RE: Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.
July 11, 2015 at 1:13 pm
(This post was last modified: July 11, 2015 at 1:17 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(July 11, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sorry. I still don't think that requiring vaccinations for kids who want to attend public schools in any way shape or form equates at all with the government stripping away a person's right to have children by permanently sterilizing their bodies by force.
I have just explained some similarities. Are you saying that there are no similarities?
Of course, it is not exactly the same thing. That is true of everything that has even a slight difference from other things.
It's not just not exactly the same thing. It's a worlds of difference. It's the difference between something minor and something extreme. This seems so basic, I am at a loss for words...
(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If the blue underlined line on your post stands alone as its own principle, all kinds of heinous things can be "justified."
Such as? And how so?
...Such as having a government that takes people from their homes by force and sterilizes their bodies against their will, stripping them of their inherent right to have children as a way to "avoid starvation" due to overpopulation.
(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Just because something being done in a small, relatively insignificant way is acceptable, doesn't mean the super extreme of it is acceptable. I shouldn't even need to argue or further explain this.
You mean you believe that everyone should just take your word for everything and just agree with you no matter what you say? If not, then you do need to argue and explain.
You also have not answered the final question of that post. Do you believe you have the right to cause other people to starve to death? It is a simple 'yes or no' question. But by all means, feel free to explain and elaborate your answer, if you wish.
I did not answer that question because it is a loaded question. If starvation happened in your scenario it would be a natural consequence of something that in and of itself has nothing to do with starvation: having the right to decide your own family size. It's not like I would be directly taking away a person's right to eat by having a kid. With that being said, I do think the right and responsible thing to do would be to plan your family size according to what's best for the world. But the government should have no business sterilizing people's bodies by force. As PT said, I would take my chances with the natural way of things than live in a world with such a government that is tyrannical enough that it treats its people like cattle and strips them of their humanity and basic rights.
And everything I just said here is a repeat of what I have already said. You asked for opinion, and I gave you mine. If you can't accept my answer then I don't know why you asked in the first place.
![Undecided Undecided](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/undecided.gif)
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh