|
Post by phaedron on Jul 16, 2012 21:28:34 GMT -8
The fact of the matter is that poorer, less educated people continue to experience higher birth rates than more highly educated more financially well-off people. Eventually, I agree with Kippa that the "final solution" in increased education (especially for women), comprehensive sex education, and a more equal social structure that (amongst many other things) doesn't provide *tax credits* for having children.
Unfortunately for all of us, Kippa's utopia is not happening in our lifetimes, and probably not in our children's lifetimes either. So, back to more pragmatic solutions to a long-term, cumulative problem.
To say that personal choice should determine the fate of this world is to say you believe in anarchy in the long run, and that no singular common good, no matter how important (seatbelts, anyone?) should ever be mandated by government. Max, I assume you accept that people shouldn't have a personal choice as to whether or not to smoke crack cocaine? Why do they have a personal choice to have 10 kids they can't financially support, and then force the state to support them instead, in addition to increasing the natural resource burden on this planet?
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 16, 2012 21:51:29 GMT -8
If you can let a woman have the choice to murder the unborn child, you cannot force her to not have children. It'd be complete hypocrisy.
People should be educated on the consequences on their decisions more. And there should be no tax benefit for the number of children you have. Thats just irresponsible on the state's part.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Jul 16, 2012 22:20:33 GMT -8
Bringing abortion into this debate is irresponsible in that it's not remotely the same type of decision being made, and is an infinitely easier-to-hit straw-man at that. Very intelligent, otherwise reasonable people completely disagree on when life actually begins -- I'm talking about pre-conception here. Things that won't preclude sexual activity. No where in the body of American law does it state that having as many children as you can is a fundamental right. At least there's some law on both sides for the abortion debate. I'm glad we both agree on the stupidity of the child tax credit though. #commonground
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 16, 2012 23:58:16 GMT -8
The same principle applies. It is the body, and by your argument, bodies of two adults to have a child. How can you regulate that?
And I know you'll hate this, but consider George Orwells prediction on the government and sex. Sex, in it's purest form, is a beautiful act of intimacy. It is highly personal, and in fact, revolves around the connection between two people by ways of thought and feeling. A government that tries to regulate sex, in anyway, interferes with that right of thought.
You don't need a piece of paper to tell you that.
|
|
|
Post by phaedron on Jul 17, 2012 0:11:29 GMT -8
Max, it comes down to 10 kids for 2 people vs. 1-3 kids for 2 people. 1 is mathematically sustainable in the long term, one isn't. This is a math debate to me, not a debate about something as intricate as when life actually begins.
Is 10x10x10x10x10x10 less sustainable than 2x2x2x2x2x2? Is there a finite population threshold to a finite world in which we live? This doesn't require a doctrine or college degree... this is a science problem. Personal choice doesn't negate reality.
At the risk of trying to score "debate is over, here's a parting shot" points (the worst kind of points), I would like to point out that your opinion might change if we were to bring up this debate again when the population of the planet is say... 8 billion? It'll happen before either of us is 50. My argument continues to be that at some point, any personal freedom can be surrendered to a true greater good if the moral imperative is there.
That imperative needs to be a clear and present danger to the vast majority (well over 3/4 of a given culture) that can be demonstrated outside of a particular doctrinal belief (either secular or religious in nature)... so in short, I think it's a massively high standard to meet. Global climate change would seem to rise to that level... this might too. I can't think of many other issues outside of murder, rape, and other significant violent crimes that inspire a need for government saying "no, you can't do this."
However, if the moral imperative is saving this planet from a massive starvation or other natural resource disaster, giving up a somewhat limited spectrum of freedom may become more palatable.
We're at a relative impasse here, so I'll clear my spot on the floor to allow someone else some time if they would like.
(PS: long edit after the OP... I had to think more)
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Jul 17, 2012 9:57:16 GMT -8
I'm not debating life. I'm debating two adults who have made that choice. Your flow of logic is very similar to what Orwell stressed. "Out of necessity, we must do this." That is a dangerous path.
If we restricted something that brings life, something that restricts the moral of a people, you restrict the people--and ultimately freedom itself.
|
|