Among other things, Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren Considered Putting Sterilants in Our Drinking Water
And be sure to read this by the Wintery Knight.
I am not making this up.
On forced abortions:
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
On government confiscation of babies:
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption — especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. … It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
On targeted involuntary sterilization:
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
And much more to be found in the links! What will it take for the Liberals to wake up to what Obama is all about?
But the good news is that as a “Science Czar” he doesn’t have to report to Congress. Oh, wait, that’s even worse . . .
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: abortion, John Holdren, obama, Politics, Pro-life, sterilize, water
The part that I find so confusing is how so many Christians could vote for functional atheists and then expect them to govern in Christian ways. (My opinion is that Obama is a committed atheist, based on his anti-Christian policies).
The right to life is incompatible with an accidental, materialist universe. Why then should we be surprised that when we elect materialists, that our rights are violated by them? And not just the right to life, but our free speech and property rights, as well.
Tell me more about these “functional atheists”. What is that?
I agree with you that Obama is probably an atheist. I think that there have been quite a few atheist presidents. Do you think it’s worse that they are atheists, or that they need to hide their feelings to be elected?
Materialists believe in the right to life as well – at least this one does. Maybe we disagree on the definition of life, but we agree that it is something to be protected at all costs.
A functional atheist is a person who says they have a non-atheistic worldview, but their life shows no evidence that they believe in any of these goals. I.e. – if atheism is true, then there is no objective purpose to life except to have happy feelings until you die. A functional atheist lives like an atheist.
I don’t care about feelings, so I can’t answer that.
I don’t care about beliefs, either.
On atheism, what is the means of existence of the right to life? Where is it? How does it exist?
On theism, the right to life is grounded in the Creator, who decides what rights his creatures will have, and imposes duties on his creatures to respect that right to life. So the right to life is real on theism – it has ontological teeth. In short, we really do have a right to life on theism because the Creator grounds it, and he is still around.
You don’t care about feelings or belief? I don;t really know how to respond to that.
What makes you think that you have any rights, if God can remove them whenever he choses. I believe we are moral beings, with those morals being a part of our evolution. Within that morality is a duty to treat others as we would have them treat us. That basic moral removes the right for others to take our lives, or threaten our lives. That is what I believe.
As for my purpose in life, yes I think to be happy is pretty much it. But to be happy, for me, and for most people I know, that involves helping others to be happy.
God can not remove rights whenever he chooses.
God can not do impossible things.
Building a moral system on a principle that anyone is free to deny just because it benefits them at a given time is going to get you into hot water pretty fast.
See: Nietzsche’s conception of a society, and Libido Dominandi
Who’s rules is he following then? The maker of the laws can be the changer of the laws.
He can’t do things outside his nature, e.g., lie or make a square circle, because He is logical. It isn’t a matter of rules but of logic.
Ryan,
I would highly encourage you to read “After Virtue” too, as I mentioned to Racing Boo elsewhere in this thread.
As for what rules is God following, Neil nailed it, God is bound by His own nature.
Muslims believe God can change the rules whenever he wants. Christians do not believe that, God can not do the impossible, and changing morality is impossible.
Would be glad to discuss this in much greater detail if you’ like, but it would require that my posts get a bit lengthy.
As a brief addendum to my above posts, it seems you arwe starting to understand what we mean by “natural law”, under human laws the maker of the laws can simply rewritten them. But if the laws are written into the nature of things themselves (like the Universe, or God) then changing the laws would change the thing, and it would cease to be what it was previously.
And if God changed the laws in his own nature, he would cease to be God.
Maybe I just didn’t explain my views before. I do believe that there are things that are right and wrong independent of what we think of them. It is wrong to treat a fellow being in a way that you would not want to be treated. However, the salmon currently in my belly may feel that I occasionally violate that law.
I live a good enough life that most Christians would call me a moral person, yet I do so without God, and without the fear of punishment. No matter what religion people believe in the world, most of them follow the same laws. Long before Jesus was said to have lived, we were generally good to one another. Long before the pages of the Old Testament were written, we were good people. The idea that God allowed people to live and die, day after day for 100,000 years before deciding to start talking to people, and writing a book or two, just cannot be explained.
It makes no sense.
I will look at that book LCB. It looks interesting, but the idea of going back to Aristotelian ideas about philosophy is not something I can agree with. I would agree with Hume in this area (I’m sure that does not surprise you).
Going to do bullet points in this reply, since divergent topics are now on the plate:
1) The problem with Hume is that the logical conclusion of his thinking, like that of all other enlightenment philosophers, is a descent into pure emotivism. The error of the enlightenment, reason qua reason, is destined to end up in a battle of “my reason” vs “your reason”, and an endless dialog where the terms have no actual meaning.
2) I don’t mean this in a rude way, but you are seriously under-estimating the moral situation of mankind in pre-Christian eras. The role of Christianity in developing morality, and essentially being responsible for the morality you yourself now espouse, is difficult to overstate. The very concept of things like “Human Rights” as a Christian concept. These are simply historical facts. I strongly encourage you to read the book I’ve recommend “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”, which has an entire chapter dedicated just to this topic.
3) You have adequately explained your views, my response concerning materialism was made because that specific issue had been brought up.
4) Keep in mind that ideas have consequences. Figure out what your ideas are, figure out their logical consequences. If you don’t like the logical social, societal, and individuals consequences of your ideas, perhaps you ought to considering getting a new set of ideas. When we apply this to the various philosophies, we see that a return to Aristotelian ideas for our philosophical foundations is the best possible option, as the other options are bankrupt and result in dead and dying societies.
5) Most people who have been exposed to Aristotle were exposed to him by folks with an Anti-Aristotle bias. I highly encourage you to explore Mortimer Adler, at least briefly, to better understand the philosopher.
I’m on fire tonight, so another post it is.
In a previous place, Ryan, you have joined me in lamenting the unfortunate death of liberal education.
You may find it fruitful to consider: what philosophical ideas had the consequence of killing liberal education?
It ain’t Aristotle, that’s for sure. If the natural consequence of a certain philosophical idea is the death of liberal education, perhaps the idea is a bad one and should be discarded?
To be quite honest I wouldn’t call him an atheist so much as I would a deceived non believer. (Unless he’s a very good actor at faking his apparent sincerity.) An atheist in practice? YES. But I don’t think he’s an atheist intellectually.
Since when? We’ve overcome tremendous odds to be alive, and those of us who are should have a right to stay that way.
Stop making up arbitrary philosophical claims.
On atheism, what is the means of existence of the right to life? Where is it? How does it exist?
See above for how the right to life exists on Christian theism. You’re borrowing capital from a worldview you deny. If the universe is an accident, and matter is all there is, then there are no human rights. There is only matter in motion.
It’s really time someone stood up to this canard, which I’ve seen repeated here, straight out of the believer’s book o’ sound bites (yes, you have one too).
Please explain to me how a worldview which only provisionally ironed out its contradictions circa 700 BCE can possibly claim ownership of more than 100 000 years of human capital?
And please note that so far the best explanation any of you have come up with is that “God planted it in our minds”.
Another vox pop, from Mr Conspiracy Theorist himself. I don’t know, Wintery, maybe I’m Satan and I did it all? Mwuahhahahahahahahaha.
Seriously; well, sort of (as much as I can be when arguing with someone for whom Haeckel’s diagrams are still a talking point), so your argument is that the existence of human rights means that there must be a god. Please explain the argument that way round, and stop assuming that rights must follow from a creator.
That isn’t our view at all so I, for one, won’t be trying to defend that or respond to the comment.
Sir, I asked you a question. What is the mode of existence of these human rights on your non-theistic view? Where is it?
Don’t get huffy with me, please, if you’d take the time to follow the link to my name you might see that I live in a different country and a very different time zone.
They originate in the same place as all our feelings, emotions, and everything else we experience, in abstract or otherwise; our brains.
Regarding the Haeckel’s embyos, please see this
article in Natural History by Stephen J. Gould.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/
QUOTE:
We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!
You know Gould is a prominent evolutionary biologist right?
We all know that the embryo drawings were exaggerated, and most biologists agree that they should not be included in elementary texts. The point is, why do you keep bringing it up? It is not a proof for evolution, and nobody claims it to be. Haeckel’s theories were DEAD WRONG about the embryos, and sometimes it is valuable to present a failed experiment, since proving a theory wrong contributes as much knowledge as proving a theory correct. The fact that he exaggerated the drawings has nothing to do with anything anymore.
The fabricated drawings AND the fact that they stayed in science texts for so long demonstrates that the scientific process and communication of its results is as prone to lies, philosophical agendas and spin as much as any other areas of life. This is important to remember when evolutionists get all choked up and weepy about how pure science is.
Yes, Gould was a biologist who admitted the truth on a few key issues. Creative, too — he supported the silliness of punctuated equilibrium (another materialist concession speech) and conceded the huge problem of fossil evidence for his worldview.
No it really just demonstrates that textbook manufacturers are cheap. This is not a problem with the scientific process, but a problem with the education system. The ideas of Haekel are taught in Biology classes because they are an important part of scientific history. His ideas are not used to support Darwinian evolution, and have not been for over 100 years in the scientific community.
How omniscient of you to know why the writers of the science textbooks deliberately published false material for decades.
Let’s just say I’m skeptical of your conclusions, and especially your claim that his pictures weren’t used to advance Darwinian evolution. You’ve got to be kidding.
But in a materialistic worldview how can you say we overcame odds? Aren’t the odds 100.00000000% that the materials set in motion would do exactly what they did?
