In nature (God) it is the survival of the fittest, the ones who survive to create offspring. No off spring and you are history.

Western Society is killing of their babies (off spring) and going gay. That bodes poorly for our future. Islamics have many children and sometimes many wives so history will judge them the fittest because they carried on where Western society didn't have time for future generations.


Nov. 10, 2004 -- Leora Dowling and her husband thought returning from deep in "red" America to her native New England would make them feel more comfortable, more like the people around them shared their values. Since the election, she's been contemplating another move. To Italy

"I do love my country and it hurts me very deeply to see what's happening here, to see us so far off course," she said. "But I've met a lot of evangelicals and they believe it deeply. They'd rather vote for fetuses and against gay people, rather than voting against war, with thousands dead, against guns, which we know kill people. When you're talking about deeply held religious beliefs, you're out of luck."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=235904&page=1

Relax Old Reb,

Between the breeding habbits of the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, there is no way the Muslims can take over the United States!

Can I say this, or is this a racial statement?

Hello Darth,

I'm relaxed. But to me the article shows that the liberals are more concerned about allowing gay marriages than about killing millions of American babies in abortiions every year.

I am not against gay marriages but that and abortions seems to be the main points that the liberals are fighting for, both things are destructive to the survival of a society over the centurys.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
I am not against gay marriages but that and abortions seems to be the main points that the liberals are fighting for, both things are destructive to the survival of a society over the centurys.
Do you have any evidence of this?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Do you have any evidence of this?

It is right here in the original article. Besides it is well know that liberals are for abortions and for gay rights. Hey, half the country is liberal, even my own wife.

old reb


The words of a liberal who is leaving the USA because Kerry lost.

"I do love my country and it hurts me very deeply to see what's happening here, to see us so far off course," she said. "But I've met a lot of evangelicals and they believe it deeply. They'd rather vote for fetuses and against gay people,

No, I meant evidence that abortions and gay marriages are destructive to society.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
No, I meant evidence that abortions and gay marriages are destructive to society.

Fertility rates across Europe are now so low that the continent's population is likely to drop markedly over the next 50 years. The UN, whose past population predictions have been fairly accurate, predicts that the world's population will increase from just over 6 billion in 2000 to 8.9 billion by 2050. During the same period, however, the population of the 27 countries that should be members of the EU by 2007 is predicted to fall by 6%, from 482m to 454m. For countries with particularly low fertility rates, the decline is dramatic. By 2050 the number of Italians may have fallen from 57.5m in 2000 to around 45m; Spain's population may droop from 40m to 37m. Germany, which currently has a population of around 80m, could find itself with just 25m inhabitants by the end of this century,




http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1923383

Originally posted by old-reb
Fertility rates across Europe are now so low that the continent's population is likely to drop markedly over the next 50 years. The UN, whose past population predictions have been fairly accurate, predicts that the world's population will increase from just over 6 billion in 2000 to 8.9 billion by 2050. During the same period, however, the population of the 27 countries that should be members of the EU by 2007 is predicted to fall by 6%, from 482m to 454m. For countries with particularly low fertility rates, the decline is dramatic. By 2050 the number of Italians may have fallen from 57.5m in 2000 to around 45m; Spain's population may droop from 40m to 37m. Germany, which currently has a population of around 80m, could find itself with just 25m inhabitants by the end of this century,




http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1923383
This is the Post Hoc fallacy. Just because gay marriage and abortions occured before Europe's fall in fertility does not mean that they caused it. In fact, that article did not mention gay marriage or abortions once. Now, would you be so kind as to post some evidence stating that gay marriage and abortions do, indeed, lead to a severely smaller fertility rate?

Unintended pregnancies result in 1.4 million abortions annually, as well as 1.1 million births that the women either did not want to have until later or did not want at all.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib22.html


That is a lot of babies thrown in the trash can. I know it is difficult and impractical for women to have babies but it is the only way to continue our society.

Have you ever seen two married men or two married women have off springs. That is why they are a minority; they don't reproduce.

