[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/lounge/ - Lounge

The Wizard's Lounge

Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1596215003423.jpeg (40.86 KB, 367x448, 367:448, albert-caraco-1b5ef492-b2….jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

 No.250136[Last 50 Posts]

I fucking hate people who think that overpopulation is a problem in the first world, and think that insane, immoral, fascist measures should be taken to combat it. I know a few people who argue (against anti-abortion me) that abortion should be legal/mandatory because of overpopulation. It's the most asinine thing because overpopulation is not even close to being a problem in the West. Our population would be dropping without immigration. What really makes me angry is that these people think this will be at all convincing that abortion is an alright thing to do. Even if I didn't believe that overpopulation is always going to be made a non-issue by technological advancements, how the fuck is genocide (they know this is what I see abortion as) an at all moral answer? If overpopulation actually starts killing people, then why would these population control people even care? If we reach our carrying capacity, some people will starve and it'll all even out, but if some technology increases our carrying capacity, we'll be golden for the next little while again. If we committed genocide so that fewer people would starve, and then it turns out that it wasn't necessary, then they'd have perpetrated the single most idiotic mass-murder in history.

"To solve the problems of overpopulation and pollution, extermination shall become the common denominator of politics to come, and nature shall join in adding it to ours the end of the century shall see the triumph of death, the world overburdened with men shall discharge the surplus deadweight of living things."

~Albert Caraco


File: 1596215035167.png (18.58 KB, 635x351, 635:351, 1538115821633.png) ImgOps iqdb


use auto translate CC


humans are no better than fucking rats, they brag about being oh so evolved but the moment their share of resources go up they do the malthusian thing and then we all gotta pay the price, instead of going "WHOA I'm loaded now, lemme use it to enhance my life"…or anything else, their first damn reaction is "WhOA I'm loaded now, let's spawn another clutch of little shitlets!"

fucking people, if only you could kill them like any other vermin


I was privy to a conversation the other day where a male normgroid referred to his son as "mini-me"


Fancy sounding word. This is how British people talk


Not british, it just seemed more appropriate over saying "I heard a conversation the other day…"



well…why not? that's essentially what they are to humans, and what they would call the little bastards if they were being honest
not clicking, don't zoomerpost at me


Human race is a poison to this planet. Each increase of carrying capacity will come at the cost of more damage to the ecosystem. Each new field or housing unit comes at the cost of whatever it was that occupied the space before, each increase of fishing efforts kills the ocean a little more, every new human produces his own lifetime worth of trash, etc. At some point, should the increase of numbers continue forever, we will inevitably find ourselves to be living on a dead, toxic rock. Also fuck people in general - the less of them exist, the less of them i will have to come in contact with.
>Itll even out
Or, you know, something cataclysmic happens (such as a complete collapse of a society orders of magnitude more dependent on the establishment than what we have now) and everybody dies, not just those "extra".


so you're a life cultist?


I'm generally against mothers murdering their children.


ah a fellow Christian


Pretty much every problem we have is the result of the current, extreme overpopulation.

Every has become extremely competitive because there are too many people. Resources become scarcer per-person and we end up cramped into dense living situations, with not much good land. Even if the land is there, it takes decades to develop infrastructure. It is trivial to see that supply and demand dictates that the value of each human life decreases as there are more people. We are at the point where we are displacing the rest of the living world with an the 'anthropocene' extinction.


File: 1596280932327.jpg (91.51 KB, 875x1079, 875:1079, f8357f9264273d9ae84253818c….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

NO im a pro genodice and murder.


There's some antinatalists who think not getting pregnant is better than do it and abort though


Of course it's better. Not only you are a whore, you're supporting the jewish murder industry.


A fetus is not a person
Anti abortioners are mostly religious nuts or virgins that are jealous of people having free sex


the fewer mini-me's the better

you don't make anything better by adding brats to it


Somehow I doubt that you'd be fine with it if someone broke into your room and started trying to murder you.


