Since I don't believe in government-sponsored population control -- but I believe in household decision on family or population control, it's their life -- I thought I should perk them up even a little. I posted my paper, Population Control 4: "Excess People" and Government (posted October 28, 2011) and waited if any of its nearly 3,000 members will react. Then I followed it up with this one below, the expected reactions indeed came.
I am posting this without the permission of the other protagonists, so I removed their photo and family name. I keep their messages, well not all, as some of their postings were really long.
This thread I expect, will continue for the next few days, so I will update this blog entry from time to time to post new exchanges. I'm happy so far that we all focused on the issue, no name-calling or ad hominem attacks despite clear differences of opinion on the subject.
I also expect that the Freethinkers guys will also post their own stories and their longer comments about their debate with me in their website. It should be perfectly ok, no problem with me. I only want more exchanges on the subject. Such debates also help me re-check my arguments and data if they remain valid or not.
Cheers.
- Nonoy Oplas No counter-arguments, hmmm. Here's a more recent paper arguing why the RH bill and population control is wrong policy, again, from a purely economic standpoint,http://funwithgovernment.b
logspot.com/2011/11/popula tion-control-5-sex-educati on-7.html. Government and Taxes: Population Control 5: Sex Education, 7 Billion People, and Congestion,funwithgovernment.blogspot.com
Jessica [Soon, students will be good in menstruation science but idiots in basic algebra and word problems.]
This doesn't follow. At all.
[. My beef is why use the govt and its coercive forces to implement such policy? I wrote in that blog article about 2x, Can't supporters of family planning spend their own resources to buy condoms, pills, etc and distribute these to the poor? ]
Uhm, yeeeaaah. This one is not even wrong. Technically, government money *is* a resource of private citizens, to be used for the public good. And a drastic reduction of unwanted(note: unwanted. Use of contraceptives=optional. Where's the coercion?) conception will lead to less abortion and less complications for women.
Apart from that, this is like arguing that we shouldn't spend government money on flood aid because not all of us live in low-lying areas. Right.
Michael I'm interested in hearing Mr. Nonoy's model for less government, as that seems to underpin his opposition to any RH legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong, please do. But I'm firmly of the opinion that RH covers an essential health measure that, thanks (!) to conservatism and Catholicism both, has long been neglected. I'd like to know what Nonoy thinks about government spending on public health in general, and how it affects his views on RH. Cheers.