Originally posted by old-reb
Unintended pregnancies result in 1.4 million abortions annually, as well as 1.1 million births that the women either did not want to have until later or did not want at all.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib22.html


That is a lot of babies thrown in the trash can. I know it is difficult and impractical for women to have babies but it is the only way to continue our society.
When was Roe v. Wade, the 70's? 60's? The U.S. has not fallen into shambles since then.
Have you ever seen two married men or two married women have off springs.
Yup. In vitro (lesbians), surrogate mothers (both), adoption (both), having a very close trusted male friend be the father (lesbians) are all out there among gay couples who want children. Besides which, letting them marry won't change the fact that 5% of the population is gay. Married or not, they're still gay.

1) There's no way in hell straight people are going to suddenly decide to go gay.
2) Gay marriage isn't going to increase or decrease the number of gay people.
3) If anything gay couples are going to want children of their own. Those children have to come from somewhere. It probably won't change the population, but if it did, it would be an increase.
4) China's aborting kids left and right and they still have population problems.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
1) There's no way in hell straight people are going to suddenly decide to go gay.
2) Gay marriage isn't going to increase or decrease the number of gay people.
3) If anything gay couples are going to want children of their own. Those children have to come from somewhere. It probably won't change the population, but if it did, it would be an increase.
4) China's aborting kids left and right and they still have population problems.

In addition to aborting their children, they are aborting themselves at the rate of 4 per minute; that is a lot of folks.

xxxxxx
capital Beijing are getting the busy tone, a newspaper said on Monday, adding that nationwide four people were killing themselves every minute.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=757&e=1&u=/nm/20041206/od_nm/odd_china_suicide_dc

Originally posted by old-reb
The UN, whose past population predictions have been fairly accurate, predicts that the world's population will increase from just over 6 billion in 2000 to 8.9 billion by 2050.]

This is bull The population jumped from 4+ billion in the 80's to 6+billion now. So how much will it really increase in 50 years. Over population is going to be a problem way before 50 years go by. I would say it will probably double closer to12 billion or more. I don't think you need to worry about how many babys are being made there seems to be and endless supply.

I also doubt any race is going to go all gay, but if they do, one thing is for sure they won't be around for long.

Originally posted by mad dog
This is bull The population jumped from 4+ billion in the 80's to 6+billion now. So how much will it really increase in 50 years. Over population is going to be a problem way before 50 years go by. I would say it will probably double closer to12 billion or more. I don't think you need to worry about how many babys are being made there seems to be and endless supply.

I also doubt any race is going to go all gay, but if they do, one thing is for sure they won't be around for long.


It is a tricky problem. Somebody needs to stop repoducing but which ever family, religion, ethnic group, country or person who stops reproducing will be overun by the fertile groups.
If every religion, race, country, etc cut down at the same time we could control the population. But, that would require a world government and then that would be open to corruption.
In the end the fertile groups will prevail over the infertile groups.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
It is a tricky problem. Somebody needs to stop reproducing but which ever family, religion, ethnic group, country or person who stops reproducing will be overun by the fertile groups.
If every religion, race, country, etc cut down at the same time we could control the population. But, that would require a world government and then that would be open to corruption.
In the end the fertile groups will prevail over the infertile groups.

old reb

REALITY CHECK: if everyone used birth control, the babies you are talking about being aborted wouldn't even be concieved in the first place. Which makes this entire discussion moot.

On another note...
I think you are not taking into effect the influence nature has on everything on this earth. Nature has a way of killing off people when they become over populated. Aids is a very good example. The number of humans who have died from this disease is overwhelming. Aides is not unique to first world countries.

Floods, famine, disease, natural disasters. Babies in many countries are born but die in the first year of life from malnutrician and disease. Trust me, the poor women in third world countries do not want these babies. They know they will die, they know they will have to watch them die, but they have no money, no birth control, no access to healthcare, no power. How terrible it must be to go through a pregnancy knowing that the child you will have will not have enough food or any clean water and has only about a 1% chance of survival. And if it does survive it will grow up in horrendous poverty.

If we want to lesson abortions, the best thing we can do is raise women out of poverty, make birth control free, give them the personal power to say "no", teach young men that impregnating a woman is not a sign of verility (hispanics and asian cultures see it this way) teach our children the truth about their bodies and sexual drives, teach them how to keep from getting pregnant and take the stigma away from having sex so that they will be more open to getting birth control before they need an abortion.

The dirtier one makes sex, the more inclined teens will be to not seek birth control untill it is too late and they need an abortion. We cannot stop teens from having sex. It is an instinctual drive that comes on them well before the age of reason. The best we can do for them is teach them how to manage this drive in a safe way. i.e. disease prevention and birth control.

Nobody likes abortion. Although I am pro choice, I would rather we got to a place where the only abortions taking place were to save the mother. A place where all people had access to free birth control and where no woman got pregnant unless she wanted to.

Having a good male birth contol method would help emensly also. For the most part, men hate condoms and the majority refuse to use them.

Echo, You liberals throw a forest at me. I can agree with the forest but not all the trees.

There are two wild cards in this fertility and that is the Muslims and the mormons. They know that having lots of babies means lots of Muslims and Mormons. They even use more than one wife to get more children. I read that Osama bin laden was about number 50 out of 70 children. Who could match that?

correction on bin laden:

Mohammed bin Laden took numerous wives and fathered about 50 children. Osama was the 17th son, the only born to a later wife. In a society where status within a family is highly important, bin Laden would therefore have been of relatively low rank.


http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
There are two wild cards in this fertility and that is the Muslims and the mormons. They know that having lots of babies means lots of Muslims and Mormons. They even use more than one wife to get more children. I read that Osama bin laden was about number 50 out of 70 children. Who could match that?

I think the Catholics are trying pretty hard. lol

I still stand on the fact that if reliable birth control were available to everyone that wanted it then we would not have abortions. And the children you are assuming are being killed would never have been concieved in the first place.

But back to the discussion. This isn't a baby race. Like the space race. It isn't who has the most people. It is who has the most educated and technologically advanced people. One bomb can wipe out a thousand men with riffles.

Originally posted by Echo2
I think the Catholics are trying pretty hard. lol

I still stand on the fact that if reliable birth control were available to everyone that wanted it then we would not have abortions. And the children you are assuming are being killed would never have been concieved in the first place.

But back to the discussion. This isn't a baby race. Like the space race. It isn't who has the most people. It is who has the most educated and technologically advanced people. One bomb can wipe out a thousand men with riffles.

Kosovo was a Christian country with superior technology to the Muslim immigrants. Within a century Kosovo has become totally Muslim with a small Christian population that only remains under the protection of UN troops.

old reb

Actually Echo, I think that a lot of women in third world countries have so many babies on purpose. They just "calculate"(not in the literal meaning but they think about it) that to get some children to adult life they should have X number and they do not use any anticonception method.
It happened in Europe before the XIX century, everybody was trying to have as many children as possible because in average only 2 or 3 children will grow older than 16. That was the misscalculation at the XIX and early XX century in Europe...due to the mass production and mechanization suddenly we had more food and a better health system...meanwhile there was a generation or two still having from 8 to 12 children per family, most of those survived....and then there was poverty and migration movements.

In the third world countries, they still expect than some children will die...but then if you improve their health/food system their population increases exponentially...what already happened in the 70s-80s in the areas where the food aid was distributed.

Originally posted by Echo2
REALITY CHECK: if everyone used birth control, the babies you are talking about being aborted wouldn't even be concieved in the first place. Which makes this entire discussion moot.

better yet learn not to have sex.

On another note...
I think you are not taking into effect the influence nature has on everything on this earth. Nature has a way of killing off people when they become over populated. Aids is a very good example. The number of humans who have died from this disease is overwhelming. Aides is not unique to first world countries.

well even with all the influences that you mention human population still seems to be climing.

Trust me, the poor women in third world countries do not want these babies.

maybe then they should close their legs, just a thought.

They know they will die, they know they will have to watch them die, but they have no money, no birth control, no access to healthcare, no power. How terrible it must be to go through a pregnancy knowing that the child you will have will not have enough food or any clean water and has only about a 1% chance of survival. And if it does survive it will grow up in horrendous poverty.

How STUPID one must be to even have the sex that would bring this situation to them.

If we want to lesson abortions, the best thing we can do is raise women out of poverty, make birth control free, give them the personal power to say "no", teach young men that impregnating a woman is not a sign of verility (hispanics and asian cultures see it this way) teach our children the truth about their bodies and sexual drives, teach them how to keep from getting pregnant and take the stigma away from having sex so that they will be more open to getting birth control before they need an abortion.

teaching{birthcontrol} is a good step but not having sex in the 1st place is the best.