>u'r a virgin and just jealous that I have sex !!
wizchad 2020


Did I say that?


Why not? It's biologically a human being. It's alive. Once it can think, can generate brain waves, I can't see any delimiter between the fetus and the infant that it's just completely arbitrary. Are you really going to say that spatial location determines whether or not a thinking human life has rights?


>assuming he knows what a fetus is

Have a look, first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fiNH70Gl


Some feminists claim for abortion even if still has some days before being born. Would you trust likely minds?


100/100 painless why would i mind


File: 1596287644241.png (30.2 KB, 760x436, 190:109, SEXHAVERS.png) ImgOps iqdb

Lol. How often do you see wizards, butthurt that some purely hypothetical law might dry up their supply of holes, post accusations that people who disagree with them are virgins jealous of them having promiscuous sex?
Harlot or normalfag, take your pick.


throwing a lot of scientificy sounding words in there doesn't mean a week old popcorn shrimp is sapient


So we're using sapience as a metric now? Newborns aren't sapient either, you know this right? Are you fine with killing newborns and infants?


File: 1596290493515.png (94.76 KB, 556x467, 556:467, a.png) ImgOps iqdb

whether you agree with it or not, anti-abortion activists didn't come up with the idea that embryos and fetuses are humans too out of thin air; it's a well established scientific concept that only gets disputed when talking about abortion.
see pic related, it's from the Carnegie stages.


>it's a well established scientific concept
so is the doomvirus


OK retard.


You are looking at it wrong. Think of it like this:
Given a succubus that doesnt want any children, she either:
- practices birth control properly for the entire duration of her life, therefore no child ever comes out of her.
- fucks up at some point, gets abortion, no child ever comes out of her.
Now tell me, whats the difference if the result is the same?


The difference is in one case she's murdering a child.


>You are looking at it wrong. Think of it like this:
i'm not looking at anything, i'm just laying out science. you may argue in favor of abortion, but you can't deny that the fetus is a human


Abortions are okay because unwanted babies shouldn't be forced into this world if their moms aren't willing to take care of them.
Life is inherent suffering so antinatalism is very wizardly.
Overpopulation is definitely a big environmental issue. It's not just about how much land there is to live on, or how much food we can produce. What's more important is for how many more generations this kind of civilization can sustain itself with the resources available without collapsing the various ecosystems that make up our planet.


Legalize killing neonates, toddlers, children, adolescents, adults as well?


File: 1596298721960.jpeg (20.98 KB, 400x400, 1:1, asdf.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

lmao instead taking away people's freedom and trying to regulate their personal lives why don't you take care of children in need? The best birth rate reducer is economic and social development.

With so much suffering and corruption in the world to deal with, you go and meddle in the lives of people who are miserable enough, and force them to shit out babies to prolong the cycle of suffering and worsen things even more.

No one chooses to be conceived and to be born in this world. Even if a person ends up happy, you are taking away the gift of oblivion and never having to live. Non-existance is simply a better choice, and people who take it away deserve to be executed.


File: 1596300611303.png (290.1 KB, 1280x800, 8:5, Screenshot_20200801-104929.png) ImgOps iqdb

Maybe a public execution like Cioran said of pregnant succubi would be better than just abortion and would make sure the succ wouldn't impose either ever again


How can you kill that which has no life? Fetuses can't think or breath or even play video games yet so they're not a human life. Is stepping on bugs murder? Because there are many insects smarter than a fetus.

Also, a great deal of conscious animals are slaughtered to extract some of the hormone needed to develop birth control / morning after pills, so death is more so involved that way except the poor succubus doesn't get shamed for being the one doing the killing.


Fetuses can think though. They have measurable brain waves. They can feel pain. If you acknowledge that killing a thinking human life is murder regardless of whether it is inside a womb or not then we agree. I don't care about killing those pre-brain zygotes.


Sure why not? Euthanasia for the whole family.


>How can you kill that which has no life?
the fetus is demonstrably alive; they'd not develop if they weren't.
your criteria for describing humans as alive or not is faulty. there are humans alive that can't currently think (eg. under general anesthesia) who would have to be considered "dead" if we used your definition. fetuses do breathe by engaging in gas exchange via the placenta. otherwise, respiration and metabolism wouldn't happen thus they'd not develop. there are humans alive that can't mediate gas exchange by themselves who are dependent on ventilators (eg. prolonged apnea); likewise, they'd have to be considered "dead" using your definition.
can't play video games? lol
>Is stepping on bugs murder? Because there are many insects smarter than a fetus.
no, murder is unlawful homicide. it has nothing to do with sentience.


The nervous system gets formed meanwhile, so they should be able to feel after some stages. What for a quick way of determining things, you.

Also these animals dead are used to feed us all. Don't compare.


That's battling effect, not the cause.


>Fetuses can't think or breath or even play video games yet so they're not a human life.
Neither can someone who had a motorcycle accident and is connected to a respirator while in a coma. Abortion is the first stage on slippery slope, and somewhere along that slope are Wizards. I only support abortion if they absolutely gut the female's genitals to make sure she'll never need one again, and father's too, for good measure.


My ass.


What a dumpster fire of a thread


Show me a better thread written by you.


I have a few of them in the catalogue, though i can hardly expect quality to be recognised by the likes of you


no pics, didn't happen


>dumpster fire
Go back to reddit


Simpletons. The fact that overpopulation isn't a problem NOW doesn't mean that will always be the case. Fertility rates in Western countries among White people will inevitably rise again. You can already see the breeder transition start to happen in France. People with a predisposition to control their breeding will be weeded out of the gene pool, while "breeders" like religious fundamentalists will eventually become the majority of the population. It's mindboggling how people still can't grasp the extremely simple concept of natural selection.


>Then the worm turned. German fertility plummeted after World War I, and even the Nazis with their “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” rhetoric were unable to force a recovery to peak Weimar levels. Meanwhile, the French – long derided for “race decay” by the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans – started to make more babies. Ironically, this began during the Vichy period, at the trough of France’s fortunes, and spread to the rest of the country after 1945; the French have been much more fertile than the Germans ever since. Whereas one 1920s League of Nations demographic projection saw the French population falling from 40 million to 29 million by 1970, it instead soared and now stands at 65 million.


File: 1596338950386.jpg (15.11 KB, 331x499, 331:499, Better Never To Have Been.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>how the fuck is genocide (they know this is what I see abortion as) an at all moral answer?
Because life sucks and is not worth living


Jyst because you hate life doesn't give you the right to murder other people. Just kill yourself and quit projecting your issues onto others.


Just because you love life doesn't give you the right to force people into it. Just castrate yourself and quit dragging new souls into hell against their will.


Idiot, abortion may or may not be concidered murder but giving birth is 100% murder since we know that the person being brought here will die.


Is eating considered suicide since the person who eat will die? What kind of idiot are you?


false analogy idiot. birthing brings death. eating is for nurishment and might bring suicide if we eat poison or anything harmful, but thats specific. You don't have a logical brain. go read philosophy 101 idiot and what makes an argument. It's frustrating talking to idiots like you.


life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease


> birthing brings death
> eating is for nurishment
How about birthing brings life and eating is prolong your suffering if you're a loser?


Non of them include the face or qoutes of Albert caraco.


>birthing brings life
true and life is the main condition for death. That's my whole point. no life = no death. It's not hard


Caraco thread


>birthing brings life
implying that life is a good thing

we really gotta unpack this horseshit


File: 1596370748955.webm (2.89 MB, 471x320, 471:320, 1551070330589.webm) ImgOps iqdb

