Pregnancy is not a Disease

[surritter]

I think you didn’t follow the discussion and that is why you reach to a wrong conclusion about our (me and him/her) discussion.

Indulge me with a brief recap, then.
Do you agree that an unborn fetus is a human being?

 

[Rau]

Indulge me with a brief recap, then.
Do you agree that an unborn fetus is a human being?

I think his position is that killing, born or unborn, is “immoral” - meaning, can’t be done without appropriate justification. He further argues that killing a born child is “worse” - I think because more has been invested, hence more is lost.

But because his thinking is essentially consequentialist, he may choose any act, “immoral” or not, if to choose that act appears to lead to lesser bad consequences than otherwise.

This is unlike the Christian ethical system in which the negative precepts (properly understood) such as “Thou shall not kill” are absolute and forbid an act, regardless of foreseeable consequences.

 

[Rau]

Well, you might be in a situation that you have to kill one of your child.

Viewing the situation thusly assumes an ethical system such as consequentialism. You should complete your statement by including the “why” to make this clear.

 

[STT]

Indulge me with a brief recap, then.
Do you agree that an unborn fetus is a human being?

All I know is that life from a pair of sperm and egg to embryo then grown fetus is continuous. It is a state of life which is changing.

I think post #42 explains my position well.

 

[jeannetherese]

We are not talking about morality here since killing a human is immoral whether it is X or Y. We are talking about the fact that killing a child is wrong compared to killing a unborn child. Why? Because its parents spend life, money, etc to raise a kid to that stage.

Using such arguments, would you agree that it is better to depopulate a third world (LDC, less developed) country than a first world a(MDC more developed) country because more money is spent supporting the lifestyle of those living in first world countries?
Would first world countries have a right to eliminate third world populations to increase their living space and economic opportunities?

 

[BobCatholic]

Think of it this way: We are not allowed to use condom or ejaculate outside vagina. This means that a woman can give birth to a child every other year. This means that each woman can give birth to around 10 or more kids in her entire life. That is a big expansion in population which eventually leads to a catastrophe.

How is a “big expansion in population” leading to a catastrophe? This sounds like the overpopulationist argument, which is used to dehumanize and devalue people.

I look at it like this, if I have 10 kids, that’s 10 kids that will take care of me in my old age. Large families were the original Social Security.

The catastrophe that happens is that someone grows old, they have no or few kids, and are poor and alone with nobody to take care of them.

Population increase leads to more economic activity which leads to more prosperity, which leads to better things.

 

[STT]

Using such arguments, would you agree that it is better to depopulate a third world (LDC, less developed) country than a first world a(MDC more developed) country because more money is spent supporting the lifestyle of those living in first world countries?

I agree with decreasing the population in the third world countries and increasing the population in first world countries.

Would first world countries have a right to eliminate third world populations to increase their living space and economic opportunities?

No. The better idea is to distribute wealth in order to have no poor.

 

[STT]

How is a “big expansion in population” leading to a catastrophe? This sounds like the overpopulationist argument, which is used to dehumanize and devalue people.

I look at it like this, if I have 10 kids, that’s 10 kids that will take care of me in my old age. Large families were the original Social Security.

The catastrophe that happens is that someone grows old, they have no or few kids, and are poor and alone with nobody to take care of them.

Population increase leads to more economic activity which leads to more prosperity, which leads to better things.

We have limited fertilized land. This means that we can support a specific population healthy and happy. It is not rational to ask for more population.

 

[BobCatholic]

We have limited fertilized land. This means that we can support a specific population healthy and happy. It is not rational to ask for more population.

Excuse me? We have sufficient arable land to support 100x the population we currently have. We could take the entire world’s population, stuff them into two flats, and have the state of Texas filled with the rest of the world empty, using it as arable farmland. .

When famines exist, it usually happens when governments are corrupt. Case in point: Zimbabwe. At independence, it was the breadbasket of Africa, and exported tons of grain because it was so bountiful. Robert Mugabe took over as dictator, seized all the white farmers’ land and let his cronies run those farms. Today, Zimbabwe’s farm output is a tiny fraction of what it was before, and is forced to import food just to survive, with mass starvation. But at least cronies got enriched!

Was this because of a lack of arable land? No. It was because of corrupt governments.

The overpopulationist belief is nothing but a means to devalue and dehumanize people. It is irrational to claim to be “inclusive” while thinking of ways to exclude more people.

 

[STT]

Excuse me? We have sufficient arable land to support 100x the population we currently have. We could take the entire world’s population, stuff them into two flats, and have the state of Texas filled with the rest of the world empty, using it as arable farmland. .

When famines exist, it usually happens when governments are corrupt. Case in point: Zimbabwe. At independence, it was the breadbasket of Africa, and exported tons of grain because it was so bountiful. Robert Mugabe took over as dictator, seized all the white farmers’ land and let his cronies run those farms. Today, Zimbabwe’s farm output is a tiny fraction of what it was before, and is forced to import food just to survive, with mass starvation. But at least cronies got enriched!

Was this because of a lack of arable land? No. It was because of corrupt governments.

The overpopulationist belief is nothing but a means to devalue and dehumanize people. It is irrational to claim to be “inclusive” while thinking of ways to exclude more people.

You didn’t get my point. What we are going to do when we reach the full capacity? Moreover where do you get the 100x from?

 

[Rau]

Are there any limits to the human population that can be supported, at an acceptable standard, on our finite earth?

 

[STT]

Are there any limits to the human population that can be supported, at an acceptable standard, on our finite earth?

I think there is. I however cannot give you a number because of many factors involved, such as resource depletion, global warming, etc. I think the first figure in this wiki article can give you an idea about population explosion.

 

[Rau]

I think there is. I however cannot give you a number because of many factors involved, such as resource depletion, global warming, etc. I think the first figure in this wiki article can give you an idea about population explosion.

I believe it to be axiomatic that a finite planet can support a finite population.

 

[BobCatholic]

You didn’t get my point. What we are going to do when we reach the full capacity? Moreover where do you get the 100x from?

We will never reach full capacity. I’ve read articles about the demographic winter, and how we will top out at around 9B and then drop from there.

The 100x figure is pure hyperbole. Given we will never fill up this planet with people, because people are not having kids anymore. Overpopulationism is bunk.

 

[STT]

We will never reach full capacity. I’ve read articles about the demographic winter, and how we will top out at around 9B and then drop from there.

The 100x figure is pure hyperbole. Given we will never fill up this planet with people, because people are not having kids anymore. Overpopulationism is bunk.

That is a good thing that people don’t want many kids. A few kids and well supported is far better that many poor kids.

 

[BobCatholic]

That is a good thing that people don’t want many kids. A few kids and well supported is far better that many poor kids.

Actually more kids is better than fewer kids. The parents who have 10 kids, create 10 self-sufficient, working adults who are consumers and help the economy. The parents who have 3 kids, create only 3 self-sufficient working adults who are consumers and help the economy. Guess which creates more economic activity?

When there is fewer kids being had, who will pay social security and medicare to fund the benefits? Oops! In the old days, having 10 kids meant you had 10 kids who could take care of you in your old age, even if some were poor in adulthood. Now, you have one or two kids, they BETTER be rich or else you’re doomed in old age.

Poverty is caused by corrupt governments, not by having kids in wedlock.

 

[Rau]

Population growth (increased fertility) per se need not be a harbinger of poverty. Were it the case that global population were to grow for “long enough”, on a finite world, it follows that circumstances would arise that encouraged a reduction in the fertility rate. Let’s hope that those circumstances don’t include the likes of famine and environmental catastrophes.

More than corrupt governments drive poverty. Add to the list: incompetence of leadership, and greed.

 

[BobCatholic]

More than corrupt governments drive poverty. Add to the list: incompetence of leadership, and greed.

incompetence of leadership is a symptom of corrupt governments. Corrupt leaders are incompetent many times. Same thing with greed. The greedy buy the corrupt politicians.

 

[Rau]

incompetence of leadership is a symptom of corrupt governments. Corrupt leaders are incompetent many times. Same thing with greed. The greedy buy the corrupt politicians.

You’ve never met the well meaning but incompetent? Corruption and incompetence are not equivalent. Greed is also distinct. But they may appear together.

 

[BobCatholic]

You’ve never met the well meaning but incompetent?

Yes. These types usually have a malformed conscience or none at all.