I’m talking about individuals, Neil. We all had to survive a one in millions chance at being the winning sperm, and after that at least a 50:50 possibility of spontaneous abortion.
So are you saying that in the Christian worldview we “overcame odds?”. Aren’t the odds 100.00000000% that God would accomplish just what he wanted to?
God will accomplish precisely what He desires with his sovereign will. He has obviously given us the ability to disobey his moral will.
I don’t see how the “individuals” part of your argument helps it. Just a bunch of molecules interacting and making us think we had some choice in this . . .
Where, precisely, do rights come from Racing Boo?
Where, precisely, does the Right to Life exist?
An honest materialist is forced to admit that there is no such thing as a Right to Life.
Please explain why.
Gladly.
If a person is a materialist, they assert there is absolutely nothing other than the material. The logical conclusion of materialism is also strict pre-determinism, since all material interactions are strictly covered under causality.
A right is something that is immaterial. A materialist denies that anything immaterial (or, to use a superior phrase, metaphysical) exists.
Therefore an honest materialist admits that rights do not exist.
There are few serious materialists left in the philosophy departments, mostly because pure materialism is an intellectually bankrupt concept. It’s been relegated to English Departments and folks like Dawkins, who can’t be bothered to actually learn anything about philosophy before insisting they are experts on the matter. This paragraph may be a bit harsh, but it’s also true.
Anyways, a materialist must admit that rights do not exist. Materialism played a major role in Marxism, and the Marxists were happy to admit the truth about the matter: that they did not believe any rights actually existed.
Ideas have consequences. And the consequences of materialism are pretty clear.
It is untenable as a philosophy, and it is untenable when applied to the real world. It belongs in the dust bin of history.
I hope this helps.
Now, where, precisely, do rights come from?
Where, precisely, does the Right to Life exist?
You may find Alisdair McIntyre’s “After Virtue” a compelling and helpful read (he is arguably the greatest living English speaking philosopher alive ATM, and the arguably part probably shouldn’t be in this sentence).
He wrote it as a recovering Marxist, and it is widely regarded as one of the pivotal books of the last 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue
It can be a bit tricky to read, and you may find the literary expression of his concepts in “A Canticle for Leibowitz” helpful in really understanding what he’s getting at.
Really, the dialog that we have here is very much what MacIntyre was getting at. Words stopped having meaning in our culture a few decades ago, and so communication is near impossible on moral matters, since individuals attempt to use reason but in reality have rejected in advance some of the conclusions that reason will provide them.
“After Virtue” is one of those books that I think every person should read, and then after reading it should continue reading small passages of it on a daily basis for the rest of their life. And I’m seriously not kidding about that.
Skip Augustine for now, start with After Virtue.
Christians and other deists have been brought up to believe that morals and rights and love have been granted by a creator, or somehow invented by God.
The Bible contradicts this anyhow. If God loves us, then love must have existed before God.
Neil, I personally don’t believe in absolute determinism, and materialism does not require that I do since there are certain things in the material world which are intrinsically random. There are many things for which we should feel lucky. That we are even able to witness a time and age where we have the privilege of discussing this from points across the world is enough for me to feel lucky.
Huh? Where do you get these things? I’m almost afraid to ask, as it will probably be a time killing thread, but where do you get the idea that love must have existed before an eternally existent God?
Man, if you attribute the fine tuning of the universe to luck then you must think lottery tickets are like a coin flip (and that’s an understatement).
Once again, we are coming into philosophical problems with your conception of what/who the Christian God is. You do not understand or know what Christianity has to say on this topic.
You’re clearly interested, however, in dealing with this on a non-superficial level. I highly recommend consulting Aquinas. Do be aware, though, that he uses words in an incredibly PRECISE way (words like IS and ARE have radically different meanings, for example), and since the time of Descarte a lot of those words have been used in radically different ways than they were previously used. Why do I mention this? Because Aquinas can say one thing, and you can read something entirely different, because the words are being used in fundamentally different ways.
Before diving right in, you may wish to start with Kreeft’s “The Summa of the Summa.” Just trust me on that one
FWIW, Love is a part of the nature of God, eternally pre-existent between the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Since all love is contained within God, it is appropriate to say that God IS love, since there is no love that he lacks.
God is incapable of not-loving (or to rephrase, God can not not love), because it is part of His nature to love. For God not to love us would be impossible. To speak of love as pre-dating God makes no sense, since it is within God’s nature that love exists and has its source. All love, therefore, is a participation in the divine.
But I don’t care what you believe. I only care about what you can ground on your worldview of materialism. If you are a materialist, then determinism follows. There is no way that the universe ought to be, on materialism. This is an accident. There is no plan or purpose. No oughts of any kind, moral or otherwise.
Determinism does not follow materialism.
