Should birth control br mandatory?

That being asked, if birth control was mandatory, should it be used to control the mood of the populace? Meaning, should women's consumption of such be synchronized, so they don't all schedule their "time of the month" at the same time? Can you think of any negative/positive results of synchronization?

What we need is more freedom, not less. Less powerful governments, not stronger. Power corrupts. The only way to keep from creating institutions like governments that get so big they are totally unaccountable, is to let power be completely distributed back to the people, so it is broken up into the smallest possible quanta.

You're reaching in the absolutely wrong direction. China tried mandatory birth control. Do we need another experiment of that type? Birth rates fall naturally as a result of prosperity. It's happening all over the world. It's already predicted that the world population will peak at just over 10 billion within less than 100 years and then start dropping. In the richest countries the established populations have fallen below replacement rate. The only thing that's keeping them from shrinking and bankrupting their social security systems is immigration.

One problem with that would lie in the fact that not all women are good candidates for birth control. There are many possible side effects such as blood clots that can occur. Also, many scientific studies have concluded that men also go though something akin to a menstrual cycle, as far as mood swings and hormonal fluxes are concerned. What can we drug all the men with to get them to be in a better mood? Also, how would this be policed? Would them men really be able to remember to make the women take the pill in perfect 24 hour intervals as the pills would suggest? Or would we be using the depo shot in your Big Brother utopia of scheduled bleeding? What policies would be in place for a woman to decide to get pregnant? How would you control her moods while she's pregnant? How would you compensate all the makers of products for infants for the vast decline in their businesses?

Originally posted by Sinisister
One problem with that would lie in the fact that not all women are good candidates for birth control.

This in fact, hadn't occured to me. I'm sure theres ways around it, different methods and such.

Also, many scientific studies have concluded that men also go though something akin to a menstrual cycle, as far as mood swings and hormonal fluxes are concerned. What can we drug all the men with to get them to be in a better mood?

Yes. We could. I was using birthcontrol for women, because thats the only widely used medication thats prectically over the counter, that I knew about that 1) controlled birth, and 2) controled moods. If there was an orally administered form of birthcontrol, I would have mentioned it.

Next is broken down into numbered questions.


1) Also, how would this be policed?

2) Would them men really be able to remember to make the women take the pill in perfect 24 hour intervals as the pills would suggest?

3) Or would we be using the depo shot in your Big Brother utopia of scheduled bleeding?

4) What policies would be in place for a woman to decide to get
pregnant?

5) How would you control her moods while she's pregnant?

6) How would you compensate all the makers of products for infants for the vast decline in their businesses?

This is why I started the thread :D All these questions I hadn't thought of.

1. People would police themselves, or it will be taught from childhood as a requirement, with fake ones so as not to interupt their development, and when menstration starts, they see a doctor and get regular ones prescribed. For guys, what are signs that they could start taking such a mood/sperm controlling pill?

2. Why can't women remember? Are you suggesting that women are inferior to men, so much so that they can't remember a time? Whose going to remind the men? The women? I think it should be self administered, people have the ability to remember when to take a pill.

3. I don't know what that is. Maybe you can use the patch. As far as I see it, theres two routes to complete control, higher understanding throughout the population, or complete lack of knowledge, with a class of elites, ala 1984.

4. I don't know, but allowances will be made. This isn't a scheme for the end of the species.

5. You don't, you give them full pay away from their job while their pregnant.

6. The government isn't responsible for loss of business in the private industries.


These are just answers, not neccesarily my opinion. I don't really believe in all this, it's just, what if?

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
What we need is more freedom, not less. Less powerful governments, not stronger. Power corrupts. The only way to keep from creating institutions like governments that get so big they are totally unaccountable, is to let power be completely distributed back to the people, so it is broken up into the smallest possible quanta.

I agree. But, this may happen someday, so I just wanted to ask what peoples opinions were, and show how a system like it may work.

the government has no right to any say in what people do with their bodies and how and when to breed. they should, however, encourage the use of birth control and make it available. it should be taught in health class in schools because it is essential to protecting people's health. you keep talking about birth control as hormonal pills. there are tons of others that are better to use. the pill does not prevent the spread of stds so it should only be a backup to a barrier anyway.
maybe it's just me but i tend to think of men as less reliable so i'd be worried that they would never remember to take a pill everyday. it is especially worrisome when it's a birth control pill because they won't have to carry the baby anyway and therefore will care less about taking it.

the government has no right to any say in what people do with their bodies

Maybe a little of subject, but I hear a lot of people use a similar line when talking about abortion. You know how it goes, "My body, my choice." I like seeing it used when it comes to using birth control in the first place. I'm sure we can pretty much all agree that the government has no business telling us what to do with our bodies. I find it laughable that suicide is considered a crime. You can be arrested, but only if you fail to commit the crime that you are accused of. Then you go to an institution for something you didn't do... Anyway, my question about all the chanting of "My body, my choice", does that apply to smokers, too? "Second hand smoke" is less dangerous to a person in a bar (like you go to a bar for your health...) than an abortion is to a fetus, whether or not you believe life begins at conception or birth.

I'm not a smoker myself, and I'm not trying to be a wise-ass, I'd just like to see if anybody can justify that second hand smoke is worse for a bystander than an abortion clinic is for a fetus.

a person has ultimate say over their body, including smokers. but secondhand smoke involves other bodies. it is the other bodies who have say over what goes into their bodies so smokers are infringing on their rights. i also happen to be one of the 5 feminists who think a fetus is a whole other body so when women make that ultimate decision, they're making it for another body as well. but you can also argue that parents make decisions for their children.

But must it be a life-or-death decision? I could understand if the fetus is going to die anyway due to some disease, or else is going to be born horribly disfigured (Have you ever seen a baby born without a brain? It's quite disturbing...) or if the mother's life is in danger, but for most kids sanctioned death is not a merciful alternative.

I think the solution would be a revamping of our welfare system, especially for kids. There are plenty of childless couples out there who are caught up in the red tape of adoption. It would be nice to see a way to quickly determine suitability of candidates to ensure the kid doesn't end up in the obits at the hands of his or her adoptive parents.

I don't have any real opinion on abortion. Never having even conceived a kid, I feel I have no authority on the subject, but sometimes I feel like standing up to people who are supporting abortion and saying "I thought it was the diapers that were supposed to be disposable, not the baby!":)

Eh, I'd probably get my fanny kicked.

If anything, "birth control" should be banned, not mandatory.

Future people would not want to have been eliminated.

More and more people would want to live.

"Birth control" undermines the strength of culture and families.

http://www.cyfl.ca/whynotcontraception.html

Originally posted by Pronatalist
Future people would not want to have been eliminated.

Future people, who were never born, have no wants.

Originally posted by Fafnir665
Future people, who were never born, have no wants.

:bugeye:

If you have death control, you must have birth control, it's that easy. Otherwise you have a runaway population and all of mankind suffers. I wish the bible thumpers would at least be even about it. If birth control is changing the wishes of God, then getting medical treatment for sickness and injuries should be too. As much as I miss Jim Henson, at least he was true to his beliefs and died from an easily treatable disease.

Either birth control and all other medical treatments are "moral" or all aren't. Death control is just as moral (or not) as birth control, to see otherwise is against logic.

