From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:02:19 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov16.184439.19349@mercury.cair.du.edu> jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber) writes:
>In article <adams.721933831@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>There's too many people here already. (And how many of those actually CAN
>>>live? How many die of starvation each year? How many don't have homes?
>>>How many CHILDREN die each year because the people thought it was their
>>>most basic right to have kids and then couldn't FEED them!!)
>>
>>But that is NOT my situation.  And as for you not having any kids, fine.
>>Your choice.  Now please allow me mine.
>>
>What do you mean that not your situation?? Are you trying to imply
>that you don't live on the same planet as *I* do? Hardly.
>Your situation is the same as mine is the same as everyone elses.
>There's too many people and it's time to limit. Your view of the world
>is very narrow (i.e. focused on yourself). "*I* have my kids; *I*
>can afford them. So everything is fine". That still does not counter my
>argument that we have an overpopulation problem on Earth AS A WHOLE!
>
>You say limit people from having kinds through education, not by law.
>I wish it were that simple. How do you expect to teach people to have less kids,
>if you go ahead and have (say) 10 kids. You can afford them, so.. why not?
>This is a classical "Do as I say, not as I do" case. And that won't work.
>Educated people (like yourself and myself) have to set an example, or
>the 'teaching' part evaporates into a lot of hot air.

We don't have an overpopulation problem yet.  We could have one someday, in
fact we will if things don't get under control, but we're not at a crisis
point yet.  Just go out to Wyoming or Montana, and you'll see that there's
still plenty of room.  People are crowded together because they choose to
live in popular areas.  (Or perhaps are forced to live in those areas by
economic necessity, that is, the jobs are there.)  I acknowledge the need to
control population growth, but I will fiercely oppose population control by
force, until it becomes absolutely, absolutely necessary.  There is a
tremendous amount we can do through education first.  The biggest population
problems are in third world countries, where people generally aren't well
educated as to birth control, or don't have access to it.  The biggest
population growth in America is among the poor, where the education is lacking
as well.  The number of unintenional pregnancies among Afro-American teenagers
is a lot higher than among white teenagers.  I don't believe that young blacks
want to get pregnant, and I don't believe that they have poorer characters than
young whites - in fact, I know that's not the case.  What is the case is the
lack of good education in inner-city schools, and the resistance among certain
reactionary portions of society to sex education and access to contraceptives
in the schools.  This is the needed approach; even George Bush thought so,
before he sold out to get to the White House in '80.  (Amazing, isn't it?
Talk about waffling on the issues!)

Improve education, and for the most part, couples won't have ten children.
Those who can afford it, might, but not very many people can afford it, so it
won't be an important factor.  The important thing is that the _average_
number of children per couple be small enough so that population on the whole
doesn't grow exponentially.  This average will be greater than two, because
not all children go on to have children of their own.  I don't know what the
number should be; I have a feeling it's somewhere between two and three.
Some couples will one child, or no children - that means that others can have
more than two, if they want.  We don't have this situation now, but I think
it's premature to say that we can't have it without the use of force.  What a
loss of freedom that would be!  I don't think the pro-choice movement is
fighting to maintain the freedom to end a pregnancy in order to then lose the
right to continue one.  In communist China, there are forced abortions, and
they're not uncommon.  There are forced sterilizations, and they're even more
common.  Is that what you would want to see in this country?  I don't think
you do, but the approach you're suggesting leads in that direction.

    - Dave Borden
      borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.clinton:17282 alt.politics.democrats.d:585 alt.politics.elections:23955 ba.politics:7168 co.politics:2090 ne.politics:3008 nj.politics:740 or.politics:651 ny.politics:260 talk.politics.misc:60450