But the fact that you don’t care what others believe is going to be a barrier for you to learn much more than you already know, and probably a few other things. Ask me again about my worldview when you decide you do care.
Determinism 100% follows materialism, there is no logical way to have it otherwise.
You may wish it to be otherwise, but that’s simply the reality of the situation. Pure materialism eliminates free will.
Considering all the materialist philosophers have been agreed that there is no such thing as free will, and have even created their philosophies around the lack of free will, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.
There is a reason that pure materialism has been mostly abandoned.
I don’t believe that it does. Quantum theory shows that even material objects may have intrinsically random processes.
Don’t ask me to relate that to free will, because I can’t put that into words currently. As far as studying philosophy, you have me beat. I do, however believe that we do have free will, and I do know that many philosophers have been comfortable merging the two.
Name some? Because I don’t know of any. The most you’ll get are some folks who say that humans are free to control impulses/desires, but not free to act independently. The classic phrase is something to the effect of “We aren’t free to will, but we are free to won’t.”
The materialists and marxists happily toss out free will, usually replacing it with an inevitable historical dialectic of irresitable social forces.
Hobbes attempt to rectify the 2 is generally regarded as weak and insufficient.
Further, even if we acknowledge that large scale objects like the human brain operate on quantum principles (a point I do not conceed), that is merely reducing human free will to probability. That does not mean humans actually have free will, but merely an illusion of free will.
Further, the pure materialist has difficulty even asserting that we actually have conscienceness. Many an honest martialist will admit that they believe our conscienceness is merely an illusion. After all, in a purely material universe we remain bound by the maxim “That nothing can come from nothing.” To assert that we have real consciencesness is to assert that matter has somehow become self-aware, which is to say that the whole is now greater than the sum of the parts, which would be a logical contradiction in a purely material universe.
And that takes us back to the original problem anyways. In a materialist universe the chain of causality is strictly determined and can not be violated. If unthinking matter becomes thinking matter we now have a paradox, finite matter has (in a sense) become infinite, because infinite questions can be asked about the self that is thinking, and an infinite depth of replies can be offered. The only way to say otherwise is to assert (again) that conscienceness is merely an illusion.
And if it’s an illusion then there is no free will.
No matter which approach you take, pure materialism can’t assert free will or escape strict determinism without violating logic.
Finally, let’s return to the criteria I’ve used elsewhere lately.
If we draw materialism out to its logical conclusions, we see a clear fact: nothing has any meaning at all.
Meaning is just an illusion of the human mind and DNA, and we can choose (if we are even free, which we aren’t) to believe the illusion or not to believe it. But the reality is the same. There is no meaning. Nothing actually matters because it’s all pre-determined, and we are at best actors in a play with the illusion of being free… and even that is an illusion, because we aren’t really free, we just think we are.
What type of society will that mindset create? What type of civilization can be built on the concept that “this is all fake, nothing is real, at best I can hope to satisfy my own impulses before my impulses cease and I die. Morality is just an illusion. There is no truth.”
Is that a society that can stand, or will it collapse in a fit of self-loathing and existential emptiness? When life has no meaning, living life gets pretty difficult.
Since the logical conclusion is terrible, perhaps we ought to search for a new foundation.
For many materialism ends up being a justification that allows them to continue doing what they want to do without any pesky morality making demands on them. It ultimately enshrines the self as a semi-god that deserves unlimited gratification before it dies.
They need not change, because what they are doing isn’t really wrong! It’s often an excuse by those who are just intelligent enough to rationalize their irrational and inexcusable behavior..
Once they recognize that SOMETHING, ANYTHING, actually exists outside of themselves and their own ego, the whole facade comes crashing down, and they discover that Christianity has been waiting for them all along, with the truth that they have been hiding from.
LCB, I really do appreciate the discussion, but I am seriously in way over my head philosophically. I’m trying to keep up with you by looking up philosophical viewpoints, but I can’t very well argue something that I do not fully understand.
From what I have read, you are taking a very strict view of materialism, and automatically applying determinism to it. I don’t believe we even understand the “materials” we refer to when we talk about materialism, so applying determinism to them is premature, and with the new evidence we have, probably completely wrong. I know that either I do have free will, or that I lack the ability to tell the difference. I fail to see what would change if we were to find out that free will does not exist. It’s irrelevant the the outcome of something is determined if we can’t determine it before-hand, isn’t it?
I don’t believe that anything metaphysical exists that is not bound to something physical, so the metaphysical object is also bound by the existence of the corresponding material object.
Materialism can only be applied strictly.
If you concede that there is something, anything, more than the material world and its chain of causation, you cease being a materialist.
Materialism, logically, concludes in strict determinism.
When someone has to make an appeal to an as-of-yet undiscovered science to support their philosophy, I tend to regard it as a consession speech.
If free will does not exist then every free will does not exist then every single action is justified and no moral responsibility can ever be assigned for any action, since the person was not capable of doing otherwise.
