close
more_vert

shanshee_allures wrote:
I don't disagree with you there.
But my reason aren't just about protecting limited resources, it's also about limiting suffering.
That I believe is the reason some societies choose to pactice it.

shanshee_allures wrote:
We hate to face up to this in our own society, but so many children have crap chances in this life because they have parents who are *shitheads* basically.
Aye. Parents that are poorly educated, with bugger-all money, who were themselves brought up in poverty, and destined to produce children that they may do the same with their own offspring, knowing no better.

Quality of life is more important than quantity. You want a lesson in how to make the world a worse place, listen to the anti-abortionists, the anti-euthanasiaists, the anti-suicideists.

There are very strong links between poverty and the number of children. Yet the thinner the spread of resources, the more poverty...

The suffering of children (that I see here and speak of) isn't only about poverty and uneducated parents, shit-heads come from all walks of life, but that's another matter.

Contraception, abortion where needed, yes. Voluntary euthanasia if done with due care, yes also.

Thing is, if you think trimming back on some of the population for the sake of protecting resources is 'legitamite' and may become an inevitable necessity, then why shouldn't we start now?

We could even start with the least able members of society, and we all know where that would lead from.

Green activists rightly point out we do what we can now for the benfit of future generations, so shouldn't it follow we ought to have some sort
of 'trimming program' going on as we speak?

I'm not prepared to give up my life for the greater good in that respect (are you?), and I dread the sort of society that may just decide that didn't matter.

Perhaps we have to just all cak it with some of our own basic sense of empathy intact, coz without that, what's the blimmin point in living anyway?

x