What do you think about birth control?

[IronBrig4]

This thread is about birth control. If you want to rant either way about abortion, there's a separate thread for that.

One of the signs of a failed state is a population in which more than 50% of the people are below the age of 15. This means that people have way too many kids. Look at India, Latin America, and the Middle East. It's normal for people to have 7 or 8 kids. About 60 years ago, only one or two of them would have survived past childhood, so the huge number of kids was a necessity. Nowadays, modern medicine has allowed all those kids to survive. People don't need so many kids anymore, but they keep having ridiculously large families.

Characteristics of all these overpopulated regions are excessive religiosity, lack of education, and refusal to practice birth control. Ireland, Poland, and other modernized Catholic nations don't have this problem because they have decent education systems and make birth control education and products available. Likewise, the United Arab Emirates is a modernized Islamic nation and doesn't have a huge overpopulation problem.

As late as the 1960's, there were some American states that banned the distribution of any birth control products (condoms, pills, the whole shebang), even to married couples. And of course, the Pope tells the teeming masses of Latin America that birth control is a sin.

Regardless of how educated people feel about abortion, they mostly agree that birth control should be available to everyone. I would especially like to see it made more available because if Mexican families stop breeding like rabbits, it means that they can actually support themselves and not have to cross over here to look for menial jobs.

I also have not heard a single intelligent argument against birth control. The only arguments against it seem to stem from religion.

[imb39]

This thread is about birth control. If you want to rant either way about abortion, there's a separate thread for that.

Can I also say that this abortion thread can be found here.

So no drifting into that please...

[King Henry V]

The reason why in there so many children in what you call "failed states" (which seems a bit extreme for a country like India), is poverty. Poor parents will often see their children as are ressource, since they don't need that much feeding, the children are all expected to work in some form or another, and all that money goes in the family pot. They therefore bring in more money than they cost (on the whole). Ireland, Poland and UAE are all relatively rich countries (1st to 2nd World), with limited poverty, thus parents do not feel the need to breed more children in order to gain just a little extra cash which can be so vital to families living abject poverty.

[Darth Wong]

I once saw a National Geographic article in which an African family had made the heartbreaking decision to stop feeding one of their children because they didn't have enough money to feed the whole family, and they had to let one die. The very idea is absolutely horrible, but as far as I can tell, they had no choice. The child weakened and slowly died before their eyes.

So yes, I say that birth-control would be of massive benefit to the world's most impoverished and overpopulated regions. A lot of these regions simply lack the economic and natural resources to support their present populations, and something has to be done.

[IronBrig4]

Okay, I'll agree that India isn't quite a failed state. It's still a basket case, though. Indian parents often have to resort to selling one of their kids to a beggar's union. As if that wasn't bad enough, the folks at beggar's unions often mutilate the kids to generate sympathy from passersby.

[Sheep]

I personally am very grateful for my access to birth control. Very very.

[SovietDoom]

Actually, I'd take another step and make manadator population control, to help the economy.

[Justinian]

There really is no logical argument against birth control, even a religious one (except for that one passage in the Bible about God killing someone who ejaculated someplace else, but no one listens to the OT anyway).

I am completely fine with it. I'm not fine with irresponsible behavior when birth control fails, since that's your own fault, but that's for the other thread.

Actually, I'd take another step and make manadator population control, to help the economy.

What kind of precedent does that set though? If the government can say who can have a child and how many children they can have, what next?

[SovietDoom]

What kind of precedent does that set though? If the government can say who can have a child and how many children they can have, what next?

I know. However, maybe they treat it as a national health issue? Pollution is now, so why can't excess population? There would have to be massive checks on it and everything, but I believe it would be a step in the rigt direction.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

There really is no logical argument against birth control, even a religious one (except for that one passage in the Bible about God killing someone who ejaculated someplace else, but no one listens to the OT anyway).

Well the Vatican says condoms spreads HIV and we should all stop using them.
Anyway I'm happy that our goverment allow free condoms for young people and these are high quality and expensive condoms too. I think the pill is free too.

[Lugdunum batavorum]

The vatican should be realistic and lift their ban on birth control. It could save lives, especially in africa. It's a shame that there are still alot of people around who would follow up anything the vatican dictates. I mean the former pope has done a lot to support liberation from communists and he tried to bring various religions together in dialogue and such but he and the entire vatican aren't always right. Not by a long shot.

[imb39]

It is all to do with demographics. Infant mortality rates are high in many parts of the world. It is important to have lots of children. This becomes culturally imperative too. As the mortality rate drops, the birth rate remains high. People take a long time to get used to low mortality rates. there is a population explosion. Eventually, when the culture is used to low infant mortality rates, the numbers of children born decreases. The balance is restored.

[Lee1026]

Not unless education takes place, and I failed to see that happen in Africa or Northern India.

[IronBrig4]

Then you have these people here in the US who have 14 or 15 kids, with no means to take care of them. Again, enormous families here tend to be too religious (mostly Catholic or Mormon), poorly educated, or just plain poor.

A few months ago, there was this judge in Florida who legally forbade a woman to have any more kids. She was on welfare, on drugs, and had 15 kids. Yes, the ban on reproduction was a violation of her privacy, and of some inherent freedoms granted under the Constitution.. but damn, she don't need no more kids.

[GeneralLee]

Being the good american Catholic I am (cough, cough). I beleive the solution to poverty is... Free condoms!

[IronBrig4]

Being the good american Catholic I am (cough, cough). I beleive the solution to poverty is... Free condoms!

I'm not saying that Catholicism is backward. But when combined with a lack of education and poverty, it leads to families that breed like freaking rabbits. Free condoms is a great idea, along with instruction manuals. Sex education is taught in public schools, which is a good start.