If you believe anything metaphysical exists, you are not a materialist.
Materialism denies that anything non-material exists.
Well, not being an expert on the matter, I suppose you can slot me into whichever philosophical category you like. I think I’ve been pretty clear on what I believe, so if you want to say that I’m not a materialist because I believe in free will, then so be it. I’m not able to argue that.
Believing in at least 1 metaphysical object of any sort is what makes you not a materialist.
Leave it to the Liberals to create a crisis where there is none.
Overpopulation is a myth.
Every man, woman, and child in the world could fit in an area the size of Texas, and have 1 square foot apiece.
Every man, woman, and child in the world, along with their own acre of land, can fit in an area the size of Australia.
Each person in the world would actually get closer to 1000 square feet each in texas.
Do you think that the only thing that requires space in the world is “people”?
Do you know how much space in the world is required to manufacture the items you use each day, generate the electricity, mine the minerals, grow the food, raise the animals, treat your sewage, and dispose of your garbage?
In that huge area known as Australia, have you ever been to the middle bits, and do you consider those areas to be able to sustain the lifestyle you enjoy, let alone any life? There are other parts of our ecosystem that need to have some space too, including massive forests that sustain our oxygen.
Until everyone in the world has access to basic needs, we should probably not try to fill it up any more.
Just let us know which ones you want to get rid of.
Or can’t you just let this problem self-correct? I mean, if it truly gets over-populated enough people will die then we’ll have just the right amount.
Oh I see what you did there. Bravo.
Try to raise the bar a bit.
Is it not possible to be a Christian, and at the same time, show some respect for the world.
I’m just taking your argument to its logical conclusions. Don’t try to act like I don’t show respect for the world. I’ve recycled papers since I was 9, my car gets 35 mpg, and on and on. But your view has consequences that you are ignoring.
This article makes some good points about how Earth Day makes sense for Christians but not evolutionists — http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6385
And with one single word, the article, and you, entirely miss the point.
“Embrace”
You think I “embrace” Darwinism? I do not. It’s brutal. It means that those who are weaker die hungry, cold, and alone. To “embrace” Darwinism would be to let your children run across a highway, and let the quickest ones live.
You don’t get it. Survival of the fittest happened, and continues to happen but by no means are we obligated to assist it. We have evolved to the point where our awareness allows us to see a much bigger picture.
The article also applies evolutionary principals to geological events, so it’s perhaps not a good source for information.
But if you are right it isn’t “brutal,” it just is. Hey, just keep evolving then it will make more sense to you.
I just hope one day I can “evolve” to be as good as a Christian.
OK, now you are being stupid again.
Exactly my point, It is stupid to project false views on another person. I know you don’t feel you are superior to me as a person, and you should know that I am not free of morals.
Ryan writes, “but by no means are we obligated to assist ”
Are we obligated NOT to assist it?
Wouldn’t the fittest seek to assist survival of the fittest via scientific means, thus demonstrating their superior intellect is the superior set of genes?
I don’t believe in eugenics, no. Knowing that we are being judged, and possibly restricted by the content of our genes, which is beyond our control, would be detrimental to society.
1) What’s wrong with eugenics?
You say it’s detrimental to your conception of society.
It may be helpful and best for my conception of society.
Isn’t your conception true for you, and my conception true for me? How can we figure out who is right and wrong?
2) Also, does that mean that you are opposed to gender selection abortion and disability selection abortion, since the content of the genes is being used to judge the person?
But is isn’t. If you have a good argument, I’ll listen to it. That’s how it works.
And yes, I am opposed to gender selection abortion in all cases. As for disability related abortions the disability must be very very extreme and not associated with a life worth living.
I’m also okay with it if done in the early stages of pregnancy, as am with all abortions, since that is before the stage where I consider a person to exist.
1) But it’s my conception of what’s best for society.
Who are you to say my conception is wrong?
Your conception is true for you. My conception is true for me.
If my conception says genetic dabling is okay, then it’s okay. You eally lack any grounds for saying otherwise, except imposing your will upon me by force. Surely your conception of what’s best for society doesn’t involve “Might makes Right”?
2) You write “As for disability related abortions the disability must be very very extreme and not associated with a life worth living. ”
Again who decides? As far as I’m concerned, being black constitutes a life not worth living. Where do you get off drawing arbitrary lines and telling me where they go?
Just because it’s true for you doesn’t mean it’s true for me. I have my own truth, and how dare you impose yourself upon me and my truth.
1) We’ve discussed this enough. We both agree that certain things are right, no matter how many people disagree with them. This is one of them
2) If you don’t know that there are cases where allowing a baby to be born is the worst kind of torture than can exist, then I’m not discussing this with you either. If you really need a photo, I’ll send you one, but there is nothing that I’m sure of more than this, and there is nothing that has solidified by atheism more than this. I spent half a year living in a level 5 NICU, and I’ve seen the worst of the worst.