The dirtier one makes sex, the more inclined teens will be to not seek birth control untill it is too late and they need an abortion. We cannot stop teens from having sex. It is an instinctual drive that comes on them well before the age of reason. The best we can do for them is teach them how to manage this drive in a safe way. i.e. disease prevention and birth control.

self control

Nobody likes abortion. Although I am pro choice, I would rather we got to a place where the only abortions taking place were to save the mother. A place where all people had access to free birth control and where no woman got pregnant unless she wanted to.

who is flipping the bill for this birth control we can't even take care of the sick or folks that really need help?

For the most part, men hate condoms and the majority refuse to use them.

I have to disagree .

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mad dog
better yet learn not to have sex.

well even with all the influences that you mention human population still seems to be climing.

Because people are still having four and five kids. Even here in the states where they should know better.

maybe then they should close their legs, just a thought.

How about just castrating all men, then young girls wouldn't have to worry about being preasured into having sex and women wouldn't have to worry about rape. (just kidding).

Women have few rights in third world countries. For the most part they do not have a choice of whether to have sex or not. If the husband demands it they must obey. It is not only cultural but religious. Many are taught that the woman must be subserviant to the man. Also, many third world countries do not procecute rape or they blame it on the victim. The numbers of rapes are much higher than in first world countries.

How STUPID one must be to even have the sex that would bring this situation to them.

See above.

teaching{birthcontrol} is a good step but not having sex in the 1st place is the best..........self control

You are under the mistaken impression that third world countries are over populated beacause of promiscuity. Most women in third world countries have no access to birth control. Most third world countries have harsh religious/cultural beliefs around women being subservient to men and men being verile if they procreate.

Think for a minute what it must be like to be a woman born into a culture where men have all the power, where men are seen as verile if they make lots of babies and where women are forced to marry in order to survive. You have no access to birth control and you get beaten if syou ay no to your husband. Your husband wants to play hide the sausage every night and you just have to put up with it and hope you don't get pregnant.

Unfortunately human problems can not be solved with sound bite answers.

The people that preach abstinance are not taking into consideration that sex is a drive. A very strong drive that unfortunately comes on long befor the age of reason. We cannot stop teens from having sex. It is irrational. Just as all the religion and moral and ethical teachings in the world will not stop adults from having sex. It doesn't work. It is an instinctual drive. Self control over instincts is not something that comes naturally. Even adults have problems with it. To expect a teenager to "just have self control" when they are discovering something wonderfull and exciting is asking a lot. Self control is learned - it doesn't come naturally. The best we can do for them is teach them how to manage this drive in a safe way. Tell them the truth about their bodies and how to protect themselves i.e. disease prevention and birth control. Add the moral, religious and ethical teachings that parents are supposed to give their children they will have the best preparation we can give them.

Reply to topic:

At any wildly imaginative rate of population decline you can come up with we will still most likely be dealing with a lot of other problems for centuries before we have to deal with this. In between that time anything can happen. Not only that, but by that time we are long gone. What's your point?

Even if you had argued against abortion and homosexuality from your moral value stand point it would have been stronger argument than this.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
Reply to topic:

At any wildly imaginative rate of population decline you can come up with we will still most likely be dealing with a lot of other problems for centuries before we have to deal with this. In between that time anything can happen. Not only that, but by that time we are long gone. What's your point?

Even if you had argued against abortion and homosexuality from your moral value stand point it would have been stronger argument than this.



The point is that a less fertile people will become extinct over the centurys while a more fertile people will dominate over time.

Western Europe population is declining while Muslim population is increasing. Homosexuality and abortions was mentioned as contributing to the problem.
I have been talking online with people from Kosovo and at the beginning of the 1900's it was a Christian country and they took in Albanian Muslims due to their poverty, over the years, from immigration and rapid population growth of Muslims there are few Christians left and they only exist in enclaves, protected by the UN. If they need to travel they are escorted by UN and then the Muslims often set bombs in the road to kill the christians.

At the beginning of the 21st century Europe is where Kosovo was at the beginning of the 20th century.



old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
The point is that a less fertile people will become extinct over the centurys while a more fertile people will dominate over time.

Western Europe population is declining while Muslim population is increasing.