[Justinian]

The slippery slope is always a terrible arugment. For example: "If the government can legalize knives, what are next, nukes?"

I love it when someone takes a perfectly logical argument, makes a hugely exaggerated comparison, and then thinks it qualifies as a rebuttal.

Take, for instance, that liberals use the SAME slippery slope argument, but get all high and mighty when it is used in a perfectly feasible way. For example:

Liberal: "We can't legalise handguns. What's next, assault rifles? It leads to MURDER!!!!11"
Me: "If you allow the government to intrude on private life by setting limits on how many children you can have, you are allowing it the theoretical power - and giving it the excuse - to limit other areas of your life."
You: "OMG, if we legalise knives we're going to legalise nukes. This makes your argument stupid, somehow."

[Darth Wong]

I love it when someone takes a perfectly logical argument, makes a hugely exaggerated comparison, and then thinks it qualifies as a rebuttal.

The slippery slope is not a perfectly logical argument. It is in fact a textbook fallacy.

Take, for instance, that liberals use the SAME slippery slope argument, but get all high and mighty when it is used in a perfectly feasible way.

That's the "you do it too" argument, which is also a fallacy. Liberals who use the slippery slope are just as wrong as conservatives who use the slippery slope.

For example:

Liberal: "We can't legalise handguns. What's next, assault rifles? It leads to MURDER!!!!11"

Ironically enough, it is actually the NRA which most frequently uses slippery slope arguments, arguing that regulation of gun ownership would lead to dictatorship.

Me: "If you allow the government to intrude on private life by setting limits on how many children you can have, you are allowing it the theoretical power - and giving it the excuse - to limit other areas of your life."

And that is a slippery slope fallacy. How does one lead to the other, apart from you simply saying so? Some black/white fallacy between no intrusions at all into private life and unlimited intrusion into private life? We've already crossed the "no intrusions at all" bridge a long time ago, my friend. What you're arguing is that one particular intrusion gives the right to commit any and all other intrusions, which does not follow logically at all.

You: "OMG, if we legalise knives we're going to legalise nukes. This makes your argument stupid, somehow."

It's an analogy to your argument, showing that if a similar mentality was applied to weapons, it would produce an obviously absurd argument.

I oppose child limits, but not because of slippery slope fallacies. If something is objectionable, it should be objected to on its own merits, not based on some bogeyman about a slew of other worse problems to follow.

[Justinian]

You really like the word "fallacy".

You're a parent, right? Then can you not apply the "you give them an inch, they take a mile" idea to your life? Because I know when I am granted freedoms I push the limit of those freedoms wayyyyy beyond what is intended.

In many cases the slippery slope argument is BS, yes (not having handguns will not lead to a dictatorship... last I checked all the other democratic countries were still democratic), but when it comes to letting the government do what they please?

Take for instance a historical fact you can't say is "fallacy":

Julius Caesar. The more power he got, the more he used it. THAT is the essence of my argument, that the more power is given to the government, the more this power is exercised. Which is only logical.

Need more examples? Sulla, Octavian, Hitler. Once you give people a power, they don't want to let go of it and you are blind to give it to them and expect them not to capitalise on it.

It is circular. The more power you give to the government, the more power the government has, and the more power the government has, the more power you give to the government. Just like the more power you think the government has, the more power it does have.

That's the "you do it too" argument, which is also a fallacy.

Well, no, it's just proof of the hypocrisy of the left (and the right, of course, everyone has dirty hands). "The slippery slope argument is BS. By the way, <insert slippery slope argument>."

[Darth Wong]

You really like the word "fallacy".

Only when it is applicable.

You're a parent, right? Then can you not apply the "you give them an inch, they take a mile" idea to your life? Because I know when I am granted freedoms I push the limit of those freedoms wayyyyy beyond what is intended.

Sayings like that are usually untrue if you make the mistake of taking them too literally. The statement "if you give them an inch they will take a mile" only applies if you cannot enforce your edicts, in which case it's redundant because you can't keep them from taking the first inch anyway. Do you really think they would have no desire for greater freedoms if you don't grant the small ones?

In many cases the slippery slope argument is BS, yes (not having handguns will not lead to a dictatorship... last I checked all the other democratic countries were still democratic), but when it comes to letting the government do what they please?

Take for instance a historical fact you can't say is "fallacy":

Julius Caesar. The more power he got, the more he used it. THAT is the essence of my argument, that the more power is given to the government, the more this power is exercised. Which is only logical.

That is not your argument. You are saying that if you give one ability to the government, it will seize others. Saying that it will use the abilities it is given is a tautology.

Need more examples? Sulla, Octavian, Hitler. Once you give people a power, they don't want to let go of it and you are blind to give it to them and expect them not to capitalise on it.

So governments won't let go of the power to limit childbirth rates if you give it to them. So what? You still have to show that it is wrong to give the government the power to limit childbirth rates.

It is circular. The more power you give to the government, the more power the government has, and the more power the government has, the more power you give to the government. Just like the more power you think the government has, the more power it does have.

That does not follow at all. Giving the government a particular ability does not automatically grant it the power to take others, unless you can show a specific mechanism through which this will occur. Simply invoking slippery slopes doesn't cut it. You have to show how A will cause B rather than just assuming it will because it strikes you as an inevitable progression.

Well, no, it's just proof of the hypocrisy of the left (and the right, of course, everyone has dirty hands). "The slippery slope argument is BS. By the way, <insert slippery slope argument>."

Which is totally irrelevant when dealing with any particular individual and his arguments, unless you believe in dealing with people by categorizing them into "left" or "right" rather than addressing their individual arguments.