Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and Exponential growth

Burgy -- I don't see the protection of minor children from forced marriage
as a form of "population control." The purpose there isn't to limit
population growth, it's to protect children from rape. Apples and oranges.

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:38 AM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/24/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> " I'd suggest that the freedom to procreate within families is close
> enough to the core that it is close to the heart of what
> "civilization" itself means. And given that population control almost
> always includes forced abortions, which implicate the sanctity of
> life, I think governmental population control is itself very close to
> a collapse of civilization. In my mind, this is pretty close to a
> point where we draw a line in the sand and live or die fighting."
>
> Interesting added phrase in what you write -- "within families." The
> sect in Texas argues this also, of course.
>
> On a lifeboat with no immediate prospect of rescue, one might argue
> otherwise.
>
> As always -- the devil is in the details. How about a gov't polict
> that gives extra tax exemptions to large families? Or gives no tax
> exemptions at all after the first child. Whatever "government" chooses
> to do -- or not do -- is control of a sort.
>
> So while we probably agree on more than seems apparent, I guess I
> would see no "line in the sand" as you do.
>
> Burgy
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.