ad hominem-”attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.” As to the example you gave, “eugenics is bad because Hitler supported it or birth control is bad because Margaret Sanger who supported eugenics” are problematic for you, because they are an attack on an opponent, but do not address the truth. Sorry, I know what the word means–Latin for “to the man.”

An example of an ad hominem attack would be “Borrowing other people’s words and misusing them just makes you look stupider,” or “You are one seriously stupid trol” contextual definitions of an ad hominem attack.

Your next position is not ad hominem. And you make a valid point. The replacement level in Europe is less than 2.0 children. A country has to have a 2.1 level to have replacement. So, you are right in this regard. And that is for those who believe I cannot acknowledge an argument of another.

That being said, population increases are not a problem. World population has continued to increase. Partial Birth abortion limitations have only occurred in the last two years, and protect a small number of abortions. Since 1973, over 50 million abortions have occurred in the US alone, which would make a substanial difference to US population. The only thing that allows for US population to increase are the illegal aliens entering the US, increasing the population here.

There is choice in Europe to decrease populaton, but it has been a horrific situation in countries such as Italy. Countries are looking at proposing incentives for population increases, because we are potentially looking at the end of Western civilization, which does matter. We would be talking about the loss of the very freedom that Gullwatcher spoke of. No one can truly contend that Middle Eastern countries maintain a sense of freedom, including women’s rights, found in the West.

But beyond this, there still is no proof that population increases have resulted in the dire consequences referred to by Gullwatcher.

No one is responding to my any longer because they have shown not to have the ability to satifactorily defend their positions or to defend against mine.

There was another big mistake in what you wrote, too. You said population control couldn’t be achieved without mandating it, but you also talked about population dropping in Europe without anyone forcing it to, so it can be done without mandates. A major logic fail on your part, one of many.

Spellchecker wouldn’t hurt you, either, but nothing can help your ideas. You are one seriously stupid troll, which is why no one else is responding to you anymore. I only did because I wanted to point out the ad hominem idiocy.

One and done.

My first problem with your position is how do you support population control. To reach what you want cannot be done without mandating it. Beyond that, there is a reason that the black community makes up only 13% of the population in this country, and why Muslim countries are rapidly increasing. Abortions are illegal in these countries, disproportionately promting in the black community population by an organization (Planned Parenthood) by placing their facilies in black and Hispanic communities.

Wow, I have found something in which you and I can agree: You have made it clear that you cannot debate with any honesty. You twist and distort what people have said, claim that they hold positions they do not hold, and that they espouse ideas they do not even mention. You have made it clear that you are only here to put forward your agenda and listen to no one else’s.

You are right. I mistyped when I said ‘hazards of population control’. I did maean that there is NOT evidence of hazards of over-population. To claim that it’s all around you is disingenuous. Farmland disappearing occurs in this country. Why? Good reason. Technology makes it possible to produce food requiring much less land. If it was not cost effective to keep it as farmland, because food has become cheaper, and because it is more cost effective to change this land use. Your concern about “subdivisions of cheap cookie cutter housing” establishes your bias against development. When you talk about increasing quality of living, that is precisely what it does. You note that “in the city, decent houses disappearing, turning into tiny crap condos not fit to live in. Why? It is because those needing low income housing are moving into homes that belong to them rather than government housing for with they have no incentive to take care of. Forests are disappearing. Not in this country. There is MORE forestland in the US that there was 100 years ago. Why? We have huge tracts of national land, and the paper companies look at trees as a renewable resource. This is because it increases the quality of living for thes people in the world, as does our production of food.

Wetlands disappearing is something else I agree with you on. Wetlands have been removed for development, primarily in the past because we did not understand their significance. As we now do, federal laws do not allow destruction of wetlands, and wetlands are being recreated by environmental organizations.

Another example not mentioned by you is pollution. It is another example of where we have cleaner air and water than we had 100 years ago. This is despite the fact we have many more people now.

So, when you say “THERE is my evidence,” it is hardly either true or convincing.

