2007-03-26 02:08:53 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No.....
This isn't my permanent home anyway.....so who cares?
I've got a mansion waiting for me in heaven....
Praise God
2007-03-26 02:11:53 · answer #1 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I think intelligent reproduction is a time that has come. People should think before conceiving a child, there is no excuse for not using protection of some kind (or abstinence during reproduction cycles of the woman). I'm speaking of married people, btw.
It is my own opinion that we should use social stigma to influence people about reproduction and its consequences. If teenagers can see that someone who is 16 and pregnant with no "baby's daddy" around is someone who is seen as being a fool and ignorant, we would see an end to that particular problem within a few short years.
2007-03-26 09:22:56 · answer #2 · answered by arewethereyet 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course I believe that over-population is and should be the number one issue today. But no one has to die to lower the population. A simple math equation. Two people have one child. Two generations, the population is more then cut in half.
Quite simple really.
And we can do this now or we can wait until we have no choice, but it will happen.
2007-03-26 09:18:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I guess you have to look at each individual. If my mother is ailing, I would like for her to be treated and healed. Of course, if it's not possible, then I would accept death. But with the advancement of technology, more people are healed and their lives prolonged. Does that mean now that we should refuse treatment to the elderly so they will die and decrease the population? I don't think so. When it comes to the people we love, we want them cared for. Everyone has someone they love.
2007-03-26 09:17:07 · answer #4 · answered by VW 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I think the medical profession has in its hands amazing tools with which to improve the quality of our life, provide opportunity to the sick or injured young, with life still ahead of them, to those still raising families, etcetera
But I don't think their mandate is necessarily life extension for seniors, and as for cryogenics, give me a break.
2007-03-26 09:21:18 · answer #5 · answered by cmw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
um, no. I don't complain about overpopulation, plenty of space on this ball of earth. I do complain about unequal distribution and hoarding of resources.
2007-03-26 09:12:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Misery loves company.
2007-03-26 09:12:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Danielle, it's not about people dying, it's about controlling the population with limitations on the number of children people can have.
2007-03-26 09:25:22 · answer #8 · answered by Diet_smartie 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Steve. Barbaric measures are not needed to solve the problem (yes, it is a problem). The problem lies in the numbers of offspring people are having.
2007-03-26 09:23:05 · answer #9 · answered by human 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Could we start with controlling the population growth? One child per family.
2007-03-26 09:14:31 · answer #10 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I want everybody to die, but not until there are more people to die.
2007-03-26 09:15:06 · answer #11 · answered by manna eater 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