Abortion

[billvon]

Oops, I was off by 1 billion. Make that 11 billion.

I looked up that article and read it. Nowhere did they "encourage an increase in population growth." In fact they note that their study "highlights the critical importance of current policies and actions for the long-range future of the world population."

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?

You start here: "By what law is (abortion) forbidden? Not natural law, that's for sure." You continue here: "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."

However, it does occur. The idea that animals do not "infringe on another's rights" because of "natural law" or an "honor system" is laughable; a Disney view of reality. Most animals are prey.

 

[wegs]

One of the problems with having intellectually honest conversations with pro-lifers (not on this site, but in the political arena) is that they tend to be pro death penalty, and turn a blind eye to the children at the border, for example, who are suffering. There is a lot of poverty in the US, with babies and children in the middle of it. If you're pro-life, that's your choice, but I'd encourage pro-lifers to broaden their definition of what this means, as it comes off hypocritical to care so much about unborn life, but to be indifferent about other stages of life. It also doesn't make sense why many pro-lifers are anti big government, yet want the government to be so intimately involved with a woman's reproductive choices.

So, they need to start reflecting on what it actually means to be ''pro life.'' It's easy to tell someone to not have an abortion, and feel like you're morally superior. But, in the next breath, that same pro-lifer turns a blind eye to the suffering of children at our border, for example. Not saying all, but this has been an observation of mine.

I'd say many people are merely pro-life when convenient.

 

[billvon]

One of the problems with having intellectually honest conversations with pro-lifers (not on this site, but in the political arena) is that they tend to be pro death penalty, and turn a blind eye to the children at the border, for example, who are suffering.

Yep. In another forum I am talking about that with a few right wingers. They are fanatically anti-abortion - but when it comes to the border, they are indifferent to the fate of children there. One even suggested that dead kids were a good thing; that would discourage other parents from trying to bring their kids. Another one blamed the parents for the children that died in US custody.

I'd say many people are merely pro-life when convenient.

I'd also mention that even politicians who are strongly pro-life discover "exceptions" to their beliefs when the woman is their mistress, girlfriend or daughter.

 

[wegs]

Yep. In another forum I am talking about that with a few right wingers. They are fanatically anti-abortion - but when it comes to the border, they are indifferent to the fate of children there. One even suggested that dead kids were a good thing; that would discourage other parents from trying to bring their kids. Another one blamed the parents for the children that died in US custody.

I'd also mention that even politicians who are strongly pro-life discover "exceptions" to their beliefs when the woman is their mistress, girlfriend or daughter.

What are their responses when you counter argue against their views? (assuming you do)

 

[billvon]

What are their responses when you counter argue against their views? (assuming you do)

They are all over the place.
"Unborn kids are innocent. These kids aren't. They are invaders."
"The two are nothing like each other."
"I'm all for protecting kids, but the parents have to take responsibility."
"The parents should be in jail for killing their kids."

 

[sweetpea]

Is it the plan of the USA pro-lifers to take their policy to the Supreme court and make it country wide? I ask because that's how I understood a tv news item the other day, and wasn't too sure I was hearing right? It seeemed too simple a plan. Something about the Supreme court having more chance of passing it now because Trump altered the judiciary percentage in his favour. That's my simplistic understanding, and I can't believe it would be so simple a thing to do.

 

[wegs]

They are all over the place.
"Unborn kids are innocent. These kids aren't. They are invaders."
"The two are nothing like each other."
"I'm all for protecting kids, but the parents have to take responsibility."
"The parents should be in jail for killing their kids."

I think that marginalizing women is the end game, for some of these people. They will never admit that, but women having a right to choose (anything) is probably what motivates their view, and what we are permitted to choose or not, being secondary. It’s actually the antithesis of morality, when you think about it.

I read something on reddit the other day, can’t think of the guy’s name, but he is a relatively new voice for right wingers who believes that women shouldn’t have the right to vote. Wtf?

So, I think that’s the end game for many right wingers.

 

[billvon]

They will never admit that, but women having a right to choose (anything) is probably what motivates their view, and what we are permitted to choose or not, being secondary. It’s actually the antithesis of morality, when you think about it.

I think that's true for some people.

