Is freedom to choose destroying the earth?

Question

Today women have the right to choose whether they want children or not, whether they want to marry or not, if they want to have a higher education, if they want to be with men or women and if they want to abort or not. Is this "choice" destroying the world?

Answer 1

Are you saying **women** having the right to choose, is destroying the Earth?? Is your solution that women should NOT have the right to choose for themselves?!?  

Answer 2

Much better.

I'm actually slightly anti-sexual myself, so the more we split them apart, the better society becomes.

Answer 3

Dear, OVER POPULATION is destroying the earth. Women having the right to decide how many children they have is helping to SOLVE the problem.

You are a woman, or girl....are you saying that you don't want to be able to decide if you go to college, or decide how many children you want, or IF you want children, and you don't want the right to decide if you marry or not? So then WHO should decide those things for you? And what happens when whoever it is that does the deciding, decides something quite different from what you actually want? What if you want children, but your future husband doesn't. Should he be able to have you sterilized against your will?

Think before you throw your right to make your own choices away, or hand that right over to someone else. It could turn on you.

Answer 4

The planet is getting more and more overpopulated as it is.  It's for the better if people stop popping out so many kids.

Answer 5

Overpopulation is not really an issue, nor is declining birthrates

The only real issue with declining birthrates is where the money to support the elderly going to from. When you have one wroker supporting one elderly person, how can they do that and still support themselves.

Answer 6

Hi genius girl the world is on the way to a serious overpopulation problem so I'm gonna assume that most women are just trying to save the planet so that all the women who have decided to breed like rabbits will be able to continue doing so. Either way read this Wiki info especially the end. Here are some snippets for you.

Child poverty has been linked to people having children before they have the means to care for them.[20] More recently, some scholars have put forward the Doomsday argument applying Bayesian probability to world population to argue that the end of humanity will come sooner than we usually think.[21]

(approximately 850 million people suffering from chronic malnutrition in 2005).[36]

  

Answer 7

Molly..thank god your cute..your not the brightest bulb on the tree..the Earth is a planet..with out humans around it would survive just the same..silly girl..I get your point..

Answer 8

No, our own desire to use the others and our nature of complete reception is destroying the earth.  It is the root of all our suffering.  The manifestation of "world destruction" is just a symptom.

If we view all the rest of nature, we see that everything outside of humanity operates in harmony.  This is the case because it is operated under the law of complete bestowal or unconditional giving.  While we on the other hand act as individuals, and are only out to use the others for our own self-gratification.  Imagine if your heart decided that it no longer cared about the rest of the body and wanted to operate on its own, without care for your other organs.  You would probably die.

Women are simply acting in accordance with the general development of the ego.  Between their genes, the environment and the general growth of desire, there is no free choice.  

Women have a role to play in accordance with nature, and because of the growth of desires for money, power, knowledge etc... they leave that role... and are acting against nature.

Once woman and the rest of humanity decide they cannot stand their egos and want to unite with the quality of unconditional love, women, families and everyone will suffer.

If you are interested in learning more about the evolution of desires here is a short video clip by Kabbalist Rav Michael Laitman:

http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbalah...

Answer 9

No...fewer and fewer women are having children because it isn't financially possible. There are also fewer women at a birthing age who are fertile, fewer fertile men at the right age, there is lower sperm count world wide, improved social programs (So elders do not have to rely on their children to survive), and also because of education and advances in medicine. People who are educated wait until they are financially ready to have children. Improved medicine means increased child survival, which means less children.

Choice isn't destroying the world, sweety. We are simply changing it with literacy and education.

It's basic sociology.

Answer 10

Much better. OVERpopulation is the current problem. That means too *many* children, people are living longer, and there may not be enough resources, too much fossil fuel consumption, deforestation and erosion due to the overly-large population. So the lower the birth rate, the better, as long as it doesn't drop to 0 overall, which is unlikely (slippery slope logical fallacy. Trends like the dropping birth rate tend to level out, not keep going).

Answer 11

It's not going to happen. There is NO legitimate reason to deny the right to choose to anyone, unless they are a criminal. I'd rather be one of the guys who works outside the home with a degree, and if you think your opinion on the subject counts, you're insane.

Answer 12

The world will survive quite happily without people, if it comes to that ~ in fact, given how we pollute and destroy so much, the world might do better!

Humanity would also benefit from a lower reproduction rate.

At the moment, there are six billion people on the planet, and the number if growing daily.

Already we have regular famines with millions dying, as well as other natural disasters and man made conflicts which mean that millions of people live lives of marginal subsistence around the world.

A lower population would mean less strain on the resources of the planet and more capability to reinvest in the infrastruture of the world and its people.

Cheers :-)

Answer 13

Are you seriously suggesting that the policies of the U.S. on abortion has a chance of wiping out the human race?

Human population is growing exponentially.  Please, take a few college classes (or at least read up on the subject) before coming up with theories like this one.

Answer 14

1 my guess is that most of us come about not because of a choice to have kids, but some humping went down for the sake of humpnig.

2 While I am against abortion, I certainly wouldn't try to force people to get pregnant if they didn't want to. Can you say fascist?

3 Why worry so much? You will be long dead before we run out of people.

Answer 15

Women aren't not having kids just because a lot of them like to run their loud mouths about their right not to. And there are plenty of them having kids when they can't afford it. So for now, the future of the human race is not in jeopardy, at least not for lack of supply. And just like Jim Crow said, the world will still be around after we're gone, and probably a little better off.

Answer 16

I personally feel that this is a matter to be left to the gravid patient her physician and, in my humble opinion (which is irrelevant to secular law) to the wishes of the father with respect to his rights to the unborn.  But secular law supercedes my opinion.

I'm not sure that there's any data to remotely suggest that there's an imminent decline in births, and certainly with advancements in medicine, people are living longer, so I don't think the earth will be destroyed.

If women aren't given the option to have a proper TOP performed by a skilled professional, there will be untold numbers of deaths as a result of botched "Abortions" at the hands of highly unqualified people.  This won't solve anything at all.  There's no reason to fear that there will be any sort of decline in the birth:death ratio on a global level.