But will that trend continue indefinitely? Not likely. I read a few days ago where the birth rate among Hispanics is dropping. Apparently they didn't read the stories a few years ago about them taking over the country.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
But will that trend continue indefinitely? Not likely. I read a few days ago where the birth rate among Hispanics is dropping. Apparently they didn't read the stories a few years ago about them taking over the country.

I have never met a Hispanic terrorist who wanted to destory America or our values. Much of the southwest was part of Mexico but we took over by immigration and population growth and also the Mexicans liked our government better than the tyrants of Mexico. Mexicans represent no threat but offer growth and they work for their money. However, I don't think we should take their language.

old reb

I still stand on the fact that if reliable birth control were available to everyone that wanted it then we would not have abortions.
Echo, are you telling me that all women who have had abortions are women who had no access to birth control? Please.

Originally posted by old-reb
I have never met a Hispanic terrorist who wanted to destory America or our values.

That's not my point. My point is that as these groups with higher birth rates get integrated into the mainstream of whatever country they adopt as their own their birthrates too usually drop and they don't take over the country.

Lionel,

You're right. The same fears were founded here in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when people from southern and eastern european nations started showing up on our shores.

There is also another source of hope. I will link to an article that states if you wish to know true Islam, you must come to the United States. Read (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/34732.htm) here. I wouldn't be the farm on it yet, but I think the United States can integrate Muslims here, along with all the others that have arrived before.

The problem with some European countries that have large Islamic populations is that they are NOT integrating very well, and it is causing problems.

Originally posted by Echo2
Because people are still having four and five kids. Even here in the states where they should know better.

this is sad especially when you look at all the children with no place to go. I think these fertility drugs are a bunch of bull.

How about just castrating all men, then young girls wouldn't have to worry about being preasured into having sex and women wouldn't have to worry about rape. (just kidding).

it's a start :D

Women have few rights in third world countries. For the most part they do not have a choice of whether to have sex or not. If the husband demands it they must obey. It is not only cultural but religious. Many are taught that the woman must be subserviant to the man. Also, many third world countries do not procecute rape or they blame it on the victim. The numbers of rapes are much higher than in first world countries.

I do agree and it is sad.

You are under the mistaken impression that third world countries are over populated beacause of promiscuity. Most women in third world countries have no access to birth control. Most third world countries have harsh religious/cultural beliefs around women being subservient to men and men being verile if they procreate.

that explains 3rd world countries what about the others. even you mention the U.S.

Think for a minute what it must be like to be a woman born into a culture where men have all the power, where men are seen as verile if they make lots of babies and where women are forced to marry in order to survive. You have no access to birth control and you get beaten if syou ay no to your husband. Your husband wants to play hide the sausage every night and you just have to put up with it and hope you don't get pregnant.

so why do we keep sending them money and help when all they do is keep on sinking further into a hole? Maybe if they had to fend for themselfs they would figure it out, either that or they would just run out of resources and die.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Echo, are you telling me that all women who have had abortions are women who had no access to birth control? Please.

I misspoke. I should have said that if reliable birth control were available for every woman that wanted it we would have a LOT LESS abortions. There will always be the dumb idiot factor. Unfortunately, do we reaslly want woman that stupid to be breeding our next generation?

And if a reliable birth control for men were available there would be even less abortions.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Lionel,

You're right. The same fears were founded here in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when people from southern and eastern european nations started showing up on our shores.

There is also another source of hope. I will link to an article that states if you wish to know true Islam, you must come to the United States. Read (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/34732.htm) here. I wouldn't be the farm on it yet, but I think the United States can integrate Muslims here, along with all the others that have arrived before.

The problem with some European countries that have large Islamic populations is that they are NOT integrating very well, and it is causing problems.

Hello Darth,

I read your article and it is what one American Muslim said but it gives the impression that it he represents all Mulsim

November 22, 2004 -- LAST week, I had an in spiring conversation with a Muslim-Ameri can. An immigrant from Pakistan, he hadn't yet been granted citizenship, but he had more faith in America than our native-born elite does.

Well, I met two Muslims and one said he would kill Salmon Rushdie on sight because of some order from Iran.

I recently met a second Muslim, a mechanic in the process of harrassing his Jewish coworker and I made a comment to defend the Jew. The Muslim picked up a wrench and got in my face to argue with me. His arguments were punny but his wrench was big; I would not speak anymore. Intimidation won the day for Islam.

old reb