Pro-Lifers and Genocide

[FutureIncoming]

Is there such a thing as "accidental genocide"?

The pro-lifers want all pregnancies to be carried to term, and are actively working to achieve that goal. This will increase the birth rate among humans worldwide by about 50%. This will also lead to faster depletion-of-resources, and increase the probability of a Malthusian Castrophe happening.

Typically, a Malthusian Catastrophe means that about 99% of a population will die. If this happens to the human species, then it logically figures that 99% of every single ethnic group will die.

Should somebody "actively work" toward achieving the goal of killing 99% of just one ethnic group, that person is, according to the dictionary, working toward committing "genocide". What do you call it when that person is actively working toward genocide of all known ethnic groups?

The only problem here is that the pro-lifers don't seem to understand the Law of Cause and Effect, or even the Law of Unintended Consequences. Somehow they think that the Earth's measurably finite biosphere can endlessly accommodate an ever-increasing number of humans. Yet there are no facts to support such a conclusion. Will some pro-lifer here please explain?

Meanwhile, if any pro-lifers decide to "wise up", and recognize that the long-term consequences of their actions don't support their goal of keeping many humans alive, and perhaps they should stop trying to ban abortion, I'd like to hear about that, too.

Finally, if we know that pro-lifers are actively working to commit overpopulation, and if we know that overpopulation leads to a Malthusian Catastrophe, and if we know that a Malthusian Catastrophe is so deadly that the word "genocide" applies to those who caused it, then shouldn't we start rounding up pro-lifers, and charging them with attempted genocide??? And, since this is the normal punishment for attempted genocide, shouldn't they be executed if they are found guilty?

 

[Jerry]

We’re headed for some pretty big wars, solar activity, global warming, etc, etc, so I can't say I care in the slightest about a Malthusian Catastrophe 'cuz I just don't think our population will ever get that big.

 

[C Foster]

Is there such a thing as "accidental genocide"?

The pro-lifers want all pregnancies to be carried to term, and are actively working to achieve that goal. This will increase the birth rate among humans worldwide by about 50%. This will also lead to faster depletion-of-resources, and increase the probability of a Malthusian Castrophe happening.

Typically, a Malthusian Catastrophe means that about 99% of a population will die. If this happens to the human species, then it logically figures that 99% of every single ethnic group will die.

Should somebody "actively work" toward achieving the goal of killing 99% of just one ethnic group, that person is, according to the dictionary, working toward committing "genocide". What do you call it when that person is actively working toward genocide of all known ethnic groups?

The only problem here is that the pro-lifers don't seem to understand the Law of Cause and Effect, or even the Law of Unintended Consequences. Somehow they think that the Earth's measurably finite biosphere can endlessly accommodate an ever-increasing number of humans. Yet there are no facts to support such a conclusion. Will some pro-lifer here please explain?

Meanwhile, if any pro-lifers decide to "wise up", and recognize that the long-term consequences of their actions don't support their goal of keeping many humans alive, and perhaps they should stop trying to ban abortion, I'd like to hear about that, too.

Finally, if we know that pro-lifers are actively working to commit overpopulation, and if we know that overpopulation leads to a Malthusian Catastrophe, and if we know that a Malthusian Catastrophe is so deadly that the word "genocide" applies to those who caused it, then shouldn't we start rounding up pro-lifers, and charging them with attempted genocide??? And, since this is the normal punishment for attempted genocide, shouldn't they be executed if they are found guilty?

Do you know that there are obese people eating many times more than their fair share of food? There is plenty of food, space, and resources available if people could only distribute it fairly.

The threat to our population is greed.

Abortion is genocide, and that is a greater crime than the attempted genocide you speak of. But how you arrive at the conclusion that saving lives is genocide is beyond me, pro-life, strangely enough is about saving lives.

 

[Felicity]

Hey...Why don't you join this movement FI? Sound like your kind of people!

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
VHEMT
Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

http://www.vhemt.org/stork.mov

 

[Felicity]

Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

I love that sentence!


Members of VHEMT need to become "less dense.":lol:

 

[Jerry]

This will also lead to faster depletion-of-resources, and increase the probability of a Malthusian Castrophe happening.

Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

Problem solved.

 

[C Foster]

Problem solved.

It doesn't solve the genocide of the unwanted unborn.

 

[Jerry]

It doesn't solve the genocide of the unwanted unborn.

Your right, we need to trim a little bit off the constitution and start enforcing manditory sterilisation.

 

[C Foster]

Your right, we need to trim a little bit off the constitution and start enforcing manditory sterilisation.

Begrüßen Sie Hitler!

Wenn Sie das machen wollen, macht es, spricht nicht zu Gunsten des Restes von uns!

 

[Jerry]

Begrüßen Sie Hitler!

Wenn Sie das machen wollen, macht es, spricht nicht zu Gunsten des Restes von uns!

Now see that's more Jimmyjacks form....violating both Forum Rule 7 and Godwin's law in one, small post.

You sure are on your way, just don’t let the door hit you.

 

[C Foster]

Now see that's more Jimmyjacks form....violating both Forum Rule 7 and Godwin's law in one, small post.

You sure are on your way, just don’t let the door hit you.