But asking hard core religious types to be logical is like asking a pig to fly.

Originally posted by Dougermouse
If you have death control, you must have birth control, it's that easy. Otherwise you have a runaway population and all of mankind suffers. I wish the bible thumpers would at least be even about it. If birth control is changing the wishes of God, then getting medical treatment for sickness and injuries should be too. As much as I miss Jim Henson, at least he was true to his beliefs and died from an easily treatable disease.

Either birth control and all other medical treatments are "moral" or all aren't. Death control is just as moral (or not) as birth control, to see otherwise is against logic.

But asking hard core religious types to be logical is like asking a pig to fly.

No, we should have "death control" without any anti-life "birth control." Why should humans be against "runaway" population growth of our own kind. I think we should be a little more honest and admit that a prime and logical purpose of "environmental" and medical efforts, should be to help the human population enlarge and allow more and more people to benefit from living.

You think that somehow "death control" goes against the wishes of God? When why does Deut 30:19 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Deut+30%3A19) , say to "choose life?" Sounds like the Biblical bias is towards like. Why does Gen. 1:28 and 9:1 say for people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? That surely means that the human population is supposed to be large and growing. The billions of people alive now, was foretold all the way back in Genesis.

Genesis 24:60 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=gen+24%3A60)___And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

I don't believe humans need to "control" everything. Somethings should be left to God. I don't believe it is worth trying to control all wilderness forest fires in God's wildlands that humans have not yet spread out enough into, to tame the land or forests. I don't believe humans should make any effort at some illogical war on population against our own kind. People quite often enjoy having large and "unplanned" families. I posted on some other forum discussion about what things were "cool," and I said large families are cool. Some woman responded and said she likes her large family. She didn't bother to say how many children she had at that time, but I checked her profile, and it said 4 sons and 5 daughters, or vice versa. 9 children!

People benefit from human population growth. Not only do more people get the opportunity to live, but most people probably contribute more to society than they consume or waste, so population growth generally accelerates technology growth, and helps improve the standard of life, even as human populations grow denser. Don't believe that? Then how come people are depopulating the countryside to move to the crowded cities? So many people leave the countryside that its population generally doesn't grow. Past predictions of huge megacities, seem also to have turned out to be somewhat exxagerated. It turns out that people live in more but smaller cities than some people thought would occur in the future. I think depopulating the countryside for the opportunity of the city is probably a somewhat negative trend, but it is social, economic, or political, not a "population" problem. It would be better if cities inevitably grew more from the natural increase of all the people already living there, than from the influx of rural people who feel rural life doesn't have as much to offer as the city.

Now sure, get your pets "fixed," if you don't plan to breed them. Pets are unable to care for their growing numbers without more human masters to adopt them. Pets don't need offspring when they have us for their "families." But humans take more time to multiply and can adapt ourselves and the environment for our burgeoning numbers, so we need not worry about limiting our birthrates. Population pessimists or self-appointed "experts" prattle with their anti-human rhetoric and population scare tactics as if humans breed as easily as rabbits without "scientific" "birth control." The Population Bomber have us convinced that without anti-life "birth control," a baby would pop out every year. Not only do few people ever manage to have as many as 20 children, if a family did, it would probably take a good long time and the older children would help with the younger children. These ideas are paraphrased from Mary Pride's Book, "The Way Home; Beyond Feminism Back to Reality." But it takes so much work to raise another billion children, that I find it ludicrous the idea the pessimists promote that if we aren't careful, we will someday wake to a world that suddenly has "too many" people. I don't consider myself "too many," and you probably don't either. And "those other people" are much like us, so they probably don't consider themselves "too many" either. So we shouldn't relegate people to mere numbers or cold population statistics. If human populations get big, then let them be big, and they need to be big, because most everybody wants to live and have children.

The Bible also promotes both large families and large population.

Ps. 127:3-5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=ps+127%3A3-5%2C+pr+14%3A28&x=10&y=9) 3___Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
4___As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
5___Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

Proverbs 14:28___In the multitude of people is the king's honour: but in the want of people is the destruction of the prince.

I don't think the issue here is birth control. The Church accepts the rhythm method, which is entirely natural, but not contraceptive. So if need be, population could be controled without resorting to contraceptive.

The raw rhythm method is close to useless. The Billings method (essentially a refined rhythm method) is better (as good as the pill with both done correctly according to some studies), but education intensive.

If you want to know the real reasons that the Catholic church mandates no artificial contraception, you should read the Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html) encyclical. There is actually a logical argument involved (although I don't agree with all the premises).

I've heard about some pill where the wife just takes it and then if it turns a certain color she's ovulating. Didn't really seem all that complicated. In theory these methods would be used in marriage and probably by couples who have already given birth to two or so kids.

The raw rhythm method is close to useless. The Billings method (essentially a refined rhythm method) is better (as good as the pill with both done correctly according to some studies), but education intensive.

Bleeding four days out of a month is annoying enough without having to spend time obsessing about it.

Catholics are just fucking weird. The Church should go back to torturing heretics and leave us normal people alone.

As for mandatory birth control, I'd say that simply making contraceptives more convienient, cheap and available would be simpler.

Catholics are just fucking weird. The Church should go back to torturing heretics and leave us normal people alone.

Yes killing a few heretics like Martin Luther would have saved us from the 100 years war etc. I don't think that you have a right to judge the killings of one or two heretics a year. Most of the persecution was done by the secular goverments of Spain, France and England.


As for mandatory birth control, I'd say that simply making contraceptives more convienient, cheap and available would be simpler.

The article gives an example of your apparent hypocrisy; we do not have the freedom to give bibles out in schools but we are allowed to give out condoms. Condoms are the religion and trust of some, but like all things except God they break. I say ban them.

I hear you, Xev!

okinrus:
Yes killing a few heretics like Martin Luther would have saved us from the 100 years war etc. I don't think that you have a right to judge the killings of one or two heretics a year. Most of the persecution was done by the secular goverments of Spain, France and England.

One or two heretics?
The death toll was much, much higher than that.

The article gives an example of your apparent hypocrisy;

What article? Did you spoon crack over your wheaties this morning?

we do not have the freedom to give bibles out in schools but we are allowed to give out condoms. Condoms are the religion and trust of some, but like all things except God they break. I say ban them.

Really? I've never worshipped a condom and I don't know anyone who does. From what I've been told, they significantly impair sensation so...if you were going to worship a contraceptive, the pill would probably be a better choice.
Ban them? That doesn't even make sense. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to purchase a few rubbers?

You are a strange, strange creature.

One or two heretics?
The death toll was much, much higher than that.

Church courts were more leniant than civil courts. If you look at some of the heresies such as albigensians. Well they had to take care of them.

I was talking about the article given by Pronatalist. It's kind of long though.


? I'Reallyve never worshipped a condom and I don't know anyone who does. From what I've been told, they significantly impair sensation so...if you were going to worship a contraceptive, the pill would probably be a better choice.
Ban them? That doesn't even make sense. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to purchase a few rubbers?