I think overpopulation is a thing.
I recall reading that if you want everyone to live a first-world life AND be environmentally sustainable, the population should be around 2 billion. I think this is a good number. Much better than 15 billion living in poverty. Human population was around 2 billion just 100 years ago, having current numbers of humans at one time is a very modern thing. We can absolutely just shrink back to 2 billion with little effect except economic (i.e. the retarded debt hole we dug ourselves).
I think technology and feminism has greatly contributed to the decline of fertility rates in first world countries.
I think that fertility rates in the west are only as high as they are due to first and second generation immigrants, the whites fertility rates in countries such as UK are around 1.3 per succubus, noticeably lower than the UK average of 1.8.
I think the same will eventually happen in Africa and India as they become richer and more educated. But before then, there will be a lot of difficulties with food security and immigration.
I do think that the population should drop down naturally to 2 billion through the things mentioned above rather than forced population controls.
I think it's hypocrisy that the same people calling for whites to have less children are the same that are welcoming immigrants to increase our population.
I think the main driver of immigration and population increase policies in western countries is economic, our economy depends on increasing population to service debt and artificially fuel economic growth.
Related, I do think that births should be at least regulated to stop unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place (like having a sort of mandatory contraceptive injection except when you actually plan to have a child). I also think fertilised eggs should be scanned for severe disabilities (because speaking from experience, I believe it is cruel to demand a disabled person to go through life just to make yourself feel morally better). But this is more for the benefit of parents/child/society than for population control.
But I do not think we should just keep increasing our population, even if we can through technology/science. There are more difficulties to this than just resources, such as politics, wealth, privacy, stress, social/community dynamics, government interference/control/regulation, etc.

One way or another, I do think it will sort it self out. It will likely be painful though.
But I don't really care because I will be long dead.



says the guy who chooses to continue to exist everyday


It's not a choice. Nothing is.


wow so I guess any talk of what people "should" do is completely pointless
also it's stupid to place blame on people for reproducing since it's not a choice


I fucking hate people that just accept living in crowded commie blocks like it's an acceptable living standard. These cockroaches that deem any kind of existence as okay as long as it is an existence should have no fucking say in anything. You have no principles, you don't care about anything. Shut the fuck up and die.


you're correct


However, we don't blame a fire but we still extinguish it. And one of the methods of extinguishing reproduction involves talking about it. Not hard to grasp is it?


How can we extinguish anything if it's impossible to make the choice to do the extinguishing?



Poor Japan :(

They are a puppet state of evil imperialist America and it's lazy, immoral people


Where else are we supposed to live?
Are you enjoying your beverly hills mansion or something?


File: 1596400229203.png (398.2 KB, 450x300, 3:2, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb


What is at the back of that shack?



Is there any youtube video of one like this being built?
I keep seeing A-frame shacks being popular, but not this style.
Can someone build this single handedly?


I'd hate to live there. I'd always be in constant fear of finding venomous spiders, snakes, scorpions etc.


Yeah the innawoods larp is kinda ridiculous. I understand wanting to leave society behind but I also very much enjoy having electricity.


File: 1596405487808-0.png (295.15 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1596405487808-1.png (354.28 KB, 600x400, 3:2, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1596405487808-2.png (767.74 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb



"fetus" means baby in latin. A baby contains all the genes of what makes a person and the potential for something greater.

The only reason why think otherwise because you were simply trained to like a good, little pet.


>overpopulation argument for abortion
I agree Anon, it's a stupid argument and as a whole the population of the US is decreasing with lower fertility rates. Although I don't like blacks as much as the next person they are people too and having a crowded town doesn't justify ending a life. It's analogous to the boomer mentality of "fuck you, I got mine, I'm already born".


It's just a fact that Canada & the US are not overpopulated. Obviously, other countries are overpopulated, but there is no reason we should shoulder their burden and produce fewer people. Preserving Western values & culture is essential for liberty's survival, and there's a limit to the amount of immigrants we can take in before that becomes impossible. It's not our problem if other countries do dumb shit, and we absolutely should not hurt ourselves in order to compensate for the problems they are creating for themselves.


