[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Eugenics and Abortion
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 27, 2017
Author: sneakypete
Post Date: 2017-06-27 07:20:01 by sneakypete
Keywords: None
Views: 9454
Comments: 42

I see and have seen passionate as well as sometimes intelligent discussions about these issues for years,but NEVER see any pros to oppose the cons.

So I am going to state some in order to start a discussion where the OTHER side of the arguments is also stated.

We all know the anti-eugenics and anti-abortion points,and they ALL seem to be based entirely on emotions and religious beliefs.

The Eugenics people base their argument on some pretty solid facts,namely that there is a finite amount of resources available on the planet,and the sick,the lame,the stupid,and the lazy use up more than their fair share and contribute nothing in return in a modern world where grunt labor has very little value to societies,and has less value with each passing year.

In addition there are birth rates to consider,and no one can argue that the most productive and educated societies produce fewer babies than the ignorant and backwards societies,therefore creating a situation where unless things change radically there will be a tiny minority of the world population that will essentially be working and denying themselves the joys of larger families and more productive nations in order to provide food,shelter,clothing,medical care,comfort,and entertainment for a massive population of people who are little more advanced than cave men,and who have no interest in advancing any further or even taking care of themselves because the advanced and industrious people's and nations will take care of them.

The planet Earth is a closed system and there can be no question about there being a finite amount of resources available,regardless of how many people need or demand those resources for themselves. The abortion and eugenics people don't seem to want to say this out loud,but you don't have to have a Doctorate in Sociology to understand that at some point the needy will outnumber the providers by a massive percentage of the world's population because they are breeding like rabbits while the providers are limiting their family sizes in order to provide more comfort and stability.

IF you accept this projection as an indisputable truth,and given human nature it sure seems to be an indisputable truth,we will eventually arrive at a point where the necessities of life as well as the luxuries are running out,and the mobs will revolt and demand ALL the necessities as well as the luxuries be given to them instead of kept for themselves by the people responsible for creating and producing them,and that is when the violent revolution will happen that will virtually take the planet back to the Stone Age as the humans that are little more than animals murder off the productive people in order to get the luxuries they want.


Poster Comment:

I am not real sure how well I have stated the POV of the Eugenics and Abortion people because they never seem to interested in discussing the WHY's of their POV. They just state what they think needs to be done,and even then they don't go into details. Mostly because they CAN'T without appearing to be cold and selfish,and having their opponents scream "NAZI!" at them and demand they be killed or put into prison for suggesting people need to be responsible. I am basing what I wrote on what SEEMS TO ME to be the basis of their logic and efforts.

If you are an Eugenics and Abortion supporter and think I have misstated your positions,PLEASE speak up and correct me.

We all know the basis of the anti-Eugenics and Anti-Abortion crowds are religious beliefs,and organized religions NEED huge masses of followers for political power as well as a base to build their wealth on.

I see no possible basis for a middle-ground where the two opposing groups can meet and agree on any sort of compromise at all. One side wants to limit population so there are more resources and power for fewer people,and the other side wants to increase population because that is where their power base lies.

I am not sure most of the people on either side have taken the time to try to understand WHY they take the stands they take because both sides seem to me to focus more on screaming insults at each other than facts. For different reasons maybe,but the end results are still the same,division,jealousy, and hatred. ALL eventually leading to war.

IF we can,let's try to limit the hatred to a slow boil,and see if we can have a discussion where ideas are presented where maybe both sides can meet and agree on something.

Yeah,I know,but it's worth trying.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

#6. To: sneakypete (#0)

Ok, let me try my hand at presenting the Eugenicist side of things.

Imagine Paradise, if you could design it. Not some off-the-rack Paradise designed by some faraway God full of trees and fruit (and dirt and bugs and sweat), but that which would be paradisical to a modern human.

First, there would be no disease or want or need to work, and no fear. This would mean that everybody would be at leisure all the time. Aimless leisure gets boring pretty quickly (who really wants to sit around on a cloud with a harp all day). If we have leisure, we want to fill it with pleasure. What is pleasurable? Well, there is contemplation of the arts and sciences, and there are sports. Some degree of physical activity is fun and playful (picking beans is neither). And of course there is sex. Secular paradise is not paradise unless there is easy sex on demand without fear and without consequences.

Now, the traditional and religious moralists might retort that that is impossible, but so is their boring halo-and-harp heaven. The secular person recognizes that there is no hope at all of attaining paradise in the afterlife, because there is no afterlife. All there is is here. We come out of oblivion. We live for a span. We die and go into oblivion.

The ancient Roman materialists got it right when they put on their tombstones: NON FUI. FUI. NON SUM. NON CURO. - I was not. I was. I am not. I care not.

The materialist, then, turns his attention to this world, for it is all we have. It is possible to envision this world in which we live as a far better place than it is. Indeed, while heaven on a cloud, or crawling back into the Eden of dreams is not possible, the Secular Paradise described above IS possible.

One could get there by automating production to the greatest extent possible, reducing the amount of time that anybody need spend working (but increasing the need for highly-educated people to design, build and maintain the machines that remove most of the labor burden from mankind).