I'm not talking specifically about you. I don't really know what you do with your condoms but it seems like many 16 year olds are depending on condoms for their future life security. Condoms themselves are the works of Satan. Worse he's able to do this sort thing behind our backs. It's all some sort of twisted game of blasphemey of baptism. It prevents life which is analogous to preventing spiritual life. James 1:15 "Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death". They should be banned solely on this principle.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
If anything, "birth control" should be banned, not mandatory.

Future people would not want to have been eliminated.

More and more people would want to live.

"Birth control" undermines the strength of culture and families.

http://www.cyfl.ca/whynotcontraception.html

whoa. are you one of those people who mourn for lost sperm? just think, for every child conceived, thousands more were not because the sperm was not permitted to fertilize the egg. oh the humanity!

i just hope this is a joke. if so, clever rouse. if not, :bugeye:

okinrus:
I'm not talking specifically about you. I don't really know what you do with your condoms

I'm currently trying to sculpt an imitation of the Elgin marbles with them.

Condoms themselves are the works of Satan.

O - kay.

It's all some sort of twisted game of blasphemey of baptism. It prevents life which is analogous to preventing spiritual life.

So does the chicken salad I had for dinner.

James 1:15 "Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death".

That's some sick shit, Mr. Okinrus. First we have Satan's contraceptives, now we have this, which sounds like something a Gothic chick would write in her Livejournal account.
Does Satan also make sex toys? That'd be a great gimmick for him.

They should be banned solely on this principle.

Next, we listen to Pink Floyd albums backwords!

That's some sick shit, Mr. Okinrus. First we have Satan's contraceptives, now we have this, which sounds like something a Gothic chick would write in her Livejournal account.
Does Satan also make sex toys? That'd be a great gimmick for him.

Satan is able to influence people. Just as the writers of the bible wrote the books through the holy Spirit, Satan also does. I'm not sure why you find this sick. The bible is obviously only for mature readers. "Come here. I will show you the harlot who lives near the many waters. The kings of the earth have had intercourse with her, and the inhabitants of the earth became drunk on the wine of her harlotry."

Originally posted by okinrus
The bible is obviously only for mature readers.

then i demand it be removed from all hotel rooms, bookshelves, and every single home south of maryland.

Originally posted by okinrus
I don't think the issue here is birth control. The Church accepts the rhythm method, which is entirely natural, but not contraceptive. So if need be, population could be controled without resorting to contraceptive.

I think here you must be referring to the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic, nor accept the Pope as God's representative. I am Protestant. Up until at least the 1930s, all the Church, Protestant and Catholic, preached against limiting family size. Where they wrong, or are we wrong now? Contraceptives were thought to be bizarre or associated with "dirty sex." Up until the 1950s, the cost of having children wasn't even counted. People just had them. I am more interested in what the Bible actually says, than what the Pope might claim. When I read "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" in Genesis, I think that sort of means, don't use "preventative measures" to limit family size. That means probably not even using rhythm. When people are married, the man should feel free to naturally cum inside his wife, regardless of family size, the way sex was designed to be. Married couples shouldn't have to hold anything back. People should look to God's ways, not the world's ways and selfishness.

"Children are the fruit of love."

The whole underlying idea of "birth control," would seem to be that children aren't really a blessing. So isn't "birth control" the foundation of the abortion holocaust. Because I believe children are very valuable and well worth having, what place is there then for anti-life "birth control?" God can choose the number of children we have for us. Humans really shouldn't worry about limiting our offspring. Surely most every child would be glad to have been conceived and live? How could I ever choose which child I wish I never had, even if I did manage to have "too many?"

A couple of people were talking at work about Catholics accepting rhythm. Why do they do that? Isn't the intent to still not have children?

I don't see so much distinction between "artificial" and "natural" "family planning." Is rhythm really all that practical? Don't people feel like having sex, even a little more during the most fertile time of the month? I would much rather go ahead and have the "bonus" children than bother with rhythm. Is it "natural" to not want to be blessed (with children)?

Rather what seems more "natural" to me, is to let the body "naturally" space out the children, with the normal delays of fertility that come with a progressing pregnancy, and sometimes with normal breastfeeding, until the baby can eat solid food. I don't believe God created humans too fertile, and that the body (or God's providence) sort of "knows" when to get pregnant. So contraceptives or rhythm isn't even necessary. Practicing "birth control" only makes people become addicted to "birth control" by unnaturally maintaining periods of high fertility by interfering with the body's reproductive cycle. If women have periods where their body keeps trying to get pregnant, why not just let the pregnancy occur naturally, if it happens? Why must we always fight nature when there is no benefit in doing so? Why worry about having a "perfect little planned" family of 3 or 4 children, when one can have an even more fulfilling experience relying on God and having a little faith, and have an "unplanned" family of 5 or 6 children? I see nothing wrong with having a few "bonus" children. I would rather have "bonus" children than bother with anti-life "birth control." I reject the whole premise of "birth control." I don't think it does anything to make society or quality of life, any better. It is "birth control" that is useless.

I once saw a drawing in a newspaper, of the Serpent (Satan) in the Garden of Eden, offering a condom to Eve.

Yeah, it seems about right. Condoms are an invention of the devil to interfere with marriage and pervert sex.

How dare the Serpent, try to prevent all of our births?

okinrus:
Satan is able to influence people.

That...would explain my musical tastes.

Oh seriously, you can't actually believe in Satan! The very idea is silly!

Just as the writers of the bible wrote the books through the holy Spirit, Satan also does. I'm not sure why you find this sick. The bible is obviously only for mature readers. "Come here. I will show you the harlot who lives near the many waters. The kings of the earth have had intercourse with her, and the inhabitants of the earth became drunk on the wine of her harlotry."

Christianity, you admit, is not suitable for clean minds?

Pronatalist:
Yeah, it seems about right. Condoms are an invention of the devil to interfere with marriage and pervert sex.

Oh my, and now Satan is getting all kinky. Go Master Satan. All praise Lucifer, God of the Abyss!

How dare the Serpent, try to prevent all of our births?

Dude, seek psychiatric help.

so let's see:

satan cares about our health and protection
satan wants people to be happy and healthy
satan encourages listening to one's own body
satan encourages enjoying the beautiful and enjoyable things sexual activity gives us

seems like a wonderful guy to me. all hail lord satan!

Oh seriously, you can't actually believe in Satan! The very idea is silly!

No it's not.

Satan is behind all of this though. From the beginning, Adam and Eve tried to cover up with fig leaves. One way demons are passed is by sex because you are becoming one with each other. You don't really think that Mary Magdalene had 7 demons because she did terrible things herself did you? Satanic rituals will typically use a young virgin and each member will rape her to pass on the powers of the demons. From <a href="http://dev.stg.brown.edu:1977/decameron/engDecShowText.jsp?myID=nov0310&expand=day03">Decameron</a>

This thread has just become another thread debating the existence of god. That is off topic, Xev, can you please close it?

Originally posted by Fafnir665
This thread has just become another thread debating the existence of god. That is off topic, Xev, can you please close it?

Most any important social issue always ends up debating the existence of God. Because one's worldview (religion) always highly colors how people see the issue. Duh? :p

Not scared of a little "religion" are you?

Don't you know that religion is a leading reason why people refuse to use anti-life "birth control." You know this silly "religious" idea that human life is something special and maybe we shouldn't be hindering the creation of human life?

Originally posted by okinrus
No it's not.