Sorry for the delay in this comment getting posted. It got caught in my sp*m filter for some reason.
And that’s to say nothing of increased demand for nonrenewable resources.
I laugh at the man who thinks overpopulation is simply a matter of “people taking up space.”
Laugh if you like, but the comment is merely to bring into sharper focus just how many people there are versus land. Overpopulation isn’t a big problem unless free will and liberty is suppressed. One can look at a place like India and point to the impoverished. But that’s more a result of their Indian philosophies, be they political or otherwise.
As far as nonrenewable resources, with more people involved in the creative process, we would only acclimate to the loss of those resources faster, and perhaps even before they’re used up.
Which people should stop reproducing? The brown ones, the black ones, the yellow ones, the tan ones, or the white ones?
The answer is usually somewhere around “It’s not about their COLOR, it’s just the people that live in mexico, indian, china, africa, and the middle east.”
The overpopulation myth is little more than dressed up eugenics and racism.
Let’s consider what Margaret Sanger thought about the overpopulation myth: a great way to get rid of those undesirable black folk!
http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html
Sounds a lot like our new nominee and our former Supreme Court Justice.
… What? What an embarrassing over-reaction.
All I am saying is that, as more people are born onto the Earth, the demand for resouces also increases. This is a fact. I am not suggesting anything, just stating an inevitability.
As for Marshall Art’s hilarious claim that we will somehow acclimate to the loss of essential elements like copper and aluminum, the former of which is vital for manufacturing everything electronic; I ask you this: how will we “acclimate” when fresh-water supplies plummet?
So you’re not suggesting people stop reproducing?
You’re just saying there are too many people and something ought to be done about that?
Just want to make sure I understand you.
Basically, yes.
In theory, that is a noble goal; in reality, it would mean that no one could have babies.
We will always live in a world in which a few things happen: some people will be unable to provide for themselves (the disabled, the insane, those who simply cannot care, etc), and “basic needs” will change. Today, in America, “basic needs” include running water, electricity, a car, health care that covers chemotherapy and maybe even liver transplants, healthy food, and heat and A/C.
Trust me, that would be considered way more than “basic needs” in the 19th century. So achieving “basic needs” for everyone is like trying to get to tomorrow; once you are the goal changes.
More than that, you are ignoring the geographic disparity in both population and resources. Obviously, Bill Gates could have a thousand kids and provide for their needs; yet, most families in India and sub-Saharan Africa cannot even guarantee their children food or health care. Should parents who are able to provide for their children not reproduce until everyone else can?
The US is barely reproducing at replacement rate (i.e. 2.1 children for every woman). If it were not for immigration, our population would be shrinking. Many parts of Europe are going into a population death spiral, in which they population will halve every generation or so. (When the current middle-aged generation wants to retire with the generous entitlement benefits that they’ve given themselves by vote, they will have no one to pay for it. That’s another issue.)
Telling Americans and Europeans and Canadians to not have babies is stupid. We are more than capable of taking care of our own offspring. If people can’t take care of their own offspring and decide to not have kids, well, they are obviously capable of making that decision, too. I’m just not seeing where the government – or busybodies – need to get involved.
The scary thing, too, is that a government can look at people at either end of the bell curve (especially in intelligence and health) and mandate that they either get sterilised or have a dozen kids.
Finally, having children is fundamentally an individual, not a government, issue. (The government, first and foremost, is there to ensure that we all act in accordance with the principle of non-aggression: don’t hurt other people.) Once you start talking about the government getting into the business of deciding who gets to have kids and who doesn’t get to have kids, you begin to deny people some of the most important things to them. I have friends who desperately, desperately want babies – and lots of them – and others who could go either way on having kids. Why not let them?
You’re right about that, and I didn’t mean to say that we should restrict people from having children. I don’t believe in the state having a role in that.
If the US is having problems replacing population, they should allow more people into the country. At least, that would be the honorable thing to do.
Here is some wood for the fire:
In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Source: Richard Dawkins)
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-05-10nomercy.shtml
Amen, WK!
I also heard Obama’s nominee for NIH director is Francis Collins. You might know him as the alleged Christian who believes in theistic evolution and waffles on abortion. (Fits right in with Obama—maybe that’s why he was chosen.)
President Obama, like many people, enjoys yammering incessantly about being a Christian then proceeds to, you know, betray Jesus with every breath he takes. Why someone as pro abortion as he is could be considered a Christian is just unacceptable no matter from what perspective you look at it. (I’ve never understood how “I support leaving babies that survive abortions in a dirty hamper to die” is compatible with “All I know is: once I was blind, and now I see.”)
All I have to say is: Why are we surprised? I gladly cast my vote for McCain. Imperfect? Sure. But since the Jesus wasn’t on this year’s ballot, I had to do what Christians are expected to and, you know, see which candidate lined up closest with the issues nearest to His heart. Obama, for all his eloquence and arrogance and his delightfully bitter (though fashionable) wife, didn’t. While I rejoice that a black man finally has achieved the pinnacle of what it means to be an American, I weep over what this nation will become.
Prepare to lose your homes, jobs, churches, and everything else. It WILL get worse before it gets better. Come, Lord Jesus!
Very well said, David!
One of the main points of my blog is that Christians who are social conservatives are actually totally uninformed on fiscal issues. They think that government should be redistributing wealth. They also do not understand the concept of just war. And they are hedonists who did not study Obama’s voting record, but instead followed movies, sports and music.
So – you get a ton of “Christians” who sing hymns in church who voted for Obama to punish the greedy rich, tax corporations, stop the immoral war in Iraq to liberate an entire country from a dictator, and who had no idea that Obama was the most radical pro-abortionist around.
The problem is a lack of knowledge about public topics such as economics, foreign policy and bioethics.
They think they are Christians, but they voted to effectively OUTLAW public Christian practice and expression.
Amen, WK!
Awesome discussion all around.
I don’t think there are too many conservatives who were paying attention during the last election cycle who are surprised by what is happening now and the quality of people selected by Obama to serve his cause. Tax cheats dealing with economics, anti-Christian pro-homosex activist dealing with law…that this Holden dude is picked for science doesn’t surprise since Obama is a chump for the AGW crowd.
But the point about overpopulation is a definite leftist position. To force some to abort leaves open the possibility of “who gets forced?”. But also, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, how can they hope to pay for all their leftist programs when they are limiting the amount of taxpayers born into this world? These idiots believe that wealth is finite, a zero sum game, so I guess if there’s only so much, we must not allow too many to “share the wealth”.
But the truth is that wealth is created by people who actually do something useful, and the more people there are, the more people there are to be creative, as long as the gov’t butts out of the process. Just imagine how much different the Social Security situation would be if 50 million kids weren’t aborted (plus the countless millions aborted chemically via birth control drugs)! Fewer people would be far more devastating than more people.
Well said, Marshall, especially on the zero sum game part. It is foundational to the liberal worldview and horribly wrong.
Morals evolved with us as we evolved from lower organisms. It’s the same concept.
As for the babies, when a baby is not going to survive, and the short life she will have will be filled with extreme pain, I maintain that aborting the baby is sometimes the only moral choice available.
Reasons and intent have everything to do with morals.
Yep. Same “just so” concept.
Your baby example didn’t take into account the difference between a gender selection abortion and an abortion for reasons you don’t view as valid. Given the same human being in the same conditions, why is one death morally wrong and the others not?
I had to take a break, or I would have broken your language rules. They are totally different scenarios, why must you compare the two? It’s not the same human being. Are you suggesting a scenario where a baby is both the “wrong” gender, and also horribly disfigured? In that case, if they decide to abort because because it’s a girl, that is bad and if they decide to abort to save the child pain and suffering, then that is good. The same outcome can result from two actions on different moral grounds. An easier example of this is if a person decides to cancel a wedding because she feels her fiance abuses her that is morally good, but if it’s because she decides she does not want to marry an asian person, that is morally questionable. The intent is very important.
I understand that you still will not agree with me that it is ever okay to end a human life, but I’ll give you an example that I feel helps show my point. I’m not sure if you have ever had someone you know killed in an accident – I hope not – but even if you have not, you can surely understand how it would feel. We had a relative killed in a motorcycle accident overseas a few years ago, and the first we heard was from our local police who only had the news that he had been killed in a motor vehicle accident. It was several hours before we were able to find out any details. In that time, long before any type of grief could set in, everyone was wondering if he suffered. When we got more news in the morning, we found out that he had been hit head on at a good speed, and the he had died instantly. As you can imagine this brought a great relief to all of us.
Now if you were to find out that your child, if she survived a pregnancy, would be born with a condition that is not survivable for more than a few days, and involves tremendous pain (and I do have a condition in mind, but I will not share it for your sake because it absolutely haunts me to even think about it), would you put your child through that? If you had a choice of how your child would die, how can you not chose the one with less pain?
You don’t have to agree with me, but at least understand where I’m coming from.
Ryan, you keep making up a different scenario than the one I offered. I never mentioned disfigurement.
Here’s the scenario: Unborn female human being at any date you like. As best I can tell your position is that is is wrong to kill her for being female but OK to kill her for being inconvenient, unwanted, potentially born into poverty or could cause family to be poor, in the way of someone’s romance or education, etc.
That seems inconsistent to me.
As long at it is early in the pregnancy, then yes, that is my opinion. Now, I’d appreciate if you would give your opinion on my scenario.
Our decisions about when life begins should be based on reason, logic, and sound science.
