“Arguing that we need to stimulate population growth is exactly the same argument that we should force women to submit to insemination in order to increase the population of the state.”
How so?
“There are many ways of stimulating population growth without forcing women to become pregnant and they include opening the gates to immigration, subsidizing parents with tax deductions for having children, or putting unwed mothers in the baby business with welfare.”
And what makes you think I support any of these three? Simply stop the taxpayer funding devoted to population control, and you’ll see things go back. This includes taxpayer funding for abortion. If the state intervened less, and taxes were lower more people could afford to have children and more of them. I am concerned that you are using the same rhetoric in favour of population control, that the abortion supporters use to support abortion.
“I think you have three reasonable answers before you and not one of them includes abortion.”
When we are losing about a million a year though abortion, we are effectively paying to kill children and paying to save them. Simply stop paying to kill them in the first place.
“It is a logical non sequitur to insist that one cannot be in opposition to abortion and at the same time stand in opposition to population growth. The only oxymoron is in your persistence in connecting the two.”
Most prolifers (if not all), see children as a blessing. Most proaborts (if not all), see children as a burden.
You are treating children as a burden and claim to be against abortion. That to me seems implausible. So I am entertaining your assertion here, to clairify how you manage to square the circle with supporting population control AND being prolife.
“When will you say that the population of America is high enough?”
If you sincerely the population of America is X+1 too high, kill yourself.
“If you say there is no limit”
Well, that raises the question. What is the effective population limit? China raises roughly a billion on the same acreage as America.
Do I want that to be the number of people in America? Sure, if that is what it works out to be. I do not believe the state or anyone else has the right to tell them, (or me), (or you), for that matter as to how many children you can or cannot have.
That is what freedom is about. If people want to have 5 kids, or 10 kids, then they should be permitted to do so.
“If you admit that there is a limit, for example, that you are comfortable with the limit”
I don’t believe there ought to be an arbitrary limit enforced by the government. I think people ought to have as many children as they wish to have without the interference of the government. That is what freedom is all about. Most of America is empty, and getting emptier.
“So long as you mindlessly persist in connecting the two you are in a trap.”
So, as I asked earlier, by what means do you wish to control the population without resorting to abortion?
“Uneducated, poverty-stricken, illiterate, socialist minded, culturally alien, illegal (or legal) intruders cost more than they contribute.”
And educated, wealthy, literate, capitalist minded, america loving legal immigrants contribute more than they cost. Your point?
“The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources.”
If you feel the limit is X+1 over the current population, then kill yourself. That is rational, no?
“Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims.”
Only if you believe that it is the job of the government to provide for it’s citizens, and the job of the government to redistribute wealth. I reject that presumption. Once the inevitable collapse comes, we will finally see limited government.
“Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc.”
What about the 50 million unborn children who have been denied the right to life?
“Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City?”
Does North Dakota permit the killing of unborn children within it’s borders? Does North Dakota also provide public funding for planned parenthood? Then, yes, my religious freedoms are at state in sparsely populated North Dakota, as they are not here in densely populated Texas.
Our governor just KO’d abortion funding for PP.
“Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.”
And you believe that if we killed 170 million Americans that this would restore the property rights already lost?
You first, sir.
“If we are cheek by jowl with our neighbor inevitably the government will arbitrate the friction created by one rubbing against the other.”
As opposed to the whole sustainability movement which seeks to create people-free zones filled with wilderness, etc.
“I agree. But I also say: Those who are concerned about liberty need to relax their militant insistence on population growth.”
And to that, I say, wake up and smell the coffee. Ehrlich was 100 percent wrong, and so are you.
BTW, how do you propose that we control the population of the United States without abortion? I want to hear this.
BTW, how do you propose that we control the population of the United States without abortion? I want to hear this. I thought I had enumerated three instances in a clear and unambiguous manner. I proposed that the government withdraw its subsidies for procreation.
What makes you think that I have ever proposed that we "control the population United States"?
How do you propose to stimulate population growth apart from the forceful insemination of women?
I will stop asking that question when you stop conflating opposition to government controlling population, that is, controlling its increase with support for abortion. You are resorting to the rankest kind of unfair debating tactics. You are inviting an equivalent response, and you just got one.
For the record, I oppose now and I have always opposed government subsidies for abortion. I am opposed to government controlling population up or controlling population down. I would support the withdrawal of subsidies which encourage procreation. Check your dictionary to understand the difference between "encouragement" and "control."
It is a deplorable debating tactic to resort to the ad hominem. What you did in these two paragraphs is scurrilous:
Most prolifers (if not all), see children as a blessing. Most proaborts (if not all), see children as a burden.
You are treating children as a burden and claim to be against abortion. That to me seems implausible.
In your last post you twice suggested I kill myself. You are a caricature of an abortion fanatic. If I don't pander to you with the requisite politically correct vocabulary I am a "pro-abort" and I should "kill" l myself.
I concede no moral ground to you on this subject whatsoever:
Ruthie "Remidies" is Preganant! A different view of Gonzolas v. Carhart
I will let the reader judge.