Elucidate.

 

[Jerry]

Elucidate.

Forum Rule 7:

7. English - All threads will be in the English language. Threads and posts which are not in English may be edited or deleted at the discretion of the moderator.
Please include translations with any posts that are not in English.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-rules/505-forum-rules.html

Godwin's law:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Coined by Mike Godwin in 1990.

List of adages named after people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[C Foster]

Forum Rule 7:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-rules/505-forum-rules.html

Godwin's law:

List of adages named after people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then it is clear that you have violated these rules first, because you used the term “'cuz" that is not an English term nor did you translate it, furthermore I have not invoked Godwin's law since I have not used these terms in anyway to form a comparison, unlike how you have just done.

 

[Jerry]

Then it is clear that you have violated these rules first, because you used the term “'cuz" that is not an English term nor did you translate it, furthermore I have not invoked Godwin's law since I have not used these terms in anyway to form a comparison, unlike how you have just done.

Tell ya what, you report my posts, I'll report yours, and lets see what a mod says about it.



Anyway, back on topic, hows about VHEMT?

 

[C Foster]

Tell ya what, you report my posts, I'll report yours, and lets see what a mod says about it.

You can do what you like, I won't impose any mandatory directives on you, it is not in my character to do that..

 

[Jerry]

You can do what you like, I won't impose any mandatory directives on you, it is not in my character to do that..

You don't impose mandatory directives on anyone?

 

[C Foster]

You don't impose mandatory directives on anyone?

That is correct.

 

[talloulou]

There are better ways to control population and plan pregnancies than abortion. I support all methods of birth control and even the MAP which may but generally won't, end a pregnancy. However even in the small instances where a pregnancy may be ended in regards to the MAP it is done extremely early and I am comfortable with that. What I don't support is killing humans in order to curb any population problem or any other problems. Our extremely lax abortion laws support a complete lack of respect towards human life and we are more advanced, capable, and technological than the current abortion numbers show.

 

[Jerry]

You can do what you like, I won't impose any mandatory directives on you, it is not in my character to do that..

You don't impose mandatory directives on anyone?

That is correct.

I'm sure Pro-Choice is pleased to hear that you wouldn't impose an abortion ban on them. As you said, it's not in your character to do that.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is, well, voluntary, so you shouldn't have a problem with it either.

 

[C Foster]

I'm sure Pro-Choice is pleased to hear that you wouldn't impose an abortion ban on them. As you said, it's not in your character to do that.

Since you can avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex, I have not imposed anything on anyone. However, abortion imposes death on people, that is the greatest violation a man can bestow on another.

 

[Jerry]

Since you can avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex, I have not imposed anything on anyone. However, abortion imposes death on people, that is the greatest violation a man can bestow on another.

You said that you don't impose mandatory directives on anyone, so to impose that view of yours onto a pregnant woman by preventing her from imposing death on her unborn is to violate your own rule.

The only way you can remain consistent here is to neither impose an abortion ban nor impose death on an unborn....which is the Pro-Choice position.

Now, if you were to accept my premise that it is okay to impose directives on others, then you would either have to face the authoritive judgment of the moderator team regarding your rule braking or come up with some other excuse for not reporting me.

 

[C Foster]

You said that you don't impose mandatory directives on anyone, so to impose that view of yours onto a pregnant woman by preventing her from imposing death on her unborn is to violate your own rule.

The only way you can remain consistent here is to neither impose an abortion ban nor impose death on an unborn....which is the Pro-Choice position.

Now, if you were to accept my premise that it is okay to impose directives on others, then you would either have to face the authoritive judgment of the moderator team regarding your rule braking or come up with some other excuse for not reporting me.

How have I imposed my view?

 

[Jerry]

How have I imposed my view?

Here you imply that you would impose restrictive regulation or a ban on abortion:

Since you can avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex, I have not imposed anything on anyone. However, abortion imposes death on people, that is the greatest violation a man can bestow on another.

...is that not so, would you not impose any such restriction or ban?

 

[PolySciGuy]

[edit] deleted the quote

so.... what you're saying is that if I hypothetically wanted to kill you, I could? i wouldn't have to worry about whether or not you wanted to live? Technically I can't be sure whether or not you are alive, even though I can terminate you, I can't be sure what I am terminating. All I have to go off of is what others say about your "life". So, can I kill you?

NOTE THE ABOVE IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL

Normally I agree with you jerry, but abortion gets my dander up

 

[Jerry]

so.... what you're saying is that if I hypothetically wanted to kill you, I could? i wouldn't have to worry about whether or not you wanted to live? Technically I can't be sure whether or not you are alive, even though I can terminate you, I can't be sure what I am terminating. All I have to go off of is what others say about your "life". So, can I kill you?

NOTE THE ABOVE IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL

Normally I agree with you jerry, but abortion gets my dander up

I can't respond to the meat of your post because the post of mine you quoted was written specifically for C Foster, in a spicific context, leading to a spicific end.

In general, imo it is perfectly acceptable for you to impose a regulation upon me. In context this means that it is perfectly acceptable for you to notify the mod team in the event I brake forum rule 7. See posts 12-15 on.