• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US fertility rate falls to 'all-time low,' CDC says

Napoleon said:
The biological role of women in the perpetuation of the species was dictated by evolution. Denial of that basic fact is hubris. No woman has a right to pose an existential threat to society or the species. So if there comes a day when fertility and depopulation become very real problems then that hubris will go the way of the dodo. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Click to expand...

So then you believe there is an ultimate right of men/humans to force women to continue the human race?

Wow. I see no such right of anyone. Who says the continuation of the human race is paramount? IMO that's just a belief in and of itself. We are just other animals. As you wrote, rights are a social, man-made construct, not something conferred from a higher authority.

OTOH, the biological imperative is strong enough to keep us going anyway. So with that in mind, use of force/law would truly be an atrocity to humanity...the opposite of 'human/humane.' Merely an excuse for control, power, global influence, etc.
 
Napoleon said:
Those things will only go so far depending on the severity of the bottleneck. What is likely to happen is that the Supreme Court would view prevention of societal extinction as a compelling State interest to restrict or eliminate abortion as a legal right. And it would be right to do so.
Click to expand...

Why does it need to mean using force against American women when it can be easily solved by importing people from other countries? Why would the violation of nearly all women's rights be the 'go-to' legal solution there? America would end up with a Constitution that applied to men only. :roll: Not only would there be fewer babies born to American women, American women (and men) would be leaving on their own.

Or...would the govt create new laws preventing emigration as well? (Better check with Russia and China).
 
Napoleon said:
Depopulation is the outcome of a decline in fertility which is affecting nearly half of the world’s nations. It means that people have stopped producing enough offspring to maintain current population levels. There is a such a thing as minimum viable population.
Click to expand...

I see no negatives in your response. Why are current population levels 'necessary?' And what is the minimum viable global population?
 
Napoleon said:
I think, based on the current state of medical technology, the right to choose would shift from whether or not you can arbitrarily kill your offspring to how you become pregnant. There would certainly be compulsory egg and sperm donation. In terms of this stretching the limits of reality...perhaps not. There is some evidence to suggest that such population bottlenecks have happened before in the course of human history.
Click to expand...

Well, I dont see any lack of humans today.

There are outside forces that could end humanity, but voluntary reproduction isnt one of them. The top 2 are disease (one of your examples from previous history would be the Black (Bubonic) plague) but even there, humanity was not in danger. Many positive social developments and tecnhologies came out of it. And the other would be nuclear destruction.

As for the artificial stuff, in order to collect any eggs or sperm, the govt would need consent. Or end up violating more Constitutional rights. And then it would need entire new societal structures to force people to raise kids that they didnt want...or they would have had them to begin with. Kind of a nationwide, forced foster system. Sounds expensive and counter-productive.

The artificial aspects are great for hopefully overcoming biological/medical issues...but not legal ones IMO.
 
Lursa said:
Why does it need to mean using force against American women when it can be easily solved by importing people from other countries? Why would the violation of nearly all women's rights be the 'go-to' legal solution there? America would end up with a Constitution that applied to men only. :roll: Not only would there be fewer babies born to American women, American women (and men) would be leaving on their own.

Or...would the govt create new laws preventing emigration as well? (Better check with Russia and China).
Click to expand...

I want to refer back to something you said in your last post. Humans are indeed just animals. What sense does it make for any species to imperil it’s own survival by adopting a philosophy that runs completely contrary to the natural order? We’d be the first species in the history of life to deny the fundamental instinct of survival and intentionally drive ourselves to extinction. For what? There will be no one left to extol the virtues of a piece of paper that rots in its case.

I would expect that emigration of fertile people would be limited.
 
Napoleon said:
I want to refer back to something you said in your last post. Humans are indeed just animals. What sense does it make for any species to imperil it’s own survival by adopting a philosophy that runs completely contrary to the natural order? We’d be the first species in the history of life to deny the fundamental instinct of survival and intentionally drive ourselves to extinction. For what? There will be no one left to extol the virtues of a piece of paper that rots in its case.

I would expect that emigration of fertile people would be limited.
Click to expand...

Well we are the only animals that could adopt a philosophy of non-reproduction (or any philosophy)...but just because some people choose not to have kids doesnt indicate a societal philosophy to stop reproducing. When it comes to abortion specifically, more women choose to have their babies than to abort.

So the idea would have to exist outside of abortion to even have any realistic affect on population numbers.

