Lindsey 0 #76 October 17, 2005 And there are people who believe a cow's life is as sacred as a humans. To them killing a cow is murder. Should you not have the choice to eat a steak because of someone else's belief? I think a blastocyst is no more sacred than a cow, and the cow is, without a doubt, more alive. People can believe anything they want. A belief that a ball of cells is alive is based more on a moral and religious stance than a scientific one. My big toe is alive when connected to my body. Granted, it doesn't have the "potential" to be a person in its own right, but today it's just as alive (and has a greater purpose) than some blastocyst. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #77 October 17, 2005 Quote did you know that every single person in the world could fit in the state of texas and have over 1200 square feet EACH... Would you allow every single person in the world to fit in the state of texas and have over 1200 square feet each? I doubt it (minuteman project). It is not ONLY about resources or physical space, It is important as well how much waste the population produce that is not easily recicled, the increased consuption of fossil fuels, politics, economy, etc etc etc. In other order of things i wonder how much quality time do each of those kids get with their parents compared with thir assigned "buddy". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #78 October 17, 2005 QuoteQuote I wouldn't be surprised if in the next century or two we saw a decrease in the worlds population... Not if all parents decided to have sixteen kids. From a microperspective, an individual pair of parents having sixteen+/- kids is a personal choice. From a macroperspective, if all parents chose to have sixteen+/- kids, it would cause a population explosion in short order. oh come on now... do you REALLY think that all parents are going to decide to have 16 kids? Most parents barely have 2 kids... isn't the average # of kids a couple has like 1.2 or something? pah! -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #79 October 17, 2005 QuoteQuote did you know that every single person in the world could fit in the state of texas and have over 1200 square feet EACH... Would you allow every single person in the world to fit in the state of texas and have over 1200 square feet each? I doubt it (minuteman project). It is not ONLY about resources or physical space, It is important as well how much waste the population produce that is not easily recicled, the increased consuption of fossil fuels, politics, economy, etc etc etc. In other order of things i wonder how much quality time do each of those kids get with their parents compared with thir assigned "buddy". I'm surprised that it took so long for someone to object to that example I made... and it was just that, an example, to illustrate just how LARGE the earth is... of course I am not advocating cramming everyone into such a "small" space... don't be so concrete in thinking... as to your other point, I'd venture to say that the amount of "quality" time that these kids get is probably more than what most double-income parents give their kids, who anesthetize their kids w/ TV, video games, DVDs, etc... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #80 October 17, 2005 Quoteoh come on now... do you REALLY think that all parents are going to decide to have 16 kids? Most parents barely have 2 kids... isn't the average # of kids a couple has like 1.2 or something? pah! I think you misunderstand my point. I don't think all parents are going to choose to have sixteen kids, and that is precisely why it is okay that some do. For Great Deals on Gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #81 October 17, 2005 Some interesting stats... Our population has doubled since 1960. It had grown 3.5 times since 1900. World Population was 6 billion in June of 1999. It is expected to reach 9 billion in 2048. Many believe the world population will peak before it reaches 10 billion. Plant and animal species are disappearing 1,000 times faster than natural extinction due to activities by man. Each day 137 species of plants and animals become extinct. When one species dies it often spells the extinction for other species. In a years time over 50,000 species go extinct. Then there is affects due to global warming becoming more and more of a problem. The erosion of our Ozone layer is another problem. The loss of clean air and water. The list goes on and on....Don't you think at least part of these problems are due to too many people being born each year. These are not scare tactics, they are facts. Maybe you can pretend that there isn't a problem, but anyone with any sense can put two and two together and realize we are running out of space and natural resources. You say we have tons of open space for zillions of new people. What are you going to feed them all with when diesel fuel hits $50. a gallon. What are they going to use for building materials. Have you priced them lately. I suspect lumber may become too expensive to buy if you look at it realistically. This may be a renewable resource, but at the rate we are using it up few may be able to buy it. I suppose we could put everybody in caves or tents and then feed them sea weed. Come on Sinker, take off your Rose colored glasses....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #82 October 17, 2005 QuoteAnd there are people who believe a cow's life is as sacred as a humans. To them killing a cow is murder. Should you not have the choice to eat a steak because of someone else's belief? I think a blastocyst is no more sacred than a cow, and the cow is, without a doubt, more alive. People can believe anything they want. A belief that a ball of cells is alive is based more on a moral and religious stance than a scientific one. My big toe is alive when connected to my body. Granted, it doesn't have the "potential" to be a person in its own right, but today it's just as alive (and has a greater purpose) than some blastocyst. linz a cow is not more alive than an embryo (whether at the blastocyst stage or any other) based only on the fact that it can live ex-utero. something is either alive or it is not. there is no grey here. alive or not alive. those are the only two options. and your toe is more important than a embryo? that truly made me laugh, and I don't mean to sound mocking about it... it was just funny, and sad. that is why our society is in the state it is today, b/c human life is devalued the way it is... an embryo is not a potential human, it is a human being with potential. the only thing added is growth and nutrition. you say that our belief that an embryo is alive is a moral one and not scientific... that assumption on your part is somewhat unwarranted... I've studied human embryology in college and, to be blunt, could not find a logical break anywhere in the gestational process whereby one could say "ok, now it's a baby," either by way of saying the child is viable or what have you, like the supreme court did in roe. as embryological medical care has advanced, the "age" of viability has decreased, it has not stayed static. what does that tell you? and what makes a baby a baby? the fact that it can live on it's own ex-utero? when it has a heart beat? when it can feel pain? when it has cognition? the fact is, there IS no logical demarcation... there IS no point at which one can state "now it's a child," except to start at the beginning... that's the only proper thing to do... the first rule of medicine is "do no harm." Just b/c you THINK you're not doing any harm to a "bunch of cells" doesn't really mean shit... you may be wrong. One should err on the side of prudence, on the side of caution and not assume one knows more than one does, nor should one dismiss the beliefs of others b/c they SEEM to be only based on "morality" and not "science." There are many OB/GYNs who also believe that life begins at conception, both religious and atheists alike. I realize that I'm probably wasting my breath here... we've had this debate countless times before... just know that as the medical community continues to grapple w/ the areas of fertility, birth defects, fixing fetal problems inutero, etc., we will see more and more "science" meeting "religion" where it has been all along... it in fact is already happening... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #83 October 17, 2005 my glasses aren't rose colored... yours are colored w/ fear... If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. This family can. I can as well. (And we won't be feeding them w/ deisel either). -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #84 October 17, 2005 QuoteI'm surprised that it took so long for someone to object to that example I made... and it was just that, an example, to illustrate just how LARGE the earth is... of course I am not advocating cramming everyone into such a "small" space... don't be so concrete in thinking... Mine was an example as well, you ignored the second paragraph, the one about the increased waste and fossil fuel consumption that an increase in population would bring. Quoteas to your other point, I'd venture to say that the amount of "quality" time that these kids get is probably more than what most double-income parents give their kids, who anesthetize their kids w/ TV, video games, DVDs, etc... Why? I am sure at least one of them works if they can afford 16 childs. We are not comparing good parents to bad parents, lets compare good parents to good parents... If you have four kids, you can dedicate so much time to those four kids. If you had 12 more kids you could only dedicate a forth of that time to the original four. I just don´t see the point in having more kids than you can dedicate your time to. It is not just a matter of feeding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #85 October 17, 2005 >Mine was an example as well, you ignored the >second paragraph, the one about the increased >waste and fossil fuel consumption that an increase >in population would bring. It wasn't ignored, it just wasn't addressed in the interest of time. Remember, I have 4 kids and I happen to enjoy spending time w/ them over debating here... I see the fossil fuel consumption issue as another scare tactic. We really don't know how much fossil fuel is left in the earth. Also, what about alternative energy sources? We've yet to really tap those. And as alternative energy sources are utilized, waste is altered as well. As for human waste, don't know... As for parent time, as "good parents" go, do you know how much time a "good parent" does or should spend w/ a child to ensure good social/psychological adjustment? My wife's mom is one of 12... All 12 turned out very well, no addictions, no divorces, no mental problems, all close to their parents, to their children, etc.... How much time did my wife's g-pa spend w/ each kid? Don't know... but it was obviously "enough." Funny how back when I was a therapist, I rarely if ever saw poorly adjusted people who came from large families, but many many many who came from smaller families (not that small families CAUSE psychological problems mind you, that's not quite what I'm saying). -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #86 October 17, 2005 Quote my glasses aren't rose colored... yours are colored w/ fear... If you can't afford to have kids, don't have them. This family can. I can as well. (And we won't be feeding them w/ deisel either). Oh hell yes, this scares me! When I see a dangerous problem I think we should try to fix it rather than pretend it isn't there. To tell you the truth, I'm really not scared for myself. I've lived a good life, and I can check out at any time with no regrets. But, I am afraid for my kids and the kids they will have. What kind of a future will they have if things stay on their present course? I make a good living. I could afford to have several more kids than the two I have, but having too many just makes the problem worse for everyone. Every day I counsel throw away kids at the school I work at. Most of these kids have been farmed out to anyone who will take them, and they have never developed a close bond to anyone. Often times their parents are strung out on drugs and alcohol or they just don't have any parenting skills. Or in other words they just don't give a rip about the welfare of their children. Lot's of folks say they really like kids. Too bad more people don't do more to help kids living without a decent family. To me it makes more sense than just having a multitude of my own offspring.....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #87 October 17, 2005 QuoteThats f#@#in' crazy!! Why? How? Is there a quality of life for the older kids? yes, this family is obviously far worse off than the family headed by a single mother and all three children are from different fathers..... Eventhough it isn't my choice, I don't understand the issue people have with this. It doesn't affect you, the children seem happy, they support themselves....I guess it is just the natural fear people have of those things they don't understand.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #88 October 17, 2005 QuoteThis decision is fine for you because you are convinced that life does not begin until birth. For all of us that believe life begins at conception, believe an abortion is murder and therefore cannot support it in any way. That includes not voting for pro-choice politicians. We do not condone anyone else's choice to take another life. I was just trying to explain the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. Personally, I don't know when life begins, but I don't think it really matters, because I think that the decisions of the mother over her body trump any rights a fetus may have because the fetus is living inside the mother. I'm sure a fetus is "alive" in the sense that it's composed of living cells, so I don't think there's really a place to draw a line. I do think late term abortion after a fetus could survive outside the mother is pretty stupid, because at that point, why not just have the kid and give it for adoption, but again, it isn't my choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #89 October 17, 2005 >did you know that every single person in the world could fit in the > state of texas and have over 1200 square feet EACH... hmmm... > think you'd still have enough room in the world to go hunt and fish > w/ your family? Nope, not if they were americans. The average american requires 25 acres of land to grow his food, bury his trash, clean his air, recycle his water etc etc. That means that in that state of Texas you could fit 6.8 million people, or 34% of the people who are actually there. So how do they do it? By using other states (and other countries) to grow food for them. That's what's going to limit our growth. Starvation and disease from not having the land to support ourselves. So in the long run it will all work out; our only decision is whether we want more children dying of starvation or dysentery, or fewer children living a better life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #90 October 17, 2005 Humans have a parasitic relationship with the earth. It is not symbiotic, we do nothing to benefit the earth. Maybe a little mitigation of damage we are doing, but we provide no benefit that the earth needs from us. Parasites that grow out of control kill their hosts. Therefore, our growth must be kept in check, or the host will die. Or, minimally, the host will not sustain us so that our entire population suffers and whithers until brought back down to a manageable population. I'd rather we had less people living better lives overall. That's why I introduce you to the counterpart to the 16child family. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #91 October 17, 2005 Quote>did you know that every single person in the world could fit in the > state of texas and have over 1200 square feet EACH... hmmm... > think you'd still have enough room in the world to go hunt and fish > w/ your family? Nope, not if they were americans. The average american requires 25 acres of land to grow his food, bury his trash, clean his air, recycle his water etc etc. That means that in that state of Texas you could fit 6.8 million people, or 34% of the people who are actually there. So how do they do it? By using other states (and other countries) to grow food for them. That's what's going to limit our growth. Starvation and disease from not having the land to support ourselves. So in the long run it will all work out; our only decision is whether we want more children dying of starvation or dysentery, or fewer children living a better life. you're such a pessimist. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #92 October 17, 2005 I think the word you were looking for is "realist". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #93 October 17, 2005 QuoteHumans have a parasitic relationship with the earth. It is not symbiotic, we do nothing to benefit the earth. Maybe a little mitigation of damage we are doing, but we provide no benefit that the earth needs from us. Parasites that grow out of control kill their hosts. Therefore, our growth must be kept in check, or the host will die. Or, minimally, the host will not sustain us so that our entire population suffers and whithers until brought back down to a manageable population. I'd rather we had less people living better lives overall. That's why I introduce you to the counterpart to the 16child family. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement how ironic your screen-name is "rebirth".... by all means dude, DON'T breed... we wouldn't want such views as the voluntary human extinction movement being propegated. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #94 October 17, 2005 I think you should all breed faster. Someone needs to be paying for my Social Security when I start collecting.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #95 October 17, 2005 QuoteI think the word you were looking for is "realist". call it what you want... just don't procreate... leave that to me, so we can advance our ideologies and yours can die out... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #96 October 17, 2005 Quote I think you should all breed faster. Someone needs to be paying for my Social Security when I start collecting. and you'll be collecting soon from what I understand, old timer!good lord... and to think i'm actually relocating to YOUR state w/ it's draconian gun laws, bed wetting liberal politics and whatnot... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #97 October 17, 2005 QuoteQuote I think you should all breed faster. Someone needs to be paying for my Social Security when I start collecting. and you'll be collecting soon from what I understand, old timer!good lord... and to think i'm actually relocating to YOUR state w/ it's draconian gun laws, bed wetting liberal politics and whatnot... We don't have any liberals here. Just Democrat crooks instead of Republican crooks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #98 October 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote I think you should all breed faster. Someone needs to be paying for my Social Security when I start collecting. and you'll be collecting soon from what I understand, old timer!good lord... and to think i'm actually relocating to YOUR state w/ it's draconian gun laws, bed wetting liberal politics and whatnot... We don't have any liberals here. Just Democrat crooks instead of Republican crooks. thanks for the distinction... after the move maybe i'll come up and buy you a drink or two... and I promise not to slip you a mickey finn. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #99 October 17, 2005 Sinker, they have been doing that for well over 20 years now. Once had a girl friend that had an abortion several years prior to us dating. She at one time wished she could be the one that died because she was overwhelmed with guilt for making what she knows for herself was a selfish choice. That decision has haunted her for many year but I believe she has come to forgiving herself and being a mother to two beutiful girls now in there early teens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,446 #100 October 17, 2005 Not everyone is the same. I know women who have had abortions who are not wracked with guilt over them. Differing reasons. Not every question has a right (and everything else is wrong) answer. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
