It’s a basic biological function. Surely usage of your own biological functions cannot be a privilege?
Well, creating another human being is a pretty big thing and is a huge responsibility for the parents, and we all know we are a very irresponsible species. So I say that to avoid overpopulation, child abuse, and manipulation of children and laws we could make it a privilege.
I know it’s far fetched and all, but that’s the way I view it for myself and that’s one of my own personal rules, “Don’t take on responsibility if you can’t do it”.
Yeah, I’d agree it’s a privilege, or it should be one. It’s not exactly pleasant to think about, but it’s the best way to get rid of the problem of overpopulation. There aren’t exactly many other options - there’s agricultural expansion, which is an awful idea (think of the emissions we already get from farm stock), there’s space colonisation (which we can’t fund) and there’s war/genocide (something I think we can all agree is not even a last resort).
One friend of mine came up with an odd theory that the worlds population would gradually become homosexual by instinct to prevent breeding.
As long as I could get with someone like Steven Fry or Ian McKellen, I wouldn’t mind. :3
The problem with making reproduction a privilege is that it can’t be enforced. You might have some success enforcing it in 1st world countries, but then, that’s not really where the problem is. The problem is more in 3rd world countries, where populations continue to grow in spite of the fact that there’s no infrastructure to support them. And even if you did enforce it, what would the consequences be? Kill the child? Forced sterilization? It isn’t feasible no matter how you look at it…
The best way to prevent overpopulation would be to appeal to people’s better sensibilities. If the Pope, for example, were to take a stance on overpopulation, I guarantee you would see results. But then, the Pope recently told a bunch of Africans that using condoms is a sin.
Which not only leads to overpopulation, but also leads to lots of people who get to grow up and have live relatively short, painful lives due to AIDS.
I think that we need to find a friendly and technologically advanced alien society and declare war on them. Hey, we might even win, and I’m sure that theres money in that.
Not just money. Space money.
But that’s my favorite type of other people’s lives.
Well, I’m not sharing, so there.
EDIT: waitaminute, didn’t we have this conversation before?
It will be terrible to read the newspapers on weekend. Over 100 million americans will already die of starvation, because following the “privilege” logic presented here, 90% of Americans, who are not correctly using their feeding instincts, will be forbidden to it.
If you want to fight AIDS, you have to find a way to convincingly and understandably deliver the message that something that you cannot see or sense in the first period of incubation can kill you, and that if a person infected with the HIV virus shares bodily fluids with another person, then the desease transfers on the other person in way too many cases.
What the catholig Church is preaching is that people should not participate in extramarital sex at all. If a christian who held to this from childhood marries someone who also followed this from childhood, then they will not be HIV positive (assuming the desease would already show if the virus was transfered from mother to child during labor).
It is true that the church doesn’t address how should HIV positive people have sex, but that is understandable, since those people are ill and no matter what kind of precaution such people would take, those precautions could fail (condoms rupture etc.), and then what? Oh, I can see the headlines: “After being recommended by Pope to use condom, the man infected 20 women with HIV because of ruptured gums”…
Actually, someone in Africa is actively annulating all humanitarian attempts to get the desease under control by spreading the rumour of the healing power of sex with a virgin. Those who spread this rumour should be considered genocidists or mass murderers and punished, not the church that preaches faithfulness and virginity.
Wat.
How would a bunch of americans die from starvation from the privilege logic? Call me shortsighted but I don’t see how that works out.
I think you just tried to respond to both topics at once and mixed it into one sort of weird post.
They were talking about reproduction, not food.
It’s completely unrealistic to expect people not to have extramarital sex in a culture where that’s even less practised than in yours.
And HIV-positive children who got it from their mother during pregnancy is a huge problem, so your logic is faulty anyway.
So because the precautions could fail (in like 0.1% of the cases), they shouldn’t be taken at all? That’s a big leap.
If every HIV-positive person would use a condom, the disease would spread a lot less, there’s no going around that.
Just because someone else is actively spreading false rumours that help spread the disease, doesn’t mean the pope shouldn’t be held responsible for his words.
Alcator, why do you automatically assume everyone here is American, and what’s your huge problem with America?
I would fucking LOVE America - if it was just Hollywood from coast to coast, without all the religious psychopaths, inbred crazies and borderline gun-nuts and warmongers that seem to make up the rest of the population. I know, it’s all prejudices. I actually know very little about real America.
Don’t take me too serious, kay?
I am sensing contradiction here.
Condoms fail in 3-4% of cases. Abstainence fails in 0% of cases. You will never get pregnant if you don’t have sex.
So if you’re all right with trying to get people to use condoms every time they have sex, why do you oppose going the extra mile and asking them not to have sex?
They’re both unrealistic in a culture where self-control is eschewed. If you want people to control themselves, you’d be better served by asking them to abstain than to tell them they can go batshit wild and have as much sex as they please, as long as they wear a condom. The latter does not encourage self control - in fact, it does quite the opposite.
I’m sensing zero understanding of the human psyche.
Easy access to condoms doesn’t make people go “batshit wild and have as much sex as they please”. Such a ridiculous argument.
No, it doesn’t. But what’s stopping them?
You and the rest seem to be saying that if you give people condoms and tell them they can have sex safely if they use them, that they’ll be responsible and both not have sex very often, and when they do, they’ll use condoms.
If you truly believe this, then YOU are the one who doesn’t understand the human psyche. Once you tell a person that they can do something like sex safely, they’re not going to be responsible with it. They’ll have a lot more sex and, most likely, they’ll start forgetting condoms.
It’s akin to telling a people, “Now don’t do drugs, but here’s how you can purchase them and utilize them without getting caught.”
But not having sex isn’t fun :retard: