posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:45 PM
Originally posted by tallcool1
How about we sterilise the selfish, gluttonous masses instead and then give the excess food that Dreine was referring to to those who truly need it.
That wouldn't work. Why? Because the "gluttonous masses" as you call them are the ones that PRODUCE all that food. "gluttonous masses" go away,
so does all your food, services, goods, pretty much everything. gluttonous masses make this world go round, without them it all falls apart.
I'll never understand the mentality to not only reproduce, but reproduce at such an extreme level when you cannot even take care of yourself. "I
cannot feed, clothe, or shelter myself, so might as well bring a bunch more people into this world who will lead a life of misery and hunger"
Who does that? Why would you reproduce unless you have a stable environment in which to raise your children? Why reproduce unless you are pretty
certain you will be able to provide for your children? It's just wrong, and it's making problems worse. When you have limited resources the answer
is NOT to create a LARGER demand on those resources, is it?
There are plenty of ways for people to be intimate and still greatly reduce the chance of having children. So there is no excuse. Why is it our
responsibility to feed these people? Isn't it their parents responsibility to NOT have children if they can't support them?
Anyone care to explain how having children when you know you won't be able to provide for them is in any way moral, right, compassionate, or good in
ANY way? It's a terrible thing to do. The blame rests on the people reproducing. Stop having kids if you can't care for them.
That goes for people in the US as well as people in Africa. I don't care where you live, if you can't support a child, DON'T have one!