File: 1596483774208.png (17.62 KB, 350x242, 175:121, 1538118240415.png) ImgOps iqdb

It'll solve itself. If they reach carrying capacity, there'll be a die-off, and then the cycle will repeat. It's completely natural, and there's no reason for the West to fuck itself over to temporarily ease the overpopulation of the third-world.


Overpopulation isn't a problem per se but I think population density and inequality are, my suggestion to anyone thinking of where to live would be some place that isn't too population dense (like a lot of American cities) but at the same time not too rural and spread out that it's inconvenient and the quality of services suffer


Yeah that’s a hard line to walk. I personally find suburbs to be the best, but the people there are honestly more normgroid than either city or rural. I think they key is in the geographic location. High latitudes tend to be better as people stay in more and services are expected to be robust.



if you math-check wikipedia data for "hurr durr overpopulation" you will see very bizarre things in the 2001-2018 arc:
- African succubi rated no less than 6.2 children each (that is, if one in three dies before giving birth, then the other two shall jump to 9.3)
- Europe and USA increasing like it was more than 2.0 (everyone knows actual mean is literally below 1.0)
- highest values registered in places where you cannot effectively measure it (US clinics would rather laugh if someone presented absurdly high values)
- one billion people born out of nowhere in less than 20 years.

TLDR: overpopulation is a myth. (((They))) are pushing it like there's no tomorrow. You should conservatively assume actual world population is less than half than the officially claimed.

Also, the overpop myth was all about food and energy resources… calculated before the technological and industrial revolutions.


That's BS, overpopulation is relative as the migrant hoards have flooded into London before the drawbridge was raised, now this island will rot from inside as the hoards reproduce


how are any of these bizarre other than the way youre presenting the information?

yes, african succubi are projected to birth an average of 6 kids through their lifetimes. this is on a continent of 1+ billion people with essentially no useage of contraceptives and where abortion is essentially illegal.

the populations of europe and the us are actually increasing because of immigration, but of course dipshits like you will say that the fertility rate is less than 2.0 so theres GOT to be less people. and no the mean is not "literally below 1.0" for any country

dont even know what the fuck youre trying to say with the 3rd point

theres about to be another 1 billion born out of the pre-exisiting 7.5 billion in the next 10 years


Birth rates decline as a nation gets industrialized and the cost of living skyrockets this is happening in China & India right now.Europe is importing hordes of black & brown because the elites know the birthrate of the native population is too low to sustain civilization & they want to create discord & infighting between immigrant hordes & native population so they can push their agendas more easily, this also misdirects the native populations feelings of rage & opposition towards immigrants/minorities and the position of ruling classes remains secure.

A good example of this strategy can be seen in the recent BLM protest movement vs Corona lock-down protests, people were only allowed to protest the thing that promotes the agendas of the status quo all opposition against them is censored.They let one portion of the population to riot & chimpout while supressing the other causing the suppressed people to become angry as their cities burn ,this anger is now directed through the media(fanning the flames of race war) towards the people chimping out & the status quo gets away with their covid new normal tyranny.

The fertility rate is declining in most countries due pollution & cellphone radiation, as I mentioned before birth rates decline as a nation gets industrialized & more industrialization leads to more pollution,radiation & increased cost of living.succubi in education and in the workforce, combined with the availability of contraception will led to a fall in fertility rates further.This is a serious issue in china they not only stopped their one child policy they are planing for one succubus & 2 husbands policy as one family unit as they face a demographic implosion in the near future.

The population explosion was myth propagated by the global elite in order to push their green new deal socialism


What is the best thing we can do about this to you think?
Since it's too late to cleanse the scorched earth, what exactly can we do? I'm not enjoying this


Cut off all welfare and let the stupid breeders starve to death.


The problem is self solving, as >>250491 pointed out. The problem is how do you survive it as an individual.


>just castrate yourself
you can be celibate and non-procreative without having to mutilate your anatomy you know


Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by the uber-wealthy to sell the notion that it's the fault of the average person for all the world's problems when in reality things such as climate change and world hunger are a result of corporations outputting most of the pollution and food being poorly distributed because it isn't profitable to do so.


