist and he proposes an interesting theory in the book. He claims that abortion may have played
a significant role in the overall decrease in crime we have seen in the USA
in the past few years. Basically, the theory states that many aborted fetuses would have entered the ages of the most criminally active by now. Because many of these abortions would have otherwise been born into less-than satisfactory circumstances, they would have been more inclined to commit crimes(atleast of the "street" variety). In other words,the theory is that we would have many more homocides,rapes,robberies,etc…had abortion remained illegal.
This sounds like a plausible theory to me and it ofcourse upset many
I am not saying this does,or does not justify abortion by itself(I doubt the author is saying that either). It is simply amazing to me that the very people who claim such love of humanity often seem to work more against it's overall interests than for them.
Therefore, I have come to the conculsion that many christians;however
willing or unwilling are in fact, "terrorists". Only history will judge,if indeed anyone is left to study it,whether the policies of christian extremists contributed equal,or more overall negativity to the world than the actions
of their "kindred spirits" among muslims.
[quote author=“Landulf II”]Much has been made on this forum,by Global village idiot and others, of the threat of muslim extremists. There is sound reason for this;as they certainly represent a “clear and present danger.”
I personally consider unsustainable population growth to be one of the greatest difficulties we face in the world today. ... Christians…object to and try to prevent; contraception,abortion,or just about any means of controlling population…. Therefore, I have come to the conculsion that many christians;however
willing or unwilling are in fact, “terrorists”.
Hate-speech noted. Why this urge to murder the defenceless? Since when did only the Christians protect the unborn?
Landulf II, you’ve summed up the current situation perfectly. Taken to their completion, the goals of both christianity and islam result in, at the very least, a population crash, and at worst, the death of every ecosystem on Earth (with the possible exception of life at the ocean depths). It’s the very definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy and the main reason, political terrorism included, why those religions are, in fact, social diseases.
If these sickos get their way human reproductive rights will become a practical non-issue. Greed kills, after all.
Historically, there was NO abortion issue until the medical profession decided to make it an issue in the late 19th century. Until then, women’s reproductive health care was in the hands of midwives, village “wise woman” and such, and they performed abortions. This was NOT illegal. There was NO church ban on this. Nobody was interested in it. This was equally true, of course, for contraception, and don’t think for a minute that there weren’t practical and effective means for contraception. Ultimately, having pushed to make abortion illegal, it was the medical profession that decided there had to be exceptions to the law for the sake of protecting women’s health in extreme cases. Then, finally, it was the good doctors (that’s irony, folks) who decided there shouldn’t be a law against abortion.
Until the physicians got involved, the concern of the church was to get unborn babies who weren’t going to survive labor baptized, so they wouldn’t end up in limbo or worse, no matter how much they had to rip up the mothers to accomplish this. So—the bitter truth is that the church simply wasn’t interested in the issue of abortion until the late 19th century anyway.
As a final irony, women in temperate climates were kept out of the sun so they wouldn’t ruin their delicate skin. This meant that most women grew up with at least mild cases of rickets and deformed pelvises, which made childbirth dangerous for both the baby and the mother. Because of this, women WERE the weaker sex. Many women didn’t survive childbirth, and probably the majority were at least somewhat crippled by it and suffered for the rest of their lives. It’s only been a couple of generations since vitamin D was discovered, and mothers brought up their daughters on cod liver oil. It’s anybody’s guess how much this had to do with the rise of feminism. Women are no longer crippled by childbirth, and are no longer the weaker sex. This whole issue of subordinating women and preventing abortion and contraception is based on false, very modern premises in the first place.
Hate-speech noted. Why this urge to murder the defenseless? Since when do christians only want to protect the unborn
Perhaps you should consider allowing someone to elaborate on their ideas before you knee-jerk and label them"Hate-speech”?
I believe abortion is a neccessary evil. It is one that should be IDEALLY as rare as possible, though. Please explain to me how YOU would go about doing that. The possibilities of zero abortions on planet earth are about as realistic as the second or the first, coming of the tooth fairy. Is contraception “murder” in your eyes too? Is 8-12 billion people by mid century sound sustainable to you? (according to most studies,including the UN’s). After mid-century it’s EXPECTED to decline, RELATIVELY SLOWLY. Until it levels off at around 2 billion around 2300. Do you really think the planet’s ecosystems,it’s resources etc…have that long to wait? Especially considering the damage done already?
