Drug addicts paid £200 to not have children.

[butchersapron]

I wouldn't (or rarely) bother debating them, just laugh at their madness and celebrate their isolation from wider society.

 

[frogwoman]

No, I mean watching it on newsnight etc like it was the other night. i do agree with you tho

 

[i_got_poison]

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly

albert einstein

 

[frogwoman]

although im guessing that what he meant was nothing to do with your eugenic fantasies.

 

[detective-boy]

well, IIRC, our current population growth is something like 1.8 - not enough babies are being born for a sustainable population especially due to the fact that more people are living longer. We need to be encouraging people to have more kids ffs.

So you are arguing that our population is falling, yes?

Please link to the stats and the nice graph that I am sure will illustrate the trend clearly.

 

[butchersapron]

Look up what replacement rate means rather than trying to clumsily manouvere FG into talking about the past.

Let's do this slowly:

Future

Past.

FG is talking about the future. That's what replacement level refers to.

 

[detective-boy]

umm, don't you think - what with humankind being fallible, and living messy lives, and all that - that in many individual cases it may not be as clear cut as that? THAT deprivation, lack of role models, poor education etc may all play their part in pregnancies happening that shouldn't happen but do?

Yes, of course all of those things apply and yes, of course there are lots of unplanned pregnancies and lots of pregnancies where situations change before the child is born for reasons beyond the control of the parents (I am sure there are many pregnant public sector workers who would have been perfectly able to provide for their child until last week when they lost their jobs due to the greed of the wanker bankers for instance).

But just because there are some other situations does not undermine (a) the basic principle and (b) the fact that in the majority of cases the parents DO have the ability to make choices.

 

[detective-boy]

I wasn't referring to you but of the increasing acceptablitiy of this kind of "solution" in general.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[frogwoman]

Forcing sterilisation on people is fucking barbaric and belongs to a time in history that most people would not want to be associated with.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

I am sure there are many pregnant public sector workers who would have been perfectly able to provide for their child until last week when they lost their jobs due to the greed of the wanker bankers for instance).

But just because there are some other situations does not undermine (a) the basic principle and (b) the fact that in the majority of cases the parents DO have the ability to make choices.

Those public sector workers have known for at least 6 months that their jobs were under threat and may not be in a position at the time that the children was born to adequately provide for them. Perhaps every time the bankers go on the rampage we should have sterilisation incentives for the public sector workers that are going to get fucked over.

 

[moon23]

It's not that unborn children have rights (though I would disagree that they have none) - it's anticipation of the rights of the child immediately it is born. Considering the rights of parties involved in a future situation is absolutely standard practice in making lots of decisions and whilst they are not as concrete as the immediate rights of the individuals involved now they are certainly valid. For instance, in any surveillance operation we infringe the rights (to privacy) of the suspects here and now but if those suspects are believed to represent a future threat to the life of others then we are balancing that immediate infringment against a possible future infringement of the rights of others (who may or may not even be known). That is an entirely commonplace situation.

To take your statement to it's logical extreme would mean that you would not condemn parents who got pregnant but had absolutely no intention (or ability, or both) whatsoever to care for the child and intended to abandon it immediately it were born, leaving it's fate to the actions of others. Is that your position?

With the example of surveillance rights are curtailed because we suspect people of having committed a crime or conspiring to commit a crime against another person(s). Unborn children are not people or legal entities they are also not moral agents. Secondly rights are curtailed in your example given because of stated intention of a moral agent to infringe the rights of another moral agent. This is entirely different from speculating about the possibility of unintentional neglect towards a possible future person that could result from a mental or physical impairment.

My position means you can only condemn people for committing neglect, yours means you can infringe their rights simply because you suspect it.

 

[frogwoman]

Funny how it's neverthe proponents of sterilisation who volunteer themselves to be sterilised.

 

[moon23]

Forcing sterilisation on people is fucking barbaric and belongs to a time in history that most people would not want to be associated with.

Enforced sterilisation is defined as a crime against humanity bt the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

 

[moon23]

Funny how it's neverthe proponents of sterilisation who volunteer themselves to be sterilised.

I can't belive how many people support it, I daresay that the anti-humanist attitude of some within the green movement is to blame for creating these resource based environmental justifications. It's alarming.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

To take your statement to it's logical extreme would mean that you would not condemn parents who got pregnant but had absolutely no intention (or ability, or both) whatsoever to care for the child and intended to abandon it immediately it were born, leaving it's fate to the actions of others. Is that your position?

I happen to think that surrogacy is wrong, but only through the payment involved (incentive for pregnancy; flip side of incentives for steriliation). I have no issues with non-commercial surrogacy.

 

[_angel_]

I can't belive how many people support it, I daresay that the anti-humanist attitude of some within the green movement is to blame for creating these resource based environmental justifications. It's alarming.

They're not all just greens though, are they?

 

[moon23]

They're not all just greens though, are they?

No they are not, it would be unfair to most Green's to suggest it was. There are some environmentalist who put forward an ecological argument for population reduction and mass sterilisation. Most green's I know would find it abhorrent though.