Satan is behind all of this though. From the beginning, Adam and Eve tried to cover up with fig leaves. One way demons are passed is by sex because you are becoming one with each other. You don't really think that Mary Magdalene had 7 demons because she did terrible things herself did you? Satanic rituals will typically use a young virgin and each member will rape her to pass on the powers of the demons. From <a href="http://dev.stg.brown.edu:1977/decameron/engDecShowText.jsp?myID=nov0310&expand=day03">Decameron</a>

Boy oh Boy, are you nuts boy? So Satan and the demons swim with the sperms. Me and my hubby excercise the pull out method for birth control, does that make my abdoman and back Satan's floor matt.....

You are a one luny upside down child. In the future, everytime you get a thought in your mind, try to reverse it by flipping your head down and shaking it five times and then you'll speak normal.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
so let's see:

satan cares about our health and protection
satan wants people to be happy and healthy
satan encourages listening to one's own body
satan encourages enjoying the beautiful and enjoyable things sexual activity gives us

seems like a wonderful guy to me. all hail lord satan!

I couldn't help but smile at this.

that's an interesting link, orkinus. hmmm. but condoms are the works of satan??? haha. did he happen to send his demons out on in the beginning to a factory run making condoms to distribute to the public? Therefore creating a manufacturing product that not only puts jobs and money into the system but controls the population as well? hmmmmm. deep thoughts here.

Anyway to the topic, i'm all for birth control and the regulation of it BUT I don't like the methods that had gone as far as what China is facing now with the overpopulation. One child per family thing is regulating and controling how a person should live. It's funny but in developed countries we don't have that kind of problem, especially places like Switzerland, scandinavian countries, etc, which have a birthrate that is moderate but not substantially high as in underdeveloped countries. There's a city here that has a high birth rate and that is where most of the minorities live. I don't know, but i tend to believe it's the way of religion again that causes this way of thinking and living.

Originally posted by Pronatalist

Not scared of a little "religion" are you?

Don't you know that religion is a leading reason why people refuse to use anti-life "birth control." You know this silly "religious" idea that human life is something special and maybe we shouldn't be hindering the creation of human life?

I don't know about Fafnir665, but religion terrifies me.

Whenever I hear the word, I enter into a paralytic stupor of palpitation and suffer monstrous ordeals of convulsion and agonized writhing.
It's a good thing I went deaf to those Christian folk a long time ago.

In regard to the "life is special" notion, I feel compelled to gesticulate rudely at you.
Life is a boil on the leprous backside of the universe, an unsightly infection which He often grows sickened with and lances. Seems to me, it isn't worth much.

The point of my post was not wether or not i'm afraid of religion, it was a statement of how this has gotten off topic. There is a thread deticated to arguments concerning then existence of god, why bring it here? You can use religion as an argument, but arguing the basis of existence for religions is off topic, so please refrain from arguing about that, and stick to the topic

Boy oh Boy, are you nuts boy? So Satan and the demons swim with the sperms. Me and my hubby excercise the pull out method for birth control, does that make my abdoman and back Satan's floor matt.....

No, someone has to be possessed. I don't really care about what you and your husband do.


You are a one luny upside down child. In the future, everytime you get a thought in your mind, try to reverse it by flipping your head down and shaking it five times and then you'll speak normal.

This is not my thought. This is factual information about SRA(Satanic ritual abuse), which is more of a psychological abuse in most cases. This does happen.
http://icg.harvard.edu/~fm107b/lectures/lec_21_notes.htm

I had a signature, but I can't see any signatures now, even on old posts that I saw them on before, and yet I see my signature on the Preview, and then it vanishes on my post.

I checked my control panel, and everything is okay, and it says to show signatures, so where are they?

Originally posted by Pronatalist
I had a signature, but I can't see any signatures now, even on old posts that I saw them on before, and yet I see my signature on the Preview, and then it vanishes on my post.

I checked my control panel, and everything is okay, and it says to show signatures, so where are they?

this isn't the fucking place to say that, xev, can you delete that post, and this one, thanks

Hmmm. No answer?

I didn't know where is the correct place to ask why my signature that shows up in my Preview, and used to show in my posts, now won't show up.

You also failed to mention whether you can see my signature.

No compassion for newbies at this forum? (I don't have any problem with my signature showing up on the different forum platform/servers where I have hung out for years.)

I didn't want to clutter things with a new discussion thread, as I haven't started any here yet. Plus it may be a systematic problem that they are already working on?

Fafnir:
Unfortunately, I can't delete posts in Ethics. That's Asguard.

Pronatalist, you pay, you get that extra perk

Okinrus:
No, someone has to be possessed. I don't really care about what you and your husband do.

So....anal is okay, facials are okay, titfucking is okay, presumably oral and handjobs are okay....just as no-one is being possessed by Satan at the time.

Okay.

Seek psychiatric help.

i didn't bother to read all the replies to this topic. from scanning them, i sense that most of them consist of bickering anyway. the best way to control population would be to take away any socialistic programs that create incentives to have children. take away tax breaks, take away welfare, take away social security, take away (i don't remember the name but there's programs for single mothers), and then when people have to work hard to survive and ensure the survival of their young, they'll stop over-producing. this sounds callous of me, but it's the most logical way to do it. the original intent of the programs was good, but people now see it as a crutch they could lean on, so they don't mind breaking their legs once in a while. make sense?

No. This is clutter in a thread with a predefined topic. I have nothing against "newbies". You have to pay for signatures. Theres a sticky in free thoughts about it. Do you really think it's only you? Next time maybe look around before complaining about somthing.

Originally posted by Xev
Fafnir:
Unfortunately, I can't delete posts in Ethics. That's Asguard.


Sorry, thought this was philosophy

So....anal is okay, facials are okay, titfucking is okay, presumably oral and handjobs are okay....just as no-one is being possessed by Satan at the time.

Anal is not OK. It is medically unhealthy. I'm not sure what you mean by facials but I won't ask. I suppose that a husband and wife feel each other. Oral and hand jobs are not ok because they defeat the purpose of marriage, which is procreation.


Seek psychiatric help.

Interesting how those demons also refer to me as "boy". I will have to think about this more.

Okinrus:
Anal is not OK. It is medically unhealthy. I'm not sure what you mean by facials but I won't ask.

Oh. The man comes on his partner's face. Jesus, it's a staple of porn, I'm suprised you don't know the term?

I suppose that a husband and wife feel each other. Oral and hand jobs are not ok because they defeat the purpose of marriage, which is procreation.

So, it's okay to have nonreproductive sex with someone you're not married to?
What about foreplay? That's not going to result in pregnency. What if my husband and I start fooling around, the phone rings, he has to rush off, and we don't fuck?
Have we committed a sin?
What about making out, even if we don't fuck?
Can I kiss him without fucking him?

Is any position okay, just as long as he comes in a way that has a fair chance of getting me pregnent? Or is it strict missionary?

What if we watch "Girls With Goats" while having missionary sex? Is that okay?

If I have him sodomize me with a crucifix while we fuck, is that okay? I mean, it could result in a child.

What if he recites the seventh enochian key while strangling me with a rosary, as we fuck? This could also result in pregnency.

Even sticking to variations that could result in a child, there are ooodles of fun things to do in bed. Where do you draw the line?

Oh. The man comes on his partner's face. Jesus, it's a staple of porn, I'm suprised you don't know the term?

Yes, I think I've probably seen it. One of my friends is basically a porno addict.


So, it's okay to have nonreproductive sex with someone you're not married to?

No


What about foreplay? That's not going to result in pregnency.

I think it's ok. The general rule is that you should be able to judge for yourself.


What if my husband and I start fooling around, the phone rings, he has to rush off, and we don't fuck?

None of the activities here is sinful.


What about making out, even if we don't fuck?
Can I kiss him without fucking him?

Yes.


Is any position okay, just as long as he comes in a way that has a fair chance of getting me pregnent? Or is it strict missionary?

Thomas Aquinas only supports the missionary position. Obviously your going to have to use your best judgement here.


What if we watch "Girls With Goats" while having missionary sex? Is that okay?

No. Images like that can screw up your mind for a lifetime.


If I have him sodomize me with a crucifix while we fuck, is that okay? I mean, it could result in a child.

No.


What if he recites the seventh enochian key while strangling me with a rosary, as we fuck? This could also result in pregnency.

This is distasteful. The rosary is a sacred object given to us by the blessed virgin.


Even sticking to variations that could result in a child, there are ooodles of fun things to do in bed. Where do you draw the line?

You have to judge whether your doing something out lust or love. The line here is blurred because it will depend on the individual. Certainly anything outside of marriage is sinful.

Certainly anything outside of marriage is sinful.

Yes, sinful according to people who have the nerve to speak on behalf of God. I can't imagine that God is so preoccupied with sex that he actually sets the rules as to which positions are allowed and which ones are not.

When I speak for God here? The objective the morality is to find what is sinful.

Originally posted by okinrus
No. Images like that can screw up your mind for a lifetime.


I'm nauseated with claims like this. I'm so sick with the deliberate preservation of innocence. If one has to consciously protect one's purity of mind then one was never pure to begin with. The truly innocent couldn't even conceive of, much less ward off, such practices. It's illogical to be protective of feigned virtue.

If a young child is exposed to this kind of stuft constantly he or she is going to grow up screwed up. Many serial rapist, killers, etc. were exposed to this kind of stuft or were abused. Sexual addiction is very real in American society. People can become addicted to pornography and unable to enjoy their wife or even get married.

I know, I know, I definitely know . . . but permanent perversion can only occur when the individual is truly innocent, during childhood! Children don't consider their own innocence. They aren't even accustomed to the idea yet.

Concordantly, they have no reason to protect their pristine, undefiled minds. However, once they become aware of the wanton dangers of the world, they're no longer innocent, since, in a way that very knowledge besmirches them.

One who is truly innocent does not defend him or herself from vice, for vice is unknown to a virgin mind.

If one has to worry over the welfare of one's innocence, one is not innocent.


Besides, Okinrus, do you really think there is any form of pornography extant that could pervert Xev's mind further? ;)

Originally posted by Xev
Fafnir:
Unfortunately, I can't delete posts in Ethics. That's Asguard.

Pronatalist, you pay, you get that extra perk

Huh? Do you mean if I pay, I can delete all your posts? Why would any paying member be able to delete anything at all? Are all paying members trustworthy? I thought only the poster himself, and the Mods, or forum owner, who decides the focus of a forum, should be able to delete. And then mainly just for reasons such as spam or rudeness that doesn't contribute to the purpose of a forum or discussion.

Or were you merely suggesting that paying members can become moderators?

Or do you mean the extra perk of signatures?

Well I did finally find the forum feedback section, and raised my question there.

Originally posted by okinrus
... Thomas Aquinas only supports the missionary position. Obviously your going to have to use your best judgement here. ...

... You have to judge whether your doing something out lust or love. The line here is blurred because it will depend on the individual. Certainly anything outside of marriage is sinful.

I agree with much of that. Besides, isn't the missionary position the most comfortable, the most natural, and the most likely to acheive pregnancy? Isn't much of that other stuff, the perverted stuff of porno fantasies, that dwell on lust rather than love?

I would think most any penis-vagina position among married people would be permissible? Perhaps even "doggy style?" That's still procreation isn't it?

I agree with much of that. Besides, isn't the missionary position the most comfortable, the most natural, and the most likely to acheive pregnancy? Isn't much of that other stuff, the perverted stuff of porno fantasies, that dwell on lust rather than love?

I would think most any penis-vagina position among married people would be permissible? Perhaps even "doggy style?" That's still procreation isn't it?

The only non-sinful positions would be those capable of producing a child. Some obviously have to be ruled out as medically dangerous. However if a couple is infertile, I think they are allowed to have sex, because of the posibility of God working a miracle. Thomas Aquinas was probably wrong in restricting the sexual position only to the missionary. His interpretation may have come from hebrew stories of <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/Garden/4240/alphabet.html">Lilith</a>. No one really believes in this story though. However we can be certain that monks were famaliar with it as we have stories of succubi etc. Therefore from lack bibical evidence, he chose to be on the safe side.


I would think most any penis-vagina position among married people would be permissible? Perhaps even "doggy style?" That's still procreation isn't it?

I think I'm going remain celibrate just to avoid all these issues. Anyways, like all things the best way is to do just whatever is natural and not to think about it. If someone has to tell his lover that he is going to kiss her a certain way then there is no love in it. It is boring and dry. However if someone does what love tells them, then they do it within love.

"I think I'm going remain celibrate just to avoid all these issues. Anyways, like all things the best way is to do just whatever is natural and not to think about it. If someone has to tell his lover that he is going to kiss her a certain way then there is no love in it. It is boring and dry. However if someone does what love tells them, then they do it within love."

Woo hoo, your making sense here. Shame i disagree with you on everything else.

Woo hoo, your making sense here. Shame i disagree with you on everything else.

Maybe because I have never done any of things mentioned.

What do you mean?

Pronatalist:
I agree with much of that. Besides, isn't the missionary position the most comfortable, the most natural, and the most likely to acheive pregnancy? Isn't much of that other stuff, the perverted stuff of porno fantasies, that dwell on lust rather than love?

Hmm yes, lust rather than love. That explains my relationship.

Lust rather than love is only an issue if one sees women (as you obviously do) simply as sexual objects.

okinrus:
I think it's ok. The general rule is that you should be able to judge for yourself.

So it's okay to kiss a man's mouth but not his cock?
Where's the logic in that?

Thomas Aquinas only supports the missionary position.

Friedrich Nietzsche was rather a fan of the whip. Michel Foucault fucked other men. Hegel liked it doggy style.
See what happens when you rely on dead philosophers to judge your sex life?

No.

Why not? I could get pregnent.

If a young child is exposed to this kind of stuft constantly he or she is going to grow up screwed up. Many serial rapist, killers, etc. were exposed to this kind of stuft or were abused. Sexual addiction is very real in American society. People can become addicted to pornography and unable to enjoy their wife or even get married.

I wasn't aware that women were insensate objects "to be enjoyed". Thanks for clearing that one up.

I wasn't aware that women were insensate objects "to be enjoyed". Thanks for clearing that one up.

I was using it in the sense of enjoy their company. What is the point of a relationship if it is not enjoyed?