“Hong Kong is a hell hole?” Well, we see how judgemental you are. I am certain that the people there would disagree, and contend that you are an insensitive arrogant American. The point of my position is that there is plenty of land for which the world’s population to live on. That statement has not been denied.

“People need more space, not less, and the planet is finite. Every increase in population reduces the amount of space available for everyone and everything else, and therefore the quality of life for the ones here.” By that standard, as the world moved from 2 people to 3, our quality of living has been going down. Absolutely ridiculous.

“You keep bringing up food, as though having a full belly is enough to make a good life. That’s only a start, it’s not even close to enough.” True, but is does involve sustainability. There is NO evidence that quality of living has decreased in the world. The truth is that we have improved quality of living. To claim that means that I am talking to someone who has no travel experience around the world. In the US, or elsewhere, it is hard to find anyplace that quality of living has gone down because of population increase. The only decreases of quality of care come from political issues and decisions that has reduced the quality of living.

Wow. There is another issue we agree on. Euthanasia is wrong. But how exactly do you plan to decrease the world’s population? By the US decreasing it’s population. Great. We can decimate US culture and make everything better for the world. Come now!

We disagree, abortion is murder. The “fetus” is a person, and was considered an aborion until 1973. While a fetus is a unique new person, a sperm and egg is not.

“When a baby is born and can live outside the uterus, then it human – before that it is only potential, like the egg or the sperm, and no more entitled to rights than those are.” Would that be the case 5 minutes before the fetus leaves the uterus? How about 10 minutes? And where would youd raw the line? Sorry, it is still human life.

It is not twisting to question whether a woman’s right to choose should apply to infanticide. Prior to 1972, there was no “right” to abortion. Prior to 5 years ago, there was no “right” to sodomy in much of this country. More than 2 years ago, there wad no “right” to homosexual marriage. And now polygamy and pediphiles claim that should be given this “right.”
“It’s almost amusing… You won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you by using such clumsy tactics.” See, another thing we agree on.

“People who don’t agree with you aren’t that stupid.” I agree again. They are either ignorant, incompetent, or disingenouous.

“That was exactly MY point, that ideas need to be judged on their own merit, regardless of who holds them.” We agree again.

While I do not agree with your position that we should not provide deductions for children, I appreciate that you are honest about your position.

You contend that you do not support mandated population control or removing personal rights. If not, your discussion is largely academic. There has not been any restriction on abortion for 35 years (except for the Partial Birth Abortion Act), yet the population is continuing to grow.

While you contend that you would support a candidate that you agreed with 60-80% of the time, you fail to answer my question as whether you would support a candidate who favored terrorism, but agreed with you on ALL other issues. You probably would not, because you would strongly object to that single item. Few would accuse you of being a single issue candidate, but abortion is a similar issue for me.

All I see as ad hominem attacks are from you. How about “a concept that you are apparently not familiar with. Balance, that’s how it’s spelled, look it up.” ” You won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you by using such clumsy tactics. People who don’t agree with you aren’t that stupid.” “I’m sorry you have such trouble with reading comprehension” “Seriously, two words – reading comprehension. Work on it.” “Only someone devoid of independent thought could ever agree 100% with someone else. Is that what you do?” THESE are ad hominem attacks.

I respectfully disagree with your position on lower standard of living.

The only way to show respect in a discussion such as this is to carefully listen to what is being put forward, and not twist it into what it is not. The way you disagree is the opposite of ‘respectfully’.

You have made it clear that you cannot debate with any honesty. You twist and distort what people have said, claim that they hold positions they do not hold, and that they espouse ideas they do not even mention. You have made it clear that you are only here to put forward your agenda and listen to no one else’s. For those reasons, this will my last post on this topic.

But more importantly, where is your evidence of the hazards of population control? Both Malthus and Erlich have already been proven wrong.

You ask where is my evidence of the ‘hazards of population control’. Sorry, that’s your position, not mine. If you meant where is my evidence of the hazards of over-population, it’s all around me. Farmland disappearing, forest disappearing, wetlands disappearing, turned into subdivisions of cheap cookie cutter housing. In the city, decent houses disappearing, turning into tiny crap condos not fit to live in. THERE is my evidence.

Sorry, but Hong Kong is not a hell hole. It made the number one spot this year as the best place economically to live in the world. I could live with that. I do hold Hong Kong as a good standard.

There are other bases to judge places to live in other than economically. On many other levels, Hong Kong is a hell hole. Just because you can live with that, why do you presume to dictate that everyone else should?

You say that we should make it with less space, then complain that I give you a scenerio with less space. We make enough food now, even though some countries do not allow food to get through. The US has a surplus of food.

I absolutely did not say we should make it with less space, I said the opposite. People need more space, not less, and the planet is finite. Every increase in population reduces the amount of space available for everyone and everything else, and therefore the quality of life for the ones here. You keep bringing up food, as though having a full belly is enough to make a good life. That’s only a start, it’s not even close to enough.

As to population increase to support the elderly, it would appear you support euthanasia.

Again you completely twist my words. I never said I support euthanasia, and I don’t. I said we need balance (rather than infinite population increase), a concept that you are apparently not familiar with. Balance, that’s how it’s spelled, look it up.

Sorry, but abortion is killing babies. I would guess you were a fetus once. So killing them is not a feasible option.

No, abortion is not murder. Yes, the person that I am started out as a one a one-celled organism. So what? That is not any kind of argument. Before that it was an egg and a sperm. Is failing to have that egg fertilized murder? Only one sperm makes it into an egg – is having millions of sperm die for the one to get there murder? When a baby is born and can live outside the uterus, then it human – before that it is only potential, like the egg or the sperm, and no more entitled to rights than those are.

Is it a woman’s right to decide whether the CARRY a one day old? How about a five day old? After all, they can’t take care of themselves without her help.

One day old what? Five day old what? If you mean fetus, that is not yet a person and it IS her right to chose. If you mean an existing infant, that is once again twisting what I said, and doing so in a very obvious and unsubtle manner. It’s almost amusing… You won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you by using such clumsy tactics. People who don’t agree with you aren’t that stupid.

The idea of eugenics is a bad idea, whether it comes from Hitler, Sanger, or you.

Except that it didn’t come from me, yes. That was exactly MY point, that ideas need to be judged on their own merit, regardless of who holds them. I’m sorry you have such trouble with reading comprehension, perhaps you should try a little harder to read what is there before assuming it must be wrong.

You receive financial incentives when you file your taxes. Do you have children? If you do, then the Government pays you an exemption to encourage children.

Exactly, and I think that’s wrong and the government shouldn’t do it.

However, your philosophy that calls for mandated population control and removing “personal freedom” would create the very standards in which those who disagree with the power elite cannot express their ideas.

Show me where, even once, I called for mandated population control or removing personal freedom. You can’t, because I didn’t. It’s just you trying to twist what I said into something you can label as wrong, and dismiss. Seriously, two words – reading comprehension. Work on it.

Would you support a candidate who said, “I want to kill the Jews,” and you didn’t support that position, but say, I like his other policies? I doubt it.

There has never been and never will be a candidate I agreed with 100%. I ALWAYS have to pick a candidate that only supports maybe 60-80% of what I support (and consider myself lucky to find even one that holds no indefensible positions), and I’ve never met anyone else who wasn’t in the same predicament. Only someone devoid of independent thought could ever agree 100% with someone else. Is that what you do?

I can defend or refute the ideas in question on any basis but ad hominem.

Then why didn’t you?

I respectfully disagree with your position on lower standard of living. But more importantly, where is your evidence of the hazards of population control? Both Malthus and Erlich have already been proven wrong. Hunger in countries is provided by corrupt governments and poor agriculture. Why aren’t Americans starving? Because we do not have these problems. Oh, and a lack of freedom? That would be Nazism of Communism. No thanks.