Do you really believe we can, or will feed 8-12 billion people? We really aren’t feeding the whole six billion plus now are we? Mabye you think the global “free-market” will solve all these problems alone. Surely it has helped,but there are still billions in poverty,dying of disease etc… The free market seems to require hyper-urbanization to work the way it’s supposed to. Hyper-urbanization greatly increases the chances of global pandemics,especially hard-to-cure exotic ones, from the humid tropics of much of the developing world. So please enlighten me
regarding your brilliant proposals for controlling population growth
WITHOUT widespread use of contraceptives and yes,abortion when all else fails.Do you think everyone will suddenly practice abstinence and “natural family planning” just because the pope says so? Are we going to offer “incentives” to people who don’t reproduce? If so, what will these incentives entail exactly? The incentives are already being offered,mabye not delibrately,but that is a big part of why the replacement rate is declining through much of the world. It is obviously not declining enough,if we can expect atleast another 1/3 added on to what we already have, by roughly 2050. Their actually are some downsides(mostly economic ones) to declining population. Do these cons outweigh the pros of population control?, not in my book. Humans resemble locusts more than any other creatures,except humans are probably more self-destructive. If this planet is to remain vibrant and resourceful for the near future,we either must somehow drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels,timber and many other resources, OR we must control population. A little of both may work out the best at this juncture. If you have any other bright ideas,please share them with the world. If your so concerned about the unborn,why not start a campaign to increase contraceptive use,abstinence or anything else that may significantly reduce population growth without resorting to abortion? And/or develope alternative energies and other alternative resources like a viable substitute for Timber etc….. According to the statistics i’ve encountered,there has been roughly 40 million abortions since roe v. wade in the USA alone. So you, the pope and every other pro-lifer should have put your money where your mouths are, and pooled your considerable collective resources to feed,clothe, house,education,etc…. the extra 40 million, in this country alone. I guess the pope’s “summer residence”, Castel Gandolfo, is of somewhat greater importance?
I do not single out the Catholic Church or even christianity in general. There are others,probably even some atheists or agnostics who object to contraception and/or various kinds of population control.
Landulf, I agree with you that over-population is a problem that is going unaddressed in the face of “revenge as foreign policy”. In fact, there are a lot of problems facing the world at large that no-one seems to be able to think about for very long lest it get in the way of their profit margins.
I think I understand your central point to be that over-population is a problem that we ignore at our peril, the peril being that the planet Earth only has so much space and resources, and cannot possibly support a human population that grows at a completely unchecked rate. I also understand that there are various contraceptive techniques by which we can self-regulate that growth rate.
I do think you muddy the waters a bit when you refer to the theory that suggests abortion has reduced violent crime in America. I could also say that abortion has reduced the amount of great art produced in America, and have an equally good argument. In fact, I could probably argue that abortion has caused any effect I could care to name, and have an argument as good as that one; in other words, it’s a pretty bad argument, and a really bad way to justify abortion.
Abortion is an ethical choice made by women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies. Having spoken with women who have had abortions, I can say that it is not an easy choice - nor should it be. Suggesting that abortion is merely a tool to reduce an unsustainable population growth rate, that it’s just an efficient, utilitarian solution is to ignore the difficulty that women have when faced with the possibility of abortion. This is not to say that abortion shouldn’t be available to women, merely to say that treating it as a tool strips it of its ethical dimension.
I’m not sure that “abortion is a tool” is really what you wanted to say, though, which is why I brought up the above. I just wanted you to be aware that some people, such as Roger, might interpret your words in that way. Over-population IS a problem that we humans must face, and we must find ways of dealing with it that do not rely on utilitarian interpretations of human life. Incouraging healthy education about sexuality and making contraceptives more readily available to those who live in areas of poverty and neglect are good places to start.
Hilter thought genocide a neccessary evil. As for your comments about over-population—by other people,ofcourse—I’m afraid I think you violate the golden rule.
Ah yes, good ole’ Adolf,what would pro-lifers do without him?
You seem to be atleast an apologist for the pro-life movement,if
nothing else. As a secular jew, I just love being compared to
Hitler by people like you. I suppose you see no difference at
all between the killing of those who have already been born and the killing of a fetus???
Like the convienent figure people like you
enjoy using in order to demonize everyone they disagree with
said,in a speech at the Reichstag; ” I understand only too well
the world-wide distance between Roosevelt’s ideas and my
own”. Ditto for the ideas of Roger Pearse and my own ideas.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by “other people”.
Are you implying that I think over-pop is only a problem
because people unlike myself(poor,non-white,third world,etc…)
are too numerous? If so, you are wrong again. I think HUMANS
rich/poor, black/white, USA-Europe/the third world etc….are too
numerous. Actually, I believe you were trying to say that I don’t
consider MYSELF a part of the problem. You are half-right and half wrong here. For better or for worse, I myself (along with over 6 billion others) am already here. If my parents would have prevented my birth,by whatever means, I would have neither
known, nor cared. I simply would not have existed. Every human,
myself included, is part of the problem in an over-populated world. I do not advocate killing anyone, myself included, who has
already been born. Nor do I, in spite of what you seem to want to believe, advocate abortion. To clarify my position on abortion for the last time, ABORTION IS AN UNPLEASANT NECCESSARY EVIL THAT
SHOULD BE MADE AS RARE AS POSSIBLE. If it is IMPOSSIBLE(and I don’t believe it is) to keep abortions(speaking in terms of the USA)
below 1 million per year and hopefully far less, then it is an ugly reality that we must live with. I happen to believe the alternatives
are even uglier.