 

[i_got_poison]

With the example of surveillance rights are curtailed because we suspect people of having committed a crime or conspiring to commit a crime against another person(s). Unborn children are not people or legal entities they are also not moral agents. Secondly rights are curtailed in your example given because of stated intention of a moral agent to infringe the rights of another moral agent. This is entirely different from speculating about the possibility of unintentional neglect towards a possible future person that could result from a mental or physical impairment.

My position means you can only condemn people for committing neglect, yours means you can infringe their rights simply because you suspect it.

as i understood it, he means probable cause.

 

[i_got_poison]

I can't belive how many people support it, I daresay that the anti-humanist attitude of some within the green movement is to blame for creating these resource based environmental justifications. It's alarming.

is it really alarming? we're running out of resources. no one can deny this simple fact. note, it's only in the west, this problem exists. as most of the world
never had these things to begin with and are in abject poverty as a result.

 

[detective-boy]

My position means you can only condemn people for committing neglect, yours means you can infringe their rights simply because you suspect it.

How? I'm not arguing for anything to be done at all. As I have repeatedly said, I am stating a PRINCIPLE. So how am I meant to have infringed their rights.

And I would point out that your approach would mean that a child had to be harmed before the actions of the parent were condemned - we couldn't condemn them in advance of actual harm being caused no matter how blatantly bleeding obvious it were that harm would be caused.

 

[moon23]

How? I'm not arguing for anything to be done at all. As I have repeatedly said, I am stating a PRINCIPLE. So how am I meant to have infringed their rights.

You haven't infringed their rights, but your doctrine of pre-emptive intervention sets up the possibilty for it. It's the same type of argument used for the invasion of Iraq, they *might* have weaponse of destruction this *might* infringe on someone elses rights.

And I would point out that your approach would mean that a child had to be harmed before the actions of the parent were condemned - we couldn't condemn them in advance of actual harm being caused no matter how blatantly bleeding obvious it were that harm would be caused.

Yes that's correct, we don't condemn people for possibly causing harm. In the real world it is very rarely black & white whether will or won't be done, so you monitor children closely and intervene in the first sign of harm.

 

[moon23]

is it really alarming? we're running out of resources. no one can deny this simple fact. note, it's only in the west, this problem exists. as most of the world
never had these things to begin with and are in abject poverty as a result.

Malthus said the same thing in his Essay on the Principles of Population in 1798

 

[frogwoman]

never thought i'd say this, but good posts moon.

 

[butchersapron]

Malthus said the same thing in his Essay on the Principles of Population in 1798

Don't know why you're even bothering to respond to post hos ergo propter hoc nonsense.

 

[butchersapron]

is it really alarming? we're running out of resources. no one can deny this simple fact. note, it's only in the west, this problem exists. as most of the world
never had these things to begin with and are in abject poverty as a result.

Never had what things you incoherent ape? Only in the west what problems exists? Never had the resources which were and are being used to develop and sustain western lifestyles? Yes they did, that's exactly where most of the resources are plundered from. Only in the west a population 'problem' exists? The west is exactly where population levels are falling below replacement levels, it's precisely in the poor areas that they're soaring.

Fucking Einsteins

 

[i_got_poison]

Malthus said the same thing in his Essay on the Principles of Population in 1798

"Yet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population.

"The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land, to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened, and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population

 

[i_got_poison]

Never had what things you incoherent ape? Only in the west what problems exists? Never had the resources which were and are being used to develop and sustain western lifestyles? Yes they did, that's exactly where most of the resources are plundered from. Only in the west a population 'problem' exists? The west is exactly where population levels are falling below replacement levels, it's precisely in the poor areas that they're soaring.

Fucking Einsteins

earlier you couldn't bring yourself to quote my post and respond directly. instead you chose veiled attacks through posters i was responding to. very cowardly if you ask me, but this is the internet and you're free to behave as you wish. what i don't understand is, what's prompted
you to end your cowardly ways and address me directly? in short what's gotten your tail up?

p.s. what's a knuckledragging freak like you doing responding to posts you haven't read, let alone understood.
for instance most of the discussion on this thread, has assumed a western standard of living for the nurture and care of children coming into the world,
with little or no regard for the absence of standards elsewhere. if we in the west are discussing resource shortages in relation to ourselves, it means
there's little or nothing left to plunder from third world countries.

to plunder is to deprive someone of something, which infers they never had use of the resources in the first place.
at the political forum level, i don't expect to have to hold the readers hand through every sentence and every inference i make.

if we're done now. would you like a banana?

 

[butchersapron]

to plunder is to deprive someone of something, which infers they never had use of the resources in the first place.

Are you posting this stuff for a bet?

Ah well no reply to my taking your bizarre post apart with a mere 30 seconds effort.

 

[frogwoman]

Are you implying that butchers is somehow possessing the rest of the people replying here with evil powers?

 

[frogwoman]

First he's the leader of a cult, and now he is channelling his own spirit and using it to attack you by the proxy of people replying to you. Have you ever seen his like before?