Friedrich Nietzsche was rather a fan of the whip. Michel Foucault fucked other men. Hegel liked it doggy style.
See what happens when you rely on dead philosophers to judge your sex life?

Thomas Aquinas wrote about theology not philosophy. The two are different and Thomas Aquinas perspective is on what the Church teaches. I accept Thomas Aquina's premises, but not Nietzsche's so I'm more likely to agree on wha the <a href="http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/natlaw.html">says</a>. I don't have a sex life and probably never will, so I'm only refering literature so that you might make a well informed decision.

okinrus:
I was using it in the sense of enjoy their company.

Oh?

People can become addicted to pornography and unable to enjoy their wife or even get married.

Being addicted to pornography would make it impossible for you to enjoy someone's company?

Thomas Aquinas wrote about theology not philosophy.

Aquinas wrote in a period where theology and philosophy were intertwined. Some of his key insights - namely the relationship between faith and reason - are still valid today as philosophy.

The two are different and Thomas Aquinas perspective is on what the Church teaches.

Aquinas does not rely soley on dogma. He attempts - sucessfully or un - to put Catholicism on a rational basis, yet preserve the mystic experience. To imply that he merely interpreted what the church proclaimed is erronious.

Aquinas does not rely soley on dogma. He attempts - sucessfully or un - to put Catholicism on a rational basis, yet preserve the mystic experience. To imply that he merely interpreted what the church proclaimed is erronious.

Aquinas probably looked at Augustine's writings etc. So he was only giving rational basis for what the Church had always taught. Obviously somethings like sexual positions may not have been in the body of church teachings before his time. However other areas such has fornication, homosexuality he gives rational thought into why the Church or bible condemned these practices.


Being addicted to pornography would make it impossible for you to enjoy someone's company?

I was using the sentance more on the lines of unfullfillable romance. As you've probably aware, most women do not look like the porno models. It is obvious that the adiction somehow makes them overly judgemental of their spouse. In other ways, the adiction makes them overly judgmental of themselves because they cannot find the "perfect" woman.

okinrus:
Aquinas probably looked at Augustine's writings etc.

Of course, a church scholar in that era would have known Augustine.

So he was only giving rational basis for what the Church had always taught.

No, Aquinas moved beyond "what the Church had always taught". See here, since I personally can't stand Aquinas:
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/staamp6.htm

Obviously somethings like sexual positions may not have been in the body of church teachings before his time. However other areas such has fornication, homosexuality he gives rational thought into why the Church or bible condemned these practices.

I wouldn't know. I keep my sexually deviant musings about dead philosophers to fantasizing about Nietzsche. Aquinas' thoughts on matters of actual importance are more important to me than how he thought it appropriate to fuck.

I was using the sentance more on the lines of unfullfillable romance. As you've probably aware, most women do not look like the porno models.

No, most look way better.

No, Aquinas moved beyond "what the Church had always taught" See here, since I personally can't stand Aquinas:
[/qoute]
Well maybe. Aside from areas that might need a fuller explanation, I don't usually read his stuft.

[quote]
I wouldn't know. I keep my sexually deviant musings about dead philosophers to fantasizing about Nietzsche. Aquinas' thoughts on matters of actual importance are more important to me than how he thought it appropriate to fuck.

Your carping too much at what I said. I was actually sort of joking when I mentioned Thomas Aquinas.


No, most look way better.

I think you've found the problem with pornography. The pornography addict thinks that the porno girls look better than most woman. He begins to judge himself and others only at how they look just as he judges what pornos are better. So this begins a cycle of depression and leads to a depraved mind.

dude have you ever seen porno girls? they look like plastic and have damaged bleach blonde hair. many of them are actually ugly but are willing to do what is asked. if they were good looking they could get much better money doing ad modeling. the bad lighting and excessive use of makeup doesn't help.

Close this thread. It can't get worse. It went off topic like 25 posts ago. Will the mod please act. I am getting tired of checking this thread and finding bullshit, the starter should have some control over the discussion. This is not topic based discussion. Fuck it, lock it, get it over with.

Originally posted by Xev
...I wouldn't know. I keep my sexually deviant musings about dead philosophers to fantasizing about Nietzsche. Aquinas' thoughts on matters of actual importance are more important to me than how he thought it appropriate to fuck. ...

One major thing that is really wrong with the whole idea of "birth control," is how it seeks to pervert the proper purposes of sex.

Sex should not be about getting one's jollies, and only seeking one's own hedonistic pleasure. It is also about sharing, and spirital bonding to one's mate, giving one's mate pleasure, and also the pleasure of passing on life to one's offspring (and welcoming one's children to grow up and marry and also enjoy fucking someday).

Married couples shouldn't hold anything back and put some barrier in their relationship. Everybody seems to be all for married people enjoying sex. Well of course the man should enjoy cumming inside his wife, whenever they feel like having sex, like most all people would want to do but for irrational fears of possible pregnancy, like sex was designed to be, and children should still be welcomed as blessings, and fellow human beings, just as worthy of life as we are.

"Children are the fruit of love."

SwedishFish:
dude have you ever seen porno girls? they look like plastic and have damaged bleach blonde hair.

Bingo. Look at someone like Jenna Jamison or Ginger Lynne. Eeeee.

Okinrus:
I think you've found the problem with pornography. The pornography addict thinks that the porno girls look better than most woman. He begins to judge himself and others only at how they look just as he judges what pornos are better. So this begins a cycle of depression and leads to a depraved mind.

But they don't. Those girls look worse.
Not to mention the men. Case in point: Ron Jeremy. He may be fantastically proportioned, but he's not remotely attractive.

Pronatalist:
Sex should not be about getting one's jollies, and only seeking one's own hedonistic pleasure. It is also about sharing, and spirital bonding to one's mate, giving one's mate pleasure, and also the pleasure of passing on life to one's offspring (and welcoming one's children to grow up and marry and also enjoy fucking someday).

So it's wrong to like fucking, but we should like it when other people like fucking?

What drugs are you on?

Well of course the man should enjoy cumming inside his wife, whenever they feel like having sex, like most all people would want to do but for irrational fears of possible pregnancy, like sex was designed to be, and children should still be welcomed as blessings, and fellow human beings, just as worthy of life as we are.

Sex wasn't designed for anything, as design implies consciousness, and I highly doubt those asexual organisms back in the carbonifierous were conscious of the fact that their exchange of genetic material would one day lead to an intensely pleasant act.

Originally posted by Xev
... So it's wrong to like fucking, but we should like it when other people like fucking?

How exactly did you arrive at that question? Nothing wrong with liking fucking. I was just saying that sex is about much more than merely selfish self-gratification. Sex was designed for procreation, and to be a fun part of human populations following God's commandment to multiply and fill the earth.

Originally posted by Xev
What drugs are you on?

Sex wasn't designed for anything, as design implies consciousness, and I highly doubt those asexual organisms back in the carbonifierous were conscious of the fact that their exchange of genetic material would one day lead to an intensely pleasant act.

So the pleasure of sex is some evolutionary "accident?" Just a mere coincidence that God commanded people to multiply, and the process has a good, wonderful feeling that is almost irresistable? God should have made the act that helps fill the world with people a grevious chore rather than pleasurable? Maybe I should ask what drugs you are on? I don't think there is any "pleasure" in bees polinating flowers. Just boring instint -- work.

