It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"Population Control": War or Abortion?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:48 AM
Let's be candid and call things what they are. "Population Control" means killing people. The difference between "population control" and homicide is one is considered sanctioned by the government while the other is not. In both war and abortion somebody dies (as biochemist and am already familiar with the 5th grade science of knowing what is and is not alive). Let's move on to our two choices at the polls:

War: The Republican Solution - The way the war machine works as this. People voluntarily join the military to fight all enemies (as determined by the federal government) foreign and domestic. I don't know many who join the military hoping to die though they are aware it's a very real possibility. The trade of is a job and funding for education later on. In this way it seems to be a trade. Both soldiers and declared enemies (with civilians as collateral damage) suffer casualties. Populations are reduced both foreign and domestic.

Abortion: The Democrat Solution - This preemptive strike on life seems based on "the baby won't know what its missing" principle as well as the justification of "it would probably have a screwed up life anyway" line of thinking. Population is reduced domestically and indiscriminately.

Personally, I don't like either. I am pro-life, which means pleading for others to put down the guns and scapels of death...though my unpopular voice is grossly overwhelmed but the duelling choruses of war and abortion. Sure, I could write a name into the ballot box that also represents this pro-life position, but apparently someone put a trash bin right under the 'write in' slot. Which version of killing do you choose? War? Or Abortion? Any actually useful tips for those who want neither?

[edit on 6-2-2009 by saint4God]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:06 AM
War and abortion .... but I think you might have to add euthanasia to your population control question. It's going to be very popular in secular humanist circles when the baby boomers reach their 70s - IMHO

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:11 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
War and abortion .... but I think you might have to add euthanasia to your population control question. It's going to be very popular in secular humanist circles when the baby boomers reach their 70s - IMHO

Fair enough, add that to the list. It seems more Democrat policy than Republican but may bridge both. The Death Penalty seems to be the counterposition by Republicans.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:18 AM
Death is what gives life meaning.

I am personally for population control. When people have an irresponsible number of children, they stress not only society but also nature. We live in a socialized society. I hate that fact, but its undeniable. Nobody in today's world is truly independent and self-responsible.

Thus in today's society, if a woman has too many children she either recieves handouts in the form of child benefit/ vouchers etc. Or she puts the child up for adoption and the foster costs must be borne by someone else/ the state.

This is unacceptable in my opinion. If people want to avail of the social "safety net", then they cannot be indiscriminate and inconsiderate about their procreation. They cannot spew out baby after baby when they have no means to look after it. The world cannot cope with an ever increasing population, and neither can the intricate society that we have crafted on the premise of "fairness" "compassion" and other liberal favourites.

For me its as simple as a choice:

a. Cease welfare totally. If people cannot afford a huge family they either don't have one, or they all go hungry and probably inevitably die.

b. Limit people to 2 children and have a social welfare system.

That is the reason why I am pro-population control- since of course welfare will never be ceased.

Procreation is not a right, it is a responsibility.Remember how the pre-baby boomer generation dealt with it? They had their own form of population control... they didn't have kids in wartime, and instead waited till the end of WW2. They were responsible for themselves, they were mature and they were considerate.

Until people learn to once again take up the responsbility along with the right, I will be forced to agree to admittedly draconian and fascist measures such as population control.

Edit to say : Also, I think its slightly misleading to add the Republican positions to that list as population control. The Republican argument for population control would be to reduce the level of state welfare support, to encourage people only to procreate within their means. War and the death penalty are not forms of population control in my opinion. Abortion and contraception are.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by 44soulslayer]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:20 AM
Neither, spread the gay disease so that people have sex with others of the same sex.

No war no birth control, just a big gay orgy!

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by saint4God

How about the dissolution of the Welfare State?. The way things are panning out it seems inevitable. The anti-terror laws are nicely in place to mop up the ensuing chaos.
Just a thought.

[edit on 6/2/09 by Sonmi451]
Seems I was pre-empted!

[edit on 6/2/09 by Sonmi451]

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by saint4God
War: The Republican Solution -

Population Control is not generally the purpose of war. It is an unintended consequence of war. Throughout history, wars have been fought for various reasons. But rarely is population control one of them. Usually it's protection of a people or property or a difference of religious views.

Abortion: The Democrat Solution -

Again, population control isn't generally the purpose of abortion. It's (usually) an unintended consequence of abortion. A woman doesn't decide to have an abortion to control the population. Her reasons are much more personal. China's One-child Policy is an example of abortion used as population control. But there are many reasons to have an abortion. Usually it's simply to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Not to control the population.

Personally, I don't like either.

I don't either. I don't know anyone who would say that they "like" war or abortion. And I believe that sometimes both are necessary.

Any actually useful tips for those who want neither?

Don't join the military and don't have an abortion.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by saint4God
Any actually useful tips for those who want neither?

Make the technology to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place cheap and widely available, along with the education to use it.

Cheap contraception plus education will be WAAAY less expensive than either war or the cultural cost of unwanted children.

The best way to practice population control is to avoid pregnancy period. Then the abortion issue is a non-issue, and the wars caused by overpopulation pressures are also less likely.

Part of this is a cultural shift away from the position that having kids is always considered a good thing, or a benefit to society. With demonstrably far too many humans on this rock now, it is clear that we do not need more children.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 09:05 AM
Saint4God ... perhaps abortion and war 'population controls' are really wars against humanity from another source. Thought you might appreciate this article

An exorcist authorized to perform exorcisms in several dioceses spoke at a religious ministry luncheon on Sunday, explaining the basics of exorcism and its connection with abortion.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by FlyersFan]

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:10 AM
Hmm, population control...

The World Health Organisation (WHO) says every year 1.2 million people die in road accidents - making it, according to WHO's 2002 calculations, the seventh biggest killer in the world, ahead of diabetes and malaria. The WHO predicted that by 2020 road deaths would become the number three killer, behind heart disease and suicide, although Aids is now a much bigger threat than when that forecast was made.

Now surely, if the 'powers that be' seriously were seriously considering population control, they'd invent a deadly virus, or perhaps something even more imaginative. Abortion and war are both moral and personal issues, as the time stands. You CHOOSE to have an abortion. You CHOOSE to become a soldier and go to war.

Now, more realistically, a limit on amount of children, such as China's 1 child policy, would be put in place to implement a population control scheme.

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:41 PM
War and abortion are more palatable to the general populace. Not only can you "sell" the idea of war and abortion but you can control either or both on a federal level. An 'invented deadly virus' is much more difficult to contain, is regionalized and would have to secure vaccines for the people you want to survive (these are only a few problems). Not impossible but very difficult in comparison.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by saint4God]

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:28 PM
Looks like this president is saying, "why not have both?"

There was sweeping 'change' in the direction of pro-abortion within Mr. Obama's first one hundred days, he wasted no time helping hold the child-ender's knife.

Then, there seem to be 'no change' to the policy of reducing overseas fighting. We've lost 111 people a day in Iraq so far this year ( ). I guess the change is we're on track for a record number of casualties in Afghanistan, which is currently at 260 ( )

Population control at age > 1 as well as 18-40. Didn't see that coming. To the previous poster, the baby does not 'choose' to have an abortion, his/her parent does. I don't think if you interview soldiers they'd choose dying over successfully achieving living in peace and freedom.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by saint4God]

new topics

top topics


log in