So because abortion will help control the "born" population, it's justified.
Could you clarify please? Where does your morality fit into this? That taking action to control human population is your right or obligation? That because abortion is legal and safe, it’s your moral obligation to see to it that it’s carried out?
I just don’t understand why you have elected yourself a population-control czar.
So, plainly, you advocate abortion as a means of population control. I think Margaret Sanger would be delighted. (Of course, there’s that troublesome notion of eugenics and which groups in the larger population need weeding out, but I suppose that’s a discussion for another thread.)
This seems great to me too, but let’s get real here: Your interpretation of “Be fruitful and multiply” is not exactly the standard interpretation, only yours individually. Whether in your view this is right or wrong, these words mean this: Have children.
Well, hug a tree and avoid polluting and save scarce resources needed to pay rent and buy food. Whatever it takes to "do no harm" to the born. Way to twist the Hippocratic Oath into some sick justification for eugenics.
Wow. And you have specifications too. Just two kids per woman. For someone whose screen name is "choiceone," you don't seem to appreciate what "choice" really means.
So women can now triumph over men? What sort of misandry is this?
l. The only way "Be fruitful and multiply" means "Have children" in your sense is if a physical, material Elohim makes a physical, material Man in Elohim's likeness. If Elohim is purely spiritual, then so is Elohim's Man, because Elohim did not use a bit of the objective physical, material reality to give Man form. The people who have children in your sense are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and Eve's female descendants are subordinate to their husbands because that is what Jehovah gave them, official subordination to the males their desire is turned to. The male and female Man in Genesis 1, exhibits no sexual desire because the good towards which they go is not sexual. As Paul put it (I am abbreviating here), the person who is married (=oriented to a sexual other) cares for the things of his/her spouse, how he/she may please that spouse, and the person who is unmarried (= not oriented to a sexual other) cares for the things of God, how he/she may please God. You have to decide whether you substitute a human man for God or prefer the latter. If you prefer God, you reproduce spiritual instead of materially.
2. I never said that I would force anyone to do anything. This is all voluntary choice. I do not believe in forcing women to produce only two children each. I know, however, that every child beyond two which is born materially increases population pressure on the earth. It shrinks the amount of space per person, hence, it drives up rent or housing costs for all the born. It needs food, necessitating scientific ways to increase the food supply, which almost all reduce the fertility of arable land, and hence, drives up food costs for all the born. It adds extra air and water pollution. Take one child to Disneyland by plane from NYC and you and your child will produce more air pollution in a single trip than a single smoker could produce by chain-smoking from age 18 to age 95.
The notion that you do no harm to your neighbor by overproducing children is a cop-out: of course you do. When your neighbor leaves the world leaving no children behind, that neighbor does not leave a space-occupying, food-consuming, pollution machine behind. Every woman who voluntarily produces only one physical child by one man, if the man produces no others, has done her neighbors a tremendous favor for the future, as has every woman who voluntarily produces no physical child. For these women make up for the over-production of physical children by women who produce more than two children and thus make up for all the pressure those children put on space, land fertility, and clean water and air.
3. For many millenia, physical men as husbands of physical women as physical child-producers wanted many, many such children. This was, in much earlier history, good, because there were not that many people. The average age of death was much lower than now, infant mortality was high, and lots of children did not make it to adulthood. Women also died in childbirth, so their husbands might marry other women to care for the children the dead women left behind and to produce even more children, to make up for the ones that had died. But when extreme fertility and better nutrition and medicine resulted in increased population growth, the population went Malthusian. When it reached extremes, the new forms of mass warfare naturally developed. When population increases in a society, an excess of young men between the ages of about 18-24 typically results in war naturally: it culls the excess population by killing off many of them on both sides of a conflict. In mass society, when population is too high, the forms of war involve bombing of whole cities, which kills off not only young men, but people of all ages in those cities. That is a natural form of population control, despite all the cultural reasons and weapons of the cultured people who engage in it, for culture is a part of nature.
4. When women are sane and responsible, they do not want to harm their neighbors or themselves by over-producing physical children. While disadvantageous circumstances lead female armadillos to delay implantation of fertilized eggs, lead horses and zebras to abort spontaneously, and lead rabbits to resorb embryos, they lead chimpanzees, who are more intelligent, to voluntary herbal abortion that can allow sensible spacing of pregnancies. For human beings, who are more intelligent, they lead to many different voluntary strategies. I have nothing against contraception, including EC, or voluntary abortion in early pregnancy as a last resort of sane, responsible people. There are, even in our society, men who irreponsibly sabotage birth control and in other ways use reproductive coercion on women in order to replicate their genetic codes. That is merely an extreme of the distortions that result when people are greedy, not just for sexual pleasure, but for self-replication.
5. My maternal grandmother produced four children; it was shocking even in those days that all four survived. Since each daughter produced two, one son produced four, and one son produced none, from four plus three spouses, i.e., seven, came eight. It seemed responsible then, but those children were part of the largest generation of human beings in the history of the world. Of those eight children, one son produced four, one daughter produced three, one daughter produced two, two daughters produced one each, one daughter, unable to reproduce, adopted, and two daughters produced none, so from eight plus six spouses, i.e., fourteen, came eleven. That reduction was good human husbandry. We managed that without abortion, but that entire generation of women was pro-choice. If you and your friends produced three extra children, that family made up for you.
6. I'm old enough to remember a young adulthood in which the population of the US was one-third smaller than it is now. I assure you, despite all of that society's flaws, that size population was far superior to the one we have. I had no intention of overpopulating my nation because more government control is necessary with overpopulation. More welfare, more prisons, and more environmental regulation or more mass war will inevitably be the future of every human society that does not limit population growth responsibly.
7. What high population and mass war result in is more power for women and thank God for it. When women have more power over their own sex organs and the liberty to control voluntarily how many people they produce, it is good not only for those women, but also for limiting population responsibly. That is not misandry. It is equality and realism and I'm for it.