Sorry, but Hong Kong is not a hell hole. It made the number one spot this year as the best place economically to live in the world. I could live with that. I do hold Hong Kong as a good standard. You say that we should make it with less space, then complain that I give you a scenerio with less space. We make enough food now, even though some countries do not allow food to get through. The US has a surplus of food.

As to population increase to support the elderly, it would appear you support euthanasia. Perhaps we shouldn’t work on healthcare for the elderly because “again, that’s just stupid.” Then we could have fewer people, especially non-productive ones.

Sorry, but abortion is killing babies. I would guess you were a fetus once. So killing them is not a feasible option. In fact, it is never a feasible option to make your life better by killing another. If it were, why not allow individuals to take the organs of non-productive people such as the elderly and criminals so that productive people and the wealthy can have organs? Very utilitarian.

Is it a woman’s right to decide whether the CARRY a one day old? How about a five day old? After all, they can’t take care of themselves without her help.

She is taking a life. And natural law does not allow you by court decree to declare a wrong a right. If it did, the courts could simply decide I could steal your car or kill your dog.

You receive financial incentives when you file your taxes. Do you have children? If you do, then the Government pays you an exemption to encourage children.

Liberals have chosen to provide our welfare state to help those without. They include the elderly, the poor, and investment bankers.

Certainly people with twisted philosophies such as Hitler or Margaret Sanger should be able to espouse ideas–good or bad. However, your philosophy that calls for mandated population control and removing “personal freedom” would create the very standards in which those who disagree with the power elite cannot express their ideas.

It is particularly not twisting to point out that Sanger established Planned Parenthood to limit and eliminate undesirable populations such as minorities and the handicapped. With 50 million abortions in the country since Rowe, primarily in poor and minority areas, it would appear she has gotten her wish.

Hitler only wanted Aryans to stay home and have babies, not Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, or Catholics. Would you support a candidate who said, “I want to kill the Jews,” and you didn’t support that position, but say, I like his other policies? I doubt it. Because to do so would be simply moronic.

The idea of eugenics is a bad idea, whether it comes from Hitler, Sanger, or you. Who makes the decisions? The elite. I have never known someone to support such things that did not see themselves as an elite.

I can defend or refute the ideas in question on any basis but ad hominem. And that, unfortunately is your problem. Why not allow me to decide who can have children, and who can’t? I feel qualified to make that decision as well as you.

True, many fertilised eggs fail to implant. That is natural miscarriage. Many people die. But it doesn’t justify our killing them as well.

Abortion is a hard thing, because women recognize the child inside them to be a human being. There is an excellent reason that groups like Planned Parenthood refuse to use sonograms–women wouldn’t be as likely to get an abortion. This is hardly pro-choice. It is the providing of less information so that women can’t make a choice.

It is a tough decision about handicapped because they are human beings with a right to live. Why not kill them during their out-of-womb life, if their life is so miserable. Or rather, why don’t we just let them live?

A blanket ban is not a knee-jerk. It is what the law in every state in the United States was until Doe v. Bolton 35 years ago.

Your hypothetical is not only a rare instance. I can’t think of it actually happening. Childbirth, as I have said before, is a natural process, not an illness. As happened this week, when a mother died from cancer, and for which an abortion would not help, they were able to keep the fetus alive inside the mother for days after her death.

You were a fetus. And I thank your mother for letting you reach adulthood.

Every society that goes through a population decline results in a lower standard of living for everyone.

Even if that is true (which I doubt, and what is your evidence? When did it happen and where?), it depends on how you define a lower standard of living. If it includes a few fewer possessions but more of other things (like elbow room or nature or personal freedom), then to me that isn’t a lower standard at all.

You could take the entire population of the world at the population consistency of Hong Kong and place them in Texas. Malthus was wrong, and so was Paul Erlich.

Possibly, but what kind of a hell hole would that be? Are you really holding up Hong Kong as a positive model for how the world could be? If so, again, that is an ugly vision of the future.

Declining birth rate is a bad thing. Particularly in the industrialized countries such as West Europe who are not even making population replacement. Soon there will be no one to care for their elders, and they will be unable to defend themselves.

So, we should create more babies so they can take care of more old folks, which will in 70 years create an even larger burden of elderly who can’t care for themselves? Again, that’s just stupid. There needs to be balance, not an upward spiral of population density.

I think every child should be wanted and cared for. But I cannot advocate killing them to solve this problem.

Neither do I. Fortunately, abortion isn’t killing babies, so that makes it an acceptable alternative.

I believe that the woman can best determine whether she can adequately raise the child. If she thinks not, it is her decision–to place the child up for adoption. No barriers should be in her way.

I said that a woman can best determine whether she can CARRY and raise a child. It is her choice; her right to decide whether to carry a child, and the government has no right to force her to do so against her will.

I think that parents should be financially responsible for their children, but I am uncertain who should make that decision for them. My children might be more comfortable living in a better house, but should the Government decide that for me?

No it shouldn’t, but neither should the government be providing people with financial incentives to produce more children.

It is not twisting to note that a misproportionate percentage of minorities receive abortions (why do the same people who espouse your position often have no problem in arguing our criminal justice system is wrong for the same reason), or that Planned Parenthood’s founded established the organization to promote eugenics, or that those are the very programs that Hitler supported.

Yes, it absolutely IS twisting, and don’t pretend it isn’t. Too bad if Margaret Sanger doesn’t pass your test of ideological purity, but that’s how it is – one person can espouse a variety of ideas, good and bad. The fact that she supported eugenics does NOT mean that we should dismiss the valuable work she did in promoting widely available birth control to improve women’s lives. Yes, Hitler supported eugenics, but he was also in favor of women staying at home and raising babies, so to extend your logic would be like saying that stay-at-home moms are evil for following Hitler’s ideal. Condemning an idea by whether Hitler did or did not support it is simply moronic – ideas should be judged on their own merits, not by who did or did not support them. Bringing up Hitler at all is sure sign that someone (you, in this case) can’t defend or refute the ideas in question on any basis but ad hominem.

Many fertilised eggs fail to implant. Of those that do implant a pretty large number fail to survive to a viable birth. Many naturally abort quite early. If you believe that each fertilised egg is a child what are you doing about this naturally occurring high mortality rate? In some parts of the world there is a high child mortality rate with many children not reaching 5 years of age – something much more serious!

Abortion is a hard thing. I’d consider it only for early stage which is the legal situation in the UK. The rape situations would be early stage. Late stage is a hard one. What of a child that will be so badly handicapped it’s life would be miserable? I don’t know the answer to these questions. A blanket ban is a big knee-jerk. There may be situations where it is needed. Ideally each situation would be examined. When does an embryo gain consciousness anyway?

Probably a rare situation – Would even the most conservative Christian refuse medical treatment that was needed to save the mother’s life if it meant that the embryo would not survive? If the mother dies before birth then neither will survive. Even if the child could be delivered but the mother dies shortly after? Not a situation I’d want to have to deal with. I think some have sacrificed themselves for their unborn babies.

I was an embryo once – admitted. Before that I was separate sperm and egg. So many of these die naturally. I was also the many interconnecting patterns of processes and actions in the world that have come to form my life – but that’s a different set of beliefs.

Eliza, happy to talk donut flavors when Krispy’s intentions are made clear.

hoverfrog, I respectfully disagree with your position. If abortion is wrong, then it should not be allowed in case of rape and incest. One might objectively choose to support a rape and incest exception only if it resulted in restrictions in other areas. However, it would still be wrong.

As to the age of modern contraception, I would agree. And no Christian church accepted contraception of any kind until the Lambeth Convention in the Episcopal Church in 1930. And in that case, it should be limited to husbands and wives who had serious health issues that warranted its use. Once the camel’s nose was under the tent, religious groups quickly changed their position–except the Catholic Church. They contended that forms of birth control have existed for literally thousands of years. They are inherently wrong.

