Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[Pyrrho]

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...

You have not explained why you think it is dramatically different.  If someone forcibly injects you with something, do you not think that is a matter of great importance?  It would be to me.  I don't think people should have the right to inject other people with substances against their will unless there is a really, really good reason for it.  The same applies to other violations of bodily integrity.

You are not saying that it isn't a matter of importance if someone injects you with some substance against your will, are you?  And if it is a matter of importance, how is that so very different from another thing that is also a matter of importance, that also involves a violation of bodily integrity?

If someone came up with a way to sterilize people with an injection, would that make it acceptable to you in the hypothetical situation of the opening post?

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.

Try again.  You say that it is "all kinds of heinous things", yet you have only one example (which frankly, I find unconvincing).  Also, do you think you have the right to swing your arm into someone's nose?  Is it a fundamental right to move your arm any which way you please?  If not, then you really have a good deal of explaining to do to make your position intelligible.

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.

So you believe it is okay to indirectly take away someone's right to feed their children?  Their children starve either way, as a result of your action.  So why does it matter whether it is direct or indirect?

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.  

I am trying to understand the principles upon which you are basing your judgement.  Also, I started asking you questions about your position when you claimed:

Excellent analogy.  Personal choice versus the effects on others.

I dunno... I think mandatory disease vaccinations for kids entering public school is a far cry from forcibly sterilizing people's bodies and taking away their right to have kids...

You have still not explained how the two are so very different.  You seem to simply expect everyone to agree with you on that, but that is obviously not the case, which should have been obvious before you made that claim, since two of us had already stated that we regarded them as similar.

Also, I did not ask you for that opinion (though I am not complaining that you gave your opinion on that).  But you are just wrong to say that I asked you anything at all about the matter of whether forced vaccinations was a proper analogy for the hypothetical of the opening post or not.

You chose to give an opinion about something which no one asked of you, and now I am wanting to understand your opinion that you volunteered.  You claim that they are very different, yet you have failed to explain the difference and have simply dogmatically claimed that they are very different.