the case for government sanctioned abortion

the world's population explosion is reaching a crisis point. the unruly world will never come to order as long as the population continues to grow this quickly. many who are interested in the kingdom coming have advocated extreme measures--sterilization, internment, and worse. i think this is both inhumane and unnecessary.

i believe that in the civilized world, the market should be allowed to correct itself.

first cut all welfare programs. if you don't have the money to raise kids, then raising kids should be very difficult. discomfort and sacrifice will discourage the unwashed from having more children than they can handle.

then, determine, based on income, how many children each individual or couple will be allowed to raise. any children over that number will result in aggressive financial penalties. these penalties will come right off the top, right out of the wages, so there is no getting around them. (garnishing wages it not very complicated for the government)

finally, in the interest of fairness, abortions should be state subsidized. any woman who for any reason decides she does not want to have a child should be able to have an abortion free of charge. it's only fair to provide people with an escape hatch.

if we take these steps we can curb the overpopulation, at least in the united states, without having to resort to even more painful measures.

reply to post by Slothrop

then, determine, based on income, how many children each individual or couple will be allowed to raise. any children over that number will result in aggressive financial penalties.

So it is your belief that the Government should have absolute control over one's life and one's decisions? Just trying to understand your position.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Slothrop

 

then, determine, based on income, how many children each individual or couple will be allowed to raise. any children over that number will result in aggressive financial penalties.

So it is your belief that the Government should have absolute control over one's life and one's decisions? Just trying to understand your position.

in this scenario, the individual still has absolute control over their own actions and decisions. the government simply has control over allocation and taxation, both of which are well within its scope. therein lies the beauty.

So you're basicly a big government, patriotic satanist? At least that is what I gather from all the different threads you've made. What's the point?

n this scenario, the individual still has absolute control over their own actions and decisions. the government simply has control over allocation and taxation, both of which are well within its scope. therein lies the beauty.

Taxation is a form of control. And it is not in the scope of U.S. government to Tax as it pleases try as it might.

reply to post by Slothrop


Its called Eugenics.

The Nazis did this in World War 2 as have other countries including the US.

Originally posted by Blueracer
So you're basicly a big government, patriotic satanist? At least that is what I gather from all the different threads you've made. What's the point?

i am a patriotic satanist who believes in a united world led by the united states.

i'm not sure what you mean by "what's the point?"

Originally posted by Wotan
reply to post by Slothrop

 

Its called Eugenics.

The Nazis did this in World War 2 as have other countries including the US.

the nazis mandated abortions. i don't even come close to doing this.

i simply believe the market should nudge people in the direction of the right decision for them and their country. try not to fly into histrionics so quickly.

reply to post by Slothrop



I too am a little confused by you. Aren't Satanist anti establishment? What if this new Government you propose decides to heavily "tax" individuals for not being Christian? Would it be any more ridiculous then taxing for having children?

[edit on 9-8-2008 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib


your conception of what it means to be satanist cetainly differs radically from mine.

as for the government deciding to tax people for not being christian--1) i strongly doubt we'd let that happen and 2) i'm a member in good standing of an episcopalian congregation and my family has a long history with the church, so that wouldn't really be an issue for me.

reply to post by Slothrop



You will have to excuse my ignorance on the satanic beliefs. So Satanists are pro establishment. You are suggesting a Government that has wide sweeping powers to tax as it pleases. Let me rephrase my question. Would you support taxation for all Satanists?

Originally posted by Slothrop
the world's population explosion is reaching a crisis point.

Says, who? Some incompetent bureaucrats at the U.N.?

the unruly world will never come to order as long as the population continues to grow this quickly.

Unruly in what way? Wars are being fought to protect politically connected corporations be they in the U.S. or Russia, or China. Wars are not fought because average people demand it. Nor are they fought because of overpopulation.

many who are interested in the kingdom coming have advocated extreme measures--sterilization, internment, and worse. i think this is both inhumane and unnecessary.

Not me. The only extreme measures I see around here are the ones advocated by socialist/neo-Marxist wanting to enforce their world views on the rest of the planet. This is were the socialist really don't see how they are tied with Neoconservative philosophy. You socialist can take back your neocons, we don't want them on our conservative platform.

Neocons have historic ties with the Marxist/Socialist ideology of trumping down individual liberty for the collective goal. A view of change that can only be reached when the power of the State is used. All neocons should crawl back to their socialist rock where they came from.

i believe that in the civilized world, the market should be allowed to correct itself.

In a civilized world people are free to believe, live, eat, say what they want. In an uncivilized world all of these things are taken from man. And man is reduced to nothing more than mere beast.

first cut all welfare programs. if you don't have the money to raise kids, then raising kids should be very difficult. discomfort and sacrifice will discourage the unwashed from having more children than they can handle.

Okay so no government hand-out. Fine, we agree here.

then, determine, based on income, how many children each individual or couple will be allowed to raise. any children over that number will result in aggressive financial penalties. these penalties will come right off the top, right out of the wages, so there is no getting around them. (garnishing wages it not very complicated for the government)

Nonsense, if you believe in the markets and freedom then you will let people decide on the number of children they should have. If they have 8 kids, so be it. As long as they can afford it, who am I to tell them they should not have X number of kids.

finally, in the interest of fairness, abortions should be state subsidized. any woman who for any reason decides she does not want to have a child should be able to have an abortion free of charge. it's only fair to provide people with an escape hatch.

Now you got a problem here. First you don't want to subsidize people in anyway, because you are aware of the fact that subsidizing usually creates a problem, but now you are an arbiter for subsidizing. The state should never subsidize ANYTHING!!! When the State subsidizes something, anything it usually creates too much of it, setting up the case of free-riders, and waste.

if we take these steps we can curb the overpopulation, at least in the united states, without having to resort to even more painful measures.

Who says the U.S. is overpopulated? We may have way too many illegals, in this country but that's another issue.


[edit on 9-8-2008 by Gateway]

1.) Federal government shouldnt regulat people's every day lives. So they shouldnt say rather or not abortion is legal or illegal. Just my opinion.






If you believe a woman's right to choose is wrong please refer to the next line (otherwise, thank you for your appreciation of freedom and not oppression)

next line: If abortion is morally wrong, would you not agree that "pulling the plug" on a vegetative family member is equally wrong?

This thread is about government sanctioned abortion.

Not satanism. Not euthanasia.

Please stay on topic.

Thanks!

Whether world population is reaching a crisis is debatable, but I will go along with your theory that it is. I still don't believe The US has to do anything. Sooner or later the crisis will take care of itself as resources like water and food become scarcer.
Chaos will erupt and it will be survival of the strongest.

I don't think over population is the problem.
I think waste, greed, corruption, and power are the real problem.

Originally posted by jam321
Whether world population is reaching a crisis is debatable, but I will go along with your theory that it is. I still don't believe The US has to do anything. Sooner or later the crisis will take care of itself as resources like water and food become scarcer.
Chaos will erupt and it will be survival of the strongest.

I don't think over population is the problem.
I think waste, greed, corruption, and power are the real problem.

I agree with that last part.

And i defiantly don't agree with abortion being a form of justifiable euthanasia.

Should governments exercise their right to do so?
I could be wrong - but doesnt the chinese government do this? or did this? At one point.

Wherein female children were offered up for "disposal" when there was a limit of how many children you could have in china?


.....that worked out REALLY well for China.... :shk:

lol u guys are getting more and more popular it would seem. Just thought I'd let you know that we've been expecting you, all of you, for the past 2000 years. As the predictions in the bible, which heretofore have been twisted by those who cry wolf, can only come to pass with a one world government, your means will be yours only until it dawns on you that they were to our end. Don't think I thnk you're an idiot, I just felt compelled to say something. peace.

reply to post by heyo


you reveal your true ignorance of your own religion

the legend you speak of - the legend that you refer to as the antichrist, doesnt exist in the bible.

Anywhere.

Never has.

Its a legend INVENTED by a man about a man. Doesnt appear in the bible

The only context that the bible uses to refer to as antichrist is to describe any person (not a particular person) but ANY person who goes against the teachings of jesus christ.



Just thought i'd share that with you.

I advocate free lifetime food supply for anyone who undergoes voluntary sterilization. If you sign on to the program, you would be sterilized and then receive a card that you can use at the grocery store for free food, forever. I'm not talking fillet mignon and sushi here...just the basics, like bread, rice, water, maybe a little meat and vitimin supplements. I think in the long haul the program would save money, despite the food payouts, given the lack of need to educate, incarcerate, and treat medically a host of unwanted, troubled kids.

reply to post by Slothrop


The first question I see here is one of economics:
*Should Governments subsidize abortions, for those that want them and can't pay for it?
*Should Governments "punish" parents that can't afford to have children, yet breed like rabbits? (The punishment will very from society to society and, largely depend on cultural values of different societies).

The second question is a political and subpopulation one:
*If we are talking about western societies, we find that most tend to be underpopulated, many even starting to show negative growth rates. So this issue dos not concern Western Societies as a whole but fringes within it (the poor and the emigrants).
*If we are talking about "third world" countries then the problem becomes more pressing, and far more complicated. Yes, many of them are overpopulated yet their Governments neither have the means (money) or the will to subsidize abortions, although many punish the families with excessive amounts of births. With the exception of PR China most have failed or where never interested in the subject (most of these countries wealth comes from hard currency sent back by illegals in the Western World). India is now establishing a coherent plan of population control, only with such plan can it prosper, let us see what happens...

Then there is a question of resources, are the Rich nations prepared to finance coherent population control plans in countries that are overpopulated and that are being suffocated by their population?

As for the abortion plan, it is only a matter of money. Rich people, from any country on earth, can choose to have an abortion because they have money to pay for it or, in case they live in a place where it is illegal, to travel to some other country to have an abortion. Poor people can't afford the procedure and it's consequences (many days without working), should Governments pay for there abortions, or not?

The real question here is one of Democracy and fairness, in the West:
-Since Rich people can have the number of abortions they choose, at any time during of the pregnancy they choose, anywhere they choose; should Governments pay for the same services to people who can not afford them?

-The Tax issue is a false (fraudulent?) issue. Is is far more expensive for Governments to support a child form a poor family then any abortion in any facility(social care, child care, health, education...)
So, if a Government chooses not to subsidize abortions it will, ultimately, have to demand far more taxation on it's population, then the contrary...

-Religion shouldn't even be an issue. Religious people have a right to be heard, and the right to not have abortions, if that is their will, but they have no right to impose there ideas on the State. As far as I know there is a clear separation between State and Religions in every Western State (with the exception of the Vatican).
Most of them don't even have a Moral Right to speak, there daughters just disappear for a few months, then come back, from their "trip", as good as new...

-As for the Third World Countries, where the problem truly exits, I see no viable solution for most, mainly due to the hypocrisy of the West:
*We need their labor, illegal or not, because we have a negative population work rate, because we refuse to do most of the jobs they come here to do and, mainly, because, with our growing aged society, they are the ones who will pay for our pensions.
*If a the citizens of all countries started consuming as much energy and food supplies that a western citizen does the resources of the planet wouldn't even be enough for 3 billion people, so part of the planet has to stay poor and with very limited resource consumption. We have seen the mini crises that has fallen upon us with the "Asian Tigers", PR China, India and Brazil starting to grow and consume near Western standards, imagine what would happen if the raise was Global...

As for Eugenics, please leave the Nazis out of this, it was practiced in almost any society known to man (the Nazis just made a show out of it while others where more subtle). And the truth is with or without Eugenics the planet will only support the number of people it can support, sooner or later the bill has to be payed, the question here is will we choose how we pay or will we let chaos choose for us?

Either way, nature has a way to balance itself and we must never be so arrogant as to forget we have only been on it for a little while...