One can't quite get to zero work, but one can get to a very moderate amount of it, with all of the heavy lifting done by machines.

Of course, the more people there are, the more production one has to have, and a side effect of production is, inevitably, pollution. Pollution makes things ugly, and rules that area out of bounds for pleasure. The more people, the more pollution.

Also, inevitably, the more people, the more resources have to be harvested to provide for them. And that means, inevitably, more mines, more forests hacked down for wood, farmland, housing space. Land in a natural state, or gardens, is beautiful and pleasant - a source of esthetic pleasure and clean air. Forests and parks, and even orchards and vineyards or well-tended horse farms are beautiful to behold. Sprawling tenements of lower class housing are never beautiful. They blight the land. Thew spew pollution.

And then there is the matter of human suffering. The underclass in that housing groans under its burdens, and always will. They lack the resources for education and for happy living. Their lot is to grind and suffer, and in their despair, to anesthetize their pain with drugs and alcohol, worsening their lot. Under terrible and unrelievable suffering, they live and die. Many go mad and attack their fellow men. It would be better if such people did not exist at all than that they exist in order to suffer tortured, ugly lives without hope, only to die anyway.

Now, obviously it would be wrong to massacre such people - that would increase the fear and misery quotient of the world and leave everybody traumatized.

But that element of society CAN be eliminated peacefully, without suffering, and even with a great deal of pleasure, simply through the practice of effective birth control.

The world is already overpopulated, with all of the misery that entails for billions, with all of the pollution and destruction of nature, with all of the ugliness. Population is the inevitable result of natural sexual activity, but we have not lived in a state of nature for millennia. Indeed, much of the focus of religious and secular law over the ages has been to constrain the human sex drive by various rules, controls and punishments, simply because allowing people to express themselves sexually across the ages would have resulted in the breakdown of the fundamental economic and social units.

Religion and fear are very old technology. Today, thanks to our modern science, we are capable of enjoying sex freely without the consequences of unwanted pregnancy. So instead of living in frustration and fear, even the lower classes can indulge in the greatest of all simple pleasures: sex, without having the economic consequences of childbearing. And it is precisely in this way that the excess population of the world can be gradually diminished, taking pressure off the environment and restoring the beauty of the world for future generations. The poor and miserable do not need to be shot or starved. Let them fornicate away their time on earth, dulling their pain considerably. Just make sure they don't procreate.

Now, there is still the problem of sexually transmitted disease, as promiscuity spreads it. The control and eradication of these diseases must be a top medical priority, and it is. HIV was once a death sentence. But thanks to billions in research, today it can be controlled on an ongoing basis for a lifetime by the proper drugs. A person afflicted with HIV today, if he is religious about taking his medicines and being checked regularly, can go on indefinitely without developing AIDS, and reduce the virus load to the level that it is not detectable, and not be contagious. Likewise, women afflicted with HIV, who are on the antiviral regime, are capable of bearing children that do not have HIV. We have come a long way, and with continued research and a full-court press, we will be able to cure or routinely manage all STDs (HIV and Herpes, both viruses, are the current "incurables", but both are treatable.)

So, then, the pathological impediment to paradise - disease - is controllable and moving towards fully curable, even as birth control is highly effective.

We are on the cusp - and indeed have already passed over into - a world in which pansexualism is a reasonable lifestyle choice in the sense that it need not lead to childbearing or fatal disease. Our moral views and laws have not yet fully evolved to embrace this brave new world, but we are well on our way. We see this in the stubborn advance of sexual freedom against the resistance of traditional and religious society.

A paradaisical future would not be one in which people could marry whom they will, but in which people need not marry at all. The financial necessities that drive marriage would be eliminated in a world without want.

In a world with billions fewer people there would be an exceeding abundance of resources, driving the prices of everything down dramatically, moving us into a no-scarcity economy the likes of which has never before been seen. Human beings would be mostly free from the fetters of work, and have leisure, and pleasure, as their primary activities.

Abortion would remain as an option, in those cases where birth control failed or, more importantly, where medical detection indicated that a child was going to be born deformed or with debilitating diseases. In such cases, secular values would hold that it is much better to have never come into consciousness at all than to be born and experience a lifetime of agony and sorrow.

Obviously the religious, who believe there is a God and that God is the source of sexual morality laws, must oppose this entire vision on the grounds that it is contrary to the will of God.

More sophisticated religious people might also argue that human happiness is not found in being able to indulge the sexual appetites as much as one could in a secular paradise. They might point out that a hallmark of Communist Russia and Communist Cuba was the immediate adoption of abortion on demand and free birth control, and the general relaxation of all traditional rules of heterosexual (but not homosexual) morality - and that those societies were not happy.

Because of their fear of God, the religious can never come onto the same page as the Secular Utopian, but those who do not live in fear of God could very well do so.

The danger on the secular side is not the religious fears of God, but that there are darker aspects of human character that also find pleasure in watching human suffering, and in having power over other people, to command them and use them.

Within the seculars, one can envision two versions of the advance towards paradise.

One would be one in which the ideal is to strive towards a paradise in which the people who remain live in leisure and relative equality. The other is one in which paradise includes the pleasure that the powerful derive from dominating the weak.

The paths to paradise differ between the two visions.

Egalitarians would rely upon birth control, abortion and automation and allow the brighter future come through the inevitable natural decrease. Their ideal would be to reduce the population to the level that there is enough for all of the remaining people to live in ease and leisure, and in which eugenics skews the population to good health and pleasant appearance.

Hierarchalists would be willing to accelerate the process of depopulation through forced birth control, abortion and sterilization, one-child policies and other coercive means designed to bring about the population reduction FASTER. They would reject the ideal of the remaining population all living in ease and leisure, but believe that the existing hierarchy of power and wealth that pre-existed the population reduction should remain, with the less wealthy and powerful elements of the population maintained (and beautified through eugenics) to serve the wealthy and powerful.

The first vision of secular Utopia might be called the Democratic Progressive vision. The second might be called the Fascist or Dr. Strangelovian vision.

The division between those two is as strong as the division between either and the religionists.

So, there's as fair and balanced view of the whys and wherefores of secular utopianism, with contraception and abortion as primary, necessary vehicles to get there.

There is a version with the sword, and a version without it.

The most pleasant one to my contemplation is the one WITH the sword, because I will always be part of the upper, ruling class and I like having power, subordinates and servants - especially if they are attractive.

But I recognize that the trauma inherent in getting to the Utopia QUICKLY would end up scarring even the victorious survivors in a way that would very much mar Utopia, so I would settle for the egalitarian version. After all, where there is no material scarcity we end up equal anyway.

I follow the Catholic version, which doesn't allow these things, because it's TRUE, but if it weren't true, then I would be with Dr. Strangelove.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-27   10:46:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

Well articulated post. I appreciate the effort you pour into your responses -- even when we disagree. Andyour candor and truthfulness (even if a bit disturbing.)

Vic, your brain is unbelievably fertile. I've seen very few posters who have ever matched your energy and macro-analyses at any forum...

...You are also one of the most enigmatic.

The most pleasant one to my contemplation is the one WITH the sword, because I will always be part of the upper, ruling class and I like having power, subordinates and servants - especially if they are attractive.

A true self-entitled Elitist. On what exactly is your position and alleged "power" as "Royalty" or "Elite" status based? Your birth? Your heritage? Your brain?

Do you see any conflict with The Almighty? Or concede a personal hypocrisy (we are ALL "hypocrites," btw IMO) for claiming an Elite status, yet supporting and promoting socialism? How do you rationalize that Pope Frankie is in ANY way a Rep of Jesus Christ as well as a Vatican and hierarchy that are clearly subversive and anti-Christ?

But I recognize that the trauma inherent in getting to the Utopia QUICKLY would end up scarring even the victorious survivors in a way that would very much mar Utopia, so I would settle for the egalitarian version. After all, where there is no material scarcity we end up equal anyway.

Surely you understand any "Utopia" here on earth is merely one more satanic deception implanted within our spirit. Problem: At what eternal price does one pay for enforcement and coercion of ideas that are anathema to the Founder's? Wouldn't any "Utopian" society require stomping on personal rights and liberty -- the same ones given at birth from The Almighty?

I follow the Catholic version, which doesn't allow these things, because it's TRUE, but if it weren't true, then I would be with Dr. Strangelove.

Sure -- we are all selfish anarchists at heart who'd bomb o neighbor's house for the last Ring-Ding without the Holy Spirit/God's hardwired compassion and His laws stamped on our heart.

Do you mean to say tat Vatican and RCC is your inspiration for setting moral and ethics "guidelines"? Help me understand something -- WHY hasn't Pope Frankie and the RCC been promoting and advancing the Gospel? Jesus NEVER advanced socialism via coercion. Just liberty, and charity for those who need help and can not help themselves.

Btw -- what "credentials" does the current Pope hold s a man who is an elected "spiritual-President" of the Vatican as "Vicar of Christ"? Does he speak for you as well?

Liberator  posted on  2017-06-29   13:38:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Liberator (#29)

I'm not great with the cut-andpaste feature, so I'll try to answer your key questions in one essay.

As far as the "alleged" power and its bases: ancestry, educatiom, socioeconomic position, Good looks, brains, charisma, charm and humor round out the set.

Of course there are conflicts with God in the naturalist's Utopia. I made that point at the beginning: the naturalist/scientist does not believe in the Christian God. I was not writing a hedged thing, that attempted to square the circle. I wrote from the perspective of somebody who looks at religion as pure superstition and fairy tale, and whose focus is on the rational, scientifically verified world.

The theological position cannot be squared with the secular scientific view, because the theologian believes that life is eternal, while the secular knows that life ends at death. The decisions that the theologian takes in life are partly based on reasoning about an eternal afterlife. The secular scientific has no afterlife in his equation. Obviously this leads to very different end points, and means.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-30   19:18:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 30.

        There are no replies to Comment # 30.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com