Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

these aren;t personal ideas these are facts. typical of the over religious self rightous sanctimonious and arogant

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok. So you have abandoned your "historical antiquity" argument and are trying an ad hom different argument.
Hmmm. Let's see.

So parenthood isn't, IYHO, a personal idea? (... and furthermore, your opinion isn't offensive, self-righteous and arrogant?)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your choice of "natural" is interesting ... but that aside, genocide is also included in social darwinism, and advocates seem to be convinced they are establishing the natural order of things. This is why people, at least post WW2, tend not to use the term to support their views

Alternatively, human society could be more self controlled. Industry that has no demand goes bust. Problem solved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any amiable solution would seem to require that people drop their small minded political rhetoric. This also includes nutcase atheists with their hyper-vigilance to tear down anything remotely religious.

 

We should take the moment to review the record.

You skipped out on this part when answering that post↑. The next time through—

—the best you could come up with was halfwitted, cynical, flight↑: "Behold the mind of the inquisitor. What’s next, you throw me into the moat and pass judgment on whether I float or not?"

Facing a third iteration, and from someone else—

—you finally decided to answer, but did so in a manner that does not preclude the standing criticism: "If you're going to level a legitimate criticism", you complained, "you might want to keep the facts straight. I entered the thread in response to a post made by iceaura regarding the race and parentage of Jesus."

Indeed, your present excuse runs squarely into the standing criticism you already fled.

Consider that if you wish people to accept you are incapable of understanding Iceaura's post at #282↑ that is well enough, but you would, in the same, be inherently acknowledging a lack of competence or qualification to comment as you do. That is to say, you either willfully changed the subject, seemingly confirmed in a later post (#311↑), or else aren't competent to understand a three-sentence post comprising thirty words according to the forty-three words in four sentences quoted for response.

If you insist on arguing that what happened is your own abysmal reading comprehension, then yes, there does come a point at which people will and accept that asserted incompetence as fact.

SetiAlpha6's ridiculous pretense of stupidity is his own problem. Your worthless bigotry is yours. In neither case should either of you be visiting those miseries on anyone else.

 

Stop beating around the bush Tailgunner Tiassa, just go ahead and ask the question: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the KKK.

 

Are you equating abortion for a host of different compelling personal reasons with racist human genocide?

I agree.

Not if there are no alternatives and the Big Oil and Coal oppose any attempts for research and development of alternate sources. It's amazing what having a monopoly does to discourage competition.
Read up on the resistance to hybrid or electric transportation in the US. Japan is way ahead of us. In the US, we like our gas guzzlers.

Aside: As a result of preferential treatment of Halliburton and similar companies, we have created this situation. Have you ever read up on the Halliburton Loophole which exempts Frackers from EPA regulations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

It's interesting to note that frackers can drill beneath your property without your permission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

Why do you think China is about 10 years ahead of the US in solar and hydro power.

Then there is Hydropower, note the irony with the comparison to Trumps wall.;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_China

But we prefer the wall don't we? Keep those drug peddlers out so that US Big Pharma can capture the addictive opioid market.

 

Sure. Get rid of nutcases on BOTH sides and you'd make a lot more progress.

 

I agree.

But I object to Musika's assertion that atheists are hyper vigilant to tear down religions. That's just not true.
OTOH , religions do command the believer to engage in unsolicited proselytizing of their religion. That's what atheists respond to.
Atheists don't care what you believe, just "keep thy religion to thyself".

 

Well, some do - just as some religious types like nothing better than to call atheists unenlightened, faithless fools. But those are the extremes.

 

I'm saying that the "well, we got to keep the population down, so therefore abortion" represents a sizable notch on the moral degradation scale.

All this is good evidence of how a society hell bent on consumerism lacks the integrity to make serious inroads towards ecological sustainability. The ultimate solution cannot come from tech companies or industrial giants, but from habits of consumption. It's not a question of alternative energy (which represents but one slice of how humans are terror-forming the planet) but an alternative attitude towards our relationship with the planet.

 

It would be interesting to see the other side of this coin on a Religion Forum.
One wonders if you would be disparaging the devout for trying to tear down anything secular...

Note, by the way, this thread is not in the Religion subforum.

 

An inability to recognize that any sort of political spectrum requires at least two extremes to operate is a clear indication of bias. There is never only "one political extreme."

 

No one has advanced that as a solution to overpopulation. China tried "one child per family" but found that is unenforcable and modified that law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

 

On the topic of disparaging, did you also take note of which party specifically introduced religion to this particular discussion?

 

Yet here you are, with kind words to say about social darwinism.

Relevance?

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I have not advanced any preference in birth-control.
I merely stated that having fun and sexual responsibility are not related.
But social darwinism will happen, it's inevitable as long as we are earth-bound.

Look at the OP question. The introduction of China enforcing birth control by any means. Apparently they thought it was the more socially (morally) acceptable than overpopulation where children would die from starvation on the streets (as they do in Africa).

The point you seem to miss completely is that overpopulation will happen and we will have to come up with solutions to curb population growth. This may seem strange and cruel, but it is an inevitability. Watch the lecture by Albert Bartlett. He finishes with this sober observation that the control of overpopulation will pose the greatest moral dilemma mankind has ever faced.

Today there are 7.7 billion people and the current growth rate is 1.07% p/yr.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

This translates into a population doubling to 14.14 billion people in 70/1.07 = 65 years, less than one lifetime.

Therefore: The rate of human population growth needs to come down!!! How we do that is the moral dilemma.
Shall we have less good clean fun or fewer babies or fewer older people? Is that even a choice?

The point is, we don't have to do anything. Then nature will find a solution (natural selection) and that won't be fun, I can guarantee that. Let's see if you can work with that moral dilemma.

 

Has anybody ever contemplated that the earth "experiences" humans as an invasive species. A modern and highly specialized warlike ant colony. Objectively a case can be made that humans are parasitic organisms as far as earth is concerned. We use natural resources and return a chemical mess that infiltrates every corner of our ecosphere, leaving a trail of death, destruction, and extinction of many important species such as honeybees.
We completely lack a respect for our host organism, at our peril.
This is a morally important question, IMO.

 

While abortion and your ideas about it are not the sole contributor to the world's problems, this attitude of disintergrated connection between action and responsibility certainly is.

.

You say you are not speaking kindly about it ... and then proceed to speak kindly about it.

.

The point you miss is that you insist on finding solutions to overpopulation that don't threaten the status quo of industrial economies.

.

Well, it seems to suggest that industrial economies and the habbits and attitudes of people who support it (ie, consumers) is unnatural.

If one insists on maintaining unnatural attitudes towards this world, what do you suppose will be the result?

 

Right, mathematics don't work in your world........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe God will solve the problem by "commanding" world war three (the end).