As to the following their conscience issue, it requires a well formed conscience. Those who espouse this position do not have a well formed conscience. You attempt to use your position as a justification for anything. Is theft from someone acceptable if I decide I have a right to it and my conscience says its OK? How about murdering someone? It is easy to say that these examples are hyperbole. But there are people inclined to rape walking our streets every day, whose conscience says it is acceptable to rape and their right to do so. Their “conscience” does not make it right, or true.

The Augustine and Acquinas argument is false, and cherry picking. Nancy Pelosi used this argument on television, and was called to task by Bishops throughout the country for speaking out on an issue she knew nothing about. Augustine and Acquinas lived during a time in which how birth occurs physically was called into question. They followed the Arisotlian understanding of this, that it took some number of days until a quickening occured, where the soul of the person appeared in the physical body of the baby. But at no time in their writings did they claim that abortion was acceptable. To the contrary, they spoke out against the practices of abortion as evil. Your position about the Church is wrong.

“in the mean time the state places a limit on abortions that reflects the ability of a fetus to survive alone.” Where? Until the Partial Birth Abortion law, a fetus could be destoyed up until the child was removed by delivery, and this be perfectly legal. Currently, under the cloak of physician patient privilege, physicians will provide abortions up until the last moment. What happened to “First do no harm”?

“Is this killing or the removal of the means to sustain life? I’d say the latter.” This is truly a red herring. How many abortions involve this either or scenerio. None that I know of. Birth is a natural process, not an infection.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a pro-abortion research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood. That being said, many of their statistics are accurate.

I have no doubt about the statistic about Catholic women. This is not an issue of the righteousness of CINOs–Catholics in Name Only. The Church provides moral teaching intended for everyone, not just those who choose to identify themselves as Catholic. To argue that people do it, so it is OK promotes rape, incest, pediphilia, beastiality and murder.

Morality is not up for a vote. Raise your hands if you think murder is ok. If the majority think so (or a minority where the courts choose to “create” a right), does this make something right? No, it creates only moral relativism.

“How’s that for choice?” Pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood have done a wonderful job of using semantics to make their case. Pro-choice. For what? Choice to kill another? Choice to steal another’s car? Choice to assault another? Do what others think make an issue acceptable? No.

Gullwatcher–how stupid is it to suggest a population decline? Every society that goes through a population decline results in a lower standard of living for everyone.

I respectfully disagree. You could take the entire population of the world at the population consistency of Hong Kong and place them in Texas. Malthus was wrong, and so was Paul Erlich. Despite claims of a population bomb, just the opposite has occurred, and none of the dire consequences predicted in the 1960s and 70s came true.

Declining birth rate is a bad thing. Particularly in the industrialized countries such as West Europe who are not even making population replacement. Soon there will be no one to care for their elders, and they will be unable to defend themselves. The US has not faced this problem solely becuase we have a virtually open border that has allowed immigrants to keep our population on a mild upward slope.

And my position on Planned Parenthood is correct. They look to bringing in funds profitably. They hide behind their women’s health claim. And they receive close to $1 billion in US government financial support. What a bailout! But they are losing 25% of their staff due to their primary private investor being involved in the Madoff scandal.

I think every child should be wanted and cared for. But I cannot advocate killing them to solve this problem. I believe that the woman can best determine whether she can adequately raise the child. If she thinks not, it is her decision–to place the child up for adoption. No barriers should be in her way. I think that parents should be financially responsible for their children, but I am uncertain who should make that decision for them. My children might be more comfortable living in a better house, but should the Government decide that for me?

It is not twisting to note that a misproportionate percentage of minorities receive abortions (why do the same people who espouse your position often have no problem in arguing our criminal justice system is wrong for the same reason), or that Planned Parenthood’s founded established the organization to promote eugenics, or that those are the very programs that Hitler supported.