Abortion

billvon said:
Yes. It is a deplorable thing to say. And that has nothing to do with equating rape to abortion.

Again, yes. "Going into the weeds" means straying farther and farther from your claim and getting on shakier and shakier ground. It would be like me bringing up pro-abortion activist Eileen Janezic to prove that people who are pro-abortion are murderers, and that therefore they are worse than rapists.

That would be pretty silly, eh?
Click to expand...
What I consider silly is our total ignorance of the "exponential function".

People who talk about world population will stabilize at 10 billion yet encourage an increase in population growth, have no clue what awaits in just a few more decades.

If a woman wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy leave her alone and let the doctor guide her decision making. SCOTUS (Roe v Wade) has set a reasonable limit on "viability", of the fetus.

Subjective emotions are not going to make objective natural laws disappear.

In fact Bartlett acknowledges that population control will pose the greatest dilemma mankind will ever face. This will take extremely hard decisions, none of them pleasant.
 
Last edited:
I used to suggest to my sons that they call their mother on their birthdays and thank her for not having the abortion.
 
Write4U said:
If a woman does not have a right to abort an unwanted child, she should have the right to sue her husband for assault when he forces her to have sex with him on the premise he has a right as her husband.

The courts will be overloaded with lawsuits and that will end the abortion enforcement in a hurry.
Click to expand...
Unless it's not about women's rights at all, but about getting sex under religious (patriarchal) control.
 
spidergoat said:
Unless it's not about women's rights at all, but about getting sex under religious (patriarchal) control.
Click to expand...
That's probably big part of the motivation but, under control?

Ain't gonna happen

Not while kids have raging hormones in their bodies

:)
 
spidergoat said:
Unless it's not about women's rights at all, but about getting sex under religious (patriarchal) control.
Click to expand...

thats exactly what it is
trying to stick their dirty filthy blood cult noses into private bedrooms

they wish to own sex and own women
it is a process of slavery of others.
 
Write4U said:
What I consider silly is our total ignorance of the "exponential function".
Click to expand...
Uh - just because you know people who are a tad confused on the subject doesn't mean everyone is in total ignorance of math.
People who talk about world population will stabilize at 10 billion yet encourage an increase in population growth, have no clue what awaits in just a few more decades.
Click to expand...
I don't know anyone who says that. Do you?
If a woman wants to abort an unwanted pregnancy leave her alone and let the doctor guide her decision making. SCOTUS (Roe v Wade) has set a reasonable limit on "viability", of the fetus.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Not sure I agree there. So if you are saying that a woman wants an abortion, and her doctor says "I don't think that's a good idea" - she should be prohibited from getting one? Personally I think it should be up to her, even if that means changing doctors.
Subjective emotions are not going to make objective natural laws disappear.
Click to expand...
Well, except they do. We really do have conflicting (and quite subjective) emotions, and we often use these to override natural laws.
 
billvon said:
Well, except they do. We really do have conflicting (and quite subjective) emotions, and we often use these to override natural laws.
Click to expand...
No such animal as natural laws

I am sure you do not mean physics as they cannot be overridden

:)
 
billvon said:
I don't know anyone who says that. Do you?
Click to expand...
Oops, I was off by 1 billion. Make that 11 billion.
The UN;
WORLD POPULATION WOULD STABILIZE AT NEARLY 11 BILLION BY YEAR 2200
-- According to the medium-fertility scenario, which assumes fertility will stabilize at replacement levels of slightly above two children per woman, the world population will grow from 5.7 billion persons in 1995 to 9.4 billion in 2050, 10.4 billion in 2100, and 10.8 billion by 2150, and will stabilize at slightly under 11 billion persons around 2200.
Click to expand...
-- If fertility rates were to stay constant at 1990-1995 levels for the next 155 years, the world in 2150 would need to support 296 billion persons.
Click to expand...
https://www.un.org/press/en/1998/19980202.POP656.html

IMO, the current estimate of 11 bilion is a very optimistic number. If you read the rest of the article, you'll see I was not to far off in my estimate, altough mine also was on the opimistic side.
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
Hmm. Not sure I agree there. So if you are saying that a woman wants an abortion, and her doctor says "I don't think that's a good idea" - she should be prohibited from getting one? Personally I think it should be up to her, even if that means changing doctors.
Click to expand...
I did not say the doctor makes the decision, I said guide her in her decision making such as walking her through the procedures, the possible adverse effects and risks involved, you know the stuff doctors do when you come to them for medical advise.

Stuff that Politicians are not qualified to make, including making laws that take away the right of a woman to control her own body and any parasitic organism growing inside her. Especially if those laws are based on religious foundations, which is unconstitutional to begin with.
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
OK. I was using W4U's definition of natural law as "something that doesn't prohibit abortion" - which from his description are the "laws" that animals live by.
Click to expand...
Why do you insist that I don't know what I am talking about? Animals know about and live by "natural laws"?
Where did I say that?
I did say that humans do know about natural laws and do not live by them, which will probably be the cause for our extinction. And if that sounds improbable ask the millions of species great and small who have already disappeared due to our wanton disregard for natural laws.

We are already in the Sixth Great Extinction event.
The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the Sixth extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is a current event, and is one of the most significant extinction events in the history of the Earth. This ongoing extinction of species coincides with the present Holocene epoch, and is a result of human activity.[1][2]
Click to expand...
The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates.[3][4][5][2][6][7] The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services published by IPBES in 2019 posits that roughly one million species of plants and animals face extinction caused by anthropogenic impacts
Click to expand...
Some researchers suggest that by 2050 there could be more plastic than fish in the oceans by weight,[45] with about 8,800,000 metric tons (9,700,000 short tons) of plastic being discharged into the oceans annually.[173] Single-use plastics, such as plastic shopping bags, make up the bulk of this, and can often be ingested by marine life, such as with sea turtles.[174] These plastics can degrade into microplastics, smaller particles that can affect a larger array of species. Microplastics make up the bulk of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and their smaller size is detrimental to cleanup efforts.
Click to expand...
Fishing has had a devastating effect on marine organism populations for several centuries even before the explosion of destructive and highly effective fishing practices like trawling.[191] Humans are unique among predators in that they regularly prey on other adult apex predators, particularly in marine environments;[10] bluefin tuna, blue whales, North Atlantic right whales[192]and over fifty species of sharks and rays are vulnerable to predation pressure from human fishing, in particular commercial fishing.[193] A 2016 study published in Science concludes that humans tend to hunt larger species, and this could disrupt ocean ecosystems for millions of years.
Click to expand...

If this pattern goes unchecked, the future oceans would lack many of the largest species in today’s oceans. Many large species play critical roles in ecosystems and so their extinctions could lead to ecological cascades that would influence the structure and function of future ecosystems beyond the simple fact of losing those species."
— Jonathan Payne, associate professor and chair of geological sciences at Stanford University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
Can someone please list these

Natural laws

Thanks

:)
Click to expand...
As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.
Click to expand...
IMO natural laws, including evolution and natural selection are based on a mathematical orderings of physical values and functions.

The Exponential function is a natural mathematical function. The law of Thermo-dynamics is a natural law. E = Mc^2 is a natural constant.

Here is a list of all known natural laws (Constants)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_constants
 
Michael 345 said:
So physics.
Not natural laws as in natural ways guidance on how to live which?
Click to expand...
Seems that this moral attachment is the modern interpretation as it applies to human social behaviors and respect for rights.
But this type of honor system has existed in a natural environment long before humans appeared and especially in different mammalian species. They don't know this but the thought or desire to infringe on another's rights, against which the other has a right to defend themselves, just does not occur.

Herbivore species are typical of peaceful cooexistence in very large numbers. Their lifestyle is non-intrusive but perhaps territorial. OTOH, the predatory species often engage in existential battles for power and domination.
Bees and flowering plants have had a symbiotic relationship for billions of years.
Termites practiced subterranean horticulture for billions of years
Bacteria are the earliest life forms on earth and are the fundamental Eukariotic proto model of our current life forms. The are chemically reactive organisms. Wisdom comes in small increments.
Write4U said:
I did say that humans do know about natural laws and do not live by them, which will probably be the cause for our extinction.
Click to expand...
Ummm

This is a large number of of large coffees puzzle
:)[/QUOTE] Well sure, it is very complicated but it is a natural result of billions of years of mutative evolution and natural selection, which employs a mathematical algorhythm for quantum mechanics to produce what we can observe today, obviously. Everything that answers to the description "orderly" is mathematical in essence. All physical objects are orderly and thus mathematical in essence.

But there is the terrible moral dilemma that faces mankind. How do we control the birth rate of humans and the extraordinary amount of natural resources they require. It will become unsustainable and the earth's eco-system is being affected by humans in an exponential way resulting in an exponential degradation of life-sustaining properties of the atmosphere.

There will come a point where the population must stabilize over time and a zero growth equilibtium just gives way to 100% replacement without growth. But that population may be relatively small, compared to what we have now.....:eek:
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
It depends on what you consider rape, no
Click to expand...
Something something about lack of consent goes here...

Your response seems to be arguing for argument's sake.

Write4U said:
What does the bible have to say about that?
Click to expand...
And this is relevant because of...?

Write4U said:
AFAIK, a lot of Americans still practicethe OT. I have known several families who were "conservative" theists.

And of course there is Islam, which seems a little prejudicial towards women's rights.

Scary people, IMO.
Click to expand...
And this is relevant because of...?

The reason I ask is because the Bible does not actually mention abortion.

Secondly, Islamic countries seem to have more abortion rights for women, then some parts of the US...

Thirdly, the "pro-life" movement basically came to life, ironically enough, once the women's rights movement really kicked in in the 60's, culminating in Southern pearl clutching with Roe v Wade..

So what does the OT actually have to do with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top