I agree that it is irresponsible to bring children into the world without the means and will to care for them. However, I think killing them would be worse. I’m all for dissuading people who have no interest in having children from having sex. As the old saying goes, “If you don’t want to go to Minneapolis, what are you doing on the train?”
I know statistics have a lot of power to convince but it’s kinda hard when you’re surrounded by actual, physical proof to the seemingly contrary.
Whenever I see people use the urban poor as a justification for contraception, I am insulted by it. The condescension by the supporters of contraception is quite disgusting since they regard the urban poor as unfit to breed.
That only works a little bit more effectively than stats but the fact is, are the poor being responsible? There’s not exactly a lot of proof that men below the poverty line have done much to change their image of wife-beating, drunken, rooster-fight gamblers.
So what you’re saying is that they should improve their image so that would not be seen as targets by the eugenicists?That only works a little bit more effectively than stats but the fact is, are the poor being responsible? There’s not exactly a lot of proof that men below the poverty line have done much to change their image of wife-beating, drunken, rooster-fight gamblers.
I wanna see them in a better light, I really do… but when you’re being ripped off or lied to by the conductor of a slow PUV… ugh.
Obviously! Developed countries do not make themselves if its citizens are in fact the very lazy and self-pitying sort of crowd they are being depicted to be.
Point taken.
It’ll take out itself once people stop being lazy and start buying things of higher quality (better yet, create things of higher quality).
So what you’re saying is that we should encourage people to create things of better quality?
This goes for people supporting both sides. However, what disturbs me personally, is when people simply blow off facts that are presented before them.
I suppose you use this paper for all your support for Catholicism also.
Interesting you pick a country with a with a surplus, notably a country that could be self sufficient with regard to resources, and one that has a high ratio of various naturally occurring resources per person. Also, you choose the country with what has the de facto world currency and prints money out of thin air. Why are you choosing the exception rather than the rule?
Actually, I don’t. I am only interested in the population and the resources available to the population.
So are you saying that if the people in Nauru work as hard as those in the U.S., they will suddenly become self sufficient and wealthy? Or should I say wealthy again, because they were amongst the wealthiest on a per capita basis until there major resource dried up.
This has nothing to do with the argument. It’s an extremist position that is pushing an agenda. Once again, both sides do it. And that’s the opinion of a pro-life Catholic.
Unfortunately, there are too many self-(pseudo)proclaimed intellectuals on both sides that do great damage to the rest of us.
With the appropriate energy resources, whose EROEI are trending downward.
As demonstrated in a previous post, the whole concept of EROEI is invalid.
That’s like saying the whole concept of addition or subtraction is invalid. EROEI is simply “energy returned on energy invested.” It’s basic economics. If you invest a dollar and are guaranteed to get back two dollars you invest; if you are guaranteed to only get back half of your investment you don’t invest.