I see no backpedal. I still believe that having more kids than you can afford is not a right.
You forgot to quote my closing in the same post:
"I don't see polluting the planet with kids you cannot afford as "a fundamental human right". Sorry. "
My views have not changed.
Quote: I wholeheartedly agree withyour post. I hate the 'welfare state' that we have created as much as the next guy.
Pure lie. You are advocating a "welfare world". Or else you believe in controlling population. There is no middle. Either you are obligated to pay for the children others cannot afford or your not.
You're big on attacking my view but you "backpeddle" to adopt mine as you see fit without expressing any solutions.
Rather convenient, no?
Quote: But in the above statemant you say if you cant afford a kid you should choose not to have one, but earliet you said, an I quote "I dont think you have the RIGHT to have children if you cant afford them." Sounds like some major backpedaling to me. Or are you just 'clarifying your position.
As I've said. I don't think having children you cannot afford is a "fundamental human right". If you choose to have the kid, you've chosen a bad life for yourself and your child. I'm under no constitutional obligation to assist either of you. Especially if you and your children don't live under my constitution.
Quote: Simple question, what actions should these governments be allowed to take to control their populations as you say they should, and how does that reconcile with your...."leave me alone in my bedroom" philosophy.
I would attempt to build upon the foundation began in Kissinger's "National Security Study Memorandum 200" which the Catholic Church helped to scuttle.
I would require countries we aid to improve their "Index of Economic Freedoms" since it is clear to me that economic and property rights has an eventual impact on population since once people are established in such a system, like our urban middle class, too many children are a liability they choose against.
Previous Topic
Index