The pleasure of sex is no "accident." It is by design. Maybe God should reduce the pleasure, for all these hedonists who can't seem to handle it? And give all that pleasure to the people who can handle it, who are faithful to their mates, and to God in welcoming their families to grow as God sees fit. Got some "pleasure" to spare? Remember what Jesus said happened to the guy who buried his talent in the ground? (Matthew 25:14-30 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=mat+25%3A14-30))

I prefer Genesis, and the fate of Onan.
http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Elila/brick_testament/er_and_onan/gn38_09.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/revbps/bricktestament/er-and-onan/gn38_10.jpg


http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/genesis/er_and_onan/gn38_09.html


More fun stuff. (http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/)



The argument that god wants there to be as many humans as possible is simply not worthy of serious consideration.

As I said in the other thread, if us humans insist on breeding like bacteria, eventually we will die like bacteria.
Sad for us, but we do live in a universe that is utterly indifferent to our fate.

Originally posted by Repo Man
I prefer Genesis, and the fate of Onan.
http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Elila/brick_testament/er_and_onan/gn38_09.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/revbps/bricktestament/er-and-onan/gn38_10.jpg


http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/genesis/er_and_onan/gn38_09.html

More fun stuff. (http://http://www.thereverend.com/brick_testament/)

Oooh! So graphic! ;)

Was Onan's fate punishment for refusing to reproduce, or rebelling against God's specific commandment to him? Is there really a lot of difference?

Originally posted by Repo Man
The argument that god wants there to be as many humans as possible is simply not worthy of serious consideration.

Ummm. I think refusing to use anti-life "birth control" and promoting there being "as many humans as possible" are two different things. Not all people who trust God for their family size, end up with huge families. Rather, I would much rather have the typical 5 or 6 children of "unplanned" families, than just 3 or 4 "planned" children. Surely I could love a "bonus" child or two, and not have to bother with unnatural or anti-life "birth control."

And wouldn't "there to be as many humans as possible" imply every bizarre and unnatural method of fertility enhancement? I don't think the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth implies necessarily to seek infertility assistance or fertility enhancement. It merely means to not use "preventative measures" to limit family size, as children are a blessing that people should be grateful to have. It's not like they need to "try" to get pregnant, but rather God gives them opportunity to let babies "happen."

I don't like the idea of some bizarre utopian cap on world population, because it seeks to leave somebody out, without any conclusive basis for where to draw the line. What about trusting the billions of parents to make the decision, or God, the only being with the wisdom to determine what the human population should be? Why should we trust the self-appointed, anti-human "experts?" Who died and made them "god?"

Originally posted by Repo Man
As I said in the other thread, if us humans insist on breeding like bacteria, eventually we will die like bacteria.

Sad for us, but we do live in a universe that is utterly indifferent to our fate.

So in other words, the universe doesn't care just how populated we might get?

As I said in the other thread, I don't think humans can breed like bacteria.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
So in other words, the universe doesn't care just how populated we might get?

As I said in the other thread, I don't think humans can breed like bacteria.

No, the Universe does not care if humans last for another ten millennia, or another ten years. We have our fate in our own hands. We can decide to live in harmony, with numbers that we can reasonably support while allowing the other life forms on this planet a chance to exist. Or we can breed ourselves out of control, until we destroy ourselves in a war for natural resources.

Sexual pleasure is no accident, it is an obvious outcome of evolution. From an evolutionary standpoint, reproduction is a lifeforms most important duty. All we really are are genes trying to make more genes, really no better than viruses.

You've not once touched on the issue of the extinction of many plant and animal species that is being caused by human overcrowding. I suppose your egocentric viewpoint supposes that these lifeforms are irrelevant?

I like the world as it is, and millions agree with me. We all know that human population growth has to stop at some point. The real question is, will it be planned, or simply happen in the most tragic way possible?

There have never before been so many people on the planet, so we have no history to help guide us.

But relying on the mistranslated myths of a stoneage desert nomad tribe to guide us through modern problems is possibly the most insane solution I've heard yet.
Imaginary deities will not get us out of the corner we have painted ourselves into.

Originally posted by Repo Man
No, the Universe does not care if humans last for another ten millennia, or another ten years. We have our fate in our own hands. We can decide to live in harmony, with numbers that we can reasonably support while allowing the other life forms on this planet a chance to exist. Or we can breed ourselves out of control, until we destroy ourselves in a war for natural resources.

But who do you suppose should do the "controlling?" Politicians? With billions of women now of childbearing age, is there really much potential of "control?" Isn't it a little late for "family planning?" Shouldn't it be in the hands of parents? Or better yet, God? And why should we worry about people breeding "out of control" when more and more people would want to live anyway?, which should be the #1 population concern, and a worthy goal to promote. Let the baby booms persist or spread, because how else could all those precious children, or fellow humans much like us, be born?

Originally posted by Repo Man
Sexual pleasure is no accident, it is an obvious outcome of evolution. From an evolutionary standpoint, reproduction is a lifeforms most important duty. All we really are are genes trying to make more genes, really no better than viruses.

An evolutionary viewpoint isn't only false, but a not very good explanation of the miracle of life.

Even as you claim, shouldn't people "pass on their genes," for the good of "the many," and so more and more people can live too? Now if there was no sentience, or conscience involved, then you could write it off as a mere gene replication thing. Viruses don't think or care about anything. Viruses are irrelevant.

But parents do find procreation a very fulfilling experience. Much of people's lives is much about caring for and loving their children. I think God makes human babies helpless for a reason, something related to humans being social creatures, in need of the company of other, and of touch, and of being held and loved.

Originally posted by Repo Man
You've not once touched on the issue of the extinction of many plant and animal species that is being caused by human overcrowding. I suppose your egocentric viewpoint supposes that these lifeforms are irrelevant?

And why do you suppose that is? Why would I not rant about extinction of plants and animals? Because it isn't as big a deal as the enviro wackos make it out to be. Almost everywhere I look, I see trees, grass, plants, flowers, squirrels, bunny rabbits, bugs. Where is all this "extinction?" Did you know that they count the "extinction" of species that haven't even been discovered yet? Isn't that a little ... fraudulent? Sort of like just making up a story?

The Bible says that the creatures reproduce after their "kind." Not their "species." Why is the state of the teaching of biology so sorry that people don't know anything about the difference? "Species" go into and out of existence all the time, as they are merely variations of kinds. There weren't 2 collies on Noah's Ark. There were 2 dogs. 2 of each "kind." So most all of those "extinct" "species" would soon be seen again, if people just knew how to rebreed them.

While I don't suppose other lifeforms are totally irrelevant, shouldn't I care more about humans than snail darters, or whatever irrelevant species that few people have heard of? Shouldn't humans put humans first? Do those other species pay taxes? Do those other species vote? Do they even talk to tell us what they might supposedly "want?" Perhaps they don't "want" much of anything, because they can't think on that level, like humans can. Humans like being numerous. Animals probably wouldn't care, because they don't think much about having offspring, or about the future, and have no idea what their total population is, or where all the boundaries of wilderness areas would be.

