(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Today a friend whom I argue politics with lamented that he didn't care if humans destroyed the earth but that I should since I have children.
So that got me wondering. If future generations have a right to a clean and livable earth why don't they have a right to exist? Essentially a conclusion of the pro abortion movement is that future people don't have a right to exist. The right of existence only comes into being after one is born. Well if they don't have a right to exist then they certainly don't have a right to a clean and livable earth.
How does someone who is pro abortion justify fighting against global warming? Do not the rights and needs of the people today supersede the rights and need of future people?
How about giving future generations a right to be borne to parents that want them?
Does an abortion prevent previous children?
Does an abortion prevent later children?
On the other hand. What is the major cause of the destruction of the earth's climate?
Could it be......people?
Surely actions that curtail the expansion of the global population have a more positive effect on the future of the earth and its ability to support us going forwards than actions that work against this.
In other words lets imagine your Christian paradise on earth.
No more abortions.
No more contraception.
No more homosexuality or masturbation.
All sex is heterosexual and has a reasonable chance of producing off-spring.
Couple all of the above with our improvements in pre and post natal care and we have a population explosion.
If the average person yields 3 viable off-spring and we take a generation at 25 years:
Current population - 7 billion.
Population in 2039 - 10.5 billion.
Population in 2064 - 15.75 billi0on.
Won't take long for all the resources to run out now will it?
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