>Overpopulation is a myth
Did not read even a single character more


It quite literally is a myth.

It has always been a hypothetical problem that we are supposed to face at some point in the future that never comes.
It wasn't a thing in the past, isn't a thing now, and won't be a thing in the future going by global trends in population growth and resource production.

It is a bit like waiting for the end of oil to cause a global collapse.


>It quite literally is a myth.
Not even one word extra entered my vision


Well you are welcome to be willfully ignorant and stick your head in the sand from any information that might challenge your world view. Just know that you choose the path of the fool and are now wrong on purpose.


>wtf stop contradicting things I've learned from youtube pop sience videos


nice samefagging, but you are literally contradicting math that a middle-schooler could understand, so whatever you say is irrelevant


>nice samefagging
>you are literally contradicting math that a middle-schooler could understand
even your assumption that population size is a technical matter is ideological bullshit


You are beyond help if you can't see the link between math and overpopulation


The premises behind the math are incorrect as is the conclusions.
Population growth doesn't work logarithmically. Someone sharting out equations that aren't based on reality have no value and have been proven wrong over and over again.


It's just a fact that Canada & the US are not overpopulated. Obviously, other countries are overpopulated, but there is no reason we should shoulder their burden and produce fewer people. Preserving Western values & culture is essential for liberty's survival, and there's a limit to the amount of immigrants we can take in before that becomes impossible. It's not our problem if other countries do dumb shit, and we absolutely should not hurt ourselves in order to compensate for the problems they are creating for themselves.


what's interesting about overpopulation is that the rich are the people complaining about it and the people who benefit most from it. it's not poor pieces of shit going "theres so many people what does this mean for me" it's people with comfortable lives, and ultimately the solution for any overpopulation question would be culling the poor not the rich, but being rich just means you have a life that is supported by poor people, like how every first worlders life would get a lot harder if all the people in the third world disappeared.


If overpopulation ever became a real threat it would solve itself so damn quickly.


France is less than fifty percent white now so pretty fucking dumb to think that its the French who are breeding


Population density seems like a bigger problem to me, seems like everywhere that is dense is worse, and this is reflected in those mice utopia experiments where the mice go crazier and weirder the more dense the population


yeah well, who's gonna miss the french


Overpopulation only applies to 3rd world shit holes. People who push it in first worlds just want the masses to be replaced by masses who will be more slave-ish. I for one support bill gates sterilization through vaccines. After those populations drop, only the first worlds who exploit the third worlds the least will be left.


inb4 WW3


No one is going to "miss" them.
The problem with France is what France wants in the grand scheme of things. Their goal is to remake other countries in their image.
The French state operates on a fucked up combination of opportunist French imperialism and fanatic EU globohomo. That might sound contradictory but it isn't.
They're officially pushing for deep "European integration" aiming to reform EU into a one-government European superstate, within which France hopes to wrestle the largest chunk of power for themselves.
This can't be achieved while national identities and pro-independence sentiments prevail in small "peasant countries" of the EU. France and Germany may have different visions of the prospective EU-state but a lot of their objectives leading to its creation align by necessity.
Most importantly both of them need all of those lesser states to be turned into dependent, tractable corporate shitholes ran by niggers and faggots. And let me tell you what, so far it's terrifyingly successful.


We don't need vaccines to kill off stupid third-worlders, just stop giving them handouts through foreign aid and close off all immigration for unskilled people.


>France less than 50% white
Its still 85% white you fucking retarded amerimutt. No European country is below 80%.


Health bar slowly draining


For northwestern Europe maybe, at least in its current state. Should the economy start to fail the undercurrent of racism will start to rise again. It would also dis-incentivize immigrants from wanting to travel there. The current non-Europeans would begin to look for greener pastures or to return home. Hope always exists, Europe must fall so it can stand proud again.


