Texas Gypsy
WatersMoon110
Not an article so much as a blog post, actually. Well, it's sort of both, I guess.
You're right, it could be either one. That aside, what do you think of the contents?
Sorry, I hadn't slept then, I wanted to be awake to respond. *grin*
I'm just going to address this bit by bit as I re-read it, so that I can hopefully get to everything. Also, I'm on anti-anxiety medication, so I hope I make sense. *grin*
First off, the whole Terry Schiavo fiasco was just that, a mess. It bothers me not because it was made into a huge circus (needlessly, in my opinion) but because her husband was (supposedly) trying to respect her wishes, and her parents were trying to take that right away from him. I think that people should be allowed to request that they are not kept on life-support if brain dead (like she supposedly did) and I feel that it is important that their wishes be respected in such cases.
Now some quotes I'll respond to:
Quote:
...[W]here the rights of individuals derive from- From God or from humans. The former presupposes that rights are natural to all of us and not gifts to granted from other men.
There is such a concept of "natural (human) rights" which holds that all humans have some rights (originally "Life, Liberty, and Property") that all humans possess or should be allowed to possess. This belief doesn't necessarily need to come from a belief in a higher power, though I don't feel it matters if it does or not. Personally, I like the US's interpretation of these natural rights ("Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"), and most of the rights that the UN says should be considered natural human rights.
Quote:
For many pro-choice supporters on the left, humans are a liability to be cared for not producers who create wealth.
I don't feel that way, and I don't think that many Pro-Choicers do (though some, rather obviously, do feel that way - and I disagree with them).
Also, I don't like the implications that "pro-life supporters on the right" would view humans as "producers who create wealth." I hope that this isn't the case, and I also feel that this view cheapens human life.
Quote:
Economic, political and religious freedoms are not natural freedoms endowed to all humans but gifts to be doled out by government.
I don't think that is the case at all. In fact, our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights says the exact opposite, that these are rights no government should have the power to take away, they should belong to all humans.
Quote:
Unlimited abortion rights cheapen human life, and when human life becomes cheaper, then it becomes easier for government takes other rights away.
I completely disagree. From my point of view, taking away the right of pregnant women to control their own bodies is far more likely to lead to the government taking away other human rights. Of course, all Pro-Lifers would disagree with me, but that is my viewpoint on the matter.
Quote:
Many asserted that France contain too many people for the revolutionaries to consummate their vision of a social utopia. One leader proposed that the population be halved; others argued that this decrease would prove inadequate and that further reductions were in order. Citizen Robespierre, not to be outdone, called for an ideal republic of 4 million Frenchmen. France's actual population at the time was 25 million!
Personally, I feel that smaller group of people are mentally healthier than larger groups. I don't feel that humans are really equipped to think of themselves in groups of multiple millions as "one large group" which is why there are so many angry fragments. I don't think that execution is the answer (which is I think what these people were saying), nor do I feel that abortion is the answer. I think that more careful family planning is the best bet for creating smaller generations (also, most people just don't want to have a lot of children anymore).
Quote:
Another indication that global population increases do not correlate with global poverty is the steady decline in the prices of resources. If population growth produced scarcity in an increasingly internationalized economy, the cost of resources would increase, not decline.
This article is a bit old, because I believe this is happening now (or it is certainly happening in my area, and I think it is also happening in other places, to different extents).
Quote:
Abortion is one symptom of this mentality.
I completely disagree. Abortion has just about always existed (though previous methods - like many plants and the "sharp stick" method were far less safe), and I don't like the idea that some people seem to have that abortion was basically "invented" after Roe v. Wade.
Quote:
For many abortion advocates, abortion has become a replacement for sound economic policies to raise the income of the underclass. It is easier to abort the poor than to depend upon a market economy to raise their standards of living. It is the elimination of excess population.
I don't agree with this at all. In my experience (which I admit is somewhat limited to my general area), many Pro-Choice advocates are also greatly in support of living wages, more social programs, and better help for other people living in poverty. And, from what I hear on the news in such, many (supposed) Pro-Lifers (like our current president) do not want to support such programs. Of course, I'm sure that there are plenty of more "conservative" Pro-Choicers and plenty of more "liberal" Pro-Lifers (like some of the wonderful people in here).
Quote:
In a society in which the working public directly supports the elderly, this portends a future disaster. There would be 2.7 million more workers available to contribute to the Social Security fund if only a third of those aborted were available to start work at the age of 18. This would put off the coming implosion of Social Security. In a society that has built its major welfare program upon the need for young workers to support the retirees, population growth is a necessity.
There really isn't a "coming implosion" of SS. The drive to privatize Social Security greatly over-exaggerated the risks of this, because of their agenda (or at least, that is my understanding of the matter, though I'm sure it is a biased view). Not giving away a whole bunch of the Social Security surplus as tax cuts might also have helped, I feel.
Reply