You are removing all 3 and simply inserting personal opinion.
Let’s figure out, what is the consequence of that line of thought?
It results in the “deciders” whose opinion gets to count (usually because might makes right, and they have the might), deciding who is and isn’t human.
For example, for white people life starts at conception, but for black people life starts at 5 years old, so killing black people under 5 is okay.
But, you say, they are all people! Science says so! But all we really have there is you using science to support your emotional opinion, as opposed to using science to actually create your opinion.
Logic + reason+ science SHOULD = conclusion
Instead you are going:
Conclusion (now find some logic + reason + science that agree with me).
I’m not being inconsistent. Early in a pregnancy I do not believe a person exists, and if you want to abort, go ahead. It’s still a medical procedure, and not without risk, so I don’t “like” the idea of people doing this all the time, but for me, it’s not an issue of killing a person.
That said, even if there is an abortion at 4 weeks, I think it is selfish, and wrong to do so based on gender. When an abortion occurs because of gender, I think it is safe to assume that another pregnancy will follow shortly, to try to have the “right” gender. This changes the balance of population, and diminishes the “value”, for lack of a better word, of the unwanted gender.
But if the gender is unwanted, then aborting it would be a proper reflection of the value of that human being (in your view, at least). It is the same reasoning for the other reasons the humans aren’t unwanted. Who are you to criticize Chinese and Asian Indian people for wanting males instead of females?
If you want to have a baby, I think you should take which ever gender you get. I don’t want my tax dollars being spent to design the perfect child for every couple. Abortions should be used sparingly, in situations where the mother’s health is at risk, or if a couple or mother is not able to raise a child.
And yes, I know people will find out the gender, and “suddenly” claim that they need to abort for other reasons. It happens. For a while where I live, the doctors refused to give out the gender for this reason, but they seem to be doing it now again.
I do not believe a person exists until 5 years old.
On what grounds can you say I’m wrong?
Once we shift the definition from a pure yes/no definition based on pure scientific facts to a subjective definition that revolves around qualitative judgments, it just becomes an issue of whose subjective definitions and qualitative judgments we rely upon.
Mine says 5 years old. By what criteria do you say your qualitative judgment is superior to mine, other than might makes right and society enforces it?
And I believe that each ovum is sacred, and that any woman who allows each egg to be expelled without fertilization should go to jail for murder. On what basis can you prove me wrong.
A 5 years old is aware of himself. He experiences the world, and can take in what it has to offer, as does a newborn baby. Once the brain is developed enough to be able to have an experience of any kind, those experiences start being stored in the brain, and are the beginnings of a beautiful new person.
When does this happen? It’s really up for debate, but it’s not there in the first trimester by any stretch of the imagination.
The value of a person is not in his body, but in the ability to experience the world and self. Before that experience starts, and after that experience ends, the body is just an empty shell. I always find it silly how much value Christians put in the physical aspects of a body. The expense and effort spent in preserving a body after death is a perversion to me. When I die, chuck me in the nearest landfill, because that shell is no longer me. By the same standards, a body before it has any experiences has little value to me yet.
I appreciate you acknowledging that you think it is immoral to kill a female just for being female but moral to do so for any other reason.
Not sure of the specifics of your other scenario — I was ignoring it until we cleared up this one. In short, “end of life” scenarios can be challenging dilemmas morally but are quite a bit different than 99% of the reasons given for abortions.
And I’ve seen doctors be wrong too many times and recommend abortions when they weren’t necessary.
There will always be cases where there are extreme risks to a baby, but still a chance at survival, and in those cases, doctors should choose to do their best to help the baby, but there are scenarios where the chances are absolutely zero. These situations exist all the time, and so often, what is obviously the right thing to do is contrary to your beliefs. You say that God has planted in us our moral foundations, but the ones that seem obvious to me are contrary to the Bible in many cases.
But the thing is that I never claimed you were free of morals. I am very careful and precise about saying that you do have morals but that your worldview can’t explain their foundation.
So gender selection abortions are bad, but killing the exact same child for being inconvenient is OK?
Are early gender selection abortions OK?
My worldview explains morals in a very plain and easy to understand way, if you accept that we evolved from lower organisms. Since you do not accept this, I understand why you don’t accept my moral foundation. I’m glad you at least concede that it exists.
When did I say anything about convenience? I was really clear about the conditions where it is better to abort a pregnancy for the sake of the baby, and you know very well convenience is not a factor.
A for gender selection, I think that is an extremely selfish thing to do, regardless of the stage of pregnancy. Any person looking for a specific gender in a child is not having a child for the right reasons, and probably does not deserve one.
But who are you to criticize them? You’re sounding kinda preachy
And why is it immoral to kill the exact same human being human being for being female but moral to kill her for any other reason?
Even if we evolved from lower organisms that doesn’t explain morality. You are begging the question and assuming some universal moral good.