Yet that seems to be what you’re advocating.
Unfortunately, relativists only see what they want to see. That is why Pope Benedict has declare it a “central problem of our faith today”. Also he has said it is the “denial of objective truth” and more particularly, the “denial of moral truths”.
No names, no pack drill.Unfortunately, relativists only see what they want to see. That is why Pope Benedict has declare it a “central problem of our faith today”. Also he has said it is the “denial of objective truth” and more particularly, the “denial of moral truths”.
Relativism clouds people judgment to the point where truth is a lie to them. It also hardens their heart to God’s truth.
I don’t advocate suicide, but it would give the rest of us some peace and quiet.
Excuses, excueses.
You would probably do more good by not forcing such evil ideas on others.
First of all it is not excuses it is a valid REASON. Really if you killed all the people that are even aware of how many people there is on the earth I am not sure if it would do the trick. Cause we have to understand that much of the world is very undereducated and what education they get isn;t likely going to be about global population. Also how am I forcing anyone to do anything? I donlt think people should be forced to get sterilzed or forced to only have one or two kids. However I do think that perhaps taking away tax incentives and even a SMALL tax penalty would be ok. Really I think that if we donlt do something now eventually in the future there will come a time where something will HAVE to be done and it will probably be a lot worse then people talking about overpopulation on message boards if you know what I mean! Also how is the idea that the human race is overpopulated or soon to be overpopulated if things continue as they are evil?I don’t advocate suicide, but it would give the rest of us some peace and quiet.
Excuses, excueses.
You would probably do more good by not forcing such evil ideas on others.
But you admit it would be a start?
How about imposing the same SMALL tax penalty on people who want to control other people’s lives, and coerce them into yielding control of their rights to have children?
Yes, it is evil – leading as it does to demands to control the rights of couples to have children through coercive measures – like a SMALL tax penalty.
Awwwww…
Ok you make a good point about the small tax penalty perhaps that would be going to far, at least at this time. However I am willing to be bet that many people that are concerned about over population either are having no kids like me or have already taken the steps to ensure they will no longer add to the population. However what about education and just not giving people an incentives to have children like tax cuts and what not. Also I do think people have the right to have kids and one of the reasons I encourage having no or fewer kids now is so that in the future people still have that right.But you admit it would be a start?
How about imposing the same SMALL tax penalty on people who want to control other people’s lives, and coerce them into yielding control of their rights to have children?
Yes, it is evil – leading as it does to demands to control the rights of couples to have children through coercive measures – like a SMALL tax penalty.
Remember, not only does your a SMALL tax penalty take money for shoes and new winter coats away from the family, it also stigmatizes them.
And people who are concerned about the government beaming thoughts into their minds are wearing tin-foil helmets.
You mean indoctrination – teaching kids theyr’e inferior because they have brothers and sisters.
Let’s discriminate against people for having children, deny them the same treatment as people who have the "politically correct number of kids and make sure they can’t afford shoes and winter coats for their kids.
And you do that by turning families with “too many” kids into second-class citizens?
The child tax credit does not even remotely compare to the cost, to the parent, of raising a child. I recall reading, years ago, that if the child deduction had been adjusted for inflation from the time Truman was president, it would have been $20,000 per child. Probably would be $30,000 per child now. So the tax incentive, if there ever really was an incentive, isn’t very much of an incentive now, particularly since purchases to support children are also subject to sales tax.
Wow it seems to me that words are being put right in my mouth. Where did I say that children should be taught they are inferior because they have brothers and sisters? I have a sister myself and I think it is great. My mom and dad both come from fairly big families and I do not feel they are inferior either. I am talking about teaching people about contraceptives, teaching them about resonsiblity too. Like getting married before having sex. And that relying on the government to have kid after kid is wrong. And I think they should be taught about overpopulation issues as well though in something like this they should of course be allowed to or even encourage to have an open discussion which would enclude disagreeing.
Did you say “education?” Just what sort of “education” did you have in mind. As I pointed out, in his ground-breaking book, Got a Match? Francis Meagher pointed out you can’t teach people not to write on the bathroom walls.
Right – pass out the condoms in school. Good idea.
Which kinda conflicts with the contraceptive message, doesn’t it?
But would ultimately end up with kids from politically incorrect families being treated like inferiors.
When you give the cut to Jones, but not to Brown, do you not discriminate? How else would you know who not to give the cut to?
Right – we’ll discriminate against those who have “too many” children.
Did you miss the point that the money belongs to me before it belongs to the government?
Or that you were discriminated against, stigmatized, and accorded lower status than other people
Then what kind of education are you talking about?
When people who “comply” get their hands held, yes.
Well we all pay into social security…in most cases probably far more then we will ever see. I do in general though think that people should save up money and be prepared to support themselves when they retire. However rather then being concerned about whether or not childfree or people with 2 or less kids get any social security benefits shouldn;t we be more concerned with illegal immigrants receiving all the benefits those of us who pay taxes and work do without actually contributing themselves?
Agreed. It seems that many of these folks seem to be confusing issues of world population with the US population. Just because the birth rate is down in the US doesn’t mean we are in the clear as to overpopulation it just means there are fewer Americans. That means we should be able to allow more immigrants from areas of the world where folks are literally starving to death (this includes infants and the unborn who die due to malnutrition - so you “pro-life” folks should welcome this opportunity to help them). Or maybe non-Americans don’t count. Wouldn’t surprise me since I’ve seen so many posts by folks who seem convinced that God is an American.
While I donlt think that NFP should be the only thing that is taught…I do think that it would be pretty nice if it was one of forms of birth control talked about. Though admittingly going into great detail about everyform of nfp might be a bit much. But maybe going into general detail or just focusing on one method would be good. Really though I think it would be nice if sexual health classes went into a little bit more detail about our fertility you know what I mean? Sadly though I doubt it will ever happen.
So what if we all pay social security taxes? We don’t get any of our other taxes back. As I think we now all know, there is no “fund” out there. Current taxes pay current beneficiaries, with a bit extra for the Congress to spend on whatever it wants. It’s a tax on current workers to support former workers.
You bet you won’t see more than a fraction of it!