On May 13, 12:31 pm, pnyikos
bellsouth.net> wrote:> On May 13, 2:01 pm, elizabeth
hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 13, 5:21 am, Sound of Trumpet
dcemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> snip>
>>> The rationale is simple: if overpopulation is an issue, then the
>>> suffering of thousands is just collateral damage for the cause of
>>> saving the planet.
>
>> The planet will get along just fine without us.
>
> But you and W.T.S. have serious issues about how the planet will get
> along WITH us. Even "skyeyes" takes it as common knowledge -- whereas
> it is even highly debatable -- that there are too many of us.
Yeah, I do: I can count. When I was born, the world population was
~2 billion. Within my lifetime, 60 years, the population has reached
7 billion. Given that we don't want people to live in abject misery
without adequate food, water, shelter, or clear air, we need
infrastructure to supply them with these commodities - let alone the
stuff they *want*, like clothes, appliances, TVs, and automobiles.
For every human who lives what we consider to be a minimally-
acceptable life style, miles and miles of land must be put to use, one
way or another, to maintain this infrastructure.
The Resource Wars have already begun: see: Darfur. Here in my own
home, the Sonoran Desert, water is a critical issue. People keep
moving here, requiring water we don't have.
Do the damn math, Nyikos. At some point, there will not be enough
land to support the infrastructure required by the population. At
that time, all Bernard Malthus' bad dreams will come true.
> I believe the human race did more damage to the planet in the 17th,
> 18th, and 19th centuries than it has done in the last century. Read
> _The Doomsday Book of Animals_ [re-titled _Vanished Species_] to see
> just how many magnificent birds and mammals were made extinct by 1910,
> when the world population was less than one-fourth of what it is now.
> We are slowly improving in our stewardship of the planet, as
Yeah, but it may be a case of "too little, too late."
>> We are killing our own species, as well as countless others, by
>> mindless reproduction, like a cancer.
>
> Garbage. The birth rate is dropping almost everywhere in the world,
> even in third world countries. Europe is facing a population
> implosion, and the only reason the USA isn't there yet is because of
> immigration.
And yet the world's population is right around 7 billion, as we
speak. About damn time somebody thought about decreasing the
population, wouldn't you say?
> Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and its mastermind for
> decades, was for drastic measures to hold both kinds of faceless,
> nameless poor in check. You have a lot in common with her, such as
> the use of the word "breeders" for women who produce more children
> ["more" being less for poor and more for well-to-do] than she wanted
> them to produce:
Well, the sad fact is that those breeder women were producing more
children than *they* wanted to produce, a fact that you pro-cannon-
fodder types never seem to wrap your heads around. Sanger never
forced *any* woman to practice contraception against her will. But
she did, day after day and year after year, talk with women who
desperate to control their own fertility.
Sanger's attitudes, while bold and forward-looking for the times, seem
difficult to swallow in this age of euphemism, where you can't say
shit if you have a mouthful. But her basic mission was one that was
created by the "breeder women" themselves.
>> I've always said we need to end all tax breaks and subsidies for
>> breeding.
>
> A shortsighted policy when you look at what is going on in Europe.
> Can you say "Shariah law"? It could even happen in some places here
> in the USA.
So because the muzzies breed like rabbits, us non-muzzies must, too.
What's wrong with this picture?
>
>>> Which brings us back to the core of the matter: that “overpopulation”
>>> is just another way to say “poor people,”
>
> This was Margaret Sanger's attitude, for the most part.
Margaret Sanger's attitudes were formed largely by poor women eager to
control their own fertility so that they could have a chance of
getting ahead in life, and more importantly, so that the children they
*already had* could get ahead in life. Large families most often
equal poverty, restricted access to education, and want, although
there are wealthy large families, like the Kennedys, for whom this is
not true.
>
>> And forc ing women to be broodsows for cannon fodder is why your
>> mother should have aborted you.
>
> I can't speak for him, but I don't want that -- all I want is that
> abortions, if they are done, be done early: before the end of the 10th
> week LMP, which is when most of them are done anyway, and when they
> are by far the safest.
Women don't carry babies into late pregnancy and then decide, on a
whim, that they don't want them. When late-term abortions are done,
it's because there is a pressing medical need.
>
> Denise Noe is even more liberal -- she only wants stringent legal
> measures after the 1st trimester -- yet you hate her as violently as
> you do people like "Sound of Trumpet".
>
> WHY?????
Because these measures are not really needed. They're a smoke screen
to disguise the real agenda, which is the eventual criminalization of
even early abortion.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