I suppose you don’t believe any “evils” are neccessary. Would you say we should get rid of cars because 40,000 people per years are killed on America’s roads? Perhaps we should entirely do away with animal-testing that is essential to providing treatments for deadly human diseases? Or perhaps we should do away with all construction because a certain number of construction workers are killed on the job every year? The examples of “neccessary evils” are countless. BTW, I don’t hear you(or many of your “pro-life"allies) saying much about the “neccessary evil” of Bush’s war in Iraq,which last time I checked,was killing more than just the unborn. But I suppose the war is fully justified, using the ridiculous type of situational ethics many pro-lifers use.
Unless abortions were in the hundreds of millions per year, (which even I, the bloodthirsty hitler I have been accused of being,would never support or find neccessary) I don’t think
abortion is an effective means of controlling population growth.
Many women who receive abortions have financial reasons for doing so. We currently have over 35 million people in the USA
living at,or below the official poverty level. That is just the official
poverty level, which I believe is currently around $9000 per year
for a single person. Try living on twice or even over three times
that amount in this country and then tell me what your overall quality of life is like. There have been roughly 40 million abortions in the USA since Roe v. Wade. I would GUESS that ATLEAST 1/4 of those children and young adults would be living in either official poverty, or would be quite poor were they alive today. That’s 10 million more impoverished or low income people than we have now. Is this in itself an argument for abortion? Not by a long shot,IMO. The problem is; humans do not and will not, ever do what they IDEALLY should do. In this case, it ideally would mean
abstinence( ideal?,a wholly unrealistic and even unfair expectation) contraceptive use(which many pro-lifers also oppose) the old “pull and pray” method( relatively ineffective, difficult to guarantee and just another unrealistic expectation of human behavior). I think we should do everything possible to get people to practice these forms of birth control(some rational forms of self-control I would support,but you seriously can’t expect total abstinence) So what happens if our best efforts FAIL, as most attempts in social engineering do? Would you and the rest of society be prepared to feed,clothe,house,educate,etc…. the millions who
aren’t aborted? We are failing to do that,in large part now. If not, I suppose you think it’s perfectly ethical to doom millions more to a life of poverty or near-poverty. Not to mention increase the financial hardship on their parents and society as a whole. After all, money isn’t everything right? Easy for you to say. Try telling that to the single mother with no car, no health insurance, living in the ghetto, contending with crime,drugs, bad schools, facing an ever-increasing cost of living,while her earnings remain more or less stagnant.
So far, i’ve heard nothing but alot wind, subjective psycho-babble, hit and run tactics,sarcasm and demonizations from you in most of your posts. You
seem to be just another reactionary with all or nothing solutions.
Instead ridiculous hit and run tactics, why not offer some real solutions on how to reduce abortions to as few as posssible,while
solving all the other problems i’ve mentioned. Or do you not believe they are problems, atleast equal to that of abortion?
Mabye you should read a little Hegel and then you may understand why all or nothing solutions often,if not always
fail miserably. Once again, you have well-earned a Ofcourse,
human nature being what it is; I expect nothing less from you than
more of same that I have already had the dubious honor of receiving.
I do think you muddy the waters a bit when you refer to the theory that suggests abortion has reduced
violent crime in America.
Perhaps I did muddy the waters a bit, if so I apologize. This theory is just that, a theory. I think I made it clear that even if
this theory is fact,it would not justify by itself. As a matter of fact,I think it’s pretty irrelevant to the abortion debate. I simply brought
it up to show that there MAY be some unintentional positive consequences from legalized abortion. There was arguably positive
unintentional consequences from WW II and the holocaust too. I guess I did not make that very clear and I am sorry for that. But again, I must say that even if abortion reduced violent crime far more than the theory suggests, I would never justify it on these
grounds alone and quite possibly, would not factor it in at all.
I know it is not an easy choice for a women,or even her partner.
The only reason I suggested abortion as a tool to reduce an unsustainable population is because there appears to be no other
option. More accurately, it appears that society is unwilling to do whatever is neccessary to create other options. Again, I did not make myself clear and I again apologize. Abortion would only be
a “tool” for population control PER SE,if far more abortions (perhaps well into the hundreds of millions) occured every year.