Re: the natural order. Obviously, some individuals choose NOT to follow that order. It's something few, if any other animals do. So it's not forced on people biologically, but the instinct is and most people choose to follow that...certainly there's no denying that whatever the obstacles, all thru history people have chosen to have sex.

The concerns re: depopulation are not remotely regarding the loss of the human race..it would never happen, they are all concerning financial/economic control and global influence.


Also, IMO, fertile people still have standards of decency and expectations of personal liberty and would want those for their kids, so...I'd say they would be as willing to move elsewhere as those choosing not to reproduce. Who wants their kids born into reproductdive slavery? If we completely trash our Constitution, there's not much reason to remain in the US, is there?
 
Lursa said:
I see no negatives in your response. Why are current population levels 'necessary?' And what is the minimum viable global population?
Click to expand...

Current population levels are not necessary, but decline in fertility is a trend that should be closely monitored. In terms of the minimum viable global population - that requires two things. The first is having a large enough population to perpetuate the species and the second is genetic diversity within that population so that homogeneity doesn’t pose a long term risk to the species. No one really knows what that looks like on a global scale and I’m not sure that we ever will. Any reaction to depopulation would be reactive as the impacts are felt and a nation or civilization gradually becomes unsustainable.
 
Lursa said:
Well we are the only animals that could adopt a philosophy of non-reproduction (or any philosophy)...but just because some people choose not to have kids doesnt indicate a societal philosophy to stop reproducing. When it comes to abortion specifically, more women choose to have their babies than to abort.
Click to expand...

I’m not indicating that people spontaneously decide not to have sex. The issue, as it exists now, is whether or not those reproductive acts result in enough viable offspring to sustain the population.
 
Napoleon said:
I’m not indicating that people spontaneously decide not to have sex. The issue, as it exists now, is whether or not those reproductive acts result in enough viable offspring to sustain the population.
Click to expand...

Damn....am I going to need a Handmaid outfit?
 
Lursa said:
Actually I have to agree with him on that, except that it applies to men's rights too.
Click to expand...

I think you come from a much more reasonable position than he did. Assuming that, though rights may be a social construct, that is no excuse to deny them to those who deserve them.
 
Napoleon said:
Current population levels are not necessary, but decline in fertility is a trend that should be closely monitored. In terms of the minimum viable global population - that requires two things. The first is having a large enough population to perpetuate the species and the second is genetic diversity within that population so that homogeneity doesn’t pose a long term risk to the species. No one really knows what that looks like on a global scale and I’m not sure that we ever will. Any reaction to depopulation would be reactive as the impacts are felt and a nation or civilization gradually becomes unsustainable.
Click to expand...

To perpetuate the human species? Hardly any:
92

How many humans would it take to keep our species alive? One scientist'''s surprising answer

160

"Magic number" for space pioneers calculated | New Scientist

Various, 70

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

To preserve societies, still only in the thousands and depends on the environment and resources available and knowledge of the surviving individuals.

There are 7.5 billion people on the planet. Most of the adults on the planet are interested in reproducing in the time and under the circumstances of their choosing.
 
Napoleon said:
I’m not indicating that people spontaneously decide not to have sex. The issue, as it exists now, is whether or not those reproductive acts result in enough viable offspring to sustain the population.
Click to expand...

No, you might support legalized forced sex.
 
Napoleon said:
I’m not indicating that people spontaneously decide not to have sex. The issue, as it exists now, is whether or not those reproductive acts result in enough viable offspring to sustain the population.
Click to expand...

See my other posts. It doesnt take many and the instinct AND desire is still stronger to reproduce.

The thing that MOST influences *desire* to reproduce is secure socio-economic conditions. All of which should/could be improved for ALL Americans without violating people's Constitutional rights.
 
Phys251 said:
I want everyone who's made it through Napoleon's anti-choice filth so far to see what he's trying to do. Watch his process:

1. He invents a situation where the human population would be very low.
2. He assumes that this will be a bad thing and not just evolution moving onto the next dominant species.
3. Critically to the abortion struggle, he assumes that in this world, women would lack the judgment required to make good decisions on how many babies to have.
4. He believes that the government knows better about this.
5. Therefore, he believes that the government should tell a woman what to do with her genitalia.