For other people it's more about "well, this is what my side says, and I want my side to win." They don't think too much about the issue beyond the sound bites that are available via the media.

I read something on reddit the other day, can’t think of the guy’s name, but he is a relatively new voice for right wingers who believes that women shouldn’t have the right to vote.

That sounds more like the Incel approach to women. At least they are in the minority (and hopefully will stay there.)

 

[Write4U]

I looked up that article and read it. Nowhere did they "encourage an increase in population growth." In fact they note that their study "highlights the critical importance of current policies and actions for the long-range future of the world population."

My logic tells me that when you outlaw abortion, the birth rate will increase. The current world population growth is at 1.07 %, which translates in a doubling time of 65.42 years. Increase this rate to say 1.08 % then the doubling time becomes 64.81 years

Population in the world is currently (2018-2019) growing at a rate of around 1.07% per year (down from 1.09% in 2018, 1.12% in 2017 and 1.14% in 2016). The current average population increase is estimated at 82 million people per year.

This is of course a false projection because it is based on current total population, but does not account for the exponential function as the population grows numerically. But it is clear that as long as there is any steady increase in population the exponential function will be in effect and result in an ever increasing population graph.

You start here: "By what law is (abortion) forbidden? Not natural law, that's for sure." You continue here: "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."

Yes those were two separate unrelated statements. One statement pertains to abortion, the other to predator/prey killing.

However, it does occur. The idea that animals do not "infringe on another's rights" because of "natural law" or an "honor system" is laughable; a Disney view of reality. Most animals are prey.

Why are you cherry-picking my posts and ignoring all of my qualifiers.
Intra-species killing is relatively rare. Prey animals usually get along very well with each other, as do predators of the same kind. Predators killing prey is nothing special.
How many chickens do we kill for food here in the US? How many chickens do chickens kill?
Inter-species killing is prevalent. Most animals are of the inter-species kind, no?

Predation has a powerful selective effect on prey, and the prey develop antipredator adaptations such as warning coloration, alarm calls and other signals, camouflage, mimicry of well-defended species, and defensive spines and chemicals. Sometimes predator and prey find themselves in an evolutionary arms race, a cycle of adaptations and counter-adaptations. Predation has been a major driver of evolution since at least the Cambrian period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation

Predation appears to be an expression of natural law and natural selection, leading to evolution of species. Whereas symbiosis quickly leads to a zero growth balance. This can be found in the bee/flower relationship.

There are areas in China where the honeybee has disappeared and people have to pollinate the fruit trees with featherdusters which takes a week to accomplish what bees can do in a day.

 

[billvon]

My logic tells me that when you outlaw abortion, the birth rate will increase.

Yep. And when you feed a population through food relief the birth rate increases, too. That does not mean that food aid = being math illiterate.

Yes those were two separate unrelated statements. One statement pertains to abortion, the other to predator/prey killing.

Good. Glad to see you backing away from that silly claim.

Intra-species killing is relatively rare. Prey animals usually get along very well with each other, as do predators of the same kind. Predators killing prey is nothing special.

Agreed. In fact, killing is the norm in the natural world.

There are areas in China where the honeybee has disappeared and people have to pollinate the fruit trees with featherdusters which takes a week to accomplish what bees can do in a day.

And the palm tree is a species of grass!

 

[Write4U]

Yep. And when you feed a population through food relief the birth rate increases, too. That does not mean that food aid = being math illiterate

No, but it does mean that a growing population makes an overpopulation problem worse, whereas starvation and death actually make overpopulation less of a problem. That's where the arithmetic comes in.
In the wild a natural balance is maintained between growth and available resources. Humans have unlimited capacity to extract resources until they are exhausted altogether.
Any attempts at conservation is doomed in the face of our industrial revolution.

We are already in a mainly man-made Sixth Extinction Era.

Human overconsumption and overpopulation impacts Earth

https://populationmatters.org/campa...MIgYrtiOyt4gIVg-DICh3-dA-lEAAYASABEgJuevD_BwE

In about 60 years there will be no more recoverable oil in the world. If we don't have a viable functional replacement of cheap renewable energy, a calamity will befall the human race. War, disease, starvation, you know nature's way of dealing with a minor surface nuisance, such as humans have become.

note; I am speaking purely objectively and wish no harm on anyone. This is what Bartlett called the "greatest dillemma mankind will face in the future"

Everything bad (war, disease, smoking) is good for solving an overpopulation problem
Everything good ( motherhood, healtcare, long life) is bad for solving an overpopulation problem
If humans do not choose to voluntarily practise some bad, nature will do it for us in a much more dramatic way.

