"Get it on," says the Pope. Discussion about pop

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:38 am

Okay he didn't really say "get it on." But that was basically his message:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070908/wl ... 0908192741

Personally I hang out in the nontraditional lounge at college cause I consider myself a non-traditional nontraditional student being ex-military but still young. There's a few people there with seven or so children and that honestly makes me sick. Its like control your freaking primitive instincts! They talk about not having enough money and having to eat nothing but beans. Duh!

I'm in favor of a two child limit in America. There's already too many people inn the world and a two child limit will help to slow down the population boom. Its just nasty, to me, to see a group of people popping out children left and right.

It just makes me wonder what are we going to do when people have practical immortality. Until space travel becomes relatively cheap we can't expand the human race like we used to and since immortality has been the goal of humanity forever, pretty much, we'll get it eventually. I have no doubt in my mind that eventually through gene treatment or virtual bodies we'll live thousands of years. We going to have people that still pump out 7 children every 20 years? That's 343 offspring for one couple! Assuming they lose their fertility at 1000 and start at 20. That's just insane.

Okay, sorry about the rant but that yahoo post made me want to rant!

Post by **Teaos** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:54 am

I'm in favor of a two child limit in America.

Sorry I usually dont like to get personal in these debates but when I read that I wanted to kick you in the nuts really hard.

I can see the logic in that if coarse. The facts are undenieable.

No one has the right to tell anyone how to live there lives. You can offer your point of view and you logic behind it but it should never be put in law.

You cant and more importantly SHOULDNT try to control peoples lives.

Foxbat · Post by **Foxbat** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:08 pm

I feel it is important to limit your family to your ablity to to adequately provide for them. (If it's 1 or 10 doesn't matter) But this needs to come from within and is a matter of personal responsibility. This isn't a matter for government to legislate. If you want that, relocate to China, who have STRICT laws on family size, and go so far as to limit gender. And since also have freedom of religion (not so in China) we have the right to follow religious dictates, whether you and I as individuals personally agree with them or not is irrelevant.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:38 am

Teaos wrote:
I'm in favor of a two child limit in America.
Sorry I usually dont like to get personal in these debates but when I read that I wanted to kick you in the nuts really hard.

Sorry you wanted to touch and sexually assault my male genitalia, but you have to look at it this way if humanity is going to survive some things that were considered rights need to be moved to privledges. I'm not talking about limiting freedom of religion, or press or anything like that but limiting resources consumption per household.

We're already doing it somewhat but if we're to survive the next hundred years in any thing resembling good shape then things like water, food, gas, energy, and yes- reproducing, will need to be controlled.

We've used something like 50% of our groundwater, many rivers don't reach the ocean, in Africa wells are going dry, I have little hope that global warming will be fixed and in the meantime the world is industrializing so its using more resources, average family size in India is still 8, and we're heading on up to seven billion here in a few years.

People need to learn to control their animalistic instincts.

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:33 pm

While I may agree with some things that you say, how is it my right to mandate how another person lives their life. I see things all the time that I shake my head at, but it doesn't allow me to impose my will on other humans.

Many Christians believe that my faith, the Jews, are responsible for the execution of Jesus, and many further believe that any faith but their own is just wrong. Are you saying that I should be hung from a tree by the neck, simply because I live in a way that someone doesn't like? And if we do legislate about lifestyle, who gets to decide which way is right?

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:45 am

This isn't an argument to create a policy towards freedom of speech or religion but guaranting that your children and future generations have enough air and enough water to breathe and drink. Its hard for us to wrap our minds around it but there will have to be some kind of rationing in the future and I for one would much rather it be a little bit now than in a few generations requiring people to have liscences to have any children.

Its not a good future and its not pleasent to think about. Hell I have two brothers in my family and I wouldnt' trade out either one of them but its a reality that we're going to have to face as a species soon. At the very least until we get off this rock and into the stars.

Post by **Teaos** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:42 am

We still have a large buffer of farm land left to feed us.

You cant control a population. What happens if you have a third child? Who punishs you? what is it?

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:35 pm

bingo!

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:32 pm

Teaos wrote:We still have a large buffer of farm land left to feed us.

You cant control a population. What happens if you have a third child? Who punishs you? what is it?

Extra taxes maybe? And our farm land isn't yielding as much as it used to. Sure we have plenty of surplus now but will it always be that way? If anyone knows a better suggestion to keep mass starvation and drought away I'm all ears.

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:30 pm

So, your solution is to mandate an individual's right to procreate? Would it be your decision to decide how many children I could have? Maybe you would decide for me what religion to raise them in, or what I can teach them...

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:14 am

Religion and procreating are two different things...

Religion, freedom of the press, and what not are civilized rights. They're rights that you have earned over the course of civilization. Their cornerstones of civilization and they're what keeps new ideas and progress in humanity moving forward.

Procreating, on the other hand, is an instinct. Pissing is an instinct and we regulate it. Killing is an instinct and we regulate it. Building a fire was once a right but now we have laws that stop fires in certain areas at certain times of the year. Hell we already regulate it somewhat. If some guy claimed his religion said it was okay to sleep with fifteen year olds would you not want the government to stop that?

To procreate is not an unalienable civilized right. Its an instinct that just like killing, bodly waste, and behavior needs to be regulated.
*Feels like Dr. Breen from HL2*

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:23 am

I wasn't equating religion and procreation; I was using a secondary example to make a point.

And no, nobody regulates my bathroom behavior, my eating habits, or any other behavior which you describe as "instinctual."

My question still remains, and is still valid: who gets to decide for me how many kids I can have? You?

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:08 am

Mikey wrote:I wasn't equating religion and procreation; I was using a secondary example to make a point.

And no, nobody regulates my bathroom behavior, my eating habits, or any other behavior which you describe as "instinctual."

My question still remains, and is still valid: who gets to decide for me how many kids I can have? You?

No one regulates your bathroom behavior? So you can just use whatever room you want as a bathroom and no one will raise an eyebrow or fine you for indescent exposure? And I didn't say anything about eatting habbits but now that you bring it up aren't there a lot of substances we're not allowed to take or have restrictions with?

Taking heroine is a personal choice just like having 16 children. But Heroine is illegal even though it affects less people.

Its just the culture norm, for now, to not place barriers on people's lives like that, whereas taking drugs its a cultural norm to moniter such behavior.

I don't think I should decide as that would be a dictatorship

But just like any law it should be decided by people we vote into office. Not that people will support a law like that in high numbers until its too late to do anything about it.

Way I see it we can start making it law to not have more children than X for 20 years, then revise the number to less or relax it based on resources. Or we can blindly march towards the cliff side shooting out babies left and right and then in 2050 be surprised when 25% of the oxygen in the air is gone. Now, I know which one humanity's going to pick, but that doesn't change my opinion on which one we should pick.

Post by **Teaos** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:24 am

I would honestly rather keep my freedom and have the world blow up in 2050 than have those sort of ristrictions on us.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:48 am

But how would politicians you vote in voting on a law that restricts a biological function be restricting your freedom? Especially when this could save billions of lives in the long run?