File: 1601998117664.jpg (187.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, trojan.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>stop giving them handouts through foreign aid
This meme has to stop you think handouts & foreign aid actually goes to dirt poor third-worlders & do you really think foreign aid helps build 3rd world peasants build a better life or helps them to survive.
This is a very stupid & uninformed world view you should look into the history of US aid,National Endowment for Democracy and the free trade agreements, all of that bullshit destabilizes countries causes economic instability as the multi national corporations destroys local economies & causes large scale immigration.
If globalists stopped their "philanthropy" the world would be a better place.Do you really think George Soros, Bill & Malinda Gates foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller foundation etc give out handouts & aid because they want to help the poor ?They are literally Trojan Horses for the globalists to increase their power & influence.


That and a lot of the international aid comes in the form of loans from big banks so the next generation has to pay a never ending debt.


and doesn't a substantial part of the "aid" find its way back into the west anyway because of corruption and tax havens?


>implying that abortion is the reason we have a decreasing birthrate

No anon the reason it's declining its because of inflation and education. Kids are expensive and we started to get more and more egotistical that we don't want children to not wasting time for taking care of them.


The scenarios which you describe are not typical. More commonly, access to abortion and birth control only delays reproduction. Those who have firmly decided never to have children would likely choose far more effective surgical sterilisation.


Define "overpopulation."

FWIW, there are already far more humans alive than we can feed without modern industrial farming and the supply chains that enable it.

In the coming decades, artificial intelligence will likely eliminate many occupations, leaving millions with no means of support. Naturally, the Progressives argue that we can and must address this looming issue with entitlements.


>Fetuses can't think or breath or even play video games yet so they're not a human life.
Whether something can or cannot at this moment means nothing. Take this example: If a living person dies suddenly such that they can be resuscitated entirely successfully, would it be murder to kill them then and there? If you answer that it is not murder, you can see yourself in prison. In all countries, this constitutes murder. In the case of an unborn baby, the person who does have the capacity to "think or breathe or even play video games" can in the future have these abilities if care is provided to them.
I am going to explain something before I go further: In order to revive an individual you must give a proper level of care over a duration of time. Keep this in mind.

If you attempt to argue that the deceased person can be "made living" through proper care over a duration of time, and is thus still human, then you cannot say an unborn baby is NOT a human. An unborn baby can also, with proper time and care, become living. You cannot say that the deceased person who can still be revived and made conscious is a human while the unborn baby is not. Both were or are organisms(in the case of the baby, both was and is, as "to be" one must also have been). Both can with time and care become living.
It doesn't matter the duration of time which must elapse before the state is changed from non-living to living, as it's entirely relative. Let us for instance say that a new technology allows us to incrementally restore consciousness to a person who has died within 24 hours, but the treatment takes 9 months. Over that duration, a persons vital functions will be kept active through a machine, and then their brain functions will very slowly be restored until they are capable of waking up, laughing, and talking. At that point, they can be disconnected from the machine and live independently.

Next, you cannot argue that the deceased person was a human and the baby was never a human, because the idea of what is or is not a human is a "social construct". While I don't believe in that sort of nonsense, you must necessarily. You likely believe yourself a rationalist, and rationally there is no such thing as a human being. Only chunks of matter that you defined as human at some point. Unless you are hypocritical, there are very few ways to determine what is human or not. Some of these I list:
>DNA that is consistent with what is deemed "human"
>Chromosomes that are consistent with what is deemed "human"
>Cells that are consistent with what is deemed "human"
>Composition of Oxygen (65%), Carbon (18%), Hydrogen (10%), Nitrogen: (3%), Calcium (1.5%), so on.
>Created through reproduction of cells by an organism deemed "human"
>Can be transferred into a living and conscious state over a duration of time
A deceased person and an unborn baby both match these criterion. You cannot define a deceased person as more human than an unborn baby because both are the same entities in the rational sense. The fact that the deceased person was at one point a "human" does not matter. At one point nearly all organic matter on earth was at some point some organism or another.

Abortion is wrong and it is murder.

[Last 50 Posts]
[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]