 

[billvon]

No, but it does mean that a growing population makes an overpopulation problem worse, whereas starvation and death actually make overpopulation less of a problem.

Exactly. And just because someone wants to feed hungry people, and is worried about overpopulation, does not make them math illiterate.

In the wild a natural balance is maintained between growth and available resources. Humans have unlimited capacity to extract resources until they are exhausted altogether.

Same with pretty much any animal. They will use all the resources of an area until they cannot extract any more, then they will collapse. We are no different - we are just better at getting at those resources.

 

[Write4U]

Exactly. And just because someone wants to feed hungry people, and is worried about overpopulation, does not make them math illiterate.

Same with pretty much any animal. They will use all the resources of an area until they cannot extract any more, then they will collapse. We are no different - we are just better at getting at those resources.

If that is all you can see in the maths of overpopulation, I rest my case. You are advocating a new (false) exponential concept; "strength through exhaustion"

The earth has limited resources and we are consuming them far beyond our ability to sustain this for any length of time.

 

[billvon]

If that is all you can see in the maths of overpopulation, I rest my case. You are advocating a new (false) exponential concept; "strength through exhaustion"

Nope. Not advocating that at all. I have no idea where you got that. Were you perhaps replying to someone else?

 

[Write4U]

Nope. Not advocating that at all. I have no idea where you got that. Were you perhaps replying to someone else?

Getting better at resources doesn't change anything. It just takes a little longer to run out. Can't get to non-existent resources.
16,094 Days to the end of oil (~44 years)..... https://www.worldometers.info/

And that means the end of oil. This is the underlying concept of "strength through exhaustion". Drill baby drill, until its all gone.

 

[billvon]

Getting better at resources doesn't change anything. It just takes a little longer to run out. Can't get to non-existent resources.
16,094 Days to the end of oil (~44 years)..... https://www.worldometers.info/

And that means the end of oil. This is the underlying concept of "strength through exhaustion". Drill baby drill, until its all gone.

Sorry, can't keep up with your stream-of-consciousness topic changes. Good luck with that.

 

[iceaura]

I'd say many people are merely pro-life when convenient.

Not when "convenient", necessarily, but when the question of a woman's autonomy and control of her body is the central issue.

Up until poor women could get abortions without great risk and suffering, and even from then until recently, the standard practice of all the current pro-life people was to discard first and second trimester miscarriages as garbage - without even checking to see if they were alive.

They were flushed down the toilet at home, incinerated with the rest of the medical waste in hospitals, refused baptism or religious ceremony or burial in church graveyards, and not recorded as human deaths in any of the official records civil or religious. That went on, unremarked and unexceptional, for hundreds of years.

Meanwhile, among the many examples of such stance and statement from a prolifer, a political representative of the prolife faction - one of the people publicly espousing prolife views and legislation and so forth - explained a couple days ago why the legislation he and his crew were intending to fight all the way to the Supreme Court did not "protect" in vitro human embryos: they weren't in a woman. No woman was involved.

The game was given away from the beginning.

 

[Write4U]

The game was given away from the beginning.

"Outside the woman"?
Must have been to Australia and watched kangaroos give birth and nurse the fetus in a pouch.

I always wondered why, if a fetus is a person, they are not recorded on the census as a person in the household.

Moreover, even a fetus is but 10% human and the rest bacterial.

 

[iceaura]

It seeemed too simple a plan. Something about the Supreme court having more chance of passing it now because Trump altered the judiciary percentage in his favour. That's my simplistic understanding, and I can't believe it would be so simple a thing to do.

It wasn't a simple thing to do. It took them decades of lavishly funded and consistently focused political effort.
Story, from 2005: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2005/04/little-red-state-fundy-sez.html

 

[Michael 345]

I always wondered why, if a fetus is a person, they are not recorded on the census as a person in the household.

Don't give census department ideas