The only thing missing from Napoleon's argument is what happens if women in this hypothetical apocalypse figure it out and take steps to avoid getting pregnant. It is not a stretch to assume that in this scenario, Napoleon would favor the legalization of rape. It'd be the next logical move for him. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think the next move would likely be forced marriages for women in their child bearing years, and requiring women to allow sexual intercourse with their husbands. Same sex marriages would also be eliminated. This is not a society I would like to live in.
 
Napoleon said:
Current population levels are not necessary, but decline in fertility is a trend that should be closely monitored. In terms of the minimum viable global population - that requires two things. The first is having a large enough population to perpetuate the species and the second is genetic diversity within that population so that homogeneity doesn’t pose a long term risk to the species. No one really knows what that looks like on a global scale and I’m not sure that we ever will. Any reaction to depopulation would be reactive as the impacts are felt and a nation or civilization gradually becomes unsustainable.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we'd do just fine with a few billion fewer people in the world than we have at present, so your minimal population for maintaining the species is very far in the future and not likely even then.
 
Napoleon said:
The hilarity here is that you believe in imaginary rights to the point of societal and human extinction. What a woman does with her reproductive system is everyone’s business when either or both are at stake.
Click to expand...
So then by this logic, society has a right to force a woman to get pregnant, AND also has a right to force a man to impregnate her, even if she doesn't want to be pregnant and he doesn't want to impregnate that woman?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
See my other posts. It doesnt take many and the instinct AND desire is still stronger to reproduce.

The thing that MOST influences *desire* to reproduce is secure socio-economic conditions. All of which should/could be improved for ALL Americans without violating people's Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

I think you’re confusing a desire to reproduce with a capability to produce offspring, i.e. fertility. So I’ll illustrate to make this more real for you. 12% of women aged 15-44 in the US are either entirely infertile or have impaired fecundity. Being horny doesn’t mean anything if you’re incapable of becoming or staying pregnant.
 
maquiscat said:
So then by this logic, society has a right to force a woman to get pregnant, AND also has a right to force a man to impregnate her, even if she doesn't want to be pregnant and he doesn't want to impregnate that woman?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Under certain conditions, yes. Though I think medical technology negates the need for intercourse.
 
Napoleon said:
I think you’re confusing a desire to reproduce with a capability to produce offspring, i.e. fertility. So I’ll illustrate to make this more real for you. 12% of women aged 15-44 in the US are either entirely infertile or have impaired fecundity. Being horny doesn’t mean anything if you’re incapable of becoming or staying pregnant.
Click to expand...

This is not, nor has been, a 'medical' issue, which is what fertility/infertility is. And so none of my posts have addressed that at all.

The OP is not remotely about fertility.
 
Lursa said:
This is not, nor has been, a 'medical' issue, which is what fertility/infertility is. And so none of my posts have addressed that at all.

The OP is not remotely about fertility.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. The OP is an article about the decline in fertility rates. Depopulation is the consequence of infertility. Do you think I’ve been talking about this in a vacuum?
 
Napoleon said:
Under certain conditions, yes. Though I think medical technology negates the need for intercourse.
Click to expand...

What about consent? Eggs and sperm cannot be accessed without it...at least not Constitutionally.



As for the artificial stuff, in order to collect any eggs or sperm, the govt would need consent. Or end up violating more Constitutional rights. And then it would need entire new societal structures to force people to raise kids that they didnt want...or they would have had them to begin with. Kind of a nationwide, forced foster system. Sounds expensive and counter-productive.

The artificial aspects are great for hopefully overcoming biological/medical issues...but not legal ones IMO.​

It brings us back to throwing out the Constitution and people not caring to live here then anyway.
 
Lursa said:
What about consent? Eggs and sperm cannot be accessed without it...at least not Constitutionally.

It brings us back to throwing out the Constitution and people not caring to live here then anyway.
Click to expand...

They wouldn’t have that option.
 
Napoleon said:
Sure it is. The OP is an article about the decline in fertility rates. Depopulation is the consequence of infertility. Do you think I’ve been talking about this in a vacuum?
Click to expand...

No, that is not true. And also note where the OP is posted and the OP's comments.

Also, the article did not acknowledge any issues with medical infertility (unless nested in a larger list). The article discusses reproductive decisions/choices.
 
Napoleon said:
They wouldn’t have that option.
Click to expand...

And then it would not be an "America" that people that supported the Constitution would want to live under and many would leave...completely counter-productive to 'increasing' the birth rate.

Unless, as I asked previously, the govt would then also start creating laws that prevented emigration, i.e., Russia & China?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom