dieburndie said:
No. That would be equating abortion with murder. I know a lot of you think abortion is murder, but I don't.
If the pregnancy was wanted then the mother is obviously going to give birth to her child. I would prefer that the woman chose not to get pregnant, but she can do whatever she wants.
I tried to emphasise this in the first post, but I was trying to say, look at say murder or war without equating it to abortion. Basically you've said if someone gets pregnant it is preferable for the baby not to be born. The reason for this is:
1. There are already too many people raping the earth
2. You don't believe in the sanctity of life.
Well, if you want there to be less people in the world, abortion is a really crappy way to achieve that goal. All it does is age the population considerably, meaning you have a lot of old people consuming just as much resources but not contributing anything. If you don't believe in a sanctity of life, there are better ways to achieve your goals, since you shouldn't have an objection to killing someone if it's for the good of the Earth. So from a practical view you could perhaps round up and euthenise old people and also cripples. There's no reason not to; they're consuming Earth's resources and their lives aren't more sacred than any others.
Why do you think those birth rates in Western Europe are dangerously low?
Because for every 2 people in this generation, in the next generation there will be 1.3 people. A civilisation won't survive if it stops breeding.
Ok, thanks for destroying your argument with a completely illogical statement.
All I meant was, if you really care about the state of the world, why do you continue to live with a Western lifestyle?
It doesn't matter. How many people in any circumstances would prefer to never have lived? Does that mean all births are justified?
If your parents decided not to have you, would that be wrong because you now prefer to exist?
We're talking about foetii that have been conceived, not those that were never conceived. You're saying it's preferable that they're never given a chance to live just because adoption can cause social problems. Since when do births have to be 'justified'? I'm saying it's better to give them a chance at life.
Why? I didn't say abortion should be encouraged in the west while the third world is left to continue breeding excessively. Obviously I advocate a reduction in all areas.
Most of all though, I think not getting pregnant should be encouraged.
But it's just not possible, unless you want to enforce policies like China, in which case you're no different than...
By believing that the parents should have no role in deciding whether or not to have their own child, $hifty wishes to have her belief that abortion is wrong imposed upon those that disagree. I still don't see where I'm going wrong here.
By the time the 1-1.5 billion Muslims multiply to the point of being able to takeover, and the West ends, it will be irrelevant anyway. Either the global population increase will be curbed, or Earth will degenerate into a barren wasteland.
I obviously think that Muslims should reduce birth rates just like everyone else.
I fail to see how my logic is inconsistent
It's actually going to happen in a couple of generations time, not some distant future. It's not that what you're saying is illogical so much as impractical. If you look at Darwinism it's pretty obvious that, well in this case you've got different cultures instead of different species, but still, you're not going to get people to stop breeding because it goes against their instincts to survive.
The issue I'm getting at is that when you have our culture that's stopped breeding but the others haven't, you're going to get a decreased living standard for "us", when there's so many more of "them".
If you want to decrease birth rates in developing countries by improving their living conditions you're just going to have the same effect as letting them breed, but get it over with faster. That is, consuming massive amounts of resources (ie. oil) to allow high living standards for such enormous numbers of people. If you let their birth rates stay high but living standards stay low the same thing will happen but more slowly.
do we have some proof that muslims have highest birth rates or something ?
its not like they arent allowed to use contraception isnt christianity against abortions ? whats to say they wont take over the world/west/whatever the point is here ?
Okay well I don't know if they have the
highest birthrates in the world, but for example you've got Italy with a birthrate of 1.2 [children per couple] compared to 6.9 in Somalia or 6.8 in Afghanistan. The migrant communities of non-european descent within Europe generally have much higher birth rates than the rest of the country.
The main reason Christianity can't take over is because there aren't any [significant numbers of] Christians in the areas I'm talking about. Basically read
this and also
this.
It gives you an idea of what might happen if one culture decides to stop breeding (for the good of the Earth or because they're too busy doing other things) while another keeps going.