If humans were overcrowded, shouldn't we be encouraging the construction of more housing, and not worrying about a bunch of plants and animals that probably aren't even "endangered" to begin with, and secondly don't even care about the situation? Does the grass care if we mow it? Does a fly care if it is eaten by a frog? Probably not, because insects appear to be all instinct. I haven't seen any personality in some dumb bug that wanders or invades its way into my home. Sometimes I just squash them, sometimes I toss them out the door. They just wandered in or got lost from their natural habitat. If I toss them out, they probably won't be back. Does a tree care if it is cut down to make lumber to build houses? Perhaps becoming a house, is a tree's form of "heaven," if that makes any sense. Finally the tree has arrived at its final purpose. And if I lived in "overcrowded" conditions, wouldn't I still want to live? Wouldn't children still want to be born?

Originally posted by Repo Man
I like the world as it is, and millions agree with me. We all know that human population growth has to stop at some point. The real question is, will it be planned, or simply happen in the most tragic way possible?

Why? Are you a nature worshipper? The world has too much corruption. People have to work too much. The world is in a fallen, sinful state. The world isn't what it should be. Sure there are nice aspects of the world, but it is in sorry shape, not because of whatever imagined "overpopulation" nonsense, but because of man's sin, and no longer living in the paradise of the Garden of Eden. The world is too cold. The world is too hot. The world is too windy. The world is too humid. The world is too dry. The air is too stagnant. We get hungry and tired. We get selfish and cranky. This isn't heaven, and not quite how it should be.

So we can't have infinite population on a finite planet? Well, duh? But the population growth doesn't have to stop within our lifetimes, nor that of our children. It is to go on until the Lord Jesus Christ comes back as Kings of Kings, or until we get to heaven (or hell), or something like that. So what point does human population have to stop at? It's hard to say. But cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. There is ample room for massive population increase of humans. Cities could grow in 3 dimensions to hold all the people, if ever need be. They can grow inward. They can infill unused land, and populate it more densely. Cities can grow outward, expanding into the countryside, growing bigger, and forming more cities and towns, and grow closer together, filling more and more of the land with people and housing. Cities can also grow upwards into highrises and skyscrapers. People can live above and below their neighbors. The world has enough land to house around a trillion people, just on the ground level, filling much of the land with housing.

I like people having the freedom to enjoy having their children and to live where they want so I don't favor any cap on world population size, nor any population "control."

Why put so much faith in gloom and doom Malthusism rather than God? Food supplies have improved. Obesity is a growing problem, even in backwards, communist China. Human lifespan has increased. Wealth has increased. Technology has increased. Modern conveniences have increased.

The most tragic way possible? Are you always such a pessimist? Maybe we outgrow the planet, and colonize other planets? The more humans there are, the more we alter our environment to support more humans. It's a vicious, self-reinforcing circle that benefits humans. It seems to work pretty well sometimes. In the process we become less "overpopulated" as we remove any possible restraints on our numbers. More mouths to feed = more food produced. More proper sanitation, better medical care and vaccines = less disease and longer lifespan as human populations grow denser.

Perhaps "the most tragic way possible" is sort of along the lines that parents stop loving their children, don't bother to have them, and our society self-destructs in some abortion "culture of death," that encourages crime and abuse, since the value of human life is assumed to be no big deal? It's the anti-human population pessimists who really advocate "the most tragic way possible," as their philosophies can't possibly work. When we find out how few people can exist in their imaginary utopias, and that no dissenters or people like me who ask too many questions, can be tolerated, we have to say we want no part of their unworkable utopias. When we refuse to do much of anything to accomodate our fellow man, we can't possibly get rid of enough people to solve all the problems. I have read all the Bible, and it seems that as soon as there were 4 people on the earth, Cain murdered Abel. So is 4 people "too many" for a workable world population? Well I don't think many people would agree to that? Especially if I find out that I don't get to be one of the 4.

Originally posted by Repo Man
There have never before been so many people on the planet, so we have no history to help guide us.

Yes there is. Humans have multiplied, generally without the use of any means of anti-life "birth control" throughout all of history. And even though there are more people than ever before, we should still favor large families and welcome our fellow humans to live too. At most any point in history, it could be said that "never before has there been so many people on the planet." Because God ordained that humans should multiply and fill the earth, so the successive generations grow larger and larger than the previous generations. And the previous generations work to prepare the way to accomodate all their children, and to expand the number of parents so that all the more babies can be born.

I think it is cool that there is so many people. I wouldn't want to be stuck on this huge planet, alone and bored, with nobody to talk to. See, I am even talking to strangers on the Internet.

And if sex is supposed to be so all-fired wonderful as our sex-obsessed society claims, that everybody has to have it, then why shouldn't there be all the more penises and vaginas in the world, feeling good? Sex shouldn't be about just one's own pleasure, but also that of one's mate, and to pass on life to one's children. And there should be commitment, love, and security involved. Fathers shouldn't run out on their responsibilities, their wives, and their kids.

Originally posted by Repo Man
But relying on the mistranslated myths of a stoneage desert nomad tribe to guide us through modern problems is possibly the most insane solution I've heard yet.
Imaginary deities will not get us out of the corner we have painted ourselves into.

In other words, you are superstitious, and make fun of my religious beliefs? I think the human sex or reproductive drive existed before humans could decide much of anything. God designed humans such that they would have to multiply. God destined us to multiply. God even made the process sort of fun or very pleasurable, and it also serves as a form of spiritual bonding. What in the world is this verse (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=1+tim+2%3A15) about? I think childbirth wasn't even painful before the fall of man, when Adam and Eve got themselves kicked out of the Garden of Eden for sin. Ever since then our bodies die a little each day, where some Creationists think that the body's healing ability was incrediable, either before the Great Flood, or the Fall. The Bible does tell of people once living to over 900 years.

Whatever "corner we have painted ourselves in" was probably our destiny or something, and not so much our "painting." People joke that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, is about the only commandment humans have obeyed.

Once again, I'm reminded of why I'm not too troubled by the notion of a large asteroid striking the Earth and exterminating all higher life forms.

That a majority of humans have the incredible arrogance to believe that they are what this planet, and the entire Universe was created for actually deserves the comuppance of a globe shattering impact with a comet or asteroid.

Have fun living in your fantasy world, and welcome to my ignore list.

well then. i've come to the conclusion that pronatalist is loco.

it shouldn't surprise us that cult members are fans of the internet.

Originally posted by Repo Man
Once again, I'm reminded of why I'm not too troubled by the notion of a large asteroid striking the Earth and exterminating all higher life forms.

That a majority of humans have the incredible arrogance to believe that they are what this planet, and the entire Universe was created for actually deserves the comuppance of a globe shattering impact with a comet or asteroid. ...

Ummm. Wouldn't that be just another reason for humanity to outgrow the earth and spead to other planets, so as to not "put all our eggs in one basket" here on earth, awaiting the next killer comet or runaway star to wipe us all out?

I mean like had we colonized several other planets, it would then be possible to crowd those planets some :p to evacuate the earth, if some runaway star was on a trajectory to collide with earth.

But then for people who believe in God, that reason would be irrelevant, because God wouldn't let such a thing happen.

So you don't think the planet was created for humans?

So why then do most of the cartoon animals, talk and act much like people? :p :D