It would NOT be a tool I would ever condone especially because(but not entirely) it would never be neccessary. I do not believe our current abortion rates are neccessary. It ‘s just that no one from right to left,pro-life to pro-choice, etc…seems to want to do anything serious about it
They just want to speak only of it’s merits or it’s evils. But no matter what, I do believe that abortion is , regardless of what
we ever may realistically do, sometimes the only viable solution for
a certain number of women. I am all for anything that decreases the number of abortions, including adoption of those who would have been aborted by those who wish to and can afford to.
If we can get number of abortions down to 20,000 ,10,000 or ideally zero per year, great. I just don’t think that’s ever going to
happen without even uglier consequences than abortion ensuing.
You wrote Incouraging healthy education about sexuality and making contraceptives more readily available to those who live in areas of poverty and neglect are good places to start.
First of all, sex education and making contraceptives more readily available are just the thing many pro-lifers are opposed to. I think it’s safe and fair to say that many,if not most of the pro-lifers who oppose these things are christians. I have not heard a more vocal opponant of contraception than the Roman Catholic Church. No group seems more virulent in their opposition to sex ed than christians in general and the more conservative/fundamentalists kind specifically. Many of them seem to think over-population is not a problem. In fact, many seem to think we can handle more people.
Some even think more people are a great idea. I can’t begin to tell you the number of times i’ve heard catholics(and other christians) encourage people to have as many children as possible. Some of them practically canonize mothers who have had 8 or more children!!! As if it’s such a noble thing to do. I guess the cost
of publically educating 8 children for one family never factors in
to their ideas about nobility. It seems pretty damn selfish to me.
Secondly and with all due respect, I think you may be a tad naive
in regards to human nature. All the available sex ed and contraceptives on earth is not going to stop many people
from doing exactly as they please. True, better sex ed/improved access to contraceptive would probably significantly decrease
the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, but
I suspect there would still be many unwanted pregnancies. Many of those could be adopted and other alternatives may be available for others. But I do think, in certain cases the best option,unfortunetly would be abortion. Contrary
to the beliefs of the good Mr. Pearse, I despise
any kind of killing and/or violence , whether it is a flower,fly,bird human fetus or” post-fetal” human being. To me, it is just illustrative of one of the unspeakable horrors of existence.
Since some aspects of existence are not so horrific and even
wonderful, and since the alternative does not seem like a better option for most beings, there are some things that we have little choice but to grudgingly endure. I happen to believe that some number of abortions is among them. Others do not believe that, for whatever reason. I can only offer, though probably not in verbatim,this quote from Martin Luther: “It is neither safe nor wise to act against conscious, here I stand, I cannot do otherwise”.
Note that there was NO legal restriction against abortion or contraception until 1875! That’s important. Considering that this country was even more “religious” then than it is now, both abortion and contraception were considered OK morally and legally. All this supposedly moral prohibition against them appear remarkably late, don’t you think?
MJ, probably nobody was actually using contraception or having abortions until 1875. People followed the moral code that steams from the bible. Heck, anybody who loves God will try to keep themselves pure. If they fail and fall down, they’ll pick themselves up and try harder.
Probably around 1875 is when wolves in sheeps clothing infiltrating different levels of government, morally corrupting the population, so something had to be done.
Since there is little one can do with people like champ and his new-found buddy, Mr. pearse; wolf in sheep’s clothing here, yes the intrepid spirits,brilliant minds and godly hearts of the Champ and Roger Pearse have finally unveiled my horrifying satanic agenda at last :evil: It’s like an episode of “Scooby do”. :evil:
So if i’m not actively working for the “goatlord”, I guess i’m just a slave to his whims,right? Kinda funny that the “god of love” permits such things and then casts into hell those who fail to break free of their slavery.
unspeakably predictable response #1 from TChamp:
“Landulf satan has blinded you so you can’t even see your own free will. You can escape from the devil’s bondage and accept christ as your lord and savoir today. Eternal salvation is yours
for the taking. But only you can open your heart to the light of
christ and close it’s door on the schemes of the enemy” (followed by the required and appropriate scriptual quote)
UPR #2 from TChamp: “Landulf, I could’nt have said it better myself :wink:” (again followed by the required and appropriate bible quote)
UPR#3 from TChamp: ad nauseum, with the bible quote/s ,ofcourse
I think you have quoted the entire OT/NT in this forum twice by now. You have yet to convert anyone here, to the best of my knoweledge. If the “word of god” has failed here,isn’t somewhat arrogant of you to think anything you say will be successful?
Again I say, there are few things I claim to be 100% certain of. I would say the only thing i’m 99.9999999999…..% of is that christianity(atleast the way it’s been intrepreted often, for the past 2000 years) is one of the most idiotic, irrational, insane,inexpressibly ridiculous and ultimately destructive ideas
ideas that humankind has ever farted out. Such ideas simply must come from only one orifice. People like Tchamp and Roger “underline” Pearse continue to add fuel to that all-but-certainty everyday.